User:RogDel

This user has a page on Wikipedia.

This user has been on Wikiquote for 16 years, 3 months, and 9 days.

12,000+

This user has made over 12,000 contributions to Wikiquote.

This user has added 14 quotes to Wikiquote.

This user has created 5 pages on Wikiquote.

This user has written an essay: Notability as a source of quotes.

Comprehensive: Wikiquote aims to have quotes from many different people, literary works, films, memorials, epitaphs and so on. — Wikiquote:Wikiquote

The standard for determining whether material should be included in Wikiquote is quotability. — Wikiquote:Quotability

A famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person. — Wikiquote:Quotability

The presence of a quote in a published collection of quotations is strong evidence of quotability, both as to the quote and as to the author of the quote. — Wikiquote:Quotability

One of the simplest tests for notability of a subject, and of a quote, is to check whether other people have quoted it... — Wikiquote:Notability

Anyone or anything quoted in an independent & reliable published source is notable on Wikiquote. — RogDel

Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. — Sir Isaac Newton

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales

Wikipedia's promise is nothing less than the liberation of human knowledge - both by incorporating all of it through the collaborative process, and by freely sharing it with everybody who has access to the internet... — The Economist

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance. — Socrates

Projects —

Fundamental research about notability on Wikiquote

Kedar Joshi, a very good example of a person who may not be notable on en.WP but who looks clearly notable on en.WQ

Quite simple, quite logical, quite significant —

What is notability? What can be considered notable? That which is capable of being noted, that which is noticeable, capable of being seen or noticed. Thus, that which is noted in an independent source which can be relied upon can be considered notable, or can be considered proven to be notable. In other words, anything that is noted in a published source which is independent and reliable can be presumed to be notable (or reliably proven to be notable), i.e. capable of being seen or noticed independently. That's what notability is all about! — RogDel

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. (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. However, Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia covering biographies of people. Wikiquote is a collection of quotations. Also, 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. However, quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual.) — RogDel

They who are not notable on Wikipedia may be notable on Wikiquote. It is in fact outright amusing to see a person (who is cited (or noted) as a source (or author) of quotation/s in independent and reliable published source/s) considered non-notable on Wikiquote (which is nothing but a compendium of quotations) just maybe because they are not notable on Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia covering biographies of people). (It’s like denying a remarkably good singer participation in a singing competition just because they failed a basic mathematics examination.) He who considers such person non-notable on Wikiquote simply does not seem to have understood the meaning of notability. — RogDel

They who are notable on Wikiquote may not be notable on Wikipedia at all and they who are notable on Wikipedia may not be quotable, and therefore notable, on Wikiquote at all. — RogDel

In order to be notable on Wikiquote, one must be notable as a source of quote/s (i.e. quotable), either objectively (if one is not notable on Wikipedia) or subjectively (if one is notable on Wikipedia but is not objectively quotable). — RogDel

A research paper beginning with the line "Virtue debases in justifying itself." – Voltaire could be presumed to have cited Voltaire as a source of a quote (or quoted Voltaire). This remarkably differs from an article merely mentioning a fact such as "Voltaire 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 Voltaire as a quotation, that they are treating the statement as a quotation (that they are quoting Voltaire and considering him quotable or quoteworthy: worthy of being quoted), while in the latter example such treatment does not seem to exist, maybe because the source is not repeating Voltaire's exact words. — RogDel

That which is famous may not be notable and that which is notable may not be famous. In short, fame does not imply notability, and vice versa. — RogDel

Editors seem likely to fool themselves by mistaking fame for notability, maybe because fame is a more real life concept, while notability is a more technical one. — RogDel

Notability basically rests upon independence and reliability of source/s, not on notability. No doubt, notability of source/s (e.g. a journal article and/or its author/s) is a plus point towards establishing notability of the subject they cover, but it is never a necessity. The necessity is independence and reliability only. — RogDel

Any quotation notable in itself is quotable. Anyone notable as a source of quote/s is quotable too. It’s almost tautological. Couldn’t a person notable as a physicist, for instance, be presumed to be a physicist? — RogDel

On Wikiquote, notability and quotability are two sides of the same coin. In fact they are one and the same thing. For Wikiquote purposes, that which is quotable is notable, and vice versa. — RogDel

Some are highly notable, some moderately notable, some barely notable, but notable still. Some biographies are highly interesting, some moderately interesting, some barely interesting, but interesting still. In the same way, some quotes and authors are highly interesting, some moderately interesting, some barely interesting, but interesting still. All quotes are not equally quotable; some are highly quotable, some moderately quotable, some barely quotable, but quotable still. The quote which is notable is quotable; and the quote quoted in an independent and reliable published source is notable. The way Wikipedia is not devoted solely to the inclusion of articles on highly notable things and people, Wikiquote is also not devoted solely to the inclusion of highly notable & quotable quotations. — RogDel

If it is cited (or noted) as a quotation in an independent and reliable published source, it is a notable as well as quotable quotation. — RogDel

Anyone, who is cited (or noted) as the author of a quotation in an independent and reliable published source, is notable (as a source of quote/s) as well as quotable on Wikiquote. — RogDel

In short, if it (a person or word/s) is quoted in an independent and reliable published source, it is notable on Wikiquote. In other words, if it is quoted in an independent and reliable published source, there is no reason why it cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote. — RogDel

Notability of a quote implies notability of its author. — RogDel

If it is quotable, it is a quote. (In other words, anything quotable is a quote.) Quotability could be either objective or subjective. They who do not possess encyclopedic notability must be objectively quotable to be notable on Wikiquote, whereas they who do possess encyclopedic notability but lack objective quotability must be subjectively quotable to be notable on Wikiquote. A person notable on Wikipedia may never have been quoted in any independent and reliable published source and therefore may not be objectively quotable, but such person may have said something that is (subjectively) quotable and thus s/he may be notable on Wikiquote. In other words, Wikiquote may quote something or someone that has never been quoted before. And that is why Ningauble’s potentially quotable statement "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote." is not really true. Something said by someone who is notable on Wikipedia may have never been cited (or quoted) before and yet Wikiquote may include it as a quotation if it considers it (subjectively) quotable. Thus, the correct statement would be: If (and only if) it ain't citable, it ain't a quote. — RogDel

Anyone, who is the author of multiple notable quotations, is also notable as a source of notable quotations. Couldn’t an author of multiple notable quotations be considered notable on that which is exclusively devoted to the collection of quotations, i.e. Wikiquote? (An author of multiple notable books, for example, would be considered notable on Wikipedia or on a place exclusively devoted to the collection of information about books and authors, a literary encyclopedia.) — RogDel

Anyone, who is cited as the author of a quotation on Wikiquote, is notable as well as quotable and should have a page on them on Wikiquote. There should be no red links. Red links do not look good; when most of the authors are blue-linked, red links look odd. Also, red links (or no links) are inconvenient for the reader. Suppose a reader likes a quote by a red-linked author and wants to see if there are any more quotes on Wikiquote by them, wouldn't it be much easier for the reader to just click and visit the standalone Wikiquote article on the author instead of looking for the quotes through the search box? — RogDel

Determination of notability, or perhaps, more accurately, non-notability, on WQ has been subjective (maybe due to the lack of in-depth understanding and objective standards) to the extent of being ridiculous. — RogDel

Remember, a quote quoted by several notable works or notable persons would not be notable; it would be highly notable. — RogDel

The idea that individuals such as Joel Hawes, Kedar Joshi, Willis Player, and Henry J. Tillman, who may not be notable on Wikipedia due to the lack of significant coverage on them in independent sources, are also not notable on Wikiquote is ridiculously absurd, when each of the individuals appears to be quoted in a number of independent published sources, some of which are highly reliable. He who thinks they are not notable on Wikiquote either does not know what Wikiquote is or what notability is or both. — RogDel

Editors are normally so used to Wikipedia and its notability standards that they seem to have forgot (or have never understood) the basic meaning of notability. — RogDel

Notability is in a sense a relative concept. Even that which is notable on one compendium of quotations may not be notable on some other compendium of quotations. A small, 1000 page compendium of quotations might include only highly notable quotations. However, Wikiquote, like Wikipedia, is not a paper but a digital project and therefore there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover or the total amount of content; and that is the reason why Wikiquote may include any quotation that is at all (objectively) notable; i.e. any quotation quoted (or noted) independently in a published source which can normally be relied upon to be true. — RogDel

Wikiquote is neither The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations nor Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. It is the Wikipedia of quotations, and therefore may include any quotation that is at all notable, the way Wikipedia may include article on any subject that is at all notable. — RogDel

Wikipedia should and does have the lowest standards of notability among all serious encyclopedias. Similarly, Wikiquote should have the lowest standards of notability among all serious compendia of quotations. — RogDel

A quote made within the past ten years which is cited in only one highly reliable, independent, non-notable published source may be considered notable but at the same time may not be presumed to have withstood the test of time and therefore may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikiquote; only if Wikiquote existed for highly notable quotations alone. A quotation that has withstood the test of time would be a highly notable quotation, wouldn’t it? And isn’t there a good case for believing that any notable quotation, regardless of the degree of its notability, will be of interest to people living ten, a hundred, perhaps even a thousand years from now? — RogDel

Notes

There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified, and new prejudices to be opposed. — Samuel Johnson

The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind. — William Blake

Most people would die sooner than think — in fact they do so. — Bertrand Russell

I frame no hypotheses. — Sir Isaac Newton

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. — Albert Einstein

To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true. — Bertrand Russell