Wikiquote:Votes for deletion

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:VfD)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.


Contents

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).

Note: Suggestions for requesting deletion of multiple pages, non-article pages, and repeat nominations may be found at VFD tips.

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. (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: delete. BD2412 T 17:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikiquote sockpuppets of BarkingFish

Let us not import Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and results here, which has nothing to do with Wikiquote, see also Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#BarkingFish_and_sockpuppets — Mdd (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Cirt used a ✓, so it must be true! Too long have we been deceived by these malicious zero-edit accounts, but no more! ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The malicious sarcasm is not helpful here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason that when you click on the tick, it displays a cat picture? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That depends on what you consider to be "malicious", Cirt. I for one prefer sarcasm over accusing others of sock-puppetry with no evidence whatsoever. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. I don't see the need for this unless such activity were to occur here. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's not import the sort of drama that puts me off editing WP. This place is usually much more civilised.--Abramsky (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. BD2412 T 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Various Userboxes

There are various userboxes on Wikiquote. I'm thinking it would be good to limit things to the language userboxes, links to other projects and a few Wikiquote related userboxes. I don't think there is a need to create ones on other topics, but if there is it could be done in userspace rather than template space. — WOSlinker (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know why "User India" is down twice, but what is the harm if someone wants to say that they are from India?--Abramsky (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That was a mistake, now down just once. No harm but does it need to be done in the template namespace, or can it just be done as a subpage of their userpages? You could end up like wikipedia though with 1000's of userboxes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: in my opinion, we need more userboxes, not less. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, not seeing the harm in allowing this sort of freedom of expression here. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to force everyone to live a spartan life, on the other hand the history of Wikimedia projects have seen some odd users whose edits focused on their user page so that we've finally driven to block them out: this dimmed past makes me hesitate to advocate those user template vigorously. Besides my hesitation, I'd ask a simple tech question. If I understand rightly, we need no babel templates anymore because the feature is now provided by a MediaWiki Extention. Has any similar circumstance arisen recently? --Aphaia (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    I do not like the "Babel box" because it includes extra self-referential links in its head and foot that I prefer not to include on my user page. (Meta has custom CSS that enables users omit the box if they do not want the clutter.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: These userboxen seem useless for the purpose of communication among participants in building the project, but I don't feel strongly about deleting this sort of clutter. I am much more bothered by user pages of people who treat this as a free webhost for self expression or self promotion without making any actual contribution to the project. (One dozen examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC).

Gideon Rasmussen

Not sufficiently notable. A Wikipedia article on this person has been deleted twice. The Microsoft "Most Valuable Professional" designation is not itself a significant award indicating notability: thousands of people have received this designation from Microsoft to promote social networking in their developer community. — Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 20:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. (The quotes themselves are ordinary and unremarkable industry advice.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete His quotes are not interesting for the vast majority of readers. --Spannerjam (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. There is no indication on Google books or Google Scholar that his work has any impact. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, per analysis by nom, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor quotes and dubious notability.--Abramsky (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Diogotome

Attack page created by Cirt; user page as it stands is false, deceiving, and worse: as Diogotome has made no edits on Wikiquote, his page should not have been created in the first place, and should be deleted.

Disclosure: My brother uploaded this picture to Commons. In that picture, you can see me and him (we're twin brothers). After Cirt nominated that picture for deletion, I sent him an email. In that email, I told him that Diogotome had already sent an email to Arbcom, over a week ago, with proof of his identity, including his Citizen Card (showing his real name: Diogo Tomé), and other kinds of evidence. It was that way that Cirt discovered, by me, that we obviously edit from the same house (we live in the same house, so our IPs are about the same). So Cirt took that chance and requested a SPI (sock puppet investigation) against me, claiming that Diogotome is my "sock", a fabricated falsehood. In that investigation, Cirt was spectacularly dishonest, as he never ever mentioned said email to ArbCom, nor that it was already known that we edit from the same house (we have never hidden it, not to mention we use our real names), so it was trivially true that our IPs were the same, knowing we live in the same house. I myself emailed some "investigators" with evidence, including Citizen Card, but they too didn't care about any evidence and allowed the other investigators to say that the accounts were "related". Again, that was trivially true and expected. Although Cirt and his administrator friends tagged my brother's account as a "sock", the only thing the investigation actually showed is that we edit from the same house, and for that you didn't need an investigation, you could have just read either my brother's email to ArbCom, or my email to Cirt or to other administrators all sent before that ridiculous "investigation" even started. So its "discoveries" were unsurprising, expected, and trivial.

You don't have to take my word for it: my brother created his "Diogotome" account in 2009 (i.e., many years before I even knew people could edit Wikipedia), and for it he used his email. He gives me permission to share it: diogofact@hotmail.com. All this has been confirmed, and can be confirmed, by any admin. Now use that email and go to Facebook, and see who he is: Diogo Tomé. (He is not shy, say hello to him and ask him about this.) He used his account to create this article on Portuguese wikipedia. It was around that time, towards the end of 2012, that I created my account also with my real name, "Daniel Tomé" (later renamed to "DanielTom" by BD2412), as I was already editing Wikiquote as an IP for a few months. The email I used to create my account was danielfacto@gmail.com (pretty much the same email I use everywhereelse), and if you again go to Facebook, you can meet me there, Daniel Tomé, and my other family members as well (even more evidence [13] [14]). Note how I actually presented evidence, even if very personal, as opposed to baseless speculations. Again, note how neither of us are ever afraid to show our IPs, how my brother has his account since 2009 (supposedly, we are expected to believe I created it "sock" so way back then, so many years ago, thinking to use it now), and how we use our real names, never hiding them. When instead of speculations you are open to evidence and truth, it becomes obvious that these malicious sockpuppetry accusations are not only baseless, they are absurd.

Good news: even if you ignore all the evidence, even if User:Diogotome is indeed my "sockpuppet" (and it isn't), even if all those lies were true... it wouldn't matter. The account User:Diogotome should still be deleted here on WQ, as it was not created by the user nor did it have any edits here. It has zero edits on Wikiquote. The only purpose of that page is to attack me. It makes no sense to create that userpage here, but not also on Meta, Wikibooks, Wikinews, or on any other place where the user made no edits at all. So as a summary I ask you to consider the only two alternatives: 1) the truth is, Diogotome is not my sockpuppet, it has zero edits here, and should be deleted; 2) even if it was true that Diogotome was my sockpuppet (and it isn't), we should still delete it, because it only constitutes an obvious attack page, and it has zero edits here.

This is obviously an issue that I care about, and I ask your consideration. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 01:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. It has no use for Wikiquote, and it has zero edits here. This user page only serves as an attack page against people with real names/reputation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, crosswiki sock issue. User:Diogotome sock account is globally locked due to the crosswiki sock issue.
  1. Curiously, the "Diogotome" account has only been used for w:WP:SPA purposes and personal attacks, see [15], the earliest contribution by the account is 4 June 2013, wow, what a coincidence!!!
  2. Sock account User:Diogotome is globally locked for the crosswiki sock issue: [16].
  3. DanielTom account blocked at Wikimedia Commons for email abuse: [17].
  4. Block log on en.wikipedia includes multiple different problems: [18].
  5. See also Checkuser block: [19]
  6. Blocks by multiple admins including Prodego and Toddst1: [20].
  7. English Wikipedia sock investigation filed by admin Toddst1: [21].

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Cirt didn't bother reading my nomination at all. Brief replies to his points as follows:
1) That was not his "earliest contribution". Did you see the article he created on Portuguese Wikipedia on 6 October 2012? [22]
2) I already said it was blocked. But on Wikiquote he has zero edits, so you can't come here and create its user page yourself to spread your lies, just because you want to attack me.
3) Irrelevant (ridiculous block, but still irrelevant).
4) Irrelevant. (Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean anything.)
5) Blocking my account "Daniel Tomé" as a "sock" is so ridiculous that it merits no comment (it was a public rename, as everyone knows). You also did it yourself, and it hurts your credibility.
6) Again, irrelevant. (Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean anything.)
7) English Wikipedia sock investigation dishonestly requested by Cirt, as explained in the nomination. Diff.
Diogotome has 0 (zero) edits on Wikiquote, and his user page here created by you, Cirt, shouldn't have been created in the first place, so it should be deleted; you only created it here to spread lies and to attack me, as was made evident, above. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. We are asked by DanielTom (talk · contributions) to believe that the account "Diogotome" is benign — and yet the account made a total of seven (7) edits in October 2012 [23] — then nothing for over seven months —
  2. Then the account comes back in June 2013 to make personal attacks [24] and get blocked by multiple different admins for "NPA, SPA" and "sock".
  3. That seems like quite a lot to swallow.
  4. Either the "Diogotome" account is a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet acting at the direction of the DanielTom (talk · contributions) account.
  5. How else would the "Diogotome" account even know what is going on with the "DanielTom" account during the sock investigation and know how and where and when to show up?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Cirt is still confused:
1) First, I never asked anyone to "believe that the account Diogotome is benign". He could be the biggest douche in the universe, that would still not matter. What I am saying is that given the fact that he has made 0 edits here on Wikiquote, you are not entitled to create a user page here yourself just to attack/spread lies about me. Second, we are not discussing if my brother should use his account to edit so more often. I know he used his account to create an article about one of his professors because of a college bet, and he needed his name to show that it was him creating the article. In any case, all that is irrelevant to this proposal.
2) Again, irrelevant. Your previous account, Cirt, was also blocked several times on Wikipedia. what does that have to do with anything?
3) I'm not asking anyone to "swallow" anything. Is it hard to swallow that your previous account was blocked numerous times on Wikipedia for repeated edit warring? The Diogotome account was already globally locked (much thanks to your deliberate dishonesty), but that doesn't mean you are entitled to come here on Wikiquote and create an attack page; as explained above, that user has zero edits on Wikiquote, and you should not have created his user page here in the first place.
4) Or you could actually stop making baseless accusations and see the evidence presented, above (have you read the nomination statement at all?). And even if Diogotome was a "sockpuppet" (untrue) or a "meatpuppet" (also untrue), that has nothing to do with Wikiquote, as he has zero edits on WQ. Your speculations do not entitle you to create a useless user page here that only serves to spread lies and to attack me.
5) Obviously I tell my brother what is happening, not to mention that he understands how Wikipedia works probably better than you or me (he is no newbie, he registered his account in 2009). Anyway, I do not see how your personal curiosity has anything to do with this vote for deletion.
Again, none of Cirt's speculations have any merit nor relevance to this discussion. The user page Cirt created only serves to spread lies, the user has zero edits here, so this attack page is of no use to Wikiquote, and should be deleted. Cirt should stop importing problems from other projects to Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. Revealing quote from DanielTom (talk · contributions): "Obviously I tell my brother what is happening".
  2. This is a tacit acknowledgement of violation of meatpuppetry by DanielTom (talk · contributions).
  3. Meatpuppetry is defined as this prohibition: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate."
Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
1) I tell my brother "what is happening" (e.g. that you are a dishonest jerk spreading lies about him), not what to do. My brother doesn't take orders from me, what do you think he is, 10 years old?
2) When are you going to stop being so dishonest, Cirt? It gets tiring after a while.
3) And that is exactly what I've never done. You need to tell us in which "debate" my brother has ever supported me (not to mention that you would also have to show his support was "recruited" by me, but ignore that). Diffs would be nice, although you won't be able to provide them, because we have never edited in the same discussion, so you should retract your baseless accusation. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I knew you would do that, Cirt, because you are such a deliberately dishonest troll. So tell me, in which "debate" did my brother ever support me? Diffs please, or retract your baseless accusation. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Prodego already explained all this, on the sock account's sock user talk page, Prodego: "When your first edit on Wikipedia is to the Administrator's Noticeboard making negative remarks about another editor, you will be blocked. This is not behavior consistent with a new editor, which means this is not your main account, and since it is being used nefariously this means it is a sockpuppet SPA.". -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Except that it wasn't his "first edit on Wikipedia". Again, did you miss the article he created on Portuguese Wikipedia in 2012? [25] Come on, Cirt, don't try to be evasive. Provide diffs of actual debates where me and him have both participated together, where he has "supported" me. You won't be able to do it, of course, to your embarrassment. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Quoting from admin Toddst1: "On 25 May 2013, DanielTom posted his supposed farewell on his talk page. Diogotome was indefinitely blocked on June 4 2013 by Prodego for "NPA, SPA"" Therefore, the "Diogotome" account was likely used after the "DanielTom" account had "posted his supposed farewell". Of course, note the "supposed", in the evidence compiled by admin Toddst1. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You can find as many quotes from your friends as you like, Cirt, but you can't dodge the issue. I'm going to repeat my question, as you ignored it really. Provide diffs of actual debates where me and him have both participated together, where he has "supported" me. (You won't be able to do it, of course, to your embarrassment.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The sockmaster account posts a supposed "farewell". The sock account then picks up right where the sockmaster account left off, with similar behavior patterns, as noted by admins Prodego [26] and Toddst1 [27]. The sock is in effect proxying for the sockmaster in this case study. It's really quite simple, and textbook socking behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are referring to my post on 25 May, so what? At that time I told my brother I didn't care about Wikipedia anymore, and he started reading my posts. It is not my fault that he decided to finally make a comment 10 days later. Anyway, how is that "sockpuppetry"? Did I create a "sock" in 2009 just so I could make that silly comment in 2013? It makes no sense. I note how you retract your "meatpuppet" accusation and go back to the sock one. There is no consistency in your arguments whatsoever, Cirt, you just throw away your speculations at will. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Both are valid. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are routinely blocked just the same. Both are policy violations. -- Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the meatpuppet one is valid, since my brother is at my side here influencing how I should reply. He says this is similar to him being sentenced to life for beating his wife: when he finally proves that he has never beaten his wife, you come along and say, "it doesn't matter because you have been cheating on her too". There is no end to your game. We should have had this conversation at the SPI on Wikipedia, where you withhold important information from your admin-friends, and not here. You decided to bring these problems to Wikiquote, just to attack me, and that was uncalled for. Wikiquote doesn't need these imaginary problems. You never seem to edit any articles here, and can't think of anything more productive to do with your time, and I think that's unfortunate (both to you, and to Wikiquote). You created a user page for an editor with zero edits here, and originated all this unnecessary drama that you seem to enjoy, but I propose it's time to end it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Sockpuppet or not, an administrator should not without consent create mirror users from one Wikisite to another (If I understand correctly, this is what happened). --Spannerjam (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly out of scope. If there is no user of that name on this site, the page must be regarded as being in main space, and since it has no quotes, it should be speedily deleted.--Abramsky (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment:  Just a point of clarification – Although there have been no edits from the account at Wikiquote, this is a registered account created by the SUL account holder when he logged in and visited this wiki on 4 June 2013. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, he never visited this wiki, he just unified his login. (Not sure about that link. Did he also visit, e.g., the Italian wiki on June 8? I find that hard to believe.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
How would you know every place someone else browsed the web, unless you are the NSA? I was all set to !vote for deletion, but your remark casts doubt on the proposition that it is actually an independent account. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I asked him, obviously. I went to great pains to show how Diogotome is my brother's account, created in 2009, with my brother's email, same email of his Facebook account. (I don't know what "NSA" actually means.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(I was referring to the (US) National Security Agency, whose monitoring of internet and telephone activity is currently in the news quite a lot on this side of the pond.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oregano

This article was {{prod}} because "Single unremarkable quote by a non-notable person." The tag was removed the following explanation: "I disagree that the quote is unremarkable and that the author is non-notable."

The quote

The quote is a variation of a familiar aphorism dating from at least the 18th century: "Variety is the spice of life." The only remarkable thing about this variant is its lameness in substituting something specific for "variety" and in calling an herb a spice. Perhaps this was intended to be funny, but the problem with stupid humor is that it is often more stupid than humorous.

Who is Henry J. Tillman?

There are fourteen (14) hits for "Henry J. Tillman" at GoogleBooks:

  • Four (4) use the name as sample data in a programming example;
  • One (1) refers to a Cpl. Henry J. Tillman in a roster for L Company/15th Infantry Regiment in 1944, but does not mention any writing or public speaking by him;
  • The rest (9) contain unsourced attributions of various remarks to the otherwise unidentified person.

Only one book says anything about who the quoted Henry J. Tillman is: in Pathological Altruism (2012), ed. Barbara Oakley et al., p. 426, a contributor biography says "She agrees with the elusive orator Henry J. Tillman".

Elusive indeed: Nobody knows who this guy is. The earliest mention of Henry J. Tillman at GoogleBooks is from 2002, as an example of a name in a programming guide. The earliest quotation attributed to Henry J. Tillman at GoogleBooks is from 2004. These books apparently got their material from the internet, where there was a Usenet poster who went by that name. See "Who is Henry J. Tillman?" at GEARbits, 2005. It appears that his postings did not survive the migration from Usenet to GoogleGroups, but I can't tell exactly when, or why, his posts were deleted.

Who is Henry J. Tillman really?

An alt.shenanigans FAQ from 1996 (scroll to §10, ¶1) is suggestive of the possibility that "Henry J. Tillman" was a prankster or an outright hoax. At best, he may have been some internet chatroom gadfly. A handful of unsourced attributions in print do not indicate he was a notable one.— Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Vote closes: 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article with actual quotable quotes about this or any other herbs and spices.

    However, I do harbor prejudice against creating articles with the appearance of making a point about a minority view from a discussion about quotespammer Kedar Joshi. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isolated quotes about flowers, and such, should be added to our Flowers article, particularly when the the subject itself is so limited (I looked in five different dictionary of quotations, and couldn't find any quotes about Oregano.) I would support a merge myself, but I too have my doubts about the author's notability (although the quote itself has over 450 000 google hits). The larger issue here relates to Wikiquote's editorial policies, which are not entirely clear, and should be discussed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
DanielTom, to what are you referring when you reference a larger issue related to editorial policies? ~ UDScott (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Ningauble was right when he said that this article was created to "[make] a point about a minority view". There is no question that RogDel is a very capable editor, though, and I'm afraid we might put him off if we just delete his articles without first addressing the central issue, i.e., what kind of quotes are considered acceptable/notable enough for WQ. For example, I believe that quotes with over 100 000 Google hits are, in general, notable enough. The problem with this quote in particular is that we don't even know who its author is (when did he write it?, is "Henry J. Tillman" a pen name?, etc.), but I do think that we will eventually have to discuss or at least clarify our "editorial policies", otherwise these issues will keep coming up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
To make a point about a minority view? Not really. I’m only convinced that he is notable enough for WQ and was only helping to make WQ "comprehensive".
Many thanks indeed for the compliment! ~ RogDel (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We don’t have to know who the author of a quote really is in order to include it in WQ. Reliable source/s indicate that it is "Henry J. Tillman"; whether it is a real name or a pen name is of secondary importance and may at some time in future be found out through further research. And if the output of that research contradicts the existing information in WQ, such as Henry J. Tillman was in fact say Voltaire, then we are free to amend it. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Websites with random quotes, with no sources whatsoever, cite that quote and attribute it to "Henry J. Tillman". Then someone copies that and publishes it in a book, again without citing any source. I suppose we could then say that quote was attributed to "Henry J. Tillman" in book so-and-so, but I do not see how that really counts as a "reliable source". Essentially, if we accept that, we could also cite quotes here without any sources with the note "attributed to person-so-and-so in GoodReads" (just skip a step). I'm afraid Wikiquote has higher standards. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any other source, reliable or more reliable, which suggests that Henry J. Tillman (real name or pen name) is in fact not the author of that quote? If there is no such source as of yet and if sources that are normally considered reliable on WP indicate Henry J. Tillman as the author, I don’t understand why we cannot include it in WQ, especially when, WQ being electronic, can much easily be amended in future in light of possible further research. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There is basically a huge difference between citing an OUP book, for example, as a non-primary source and GoodReads. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
To be precise, the fact that an OUP publication can make mistakes does not mean we are free to cite any random sources, such as GoodReads. OUP is considered a reliable source because it seems very unlikely to make mistakes. (Note 8 may be consulted for details.) ~ RogDel (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
What makes a quote a quote is that it is quoted. A compilation of sentences claimed to be quotes is of no use unless those sentences are in turn the subject of quotation by others. If a notable person like Barack Obama or George W. Bush or Ban Ki-Moon gave a speech, and said in the course of that speech, "as Henry J. Tillman once said, 'oregano is the spice of life'", then we would have a reason to report the quote and note the absence of proof as to its claimed attribution. Also, we have a page on herbs, and any free-floating individual quotes on herbs being herbs should go there rather than to flowers. Despite the image on the page, the quote itself does not appear to implicate oregano being a flower. BD2412 T 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: A research paper (published in a highly reliable source) beginning with the line "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein can be said to have cited Albert Einstein as a source of a quote. This remarkably differs from an article merely mentioning a fact such as "Albert Einstein said yesterday that he was not feeling well". In the former example, it is evident that the author of the research paper is citing a statement by Albert Einstein as a quotation, that they are treating the statement as a quotation (that they are considering Albert Einstein quotable or quoteworthy: worthy of being quoted); while in the latter example such treatment does not seem to exist. In order for the quotation to be notable, it is essential that the source that cites it is reliable, not that the source, or the author of the source, is notable. (Ref. Note 1) ~ RogDel (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If The Hindu were a highly reliable source, there would be no reason why the quote would not be objectively notable in itself; see the way it is cited. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe points 4 & 5 in 6 Important Points about Notability on Wikiquote are pretty logical and are a key to determining notability on WQ. Sadly, it seems, WQ notability has not been well researched and well understood; there seem to have been numerous misbeliefs, such as one has to be notable on WP to be notable on WQ, a quote has to be cited in multiple (notable) sources to be notable, etc. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I have great respect for RogDel, but I doubt that his personal page on notability should be the standard we use.--Abramsky (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Any logical reasons why it shouldn't be used as the standard? ~ RogDel (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It should be, if and it is made a proposed policy, then debated and accepted by the community.--Abramsky (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying is essentially this; it looks pretty simple and logical to me: (1) Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that it can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. (2) Wikipedia requires "multiple sources" so that it can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. Points 1 & 2 imply that "significant coverage" and "multiple sources" are not vital to the concept of notability. They are required for things other than notability, things which normally do not matter on Wikiquote (See Note 2 & Note 3 for details). Therefore, if a quote is cited as a quotation in a published secondary source which is highly reliable and independent (or in a published tertiary source which is at least moderately reliable) there is no reason why it cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote. Similarly, if a person is cited (or noted) as a source (or an author) of quotation/s there is no reason why s/he cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote and why Wikiquote may not have a page on them. In other words, if a quote is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable (i.e. a source which can reasonably be relied upon), it can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed). If a person is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable as a source (or author) of quote/s, the person can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed) as a source (or author) of quote/s. However, the source is required to have a sufficient degree of reliability to be considered truly reliable for practical purposes. (Since theoretically nothing can be considered truly reliable. See Note 8 for details.) ~ RogDel (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=1590838"