Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive

This is an archive of topics that were previously on the Wikiquote:Votes for deletion page.

Kept articles

Deleted 0-D

Deleted E-H

Deleted I-K

Deleted L-P

Deleted Q-S

Deleted T-Z+

Deleted pages

Deleted images

Pending

Kept articles

The votes on these articles resulted either in keeping them intact or moving them to more appropriate locations, keeping a redirect in place.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

A Course in Miracles

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

A Tryst With Destiny

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

Abortion

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. 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 and National Review - 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 . 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 - 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: 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

Adult Swim

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

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)
  • NOTE: After this is kept, which seems inevitable now, it should be moved to The Adventures of Chico and Guapo, which is both the canonical IMDb name and the Wikipedia article title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:32, 21 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

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

Aleksis Kivi

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 now, thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:03, 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: Kept.. — Aphaia 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Doubt of notability. This person seems to have a certain notablity on the Internet(See , 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. Tens of thousands more entries can be found when search is done with faithfreedom and “Ali Sina” . Several important sites such as AsiaTimes.com WorldNetDaily.com and Frontpagemag.com 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: kept. --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Amber

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

Amitabh Bachchan

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

Anything Goes

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

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

Arthur C. Clark vs Clarke

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

Azerbaijani proverbs

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

Bokononism

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, concur with Moshe. ~ UDScott 19:24, 22 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

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 ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 10:50 (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)
  • It did. See w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. And to parrot myself, I suggest we ape that policy :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:52, 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: keep. — Jeffq 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cast Away

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

Category:Marines

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

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

Charlie Parker

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

Chiropractic medicine

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

College football

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

Constantine

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

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)
  • Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:08, 23 July 2005 (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: merge with Crusade (TV series). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusade

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

Dalai Lama

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

• 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: Keep. — MosheZadka 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Denis Leary

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)
  • Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 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: Keep. — Jeffq 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dhammapada

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

Die Hard With a Vengeance

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

Dr. Alfred Kinsey

• 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

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 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 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.
  • Revevant discussion: #Image:Crane5002 Pub and Contentsa.jpg
  • See also: w:Frank Crane (As of 04:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) empty page) Aph.
• 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 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.
  • Above comment was added by 24.117.255.9. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 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: keep. — MosheZadka 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Enya

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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:57, 24 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: keep. — MosheZadka 02:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Evans

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

Eugene V. Debs

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 now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:40, 19 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: Merged to Health. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Faults of the rich

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

First Things First

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

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

George Sanders

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: keep. — Jeffq 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghost in the shell SAC

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

• Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). Just to make it clear, this article is now at Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, its full title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:23, 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 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that some quotes have been added. This still needs to be beefed up with more quotes, but it's a start. I cleaned up the intro and the formatting some (before realizing that it had already been nominated and the tag had been removed -- which I restored). ~ UDScott 12:49, 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: keep. — MosheZadka 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Haunted Apiary

The wp page is talking about an ARG, the intro is talking about an online radio game. I am unsure what this is about, but it seems suspect. If anyone can come up with a clearer explanation, please do so.

• Vote closed: Result: keep (2 keep, no dissent, several struck out delete votes) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've struck out my delete vote, for now, but I am still skeptical. Where is the online drama taking place? Is it verifiable? Is it arranged according to episodes? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a supposed "online radio play", based on its current total absence from Google, it sounds like the "viral marketing" this article talks about has Wikiquote as Patient Zero. We should sterilize this before the infection spreads. (I find it intriguing that even the supposed alternate reality game (ARG) described in the 13-month-old WP article seems to have no Google presence.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ignore my oh-so-clever Google statement above; I screwed up the search (see below). After reviewing the WP article, its substantive history, its talk page, and several of its references (including an article from Wired), I'm inclined to think that HA has achieved enough notability to be kept. If anyone believes this whole subject is suspiciously fannish, I suggest a VfD nomination on Wikipedia, which would bring out a much larger audience to review the available material. Till then, unless provided refuting data, I'll support this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Save. I'm not sure what the above users mean by an absence of google presence (as you can see here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-14,GGLD:en&q=haunted+apiary ). As to the confusion between online radio play and ARG, the Haunted Apiary was definitely an ARG, which used a series of radio-drama like snippets to progress the storyline.
  • Well, don't I feel stupid. I went to double-check my own Google search and found that I'd misspelled "apiary". No wonder I found nothing! My apologies. I'll review the new info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned vote struck. (Please read the first paragraph of this page.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Save. Haunted Apiary served as both an ARG and a radio drama; the story was told through the radio drama, which was unlocked by playing the game. An online radio game would be one of many accurate explanations.
  • Unsigned vote struck. (Please read the first paragraph of this page.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "radio play" (a term meaning radio drama, BTW) is what the ARG was built around. The drama's episodes can be found at http://www.ilovebees.com/humptydumpty.html --OGoncho 05:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After checking almost 20 of the WAV files provided at the "humptydumpty" page, I have to say that they are singularly unimpressive to someone who has no knowledge of the material (and, in fact, sound rather inane). Nor do they seem to include the actual quotes listed in the article. (I didn't listen to every clip, but I did look at every "title" and compare it to the listed quotes, with no apparent connection.) It might help this article's case if a citation of the specific quote samples was given, assuming they're available. Supporters should consider that, for most VfD-nominated articles, they are trying to convince a community, most of whose members likely have no prior knowledge of the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:44, 29 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. — Jeffq 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving

Another quoteless encyclopedia stub, from The Matrix perhaps. Seems like JeffQ is right... also, there's a wikipedia article on him anyway... I guess we do need to find a way to remedy this issue... Sams 13:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Keep (6 Keeps; no dissent; substantial article improvement). — Jeff Q (talk) 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep MosheZadka 08:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : I've just added actual quotations to this. I left the vfd tag up for now. ~ Kalki 07:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep : A fair article now. --Aphaia 09:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. Nice job, Kalki. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A nice article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — MosheZadka 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hymn to Satan

Full text of a poem. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: move (3 move, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As said, Move to Giosuè Carducci ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to a more general title, like Giosuè Carducci, the Nobel prize-winning author of the work. I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative source (not surprising — who wants to be an authority on this subject?), but the sites I've found thus far suggest that our article has only a small portion of a 200-line poem. However, it doesn't look like a useful article title by limiting itself to a single poem. (It was added to List of literary works by the article creator, but that list is typically for large works that can support an entire article without invoking copyright concerns.) Placing the excerpt in an author stub article would make more sense. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Giosuè Carducci. I wonder who was the translator; original text seems to be in PD, because it was written in the 19th Century. --Aphaia 08:53, 17 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: Redirect to Inuyasha. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

InuYasha

No quotes. ~ UDScott 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Redirect (3 redirect, one delete) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with UDScott, and really wanting to update our SD criteria so that "no meaningful content" is updated to clarify as "no quotations or useful context", which would finally allow us to SD this kind of stuff instead of spamming VfD with it. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Inuyasha. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Inuyasha. --Aphaia 14:03, 3 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: keep. — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Iron Jawed Angels

No quotes. Aside from its creation, the only activity on this page was to add a WP link and a tagline, which is the closest thing to a quote from the film. —LrdChaos 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed.. Result: keep (six votes to keep, no dissent). —LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's been turned into a valid stub with some quotes. —LrdChaos 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless valid quotes from the film are added. ~ UDScott 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that some quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 13:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with UDScott. - InvisibleSun 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the addition of quotes. - InvisibleSun 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It qualifies as notable enough to get a page here. Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with UDScott. There is apparently so little quote interest in this film at present that not even IMDb, as error-prone as it is, has a single quote. Nor are there any in the WP article. It is easy to recreate a proper article when quotes have been found, but I'm against creating film stubs as long-term placeholders, which would make it easy to overwhelm WQ with quoteless stubs from legitimate films (as this one certainly is). Better to require that article creators add the primary justification for a WQ article on their pet subject — at least one real quote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that quotes have been added. (Thanks again, Robert!) I see that, since I posted, the IMDb article has gained quotes as well. (Or at least they fixed the oddity that allowed quotes to exist, but failed to show character quote links on the main page. I notice that their Osmosis Jones article also now shows character quote links.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've expanded the article a bit. I'll see if I can find any more good quotes from watching the official trailers. -- Robert 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Since Jaxl has added some quotes to this after the original date/time to close this vote, but before the article was deleted, I've extended the vote for one week to give everyone a chance to reconsider their votes. —LrdChaos 18:09, 7 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 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jack Thompson (attorney)

no intro article assumedly transwikied from Wikipedia. "Email" parts contain other mail to this person, and if they can be safely released under GFDL [but I wonder] or PD, the whole part might be better to be a transwiki candidate to Wikisource. --Aphaia 13:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: keep (6 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've added intro and cat, even keeping the non-emails there's enough for a stub. What to do about the e-mails is another issue. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I also removed the e-mails, and kept just quotes from them. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but lose the email quotes entirely. Why? I'm just following the advice that "parody" gave me in the following email:

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2007 17:02:39 -0400
From: "Scott Ramsoomair" <sramsoomair@yahoo.com>
Subject: My email evidence
To: "Jeff Q" <jeffq@fakeaddress.com>
 
This is parody again, in the guise of another ghost writer,
to demonstrate how useless emails are as verifiable sources
of quotations.
 
-Dream on, space cowboy.
Scott Ramsoomair.
 
Copies: Future President Hillary Clinton, Senator Lieberman,
        Senator Brownback, Senator Santorum

Of course, I just created the above from the source text provided on Ramsoomair's website, but who says he didn't do the same to Thompson? We should stick to published and audiovisually recorded works as source material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's useful, but ditch... well, pretty much all the stuff that's there that doesn't have a source attached, plus the email correspondance. 86.134.3.154 15:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That was me . Sockatume 15:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ?? 04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep helps show how much of a lying scumbag he is. fluke 17:35, 14 August 2005 (EST)

• Keep Added links to the 80 minute interview on chatterboxgames and a few quotes from that interview. Other people can add more. 69.174.69.0 18:49, 14 August 2005 (EST)

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

Jacqueline

See Sharmell.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaden Korr

Non-notable. Contains quotes by a small person in the Star Wars universe. If we go on adding quotes by every person in Star Wars, we're gonna have a tough time.--Shreshth91 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: move to Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (2 Moves; 1 Keep assumed non-serious based on copious evidence from user's other postings; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, matching the corresponding Wikipedia article. I think that, for now at least, this should join our considerable collection of electronic-game quote articles, rather than be, as Shreshth91 says, a quote article devoted to a single Star Wars character know only to gamers. There is also the problem of the actual content, which seems to be more of a transcription of any old quote than a selection of pithy quotes. (Examples: "I wouldn't worry about that."; "You seem really nervous."; "I can't wait!"; etc.) But I am open to counter arguments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move, concur with JeffQ. ~ UDScott 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP exactly as it is - democratic yes :) 0waldo 17:56, 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)
• KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! We have seen others' pages that could be deleted BUT NOT WALTER'S! And yes his quotes are notable! signed, Madeline, Sean, Phillip, and Rebecca.
  • (That above vote was meant for walter muncaster-sorry!)
    • Reformatted & struck yet more unsigned votes, not even added to the correct VFD entry. The word "signed" does not constitute a wiki signature. Please read the instructions at the top of this page for the correct process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:28, 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: redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Quoteless short essay on Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, who already has substantial Wikiquote and Wikipedia articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi (2 Redirects; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, just like Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, concur with Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:27, 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: no consensus. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

James Cramer

Was nominated but not listed for VfD. Cramer is a CNBC pundit; quote page has only one quote (with QuickTime video link source). The single quote doesn't really fit in any theme except something like "outrageous statements from pundits". — Jeff Q (talk) 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (1 Delete; 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now. This may be augmented by quotes from Cramer shows Kudlow & Cramer or Mad Money. It could also be moved into a Pundits or similar article. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I tagged this one and forgot to add it here. If someone expands it I have no problem with the subject. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 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.. — Aphaia 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

John Ziman

This is a borderline case. There is no wikipedia article, no homepage, but he was a multi-disciplinarian who wrote some books which were published and sold. The book is mentioned on wikipedia, in w:Scientific enterprise. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote Closed: Result: Kept. (4 keeps, no dissent) --Aphaia 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He was an old man (and those people tend to have no webpage), retired several years ago (Honoured Professor of Bristol University); nine of his books are available on amazon.com and three of them is available in Japanese. In my criteria, notable enough. --Aphaia 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would also agree that he's notable enough. However, is he really the author of those 2 quotes there that are attributed to him, or perhaps their origin is different? User:Lucky-luke, where did you get it from? Sams 07:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But move the two attributed quotes about a scientist and a philosoher to a more prober place. Couldn't find a either one as atributed to Ziman via Google. Both seem to be well known and old, but no author was listed or author was "unknown". I found this variatoin too: an expert is one who knows more and more about less and less which was attributed to Nicholas Murray Butler . I added one verified Ziman quote with a source, so there should be some justification for a Wikiquote page. Lack of Wikipedia article is IMO failing of Wikipedia and should be remedied. - The Merciful 27 June 2005 13:00 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently has sufficient notability; good sourcing on quotes. Could use some cleanup as described above, but shouldn't affect vote. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)

• Keep there's a wikipedia article now :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 11:20 (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 Humor. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)

Jokes

One anonymous quote. I suspect it was coined by its contributor. --Aphaia 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Redirected. Rationale: With 2 Redirect and 3 Delete votes, there is no consensus for either specific action, but doing nothing would thwart all five votes. Most seem satisified to have the original White quote in Humor, making this article redundant. Therefore, there is consensus to remove the current quote, but no consensus to delete, making a redirect the most appropriate action that supports all five intents unless and until another vote is taken (after some time has passed). — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC)
  • Redirect to humor. And the quote is a mangling of E.B. White's "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it." Rmhermen 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. and thanks for enlightment. ;-) --Aphaia 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Thanks Rmhermen. I think it could be done instantly, without a vote - no info that isn't already on wikiquote would be lost, and everything remains in history anyway - therefore it's pretty trivial editing. Sams 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. If this were an article of general jokes, we might need to consider whether Wikiquote should have a joke collection. But since its only quote is a joke about humor, merging it with the existing Humor article seems adequate. However, redirecting "Jokes" would suggest to editors that "Humor" is a place for adding general jokes. Do we want this? — Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge what? An inaccurate paraphrase? Why? Although adding the quote from E.B. White's article would be good. As for redirecting vs. deleting: I agree that the issue of having a wikiquote jokes collection page is unclear (e.g. one might claim that having jokes is similar to having proverbs), and we might want to discuss this... But while it's pending, or if we decide that jokes don't belong here, I think that it's better to use redirect instead of delete, so it won't be created again by someone else. Sams 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops! My mistake. I mean copy the White version, not the anonymous one. Which means I vote Delete for this article. I think no article is better than a misleading redirect. If someone recreates it, we speedy-delete it per policy (case #5), assuming we vote to delete it the first time. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, both "no article" and "misleading redirect" aren't good options. But an appropriate redirect might be useful. If you think that redirecting to Humor is misleading (I think that perhaps you're overstating this possible problem, but anyone's guess is as good as mine), we could redirect it to the future/archived version of this discussion, or to our future policy article that says that jokes don't belong in wikiquote. Sams 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: redirect to the discussion exact is impossible currently (redirect to WQ:VFDA is okay), and if we decide "no jokes, thank you" as policy, it would be better to have redirect to this project document or just "What Wikiquote is not". But before decision, we need to talk.--Aphaia 00:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • If what you wanted with having separate VFDA pages for each article that is deleted is used, then this discussion will appear in a page of its own in the future, and we can redirect it there, no? Sams 01:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • If this is perceived as a real issue, it deserves much more visibility than being buried in a VfD archive, however it may be linked. And we should never redirect a main articlespace title to a discussion page; it's ugly and violates the principle of least astonishment. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • OK, agreed, redirecting to a discussion was a bad idea. I also note that there're some jokes on wikipedia, e.g. if you start at w:Category:Jokes. I think that in general if any wikimedia project should have whole jokes in it, it should be either wikiquote, or some separate wikijokes project (though the jokes in wikipedia to demonstrate the point of the articles also work nicely). I don't think that the policy on jokes should be decided by the wikiquote community, but by other wikimedia communities as well. Anyway, nobody tried to add jokes to wikiquote so far anyway, we're just contemplating the issue that Jeffq brought up. I still think that it's a little better to redirect instead of delete (to the humor article, unless there're better suggestions). Sams 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've put in the best phrased White quote I could find with some attribution at Humor. MosheZadka 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we really want an article that invites everyone to post their favorite knock-knock joke? "Funny" is subjective; this seems to open the door to plentiful disputes and major editing headaches. --RPickman 19:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Having an article with jokes is an idea that so far hasn't been advocated by anyone, including the person who created this article that has nothing in it. The only options considered above are whether it's better for now to delete or redirect it, to prevent it from being created again. Since I saw mentioned regarding some other VfD entries that it's better to redirect rather than delete, I guessed that it's better here too. It's weird that no one bothered to mention why they prefer delete to redirect... But whatever, it's such a minor issue, doesn't matter either way... Sams 28 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, Sams, but I did mention why I felt it was better to delete than redirect, on 15 June: "I think no article is better than a misleading redirect"; i.e., a redirect misleads, whereas a delete gives the correct impression that we do not have a joke collection. It's the principle of least astonishment again. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with RPickman. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 15:51 (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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Journey to the East

• No idea what this is or who it is supposed to be a quote from. Rmhermen 16:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has been made into a properly labeled page. ~ 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: Kept. — Jeffq 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Jules de Gaultier

Just one unsourced quote, no wp article, no intro, google hits are many -- all point to this one quote (many of them mirrors of wikiquote). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Kept (2 Keeps; 1 Undecided; 1 self-cancelled Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
• Keep If Wikipedia lacks his article, it is their fault, not his. See this index. And he is notable enough be a subject to Bachelor thesis .--Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed that it needs to be improved, but deletion won't achieve that. Urhixidur 2005 July 9 14:54 (UTC)
  • Comment: Then improve it: add intro, category, references. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? It has been already categorized. Are you not content with the current categorization? --Aphaia 21:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, it wasn't when I looked at it. Sorry. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't mind. ;-) --Aphaia 23:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Undecided. I'm confused that a published French philospher doesn't have an en:WP article. I'm also concerned about Aphaia's citations of notability, as they are only in French and Italian. More evidence of notability would be helpful, especially if in English. Is this the same Jules de Gaultier who is a critic? — Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 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: keep Just war theory, redirect Just war, delete Just War Theory. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Just war

Redirect. Just war → Just War Theory → Just war theory. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to turn it into a redirect to "Just war theory". --Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• The correct name is either "Just war" or "Just war theory", and the latter is better imho because it's a common phrase. All other capitalized names, i.e. "Just War" and "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory" are wrong. The redirects were created because I wanted to conform with the wikipedia article name, and they changed the name there a couple of times. This was a bad idea though, as the people there seem to be clueless about the correct use of capital letters. The current name on wikipedia is "Just War theory", which doesn't have a wikiquote redirect, so the wikiquote template box doesn't work in the other direction (it works from wq to wp because wp has a redirect article for the correct name). iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep Just war theory as article, redirect Just war to that article, delete Just War Theory only if doing so automatically goes to article, and verify WP and WQ link boxes correctly link to their counterparts, per vote analysis below. Final report will follow shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Final report: with "Just War Theory" deleted, all capitalization versions properly present the sole article within Wikiquote. No variation except the actual article title works from WP to WQ, but the only way to fix this is to create redirects from every variation that WP may have, which isn't usual practice, besides which the current WP title is "Just War theory", which didn't even exist as a redirect here. I've verified that the WQ→WP and WP→WQ article links are now completely working, so I'll leave "JWT" deleted unless someone objects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all the redirects, except for the "just war" redirect. iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Just war", delete "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory". I've heard the phrase "just war"; I've never heard "just war theory", although I can believe it's common. But I'm certain that many who might think of looking for quotes on this topic would enter "just war", and that's one purpose of a redirect. As for the capitalization problem, if we delete all versions but one, I believe MediaWiki will automatically present the correct article even if the capitalization is wrong. (If we have two versions, I think it fails because it doesn't know which to assume.) If there's a problem with linking to Wikipedia, we can either use {{wikiquotepar}} or, better yet, move the WP article to the correct capitalization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should keep exactly one redirect, between "just war" and "just war theory", depending on which one of these would contain the article. I personally think that "just war theory" is better, as in the wikipedia article, but it's not a big deal either way. iddo999 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What I'm saying is that there is no need for multiple capitalization versions of both phrases. One "Just war" redirect to "Just war theory", and no other capitalization variations, should have exactly the same result as if we'd had every likely capitalization variation of both phrases. In fact, it's better to have only the two, because redirects display the line "Redirected from...", whereas the MediaWiki-driven matching will take you straight to the correct form, regardless of the way you capitalized the phrase. But you need to have only one variation per phrase for this to work. Example: enter "Just War", and you'll see that MediaWiki assumes you meant "Just war" (note that it says "Redirected from Just war", not "Redirected from Just War"), because there's only a single variation of that phrase as an article title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Clarification: When I said keep "Just war", I meant as a redirect. When I said delete "Just War Theory" and "Just War theory", I was implicitly agreeing with whoever wrote the paragraph above the "vote closes" that "Just war theory" be kept as the main article. However, I don't really care which of "Just war" or "Just war theory" is primary, so long as we have only one article and one redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Apologies. I wrote the comment above, and forgot to sign it when signing my vote. I also created this page, btw:) Thanks for the info on mediawiki auto redirecting capital letters. As I mentioned, I like the "just war theory" title better than "just war", but "just war" is also good. Please add more quotes there, instead of wasting energy to determine the correct name:) iddo999 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Just war," delete "Just War theory," and redirect from "Just war theory" (only because it is listed this way in WP and people might search for it here after reading that article. BUt I would agree that the proper title for this set of quotes is merely "Just war." UDScott 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

VOTE ANALYSIS: This is our month for confusing votes. First, allow me to summarize this vote's context. The 3 existing articles on WQ are, as Aphaia listed:

• Just war theory (the current article)
• Just War Theory (currently a redirect)
• Just war (currently a double-redirect)

Wikipedia's article is "Just War theory" (which doesn't exist here), they have a mess of redirects (in both senses of the word "mess"), and we don't know what the final name of their article will be. As best I understand our discussion, we have the following votes:

• iddo999, Jeff Q: Just war theory is best article name; redirect Just war to it; delete all other redirects.
• UDScott: Just war is best article name; redirect Just war theory to it; delete Just War theory. (Both iddo999 and Jeff Q consider this article/redirect combination acceptable, but it would entail an article-title swap, which seems unwise since we might want to swap it back if WP changes their minds again.)
• Aphaia: No actual vote, but the nomination of Just war for deletion, plus asking about making this a direct redirect to Just war theory, implies favoring iddo999 and Jeff Q's position on these 2 pages, with no comment on any variations.

I believe the following can be extracted from this:

• Most (3-1) want Just war theory as the article (the current state), and Just war to redirect to it.
• Half want Just War Theory deleted. (UDScott may have meant "Just War Theory" when he said delete the non-existent "Just War theory"; that would make it 3-0 [Aphaia not commenting].) As long as it exists, however, it may cause MediaWiki auto-redirection problems for the many variations people might try.
• Most (3-0; Aphaia not commenting) don't want a Just War theory redirect. (If the above possible interpretation of UDScott's vote is accurate, this one is 2-0, with 2 not specifically commenting on this variation. But nobody suggested creating it, either, so it should probably stay non-existent.)

Therefore, I propose to close this vote with the following interpretation and subsequent actions:

1. Redirect Just war to Just war theory.
2. Delete Just War Theory and test all possible capitalizations for auto-redirection. If they work, we didn't need it anyway. If they don't, restore "Just War Theory".
3. Ensure that both the WP and WQ articles link directly to the current articles on the other project, using the {{projectpar}} templates.

I'm asking my fellow sysops (who happen to be the voters as well) to review my analysis to see if they concur. Unless someone objects before 24 November 2005, 12:00 (UTC), I will close this vote with the above interpretation and take the stated actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed the votes and analysis: you are right, it is confusing, but it seems you have summarised it correctly. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 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 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Mikey

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 23:44, 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 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC. I've restored the deleted VFD tag. ~ UDScott 13:18, 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: keep. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)

Kate Clinton

Seems to have no quote. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: keep (2 keeps, no dissent)
• Keep: Comedian, article on wp, I added a sample quote (mildly amusing to me, at least) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)
  • Comment: add a couple more from Don't Get Me Started ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now that quotes have been added. Although I've never heard of Kate Clinton, this stub article seems a positive example to counteract the Gus Arredondo negative example, whose stub article had no quotes from his routine, the source of his potential notability. I've also added Clinton's IMDb link to her article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 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: keep. — LrdChaos 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Harris

While this is a real and notable person, there aren't any quotes by her, just one about her. —LrdChaos 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (six votes to keep, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless valid quotes from her are added. —LrdChaos 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since real quotes from her have been added, I am changing my vote to keep. —LrdChaos 14:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; quotes as subject are no less important than quotes as speaker. Since Harris is in fact notable, give the article more than a day to be expanded. 121a0012 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, concur with 121a0012. --Aphaia 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, surely there is more to fill this out. BD2412 T 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that some quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd like to see more useful sources for the new quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 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: no consensus. — Jeffq 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Whitehorn

No wp article, google hits point at one PubMed publication and a personal blog one the first page. It could still be she's notable, but it doesn't seem so. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 19 Oct 2005 12:00 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to 5 December 2005, 12:00 (UTC). I wanted to close this overdue vote, but I don't feel comfortable interpreting the dialog. There's 1 official Delete, 1 "inclined to keep", and perhaps an implicit delete from the nominator, but it's somewhat unclear. (Moshe usually registers a clear vote, so I'm inclined to interpret his lack of vote as a query for information.) Therefore, I've extended the close date for 1 more week. If no clearer votes are registered, I will consider the current state insufficient consensus. Two deletes to 1 keep, even when unambiguous, is barely a consensus, so I feel it needs to be clear to call it as anything but a no-consensus keep (especially when I've registered the only official Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep), per above paragraph. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. I did find a 1970 book, Observations, by a "Katherine Whitehorn" on Amazon UK, but not enough information to indicate if it's the same person. The original article was created along with a bunch of others which were merely single quotes and links to quote-fox, our infamous quote spammer. There's enough circumstantial evidence to make me want to vote "keep", but we want reliable sources and notability. Do any Wikiquotians have a copy of or access to Observations? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: though I found any copy of her book, but found a quote spam on blog comment areas attributed to her, and another quote on a Japanese quote page. The site owner said he found a quote from her on a quotation book in English. I concur with Moshe - she could be notable but not so much perhaps like Nadine Gordiner or other authors. Unless we decide to delete all quote-fox spamming, I incline to keep it currently. --Aphaia 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks, yes, when I don't vote I mean not to vote -- sorry for not making it clearer. I usually try to vote, because I know how small the quorums usually are and I want to make the problem less acute. However, in this case, I felt I'm really not sure what to do. Jeff implied that she did publish a book, which is usually enough to determine notability here. However, nobody is sure if it the same person, even, which is sad. If anyone has a copy of the book, and wants to add quotations from it to the article, I think the best thing would be to add a "...is an author who wrote...", see if there's any bio-details on the jacket, and move the quote to talk pending some clearer attribution/sourcing. Barring that, I'm really not sure what would be the best for the project. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:21, 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

This is a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia already has one. This one appears to be an essay on Hovind's views, which is not the purpose of Wikiquote. I don't know if it is material considered undesirable or too detailed for the WP article, but that's irrelevant. We need quotes and only quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (4 keeps; no dissent; article signficantly improved). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless all text (except a 1-paragraph intro) replaced with actual quotes (preferably sourced). I'd recommend transwiki, except that the sole editor is already actively editing the WP article and can add this material to it if they wish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that C56C has done considerable work to convert this to a proper quote article. Some issues remain, including a few not-really-quote items and a need for better sourcing, but I think it's mostly cleanup at this point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jeffq. —LrdChaos 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's actually a quote article. —LrdChaos 12:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cleaned it up and added quotes and their sources. C56C 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 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: no consensus. — Jeffq 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Knock knock jokes

No meaningful content. ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: no consensus (1 Delete; 1 Keep), which defaults to a keep. I guess we'll see how this works out. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless viable quotes are added. ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We addressed a similar situation with Jokes back in June 2005. The consensus was not to have a separate article, but we were undecided on whether to delete it or redirect it to Humor, the latter of which was done. This subcategory of jokes is perhaps more manageable. Knock-knock jokes are a very quotable cultural phenomenon, but there seems to be a community reluctance to get into the joke-catalog business. The lack of sources is also especially problematic, although this could be addressed by finding some joke books from which to cite. Finally, if we keep this article, we need to figure out how to format it, as each full quote will be exactly 5 separate lines, the first two of which are identical and therefore space-wasting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The page is meager right now, but it'll grow. Jokes have as much right to be in WikiQuote as proverbs, which are a good example of how unsourceable quotes can be good, useful content. --Eliazar 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, we are remiss in not sourcing all those wonderful proverbs, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 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 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kyle XY

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 23:45, 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 22:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This would be part of the "Articles: no-content" clause of the proposed new WQ:SD, if we can summon the effort to get the draft approved. Robert, Essjay, and I have been discussing jump-starting the finalization on my talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC. I've restored the deleted VFD tag. ~ UDScott 13:18, 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; lack of consensus. --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Last Words in Shakespeare

Seems better to put those quotes on relevant plays' articles. MosheZadka 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Kept; lack of consensus to delete (2 deletes, 3 keep). --Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Hamlet, if the article has this quote not yet. --Aphaia 04:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Once withdrawn, because the article in question is still editing; perhaps I will vote again at the end of discussion. --Aphaia 16:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added the quote to Hamlet already MosheZadka 06:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Clotten 21:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The idea is this: I am one of those people who would love a better online source for Shakespeare's texts. Death is one of the largest ideas in all of Shakespeare (with maybe Time, rule, and the idea of unions of love as other candidates), and it is not at all unreasonable to give such a theme it's own page. If all of those ideas were explored in any depth, the Shakespeare page would be unreadably-long. At the very least, give me (and the wiki population) time to explore the page a little before we just delete it (I only made it a number of hours ago). --Clotten 07:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The point, I believe, is that if we had a "theme in word" policy, wikiquote would explode from the sheer number of articles (each decent TV show has lots of themes, each movie, etc. etc.). We are happy to have those quotes on the specific plays in which they happen. Arranging quotes by play makes more sense. If you want to have a review of a "Death in Shakespeare", please feel free to write such an article on wikipedia, using quotes from various pages on wikiquote as reference. By the way, is there a reason for you not to add the quotes to the plays' pages too, if you insist of adding them to this article? What you are doing now creates a burden on the maintainers to copy quotes. MosheZadka 07:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You and I have different paradigms; either a page on Shakespeare's characters' last words is worthwhile or it is not. You have no empirical proof and neither do I. Therefore, we simply need more feedback: if other people can help us by giving their opinions and one of us is supported by a majority, then the person will be shown to be correct (at least in a limited sense) by the Wiki population. And then, even if a later population disagrees, at least they can delete it. --Clotten 08:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moreover, Shakespeare is one of the largest subjects of attention, both academic and popular, of any writer in Western history. Surely if anyone is worthy of detailed, specific and extensive pages, it is someone like Shakespeare I'm going to sleep, so at the very least please do not delete this anytime soon.--Clotten 08:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:(To Clotten) I would be happy you estimate our formatting canon on voting instead introduce your own and you read our rule. Vote will closes two weeks later as written so on the above. --Aphaia 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that; I should have read over the rules before commenting here. That being said, I have fleshed the page out considerably, and now I think that it can be judged on its own merits.--Clotten 18:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't mind and I accept your apoligy willingly. I feel I can guess how you were upset when you found it was listed on VFD - every editor have such experience. And again, thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 19:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It was judged on its own merits ab-initio. You were the one who insisted on judging it on extrinsic merits ("Moreover, Shakespeare is one of the largest subjects of attention, both academic and popular, of any writer in Western history), a rather shaky foundation. I noticed you still insist on not adding the quotes to the plays' pages. Why is that? MosheZadka 04:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I think the point is that the quotes are not of much interest on their own, hidden in a mass of famous one-line sound bites. However, when put together, each different quote reinforces the next, creating a page that is much stronger that the sum of its separated parts. Think about it this way: would the Shakespeare page be improved if all of the quote pages for his individual plays were merged into it? And, to stay relevant, what about the Famous Last Words page? Why isn't that page deleted and all the individual quotes added to the speakers' pages? Let me attempt to supply you with some proof, so we can base this conversation on something more than our conflicting opinions. In The Arden Dictionary of Shakespeare Quotations (1999), "death" is the second largest topic in the index, after time and before love. With the possible addition of language, those topics are literally the biggest and most-explored ideas in Shakespeare. If you absolutely insist, I would not mind creating a page for Shakespeare's quotes about death and adding the Last Words to that page. But, otherwise, the fact remains that this is no fringe topic. And, given that the page is well constructed page that includes both very popular and famous quotes with less famous but revealing, and, come on, interesting quotes, I once again propose to you that it is a worthwhile bit of organization. And, to get away from the merits of the page and to touch upon your personal comments, I'm not insisting on not putting the quotes on other pages. If the last words page loses the vote and then I remake the page anyway and don't put the quotes on the already-existing Shakespeare pages, then I would be "insisting". But please don't try to make me look spiteful. I most certainly will add the quotes to the pages from their respective plays if this page is deleted. --Clotten 21:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It's an interesting compendium and that's Wikiquote's purpose. (I'm still new though.. am I mistaken?) --Slac 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, with some reservations. Might make a good subcategory in Famous last words, assuming fictional characters are permissible there. --RPickman 19:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Richard Allen 00:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) An interesting collection. Yes, could also link from other sections. I like the multiple-link features of Wikipedia - I do not believe it should be hierarchical, like printed encylopedias.

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

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

The result was: moved to Monument inscriptions. — MosheZadka 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial

Only one quote can possibly be here. Maybe we should have a "Quotes on memorials" theme or something where this can go into. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: moved to Monument inscriptions (3 voted to move the quote, 1 voted for wholesale deletion)
• Delete and move quote (maybe to the Abraham Lincoln page) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a boring quotation too. Sams 30 June 2005 20:17 (UTC)
• Move to Monument inscriptions to create a useful stub. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 23:37 (UTC)
• Move to Monument inscriptions. --Aphaia 4 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)n

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Banks

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (2 Keeps; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I realized my error after posting this vote. This is probably a notable enough person to have here, but with just some expansion required. Per policy, I will leave the vote active however. ~ UDScott 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've done some cleanup, including adding the WP intro, to properly identify this rapper. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:24, 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: keep. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

London

There was one quote which I moved because it was unattributed. Now there are none. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: keep (4 keep, no dissent)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
  • Keep now that quote is sourced ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
• Comment: You could attribute it to "anonymous" or "unknown", it seems a haste decision. And it is not considered as copyvio, you needn't remove it, in my opinion. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved it to talk, not removed it. I suspect it is a personal quote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

• keep This quote appears on mugs for tourists, author unknown, not mine. Greudin
  • found : Samuel Johnson. Greudin

• keep Quotes themed on Place or Location are a useful extension to wikiquote Richard Allen 20:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a reasonable stub now. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 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: redirect to Drugs. ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LSD

Is not a quote, and already has a Wikipedia article ~ Jman 06:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Seconded. Quadell 14:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Thirded. Anusien

I turned this into a redirect to Drugs, for now. I think eventually quotations by famous people specifically about LSD are a likelihood, but have no particular inclination to find them. ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 Dec 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: move to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Lucian Lévi-Bruhl

No intro, no wp article, google search points to this quote over and over again (some from wq mirrors). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: move to wp-compatible name (2 moves, one struck out keep with text implying move, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
  • Move to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl for compat with w:Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (thanks to Aphaia for finding references!) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, matching Wp; he is identical with Lucien Lévi-Bruhl, (Lévy-Bruhl, there is a confusion on orthography) (1857-1939), french sociologist, and this quote has a good bibliography --- one of classics of this field like Max Weber. --Aphaia 21:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to match Wikipedia. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 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: Kept. — Jeffq 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

No quote since its creation at 20:11, 24 April 2005 --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Kept (2 Keeps; 1 Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it qualifies as a stub. I urge fans of the article to add quotes soon, though, before enough folks disagree to get it deleted. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the person who dug up the tagline, but also what jeff said -- add to the article! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:02, 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: Kept. --Aphaia 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Million Dollar Baby

Completely empty article except for Wikipedia link. Nothing added in week since creation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Kept. (4 keeps, no dissent; article was fairly expanded.) --Aphaia 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (rewrote page) I believe a quote about the movie is also useful ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle that quotes about a movie are useful contents, but I'm not willing to change my Delete vote until at least one person in our 3000+ community cares enough about this movie to add at least one quote from it. I don't want to encourage people to create junk stubs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed my Delete vote (see above) as promised once quotes were added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a quote from it is added. --Aphaia 13:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and thank you for your contribution, UDScott! Aphaia 13:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've added quotes from the film -- I left the quotes about the film. I wasn't sure of the verdict on those -- should they stay? Is this something that is appropriate for other films? I assumed the quotes would only be from the film, not about it, but I'm certainly flexible. -- UDScott 15:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We often have quotes about people on their people pages. I certainly feel quotes about a work belong in the article about the work -- after all, we are called "wikiquote", not "wikimoviequote". In fact, I feel that this is where we are uniquely better than any other quote site -- in the synergy :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that quotes about a movie can be included, as long as they aren't the only reason for the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:26, 27 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. — Jeffq 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modest Mouse

On talk an anon pointed out those lyrics are copywritten. Some quotes seems to be a whole of lyrics. Or not (hence within a limit of Fair Use). Any input will be welcome. --Aphaia 02:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; no dissent; problem quotes removed). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like fair use to me, at least most of it. There are other pages with even more than this one, see for example Talk:Leonard_Cohen. Perhaps we need a policy on at what stage exactly do we delete/modify a page with lyrics, i.e. if we should do it only after a formal complaint from a record label, etc. I think that there're cases where the lyrics are technically copywritten, but the copyrights holders don't have any objections to having the lyrics on websites - I know that this is true with some books for example - therefore automatically deleting lyrics would be wrong. Sams 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything published received copyright protection under modern international treaties; however, these are fair use samples. The complete lyrics to a song would not qualify as fair use and we should not encourage that. Rmhermen 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've removed quotes from 3 songs that seemed to me to be too much for comfort, but I've also suggested that the editors can restore a tighter, more pithy portion of those songs to avoid copyvio concerns. The other songs I checked seemed easily within common fair use expectations. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 29 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: keep. — Jeffq 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters

• Vote closed. Result: keep (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; 1 Neutral). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This wikiquote page not really needed. - SPKx 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why the above user feels this page "is not really needed." This seems to be a legitimate webcomic, and the quotes seem fine. It might need some expansion, but it certainly seems to be enough to warrant having a page here. ~ UDScott 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummmm....I created the NC wikipedia page and I should be qualified enough to decide whether or not a wikiquote page is really required for NC. - SPKx 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • SPKx, creators of Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles do not have any special rights or authority over their content or appropriateness. Wikipedians and Wikiquotians, as a community, determine whether an article should or shouldn't exist, subject only to basic project guidelines. The best way to make an argument for or against an article is to cite specific information that would persuade others to agree with your opinion. Argument from authority usually doesn't work well on wikis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Agree with above user; seems legitimate. ~ Jesussaves 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The comic certainly appears notable, and while the page could definitely use expanding, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. —LrdChaos 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. The current content of the article seems fairly inane, but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article, merely one to improve or stub-tag it (the latter of which I just did). The real questions are (A) "Is this a notable subject?" and (B) "Is it likely to have enough quotes for a minimal article?". I don't know enough to answer (B), which seems to be the basis of SPKx's objection, but other webcomics seem to provide enough quotes for their subjects. As far as (A) notability goes, w:Sprite comic claims that this is the "first well documented sprite comic", but the WP article doesn't currently list a single reliable source, making this assertion highly questionable. (The webcomic itself only hits 224K in Alexa, although it has a solid Google presence.) If I was sure this couldn't be remedied, I'd vote delete (and nominate the WP article for deletion as well). But I'm not, so I'm going to remain on the fence for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 9 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: keep. — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Osmosis Jones

No quotes from the film, just a single tagline. —LrdChaos 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps, 1 abstain, no dissent). -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless actual quotes from the film are added. —LrdChaos 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now that quotes have been added. —LrdChaos 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with LrdChaos. - InvisibleSun 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because of added quotes. - InvisibleSun 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 03:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Abstain. 121a0012 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with LrdChaos. I'm surprised to see that IMDb doesn't even have any quotes. But a single legitimate quote ought to be a minimum requirement for a quote article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that quotes have added. (Thanks, Robert.) I also note that even though the main IMDb article on this film still shows no quote links, the full-cast page does, and there is an IMDb quotes page. Apparently I'll have to be more careful about checking IMDb in the future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it may still need some work, I've expanded the article and added some quotes. -- Robert 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that some quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even without much info yet, it might get expanded later. I've seen articles sit with almost no quotes for a year or more until someone comes along and expands it. Koweja 13:44, 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: keep. —LrdChaos 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Patsy Kensit

Alleged quotes are just another pointless creation from User:Gary Kirk. InvisibleSun 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep. (3 keeps, 1 implicit dissent from nominator). —LrdChaos 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. More non-notable stuff from GK. Actually, the person appears to be notable, but the quotes appear to be fabricated and vanity for Gary Kirk. —LrdChaos 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to keep now that Jeff has made the page into a valid stub for the real person. —LrdChaos 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, now that it is at least a minimal stub for the British actress/pop singer. I've replaced the vanity text from Kirk with information readily available in the Wikipedia article. I don't normally do this for garbage articles about real people, as I have no interest in effectively being directed by insincere editors to create articles they want, but I wasn't about to give Kirk the satisfaction of blatant vanity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, Geoff, Patsy did actually did say that to me, and, being American as you are, you obviously don't see w:Emmerdale, where her character regularly uses the expression BITCH. Please refer to me as either User:Gary Kirk or King Garald; "Kirk" is unacceptable I'm afraid. Gary Kirk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Gary Kirk, "Bitch" is no more a reasonable quote than "Hello" or "What?". As far as Kensit making citable quotes about you, sorry, but I don't believe you, especially given the contempt you've demonstrated toward this project so far. If you have a reliable source you can quote from, please include it when you add such a quote. Otherwise I will remove it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Geoff Q, he's well nice to me :). "King Garald" is merely a bit upset that the fact Patsy Kensit called him "handsome" means nothing to WikiQuote. Malcolm Hebden called him "gorgeous", but he is certainly not proud of that. Horatio Apple 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Isaac Asimov once had something nice to say about me when I met him 25 years ago, but that doesn't mean such a statement belongs in Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, now that it has been updated. ~ UDScott 13:28, 19 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. — Jeffq 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Paul Bettany

No quote since its creation at 05:06, 1 May 2005.--Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (2 Keeps; 1 Delete; article improved). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
• Keep added a few quotes from an interview and an article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient stub now. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 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: keep. — Jeffq 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Sally

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (2 Keeps; 1 Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This person currently has a Wikipedia article and seems to be on the threshhold of notability. (Sally is a university professor who heads a University of Chicago department, has received several awards for special projects, and has been cited in some news articles.) I've nominated the WP article for deletion as well in order to determine which side Sally falls on by current standards, and in the hopes that we can get sources for these quotes (as well as improvements to the WP article). As it stands, the quotes here all sound like conversation with students, which will get axed without sources as being unverifiable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP article survived its AfD nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - eminent in the mathematics community. — Dan | talk 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm satisfied with the notability arguments in WP's AfD. However, all of the current quotes in the article sound like classroom talk, which is impossible to reliably source or verify. Assuming this survives our VfD (which seems likely), I will remove any quotes I can't find a proper source for, which at the moment will leave this article empty. I urge Sally fans to scare up some verifiable quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:21, 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: moved. — Rmhermen 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed_new_main_page, Alternative_proposed_new_main_page, Two_column_proposed_new_main_page

• Left over from early days. I would suspect that they are not necessary. Maybe they could be moved to Wikiquote: if they have historical interest. Rmhermen 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikiquote: namespace. If I understand Wiki practice sufficiently, we don't necessarily (and may not want to) delete historical pages like this, but they probably shouldn't be in the article (quote) namespace. (Not that they're likely to interfere with a quote article. It's more the principle.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Moved. Rmhermen 14:27, 4 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: Proverbs turned to redirect to List of proverbs. — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Proverbs, Book of Proverbs

Supposingly a copy from The Bible.

• Vote Closed: Result: Proverbs turned to redirect to List of proverbs (2 Redirects, 1 redirect to another), Book of Proverbs to The Bible; (3 Redirects) --Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to The Bible: because currently this is a dull copy from the Bible. Unless we determine to have a page for each book of the Bible, I think this page is better to be deleted or turned into redirect. --Aphaia 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Proverbs to List of proverbs; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible for now although I can see that page needing to be subdivided in the future. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as Rmhermen states. Let he who addeth much material to The Bible article bringeth up the subject of dispersal at a future date. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Both were turned to redirects: Proverbs to List of proverbs; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible. --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: Kept. — Aphaia 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rajinikanth

Also a redirect to it, Chandramukhi Super Star Rajni. Since February 2005, there is no quote. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Kept (4 keeps, no dissent). The article was greatly improved during the vote. --Aphaia 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone adds quote(s) before voting closure. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• Comment: there are a bunch of quotes in an interview, but I do not know the language. Anyone cares to translate? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
  • Comment: In case anyone is looking for translators, it looks like Tamil ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes (in English!) added. If users are so interested in quotes from a person, they should have the courtesy to create a stub article with at least one quote. We have an overabundance of page creators; what we really need is quote adders and sourcers. (Apologies for the rant.) — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
  • Keep now. It's still a stub, but it's a good start now. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The page has been cleaned up, and a couple of quotes (in English ! :) have been added. I'll try and add some more soon. -- Amar 7 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not. And thank you for your contribution, Amar! --Aphaia 7 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
• Keep: Thanks for your work, Amar ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would you mind adding in the original Tamil, not just the transliteration? From my own experience, native speakers sometimes have a hard time understanding transliterations. Thanks, ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
    • I added sometimes original text, and didn't transliteration. (see Mobile Suit Gundam for example). Do you think it is improved if transliteration is also added? --Aphaia 7 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
      • Definitely! I enjoy knowing how to say things I don't understand -- my friends keep teaching me Russian quotes. I have a hard time pronouncing Japanese if it's not transliterated. :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)
      • I'll second the Tamil. Not only does it help Tamil readers, adding to the potential pool of translators, but it also encourages English speakers like me to get browsers and fonts that support non-Latin characters (which puts pressure on browser vendors to include them in their standard products). Besides, it looks cool. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 22:46, 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: kept. — Jeffq 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Morrison

This particular Robert Morrison is non-notable. Wikipedia does not have an article on him. The Wikiquote article just points to a disambig. page of which this Robert Morrison is not on. Also, if you google his quote all you get is two websites which probably copy Wikquote. --Hottentot Nominated by 24.4.227.36, 02:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: kept (2 Keeps; 1 implicit Delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk)
• Keep his picture appears on w:Phi Delta Theta, so it seems there is historical data on him, and a founder of an encyclopedic society is notable enough, I believe. However, the wikipedia link should probably be removed. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: w:Robert Morrison is now a redirect to the Scottish missionary, with w:Robert Morrison (disambiguation) as the dab page. Therefore, I've fixed the WQ article's link go to the dab page and have added an entry for the fraternity founder. I've also fixed the WQ link from Wikipedia to clarify that the "quote collection" is for the ΦΔΘ guy. I have no current opinion on Morrison's notability; I just wanted to ensure the appropriateness of the links. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if this quote can be attributed to him. Concur with Moshe; A founder of a known society deserves an article. As for scotish mission, it seems to aim to another R. Morrison, a Scotland born protestant preacher and chinologist . --Aphaia 20:38, 19 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: redirect to Advertising slogans. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir Leslie Joseph Hooker

Now redirect to Leslie Joseph Hooker (and double redirect to another page). I am not sure if we need a redirect with style. --Aphaia 04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 18 Oct 2005 12:00 (UTC) 25 Oct 2005 12:00 (UTC)
  • Extended by a week. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: redirect to Advertising slogans. Even though 1 vote isn't really a consensus, the comments suggest this nomination was due to a failure to check for double redirects, so it should have been just a matter of fixing a redirect anyway. Both redirects violate the principle of least astonishment, but I don't feel comfortable unilaterally invoking this for a VfD at this time. We can always review these redirects down the road. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: sorry, my bad. I merged the LJH page into Advertising slogans, and didn't check for double redirects. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to advertising slogans. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We really should have an explanation here of why a person's name is being redirected to Advertising slogans. I'd never heard of this person, but I'll take a shot. L.J. Hooker, founded by Sir Leslie Joseph Hooker, is an Australian real-estate company. According to its WP article, its slogan is "nobody does it better"™, which was not in the quote article. What was there was "Real estate is not about houses, it’s about people." Neither is in "Advertising slogans" at the moment. This is all quite confusing, and doesn't make it easy for the community to evaluate this nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 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: Keep. — MosheZadka 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spaced

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Keep (4 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes are added. UDScott 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. UDScott 13:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep 206.145.29.246 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Various quotes now added, organised by series and episode, more to come. Tehjess 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. --Aphaia 11:10, 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: move to Wikisource. —Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speeches

Ich Bin ein Berliner should be named Ich bin ein Berliner maybe someone can rename it instead of deleting it, so that the content don't have to be pasted 80.143.249.15 16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was about to do a page creation and redirect, but I propose instead that all the speeches be moved to Wikisource, which seems more appropriate a place for entire speeches. I will post this proposal there as well. If no one objects to this, I might move them all sometime next week, or soon after. —Kalki 17:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be better to rename the page before moving it to wikisource, so that you don't forget to replace "Bin" with "bin" in the heat of the moment. It isn't much effort is it? And if you rename it you should also delete Yes! My name is Pierre Elliot Trudeau which is a blanked vandalism site 80.143.246.58 15:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I intend to create pages at WIkisource that are arranged to fit in with the structures that are evolving there, with links to them within the Wikiquote pages of the authors of the speeches. —Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MOST of the speeches have now been transferred to Wikisource, but there are still a few loose ends and bit of tidying up of links to do. — Kalki 20:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I do not intend to delete the pages that contained speeches, and have posted transfer notices with links on most of them. I do intend to eventually delete List of speeches by monarchs as it only had 2 items anyways, and perhaps a few other obsolete listings associated with the speeches page. — Kalki 20:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like that. On a very rare visit here I was just looking to upgrade a couple of the links to revised titles at Wikisource. The system does not want to accept the apostrophe in the title "Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural address". Please address any response to my Wikisource user talk page, since I so seldom come here. Thanks Eclecticology 21:14, 25 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: keep. ~ Kalki 14:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Contains no quote. --Aphaia 22:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quote and information has been added here by someone, and I expect more shall eventually be. ~ Kalki 14:24, 8 Dec 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: keep. — Jeffq 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

No quotes. ~ UDScott 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (3 Keeps; no dissent; article improved as suggested). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that quotes have been added. Thanks Silent Wind of Doom! ~ UDScott 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I just went in and added some quotes to get the ball rolling. Hopefully there will be further expansion on the page of this wonderful comic actor.--Silent Wind of Doom 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've reformatted based on WQ practices and added links. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:21, 31 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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

T-34 tank

Too stubby (and I can't imagine how it will be expanded or developped). Perhaps better to merge into Technology or another article. --Aphaia 4 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: merge with Tiger I to form Tanks, under War (two supporters, no dissent)
• Comment: Perhaps we can merge this with Tiger I? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Merge this and any other stray tank articles with Tiger I, move the latter to Tanks, and change the category to War rather than the overused Themes. — Jeff Q (talk) 4 July 2005 06:08 (UTC)
• Merge (I completely agree with above comment) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
  • Comment: Other candidates for "War" subcategory: Terrorism, War (of course), Peace (perhaps?). Any others? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since then, I've created Category:War for other reasons. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 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: redirect. — Kalki

Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz

Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz is the same person as Teresa Heinz Kerry, and she now goes by the latter name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.24.204 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Redirect in place as of a minute ago...

Redirect is sufficient here. ~ 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: Redirected. — Jeffq 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor (Doctor Who)

No quotes, encyclopedia article. MosheZadka 08:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Redirected (6 Redirects; 1 Delete; quotes already merged with target article). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 08:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Doctor Who. I'm at loss whether to move quotes here, or just redirect this to the article about the series. jni 08:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Doctor Who. Rmhermen 05:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect His quotes are already on Doctor Who. --Jawr256 11:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Bolstering my argument about excessive expansion of WQ links, a link to The Doctor (Doctor Who) is found in Villain. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirecting from "The Doctor (Doctor Who)" seems redundant to me. Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, probably better to redirect then, according to what Aphaia said. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect It could be created again (from WP supposedly) --Aphaia 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. I've done the merge by copying the descriptive text from this quoteless article as a terse introduction to Doctor Who#The Doctor. (That article still needs an overall intro, and I edited the copied text in anticipation of that intro.) I've also fixed the Villain links to point to appropriate WP articles as well as WQ's Doctor Who. Finally, I added WQ box-link to the WP article, making a redirect in this article to Doctor Who useful and preventing any future redundant articles. It's now safe to turn this article into a redirect or delete it, as voted. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:26, 6 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 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

The Order of the Stick

A web comic (miserably stubby but it has no relevance to the request itself). Having its own article on English Wikiquote, but I doubt in general if those web comics (like web broadcasting dramas) are notable enough have their entries on Wikiquote. We need to establish our policy. --Aphaia 08:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Kept (5 keep, no dissent). --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Keep: Might be biased as a regular reader, but there is a wikipedia article. I suggest, as usual, we adopt the wikipedia policy on web comics until and unless we have manpower to fashion our own. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Category:Comics has two other web comics (Queen of Wands and Something Positive), neither of which are candidates for deletion. Both are unfamiliar to me. Secondly, web comics are a notable cultural phenomenon, and OotS enjoys a very strong (at least) cult status both among web comics fans and Dungeons & Dragons fans. It should also be noted that the wikipedia entry used to have quotes from the comic, but were romeved to prevent making the article messy and not really belonging to Wikipedia - The Merciful 14:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has another one, Dinosaur Comics (which I started and has been edited by many editors since) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This may be our test case for keeping notable web-only creative works. It has a WP article with significant multiple-editor history, a solid presence in Google, and an author who has at least one published work (Eberron Explorer's Handbook, ISBN 0786936916) and who plans to publish an Order of the Stick book. Speaking as someone who'd never heard of this work before, I believe these points make the original webcomic sufficiently notable to quote from. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. 128.107.253.40 29 June 2005 23:14 (UTC) this is an orginal work by a pushlished writer
  • Comment: moved keep vote by anon (but signed!) to standard format. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Jeffq Dinesh 7 July 2005 19:20 (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 06:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Other Eden

One misspelled quote, no intro, no wp article. Google search points to half a dozen different ebooks and various references in blogs, but there's no actual book on amazon.com. Suspect self-published vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 4 Aug 2005 3:45 (UTC)
  • Vote extended to: 17:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • VOTE CLOSED. Result: kept (3 Keeps; no dissent; article improved and correct title found). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub now (see comment below). I will add new information to the article shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete said Jeff, and I would like to have also appropriate biblio- or other sort graphical information (author, published year etc.)--Aphaia 14:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep currently; if this quote could be attributed to the work Jeff pointed, it might be notable. --Aphaia 09:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In the process of closing this vote, I discovered that we'd missed an important clue: the link from List of literary works. This article is misnamed; it should be This Other Eden, by Ben Elton, well-known British comedian and writer, co-writer of Blackadder with Richard Curtis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I should note here that I've added the ISBN for This Other Eden to the current article, and verified that it (and many other Elton works cited in his WP article) are available on Amazon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:37, 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: No consensus. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet

A notable work by a notable author. So what's the problem? It appears to be the entire book (linked here). I've placed a copyright tag on the page; but should we really wait in hope for someone to come along and trim it? As with the earlier deletion of West Side Story in its entirety, it should be removed unless someone volunteers to make reductions. There are already some quotes from it on the Kahlil Gibran page (and perhaps that page's Attributed quotes, once sourced, would yield some others as well). - InvisibleSun 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: no consensus (1 revert; 1 implicit delete; 1 comment). There doesn't seem to be any general community interest in pursuing this, so it stays as an article, but that doesn't prevent editors from addressing the concerns directly in the article and its talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This may or may not be a copyright violation (in the US), depending on whether the original work was published with or without a copyright notice and whether or not its copyright status was renewed. If it was published with notice, and the copyright status was renewed, then the book is still under copyright; otherwise, it is not. Finding out its status, however, may not be easy. If this is out of copyright, it should be transwiki'd to Wikisource; otherwise, deleted as a copyright violation. I'm going to hold off on voting until there's been some time to investigate the status of the work. —LrdChaos 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to the 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) version by 219.65.137.236 (talk · contributions). This was a reasonable set of quotes before 202.152.11.194 (talk · contributions) turned it into an apparently complete copy. Regardless of whether or not this is a copyright violation, this strikes me as the best thing to do with our article. If it is not a copyvio, the current text can be transwikied to Wikisource before the reversion (or even after, given the edit history). BTW, I'd have just done the reversion to and posted the potential-copyvio info on its talk page to avoid a 2-week VfD review. But then, I'm an ornery cuss. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 20 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 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Railway Series

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Kept. (3 keeps, no dissent) --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that Uncle G has given us a stub. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• We have Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. We should certainly have the books that originally spawned the television series in the first place. The books themselves have been the subjects of quotations, I discover. Keep. Uncle G 00:57, 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: kept.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Searchers

No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: kept. (5 keeps, 1 delete w/o 2 withdrawn votes; due to expansion, those voters changed their mind). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, as usual wonderful work by UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes provided. This is an encylopedia stub that hasn't had any quotes added in nearly 6 months. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Excellent work on a neglected article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Movie synopsis, no quote content. jni 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added quotes for this film. Question: should the synopsis remain? If so, is this something that we should be including with all film entries? UDScott 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've restructured the intro to show the more-or-less consensus: an extremely short one line intro describing the movie's main premise, with some information about cast. In movies, like in other wikiquote articles, a one (or perhaps two or three at the most) sentence introduction is ideal. No introduction is bad -- we want readers to have some idea. A paragraph long introduction is probably too long -- either link it to wikipedia (in case there is an article) or create a stub based around the paragraph in wikipedia if there is none. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Now. --Aphaia 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JButler 15:00, 4 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: Kept. — Jeffq 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Kit

No notability, no external links, only edited by one (anonymous) user.MosheZadka 13:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; notability evidence provided and article revised to address some concerns). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 13:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless provided with some evidence of notability. Quotes seem thoughtful enough to be real, but without context, this sounds much more like a vanity page than a published or otherwise documented source. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on article revisions. Would have been useful if author had provided the Wikipedia link in the article ([2] below); I've rectified that omission. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's genuine then... Sams 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually this page is translated by me, Jerry Crimson Mann, a wikipedia user. Its Chinese version should be at . To Kit is a famous Hong Kong columnist. (For further details, see here: [])(vote from anon, 218.102.234.33).
  • I point out "votes from anon" is problematic in the view of legitimacy. Hence registration is recommended ;-) Aph.
• Keep And now the Wikipedia link was also provided. --Aphaia 06:44, 30 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: Keep. — UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tookie Williams

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Keep (3 keeps, no dissent)
• Delete, although this person is notable, there aren't any quotes (and I couldn't find any online). Unless quotes are added, it should be deleted. ~ UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now, with addition of quotes. ~ UDScott 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep added a quotation from the wikipedia article ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• google tookie williams quotes he must have some.169.244.143.115 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved comment to std. format ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think now (posthumous) it's even more important to keep this document!
  • Struck out anon vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of quotes now. --Thorpe 12:53, 22 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/no consensus. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

I don't really expect a wholesale delete on this article, as it has a lot of useful quotes, but there is considerable material in it that seems like clear copyright violations, and I don't believe we have a formal mechanism yet for citing copyvios outside of VfD. (It also needs some format cleanup, and Tupac fans ought to be able to move some of the Attributed lyrics into Sourced.) I recommend anyone wanting to keep this article remove any complete lyrics or poems, leaving only pithy excerpts, before the vote close date. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: kept due to no consensus (no proper votes; 1 late Keep vote). Mission accomplished anyway, as the article appears not to be a copyvio risk now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know his work, so can't make my opinion properly. But "Poetry" section could exceed fair use and copyvio ... --Aphaia 09:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed Poetry and Lyrics because of possible copyright violation. Hope it will not be deleted now.
  • Added by User:62.131.147.125 ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now, after potential copyvio removals. My thanks to 62.131.147.125 for stepping up to the plate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:47, 9 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

Only provides two undescribed (but appropriate) external links and the star's name. I changed a speedy delete tag to a VFD after asking anonymous creator to contribute some quotes. Suggest holding off for a few weeks to see if anyone adds some content.— Jeff Q (talk) 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Results: 5 valid (signed) Keeps, no dissent; article made incredibly useful in the interim. Tremendous work done by at least 8 different editors! A real success for using VfD to rescue articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Forgot to sign this one, Moshe
• Keep -- Added one quote, plan to do more soon.
• Keep -- Added two quotes, and now that I know about this page, I'll be adding more in the future. [sorry I didn't sign in/register before ... didn't know that I needed to, eep!] Whiteowl4 00:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't need to register. If you sign without registering, your IP address is listed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Added a couple of quotes and am planning on adding more.
• Keep now. Note to anonymous - unsigned votes aren't counted. Rmhermen 21:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Several anonymous contributors have done an excellent job adding substantial content to this article. (I've also asked them to come back and sign their votes to allow them to be counted.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's taken me a while to work out how to do this but I've added and will continue to add quotes. 195.93.21.99 13:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• Should the VfD tag be removed from the VM page? I am not sure how to do it, I would appreciate if some sysop would do that. MosheZadka 02:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed. Thank you for your notice and sorry for your annoyance. --Aphaia 03:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That was my fault. I forgot to remove VfD tags from a couple of articles when I closed the votes. Thanks to Aphaia et al. for picking up after me! ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 18 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 07:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan Proverbs

• Vote Closed. Result: No consensus (2 Deletes; 2 Keeps; 1 unsigned vote). I will move the article to a proper title (as described below). — Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't know that the Vulcan's knew Nixon. Delete. Rmhermen 03:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, this is an actual quote from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (although I haven't verified the exact text). Spock said it when volunteering Kirk and the Enterprise for a Federation/Klingon detente meeting. One assumes he was being ironic by claiming it as a Vulcan saying. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the page adds actual Vulcan proverbs (it's possible, ST is a huge franchise). MosheZadka 04:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I won't bother to do so unless this article survives its VfD, but it should be moved to Vulcan proverbs. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if this quote is indeed real, then I wonder if we should delete... I don't think that we generally delete pages with only one quote in them. Perhaps it's better to wait and see if someone improves it. Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

--It's from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Spock said "There's an old Vulcan proverb, 'Only Nixon could go to China'," referring to sending Kirk and crew on a diplomatic mission to the Klingons. It was said in dialogue on screen. Vote: NO

• Keep. It is now vastly expanded upon.Caiman 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: Now a new and usual fear struck me: Is it remaining within the sphere of Fair Use? Quotes is not the citation of whole things .... --Aphaia 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is expanded, but from a source called "Surak's Scroll" that has no legitimate citations, no mention in the Wikipedia article on Surak, and zero hits on Google in any of the forms I tried. As it stands, this strikes me as an even greater reason to delete the article. I've posted a note on its talk page to encourage explanation. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK... seems like you're right, but since 2 other people already tried to contribute to this article, I don't think that we should have eagerness to delete it, and instead we can keep it and wait for some time, perhaps more input from 'trekkers' will emerge... Sams 03:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sam, do you convince those contribs are legitimate quotes and not fan creations? --Aphaia 03:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally know nothing about vulcans and star trek, therefore my opinion here is only in the level of general principles. I think that if we notice articles that seem like a hoax that were created with malicious intent, creating confusion, or containing insults, then we should even speedy-delete them (in the rare cases where we would get it wrong, no big deal, they can be recreated). However, if it seems that the intent was ok, but the contribs didn't get it right, then, assuming that it's possible for the article to be improved (I don't really understand if that's the case here), we should have a more liberal approach, and first try the talk page (like JeffQ did) for a while, before VFD. I note that Jeffq raised a good point, about "legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines". However, JeffQ, with all due respect to TV series, there might be better places to start... For example, I noticed the George Galloway article and cleaned it up a little, but someone dumped in there his 1994 speech with no good source, and if you google sentences from it now, you'll get wikiquote as the result, and perhaps a few message boards with the same thing. It's probably more or less accurate, perhaps completely accurate, but we give it legitimacy on wikiquote without really knowing... BTW in this particular case, the entire page should in fact be divided into 2 wikisource articles, but it seems that the wikipedia people like to use wikiquote for dumping their superfluous data... Sams 10:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd actually be in favor of keeping this article if what my inadequate recollection suggests are many proverb-like quotes were reliably listed. But I'd rather delete an article filled with junk now than wait from someone to do due diligence to make this article accurate, which can take months or even years on WQ, while we lend legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines. I think the warning of impending deletion serves to motivate keepers to do the work necessary to make this a useful and accurate article. If not, it can always be recreated later. If no evidence is provided for the legitimacy of the current content and we still keep the article, I'll probably just remove everything not backed up by references (which is currently all but the original single quote). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• Comment though the vote closed already, and there is no consensus to delete it (there are the same number of votes for keeps and deletes, 2-2 except Jeffq's latest comment), I would like to extent the vote for some days, like three days or a week. My current position is alike to Jeffq. Now delete, and wait someday a trekker will submit a collection of "legitimate" Valcan proverbs, if exists. So
• Delete. --Aphaia 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should count a vote after closure, otherwise what is the point of have a close date? Anyway, since we aim for community consensus, which is not strictly defined but is frequently considered most valid around two-thirds (67%) or more of voting users, another "delete" vote wouldn't change the results. (It would be 60/40 for "delete"; my comment was deliberately not a vote one way or another). Using my judgment per policy, I believe that the community has not achieved the consensus to delete. I do plan, however, to remove the questionable quotes mentioned above until such time as someone can provide a credible source for them, and will endeavor in the near future both to verify the current substantiated quote and to collect some others. Further discussion on this issue should probably take place at Talk:Vulcan proverbs. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:43, 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: Keep as Redirect. --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

War of the Worlds (television)

I moved this page from War of the Worlds and went to post it on Television shows only to find War of the Worlds (TV series). The two pages are exactly identical, so obviously there is only need to keep one. Zhaladshar 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Keep as Redirect (2 redirected, 1 delete, however already turned to redirect during the vote). --Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any quotes not on one or the other and redirect MosheZadka 13:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Both pages have the same set of quotes. Redirected. Zhaladshar 13:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm afraid this confusion was my fault. Bacteria added War of the Worlds to Television shows and five minutes later saved that new page he was working on. Unfortunately, I just happened to have done my periodic review of "Television shows" right in the middle of that, not only moving WotW to "Requested" (as it was not yet created), but disambiguating it (because of the more famous 1953 SF classic of the same name). When Bacteria found the link missing, he/she used the new link to create the same page. It was basically a human race condition, one of the inevitable results of using separately-maintained lists rather than MediaWiki categories. I've fixed one resulting double-redirect, so now all three go correctly to the current War of the Worlds (TV series) page. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can this vote be archived now? It is no longer relevant. MosheZadka 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Disambiguity information isn't necessary to redirect. --Aphaia 21:19, 20 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. — Jeffq 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Category schemes

Created as anonymous-user spam page on 25 Dec 2004, then tagged by RoboAction for deletion. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (1 Keep, 1 implicit Keep, 1 Redirect/Delete; article was also made useful in the interim). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or rename? Category use is still fairly new. Is there not a useful meta-topic in this somewhat vague term? I haven't noticed an overview or central article on Category use (like w:Wikipedia:Category) here at Wikiquote. I offer to copy and edit some stuff from Wikipedia unless there is something here that I've just missed. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've changed my vote after Rmhermen turned this into a useful article. There's now a substantial discussion about categorization on its Talk page, as well, which I hope other Wikiquotians will participate in. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer to turn it into a redirect or delete it simply. A document "Category" (or Categories) would be very helpful! But I think we don't need not every categories on Wikipedia - like "1700 death". *g --Aphaia 09:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I didn't mean we need to use Wikipedia categories themselves. I'd just like to see a "Wikiquote:" namespace page that explains categories and provides some guidance on how to name them and use them, tailored to Wikiquote needs. I'm sure Categories have been discussed elsewhere in Wikiquote, but there should be a central, logical place to find such discussions. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have some questions about category. Where do we discuss this? Rmhermen 23:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps on Village pump for now. I'm writing up a summary of the Wikiquote category situation as I see it, which I hope to post there in the next few hours. But don't let me hold you up. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I started a new discussion on the village pump about filling in some gaps in Wikiquote's current use of Wikimedia Categories. Its outcome affects this article, so folks might want to check it out. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have tried to turn this into something we can use, anticipating the conclusion of the discussion on the Village Pump. Rmhermen 14:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I change my opinion. After editing by Rmhermen it turns to a quite useful document. --Aphaia 09:24, 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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Wikiquote:Pay attention to spelling

Such comments belong on talk pages, the village pump or introductory pages, really don't deserve a page of their own. ~ Moby 03:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was a link on the Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines page (largely based upon a Wikipedia page) for such a page. If no one objects, sometime in the next week or so, I will direct that link to the Wikipedia page on the matter, and delete this one. ~ Kalki 05:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) // I never did this, and might let things rest as they are. ~ 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: keep. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Reference desk

Tagged for speedy delete by RoboAction. I changed it back to VFD because it could have a legitimate purpose on Wikiquote, as it does on Wikipedia — namely, a place for Wikiquotians to ask non-Wikiquote questions, as a library customer might ask a librarian a general-knowledge question. Should we: delete it because we don't have the community desire for this off-topic forum; redirect it to Wikiquote:Village pump, where we handle most questions in this still-small community; or keep it, as it is harmless if no one responds, and could be useful if other Wikiquotians take an interest in playing reference librarian on occasion? — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: 3 Keeps, no dissent; page also made useful in the interim. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now that I know it's there, I'll play librarian if I can. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It wouldn't be harmful if no one responds to irrelevant questions. And it is friendly we have a page as such. And I appliciate Jeff Q greatly for his offer. --Aphaia 05:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rmhermen 00:11, 31 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: Keep. — Jeffq 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will Cuppy

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I changed it to VfD to give it a couple of weeks for improvement. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (2 Keeps, no dissent; article substantially improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I commit to adding a decent number of quotes from The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, and possibly some other works, during the next two weeks. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now added about 40 quotes from Decline and Fall, and plan many more. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now. Rmhermen 13:19, 5 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 and redirect. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wives

Tagged as VfD by Aphaia but not listed here. ~ MosheZadka 08:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: merge and redirect (1 merge and redirect, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Marriage and redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:47, 4 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. — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Showzen

No quotes. —LrdChaos 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 23:33, 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 22:36, 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: inconclusive; no action taken.. — Jeffq 02:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yoda & Jar Jar Binks

I love Yoda, he is one of my favorite characters in the Star Wars sagas, but people looking for quotes by Yoda should be able to find them in the Star Wars movies page and not have to hunt further, and there shouldn't be duplication just to give him a page. I am someone who doesn't believe we should make pages just for quotes of fictional characters: they should be quoted in the works that they are a part of. - Moby 22:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: inconclusive; no action taken. (See Talk:VFD for details.) — Jeff Q (talk) 02:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• How wude! 69.243.41.28 02:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• A page also exists for Jar Jar Binks, I am proposing that the quotes from these be incorporated into sections beneath the movies on the Star Wars page, and then these can be deleted. I will allow at least a month for comments before I do anything about this. ~ Kalki 05:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Guanaco 02:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Why not just link to Yoda from the Star Wars page? Many ppl might look for yoda on his own (especially because of his strange diction). I don't know if the same should be done for Jar Jar Binks. Or u could put 2 sample quotes and give a link to the full page of quotes. 65.7.166.232 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (BrokenSegue from wikipedia)

• As a non-fan of the Star Wars franchise, though appreciative of its effect on popular culture via my siblings who were of age to enjoy the movies when they were initially released in theaters, I suggest we let the Yoda quotes stay in the Wiki. They're certainly not doing any harm, and unless there's a copyright issue, Yoda's words are easily as important, recognizable, and relevant as any modern-day real-world philosopher's, in the context of a quote-based Wiki. I see no reason why this page should have the dreaded "suggested for deletion" mark on it... quite contrary to the modern evolution of knowledge.

Apologies for any shortsightedness on my part... -JIV

• I too think that we should let the yoda quotes page stay. I myself reached this page upon searching for 'yoda quotes' in google. - roshan

I am considering simply making the Yoda page a redirect to a section on the Star Wars page, for quotes made by Yoda. Similar sections could be made for other major characters, but personally I think Jar Jar Binks lists low as a quotable character, and probably should not be given his own section, let alone a page. A little duplication of quotes, even on a page, would not be too bad, but if a character is given his own section I think that most of his quotes from any of the movies should generally go there. I wouldn't mind only Yoda being given such a section, or otherwise this page might eventually evolve into a page with sections for major characters, and quotes in the sections on the movies might be relegated to those from relatively minor characters. I do think it is more convenient for people seeking Star Wars quotations to find them all on one page, and not have them scattered over many small ones. ~ Kalki 16:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I say keep. Sure he's a fictional character but many his sayings have passed into popular culture which makes hime very quotable. ~Alex

• I vote we move both to the Star Wars article, and have the current articles redesignated as redirects to Star Wars. The alternative is to break down the Star Wars pages by character and redesignate the Yoda and Jar Jar Binks pages as redirects to that specific character on Star Wars. Either will work with me, as lng as they're somewhere. --Zarggg 01:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I say keep. Yoda has the best quotes.

• Yoda is a pop icon whose appearance alone can drive up an publication/productions revenue. His quotes have spawned the interest and analysis of millions, keep him!

• I came to this page by searching Google for "Yoda Quotes", since I was specifically looking for words of wisdom from the Jedi master, and not generic Star Wars quotes. I suggest that the Yoda page remain separate.

• Keep on both. When does this vote close? I'm new here :). Gaurav 15:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Star Wars, but reorganize Star Wars to group by character, with a separate section on dialog, under each film. That way, it's not too difficult to find all the quotes of any significant character, the source is easily recognized, and multiple-character dialog has an unambiguous place to go. (I can even add a custom TOC to make it easier to jump to character/dialog/show if there's interest.) — Jeff Q (talk) 17:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until Star Wars becomes too large. I notice that Yoda is already redirected. Rmhermen 16:08, 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.

Deleted articles 0-D

The votes on these main namespace articles resulted in their deletion.

20th Century Fox & Paramount: The Curse of the Imagine Entertainment

See #Paramount Go Christmas!.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

• 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: delete. — Jeffq 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

4 Strings

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)

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: 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

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: Others which might be deleted with same rationale: MacArthur's farewell speech to Congress, MacArthur's farewell speech to West Point ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think they are just with the same rationales. And we have already deleted one former transwikied article, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 07:00 (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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aamir gill

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

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: UNIDENTIFIED. NO SIGNATURE

Academy Award

Non-quote expository article. Text lifted directly from two pages 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

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

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

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"

The following articles have been transwikied from Wikipedia:

• Address Unknown: Episode 1
• Address Unknown: Episode 2
• Address Unknown: Episode 3
• Address Unknown: Episode 4
• Address Unknown: Episode 5
• Address Unknown: Episode 6

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

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

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

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)
  • Comment: How about putting it on Wikiquote:Reference desk, if anonymous lacks the original quote? --Aphaia 23:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea. I can't think of a better use for Wikiquote:Reference desk than asking the community to find the origin of a quote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:59, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiven Andrians

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

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

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.

Alayna Rakes

See #Uncle Nagy's House, Alayna Rakes.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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

Alex Michalas

• 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.

Alice Deejay

See 4 Strings.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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

Almost certain copyright violation. Former content 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

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

Amirali Zohrenejad

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

Ana ivanovic

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)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless reasonable (preferably sourced) quotes are added. If we keep, her Wikipedia article suggests a move to Ana Ivanović. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 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: speedy deleted test page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Crichton

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

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

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

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

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)
  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.183.131 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (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

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

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

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

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

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

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

• 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: delete. — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Arthur Clayton Crafsee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. H. Danser's Monograph: Nepenthes rajah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" , 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

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

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

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

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

• 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

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

Bob

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

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan. Potential copyright violation from . 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Boscoe Pertwee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)
  • Oh, no, User:Aphaia and I only find them when they cause problems: I was looking for "articles without category" and she, I suspect, was looking through "list of double redirects". Each sysop, it seems, has his or her own "favourite" problems. If anyone wants to complete the above list, they would be welcome to. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. Well, one of my favorite things is using "All pages" to find article groups, so I belatedly used this just now to come up with the rest of the leftover "Broken/Wikipedia" crowd:
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Announcements
      • Broken/Wikipedia:FAQ
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Logo
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Sandbox
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Utilities
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Village pump
      • Broken/Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
      • Broken/Wikipedia:What Wikiquote is not

      I recommend we delete these as well. (Sorry I didn't think of this sooner.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

      • Delete original ones and new additions: concur with Jeff ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:38, 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. — MosheZadka 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Broken" pages

• Broken/FAQ
• Broken/Wikipedia:All pages by title
• Broken/Wikipedia:Bug reports
• Broken/Wikipedia:Copyrights
• Broken/Wikipedia:Deletion log
• Broken/Wikipedia:How to start a page
• Broken/Wikipedia:Long articles
• Broken/Wikipedia:Most wanted articles
• Broken/Wikipedia:Orphaned articles
• Broken/Wikipedia:Recentchanges
• Broken/Wikipedia:Short articles
• Broken/Wikipedia:Upload log
• Broken/Wikipedia:User preferences help
• Broken/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
• Broken/Withnail \x2526 I

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

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes [2 in Latin], no dissent [in any language]) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. (Loosely translated: "Delete them all. Let God sort them out.") ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Et ceterum censeo, delenda est Carthago, sive patinas quas catalogo cui mittentur. Aphaea scrivit in 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC). (Summary: delete)
• Comment: the same decision should probably be applied to Broken/mail:daily-article-l ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:01, 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.

BT

See 4 Strings.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

• 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

• 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

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

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

Not notable: Publications in 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: deleted.. — Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Catz

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

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. 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

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

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

Charon

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

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

Chris Elliott

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

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

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

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

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 ~ 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

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)
  • Some digging up led me to post a message on w:User talk:SuperDude115#Wikiquote that if it is him, he should stop (I was led there from the wikicity for comedy). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What led me: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:20, 28 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

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

• 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

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. — LrdChaos 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Col. Rob Parker

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

Collis Hardenbergh

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

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

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

Copy of Wikipedia main page

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

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

Current events

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

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

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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Aubrey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.~ Kalki 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death By Stereo

This article has been listed VfD since May 7th by Jeffq. I understand this article is not a big concern, but I say the sooner we resolve the problem the better. PEACE ~ RoboAction 05:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would vote to delete. Article is a year old and as yet doesn't contain a single quote.--Sasquach 22:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a bit of confusion about this page. I had nominated Death by Stereo (note the lowercase "by") for deletion, and Kalki subsequently deleted it. This is a different title, with a capitalized "By", but it appears to have the same non-quote, Wikipedia-stub content that the other one had. There should be no reason to keep it, either. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Delo McKown

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

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

Derek Devenpeck

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

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)
  • Comment: it could be another topic of our "VfD improvement initiatives"... Further information on WQ:VP#Improvement of Votes for deletion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

Diege

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

Die Hard 4.0

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

Dillon

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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Dillon Chung

• 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: deleted. — MosheZadka 02:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dimitris Varos

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 (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

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

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

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)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; The Simpsons has more Doctor Nick quotes than Doctor Nick! Smurrayinchester 22:44, 7 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

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

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

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

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

Dream Harvest College

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 [] [] -- 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

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

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 2 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

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.

Deleted articles E-H

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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

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

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)

• Delete ~ Achilles † 16:24, 9 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

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)
    • I have received no email from you, "Garrety". ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Eddie is famous! I have evidence that Eddie Segoura is a common term. When somebody mentions words such as "Lanyard", "MetroCard" or "Voltron", they are met with cries of "Oh god... you're becoming Eddie Segoura!". Check out this link here http://friends.portalofevil.com/sp.php?si=3&fi=&ti=1000182110&pi=1000182503. Take that Jefficus Q! (Joking!) Horatio Apple 18:39, 13 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

No wp article, no intro, google hits are wikiquote and mirrors, and this 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

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

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 . 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

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

I changed this from a speedy delete because this person appears to be at least slightly notable, with one claimed publication. Her biography, 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

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)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - InvisibleSun 16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:50, 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 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Emily Potter

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" , 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

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

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

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)
  • Note: User:62.135.70.87 and User:196.204.135.215 have removed the Vote for Deletion tag several times while this page has been nominated for deletion. - InvisibleSun 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • 62.135.70.250 (talk · contributions) has also done this. I have posted warnings to all three anons' talk pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:58, 17 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Fulton

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

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

Ezra Deutsch-Feldman

"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?
  • Struck out anon vote by 70.17.84.66 (talk · contributions) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:52, 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: delete. — Jeffq 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Face Off

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)
  • Digital Subjunctive, too, has only edited to place a single vote here (once to vote, once to sign). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:06, 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: delete. — jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi Rules of Aqusition

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

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

Frank Gehry

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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)

• Delete. InvisibleSun 04:51, 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 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

George Will

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

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

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 (Talk) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The article already has a VFD notice at the top, which is an implicit call for more justification. In addition, as I said above, I've added a explicit request for more info on its talk page (the standard place to raise such issues) and on the talk pages of each of the IP users who added material. The Wikiquote community doesn't need to prove something is notable; the contributing editor has that onus. I only went through this considerable effort because I believe this article has a good chance to survive, but the best way to ensure that is to provide the requested evidence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerhard Kocher is totally unnotable. He himself added these citations, as he added his own citations to several articles of the German Wikipedia (where they have been deleted meanwhile). 212.254.x.y are his IPs, known from German Wikipedia. G.K. is absolutely unknown in Switzerland. --81.62.64.163 00:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm Swiss and I've got his Book "Vorsicht, Medizin". Not all of Gerhard Kochers aphorisms are brilliant, some of them are pretty lame - but there's no need to delete them. --Thomas 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is just getting more confusing. I went to de:Wikiquote and found that our article is a small subset of their article, apparently all from the book I mentioned above (which they'd noted on their article's talk page last year). I also found that there is no de:Wikipedia article, although, not being a sysop there, I don't know if it's been deleted before (as 81.62.64.163 may have implied). 81.62 provides no evidence that 212.254.* is actually Gerhard Kocher, and even if it was, it is allowed in Wikidom to edit your own articles if you're article-worthy (even though it's understandably frowned upon, for neutrality reasons). We could just assume that a lack of both a de:Wikipedia article and a published English translation of Vorsicht, Medizin makes this insufficiently notable for en:Wikiquote. I'd prefer to have more data, if possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: extended the vote by a week. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. After 2 weeks, I'm unimpressed by the arguments either for or against this person. But Wikiquotes are a good place for unnotable people to get an audience, because they have much fewer eyeballs to check these kinds of issues. If Gerhard Kocher isn't notable enough even to get an article in de:Wikipedia, let alone en:Wikipedia, I think we might wait until the German folks settle this before allowing his fans to use en:Wikiquote to promote his material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete convinced by Jeff's arguments. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: de.wp seems to have deleted GK's article. My German is non-existant, are there any German speakers who can see if they can find the VfD page for GK's article? Then we can use babelfish to translate it and see some more enlightening discussion. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My German isn't great, either, but based on the page history of w:de:Gerhard Kocher shown in "View deleted pages", I think their GK experienced 2 Schnelllöschungen (speedy deletions) on 22 Oct 2004 (implying either an obvious SD (SL) candidate or an even older VfD (LK) that an anonymous editor tried to override twice in one day). I haven't been able to track it back any further yet, and now something seems to be wrong with wiki search. There is no "Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Gerhard Kocher" (the German equivalent of WP's VFD archive format), but they may use a different system. I found no trace of GK in their deletion log, but I saw something that implied the standard log wasn't authoritative for activity earlier than 23 Dec 2004. Anyway, it looks like a long-dead issue there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I concur with Jeff. Both this article and de equivalent, and de wikipedia articles were started by an anon, 212.254.97.144. And our article has no other substantial contributors. If an article will be submitted by same IP addresses, it would be a good speedy candidate. From other addresses, or another person, it will be better to consider its notability again. --Aphaia 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• • The person, who created w:de:Gerhard Kocher twice, was Gerhard Kocher himself. The IP 212.254.97.144 belonged to him. I have no real proof, but good evidence for that. The person with this IP subscribed by "GK" several times, see e.g. . --83.76.75.245 13:09, 25 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 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Get ahht

I don't see the need for a page for a single line. The only way I could see this surviving is if an article was created for the TV show (Warning: May Contain Nuts), and this page redirected to it. ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 serious Keep, 1 Keep from apparent prankster; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think the quote is noteworthy/memorable enough (certainly, to me, as someone who's never seen the show, I can't understand why someone would find it noteworthy/memorable) and certainly isn't enough to start a page for the whole show. —LrdChaos 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article, created by new WQ editor Gary Kirk, looks like a hoax article. Neither Wikipedia nor IMDb have anything to say about either the show or this supposed "British actor IMcG", nor is there any indication of such a person working on Titanic II. Google, besides pointing to a book titled Warning!: May Contain Nuts! by British author Barry Gibbons, lists a ton of uses of the phrase without any mention of a TV show. There is a Wikipedia image of a supposed DVD of this spoof TV show, but it was uploaded by User:GaryKirk, who seems likely to be the same editor as our new user. The only use of this image is in a user subpage, w:User:Garykirk/Jamie Tuffield, which is an apparent tribute to a school-age actor. This completely unsourced tribute reads like a hoax itself, although it is quite detailed. (Then again, so was "Concrete Hippo".) I hold out the possibility that this is not a hoax, especially since Gary Kirk seems to have contributed a lot to WP without being tagged as a hoaxer, but at the very least, this is likely an unnotable show, so even a proper article of quotes from it wouldn't meet Wikiquote notability standards. NOTE: The fate of redirects Get ahht! and Get Ahht! are also tied to this article.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. ~ Harry Tuttle 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have been privileged enough to produce the show which is the source of this quote, in fact, I wrote the aforementioned tribute to it. I must say that while it is a relatively unknown quote as of yet, it still has much value to the casual observer, and will undoubtedly be more well known in the near future. ~ Horatio Apple 13:19, 01 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikiquote's purpose is not to promote new creative works, but to quote from established ones whose notability provides us with a means to verify them. I can appreciate your desire to disseminate the work of an up-and-coming artist, but that's just not what we do here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 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 ("How will we get out of here?" "The same way we will get out!" "Get Ahht!". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.112.229.153 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user created the "Eddie's Stories" article (also under VfD consideration). This and his/her repeated vandalism suggests a lack of serious intent. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:36, 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: deleted. ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geza Pal & Geza Palatos

"Geza Pal" or "Geza Palotas" does not seem to be a famous individual or work, so I am placing the vfd notice on these pages. As was explained in a note from Achilles to the IP which was used to create these, if someone wishes to create a User page, and place these comments on it, they are welcome to do so; we are not out to silence opinions and views of anyone, but to keep them in their proper channels: The comments posted do not seem to be by anyone as yet prominent enough to merit an article page here. ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• DELETE I was new to Wikiquote and sort of playing around. I was not aware that quotes were for only famous people. I am not only not-famous but Nobody, and would like to stay nobody. So please Delete. --Geza Pal 17:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This kind of mistake does happen, and is understandable, and I am glad you have created a User listing. I am considering a few options on how the situations might be reduced. You can post the statements you had made on your user page if you wish. ~ Kalki 18:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These pages have been deleted. ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 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 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghrace Jeevasagayam

I can't find any evidence that this person is real and/or notable; the only result from a Google search is the Wikiquote page. It's been tagged with {{no-intro}} since late November 2005 (around when it was created) and didn't receive any attention until earlier today when an anon (different IP than the creator) blanked the page. —LrdChaos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no info provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unless it can be proved otherwise. -- Robert 03:00, 18 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. --Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

This has been moved to Wikisource. It could be developed into a page if someone wanted to add quotations from the actual speech, but it has not been touched for well over a year. Might as well get rid of until someone feels like adding anything. Zhaladshar 18:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The issue of deleting Wikiquote pages moved to Wikisource was most recently discussed in the VfD for A Tryst With Destiny (see the archived entry for details). Transwiki policy (as stated in MetaWiki) is to leave pages with links or redirects in place, but it's fuzzy and somewhat self-contradicting in places. Wikipedia and other projects often ignore the policy, especially given difficulties in the transwiki process and the resulting backlog. Based on the "Tryst" vote, the Wikiquote community was noticeably uninterested in resolving this issue at that time (5 weeks ago). If we demonstrate with this vote that we've changed our minds since then, I'll update the transwiki policy to reflect our practices. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I guess that means I won't be adding other pages which have been moved to Wikisource. At Wikisource we really don't transwiki anything, so I was not aware what the current policies involving transwiki were. Zhaladshar 19:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just so no one feels awkward about piping up on this issue again, I'll start this round of transwiki-related voting. See my archived "Tryst" explanations for details. (The policy discussion I mention there didn't really go anywhere.) — Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Transwiki policy on meta doens't work in many places. Most of transwikied article from English Wikipedia haven't been listed on w:Wikipedia:Transwiki log (there are only six or seven entries since this January). And since February 2005, all the redirect to the other site including other Wikimedia project has been disabled for preventing redirect using spamming, so it is useless to keep them as "redirect". And I think it is up to the community which received transwikied articles to keep the history of the transwikied article, not the community which sent it. For our own documentation, we could list it on our transwiki log (now it is isolated on this project).--Aphaia 20:11, 5 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 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Godfather, The (Parts II & III)

This is (or was) a redirect to The Godfather: Part III. Each of the three Godfather films is now listed in List of films individually using their IMDb names, each of the existing articles has links to the other two titles, and there is nothing that links to this redirect. I think we can do away with this title, since no one is likely ever to type in this sequence of characters. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I moved the article from this name (which contained just a Godfather III quote) to current name. I wanted to keep the redirect for a while so the anon creator will not recreate an article in this place, but now it has served its purpose. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree that this is a redundant entry. UDScott 15:34, 19 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. — Aphaia 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Grant Dowell

• Couldn't find this person with Google. Content is quite inane. jni 16:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED: Delete. 3 deletes, no dissent. --Aphaia 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This may be a U. of North Carolina graduate student. (Judging by the frequency and insipidity of these college vanity pages, the U.S. educational system is clearly doomed.) — Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Aphaia 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Gregor Brand

This page was tagged for speedy deletion by IP 195.93.60.9 with the following comment:

unimportant person, has no entry in wikipedia, even not in the german wikipedia. his self-made entry was deleted in Germany, because of self-depicting.

A Google search of my own agrees with the "unimportant person" part; the top result is an Angelfire page, followed by this Wikiquote page in second. Other results appear to be profiles on websites that may or may not be the same person, but it doesn't much matter. —LrdChaos 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I bow to the wisdom of our Deutschsprechend colleagues. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 18:33, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 13:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Grimaldos Robin

No intro, no wp, no quotes. Suspect vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No quotes. 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: Deleted. — Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grumpy Old Men

Strange theme, not sure how useful it is. Perhaps a rename is better than deletion, but I have no good suggestions for a rename/merge. MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent).Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move single quote to appropriate proverbs page. MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after moving quote to Anonymous, unless someone can provide a credible source. Very popular quote, apparently, but who said it? I found a hint that it might have been said by someone on one of those execrable "survivor" pseudo-reality shows, but surely it's an old saying. I suspected "Grumpy Old Men" might refer to the 1993 Matthau/Lemmon film or the BBC2 television show, but didn't find this quote in their IMDb quote pages (which doesn't rule it out, though). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:40, 5 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 05:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Guide to layout

Seems to be some commentary. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds more like a blog excerpt than a quote article. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to have any connection to its title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:32, 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. — Jeffq 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Günün sözü

I'm not even sure what this is, or if it is notable. ~ UDScott 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no changes or further information provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be Turkish, perhaps "Quote of the day" (gün=day, söz=remark). The sole entry is apparently a Turkish version of an Archimedes quote, which even my best efforts couldn't adequately translate. However, it is cited in w:tr:Arşimet, Turkish Wikipedia's Archimedes article, which isn't a translation of the en:WP article and in fact may be a copyvio of . (It's tempting to think the quote may be "Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world", especially because of "dayanak" (foundation) and "dünyayı" (dünya=earth), and the fact that most quote dictionaries have only this quote and "Eureka!", narrowing the possibilities.) But enough of "Fun with Turkish". In any case, this is en:Wikiquote, so the articles should only have non-English titles when dealing with people's names and creative works that are not only notable, but also not better known in the English-speaking world by an Anglicized name. This doesn't appear to meet any such qualification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:31, 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: deleted. — Aphaia 03:16, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

Gus Arredondo

No notability, blatant advertising, no actual pithy sayings. MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

• Delete MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it survives the VfD, add it back to List of people by occupation page.
• Comment: Do a quick search on any of the major search engines and you will see how many times Gus Arredondo is mentioned. He is one of the fastest rising comics around and is held in high regard by his peers. Moshe thinks she can decide the content of this site for all of us. She has requested more page deletions than all of the other users combined. -- Cortypie 02:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Save this page !!! I agree with cortypie. Has Moshe been hiding with Osama Bin Laden? Gus Arredondo is going to be a big star. He has performed at some of the biggest comedy clubs in the country. No Notability? Moshe you need to get out of the house. -- Tonytimes 02:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have moved the enthused comments (for some reason, without an actual vote) to the proper format, so the discussion will be clear. The only site I have found is Gus's own site, which I assume everyone agree is not evidence enough of notability in and of itself. If the enthused commenters would care to vote, and to add quotes to the article as well as external links pointing to those same peers avowing their high regards for Gus, I am sure we will all be happy to keep the article. MosheZadka 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I did as the users above suggested and found only 5 relevant, non-self-promoting hits in Google, which makes him only 1/20th as famous as me, a nobody. This person may be up-and-coming, but so are millions of would-be comics, actors, and other entertainment industry folks who never actually become notable. HOWEVER, the bigger problems are the blatant advertisting (unacceptable on Wikiquote) and, above all, the complete lack of relevant quotes. A stand-up comic's quote article ought to have quotes from his routines. (After all, that's what makes him notable.) I might reconsider if this article gets rid of the fawning prose, adds relevant quotes, and trims the self-promotion down to a matter-of-fact external link. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 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. — Jeffq 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gwen from Tempe

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established. —LrdChaos 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No WP article, no Alexa rating for the cited website, 6 unique Google hits, all but one of which are from flickr.com (i.e., personal stuff). Clear vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - InvisibleSun 15:52, 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. — LrdChaos 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadier Khan , HAider and Haider Khan, Haider

This inevitably "well-known" person, born in 1990, does not match up with other, older names, mostly for Haider Khan, on a Google search. Two of his four quotes ("Truth is stranger than fiction" and "Never complain, never explain") have a rather familiar ring. The "God is a comedian" quote is by Mencken. - InvisibleSun 12:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 13:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE: This should also include this page as well: Haider Khan, Haider, created by the same user shortly after the other one. ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this to include the second page as well. - InvisibleSun 13:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Koweja 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as obvious vanity. —LrdChaos 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. -- Robert 16:28, 27 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 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Richardson

Not notable. Given the supposed birthdate in 1989, this person is probably not notable and a search did not turn up anyone (that was born in 1989 that is). ~ UDScott 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes from regular editors; 3 Keeps from editors who include at least 1 likely sockpuppet and whose only contributions thus far have been to create, edit, and support vanity articles against policy; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity. —LrdChaos 12:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Of course a search wouldn't find anything, it's obviously just some student, they aren't going to be notable in that way! Still, rather amusing quotes wouldn't you say? Most droll. Horatio Apple 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete this might not be by a world famous person, but the purpose of wikiquote is to share quotations - if the quotations are good, which these ones are, then why the hell would we want to delete them? Forrest Hump
• Keep per Forrest Gump Hump, and it's comic genius! Gary Kirk 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' I concur, many quotations on here fail to enthrall, amuse or even interest me, these ones are really good! Horatio Apple 20:11, 16 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 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Harlan Tufford

No evidence of notability, likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I couldn't find anything notable about him. UDScott 13:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity. No presence on Wikipedia. Surely "one of the worlds [sic] most influential video gamers" would have more than 2 Google hits. He also takes credit for the phrase "no pun intended", which was in common use before he was born (1989). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:20, 15 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 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatori

This page was created and then blanked by Animeluver (talk · contributions) in under a minute. I've reverted it to the non-blanked version, which doesn't include any quotes. Our speedy deletion policy doesn't permit the speedy deletion of pages where the author requests deletion by blanking, so I've brought it here. —LrdChaos 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (7 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Robert 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ 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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Health, Hospital, Patient

These articles were all created by 212.254.97.144, the person who added 20+ Gerhard Kocher quotes (see VFDA entry) to Favorites long ago and then farmed them out to other articles based on the topics assigned to them in Favorites. (81.62.64.163 and 83.76.75.245 [quite possibly the same person] claim, with some circumstantial evidence, that 212 is Kocher himself.) The sole contents of all three articles are Kocher quotes, so by voting to remove Kocher, we effectively decided to make all three empty articles. (I've left their contents intact for now for review.) "Health" and "Patient" had been tagged for merger with Medicine, but this should now be irrelevant. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and in my opinion, such articles should be speedy deleted if we follow the letter of policy (remove all quotes by GK, then no quotes -> speedy delete candidate). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• As for Hospital, speedy delete following Moshe's method. --Aphaia 07:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for Health because of its history. --Aphaia 07:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The history of "Health", after ignoring structure edits and two irrelevant links that were subsequently deleted, is just like "Hospital" and "Patient" — nothing but Gerhard Kocher quotes added or tweaked by 212.254.*. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:53, 29 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 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Helen Vrousia

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep from anon whose only contributions are to this article and VfD entry; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find anything on this person (even using a variety of spellings for the name) online. I also did a search on Columbine-related books on a couple of sites (B&N, Amazon) and couldn't find anyone close to this name. Does this person even exist? ~ UDScott 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott about evidence. Based on the writing and spelling, I wouldn't be surprised if the name itself is misspelled, making it impossible for anyone but the article creator to identify this person. If she is an author of a "500-paged book", surely this anonymous editor can provide the title and maybe even the ISBN? I'm not going to hold my breath, though. There are far too many quotes in this article that are more vanity than profundity. It might even be a hoax article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that you are way too cruel. The author is just 17, and people deserve chances. The name of the book -which has been added- is called "Good wombs have born bad sons" and it has been published in Greece alone, so it is natural not to know it. And why would someone spend so much time to write about a person that doesn't even exist? And you gotta admit that some of the quotes are pretty good. ~ David Raymond 22:38, 30 March, 2006 (UTC)
  • The above text was added by 213.170.204.59 rather than the currently non-existent username "David Raymond" as originally claimed. This may have just been a misunderstanding about user registration and usernames. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The purpose of Wikiquote is not to promote new authors with no significant audience yet. It is to collect quotations from established, notable people and creative works. The only hits I find for the phrase "Good wombs have born bad sons" are the expected quotes from and citations of William Shakespeare's The Tempest and from Columbine shooter Eric Harris's academic planner, presumably quoting Shakespeare. We have found no one named "Helen Vrousia" thus far, and the information that she is a 17-year-old Greek neither helps us verify any supposed work, nor suggests she is likely to be considered notable by WikiMedia project standards. This is not a personal issue; it's just not the quote material that Wikiquote collects. You might try establishing an article for Ms. Vrousia at Greek Wikiquote, as she may be more notable in Greece. As for why someone would write about a person who doesn't exist, it's the same reason people write viruses and deface websites — it amuses them. We get hoax articles like all the time at Wikiquote. The only way we can ensure that we have accurate quotes from real people is to source and verify them, which is why we've asked for such information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:53, 30 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 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindi proverbs

No translation for single proverb. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proverbs with translations are provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proverbs with translations are provided.--Aphaia 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka and Aphaia. Do we have any Hindi speakers out there who could help here? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 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: 1 delete, 1 redirect. — Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Originally 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: delete. — Jeffq 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hugo romano

Not notable. A search of Google turns up just over a hundred hits (but only 22 'not similar' ones), mostly photo uploads with some blog posts thrown in. —LrdChaos 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided and the sole quote is properly sourced as original with this person, which I strongly suspect cannot be done. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 17:20, 20 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 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrishikesh Gaitonde

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (7 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a Google search returns a handful of results, none of which are about the person the article is about. Koweja 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Robert 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- InvisibleSun 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:53, 4 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.

Deleted articles I-K

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Weed: One Girl's Story of the Holocaust

Strictly a vanity entry. The article was most likely written by the author of the self-published book just as her wikipedia article was. My vote would be Delete Beaner1 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a delicate situation, as the author is apparently a young woman who not only discusses her many serious psychological problems openly on the web, but has also resorted to emotional blackmail over (occasionally cruel) criticisms of its Wikipedia article in its nomination for deletion and on her deviantART website, possibly aided by a well-meaning but ill-advised attempt by an anonymous editor to bolster her spirits by defending her articles despite policy. Nevertheless, her work does not yet meet any Wikimedia notability guidelines, as she herself has recognized, as mentioned on her talk page. (In short, this book is self-published through Lulu Press ("Self-publishing for print-on-demand books", as its title page says), has an Amazon ranking below 2 million, and has no cited critical reviews or other notability factors.) Nevertheless, I wish her well with this and her other creative works, which may provide her a positive, cathartic outlet for her self-destructive feelings. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 14:31, 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 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I know but still

Another page for a single quote. I haven't the slightest clue what this quote is from, so I wouldn't know where to merge it to, even if I thought it was worth having around (which I don't). —LrdChaos 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; 1 Keep; no further info provided to clarify or source quote or subject). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 17:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 17:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This sounds like a double no-no: a single-quote page from an utter unnotable, either a child or a language student (or both; it's hard to make sense of this) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What matters the most is the quote and not the author. If you knew anything about software engineering is that this quote was the prediction of the future software engineering*. ~ Lewhich&nbsp9:00, 03 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless.... Though Lewhich makes a plausible point, the actual blurb for the quote makes no sense, I would vote to keep it if the blurb made sense. If someone still wants this quote, they can recreate it after its deletion. ~ TheGodEmperor 08 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 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid

No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 08:38, 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 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Incognito

This page has nonsense quotes, and the film description provided isn't even for a film of this title, but instead describes The Devil's Advocate. ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no salvage attempt made). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. Only way to salvage this article would be to replace the current material with quotes from one of the 12 Incognito productions listed in IMDb, or a literary work with this title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:41, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inka Vendari

No notability, no google search, links to a non-existant wikipedia article, single quote not very interesting.

• Vote closed: Deleted. 2 deletes, no dissent. --Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 08:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. 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 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's A Big Big World

If you look past the lack of formatting, the only quote is not memorable or noteworthy. Considering that the page is for a children's TV show, I think it's unlikely to move beyond that stage; even if someone wanted to add more to it, they could recreate the page (which might be better for it). —LrdChaos 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (three votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 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 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its Tough

Non-notable person (only one search result). I also have no idea how it relates to the title, so if the page is kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate title. —LrdChaos 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless some more information is provided related to context and the notability of the person. ~ UDScott 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless subject or person ("Fergus Dye of Tchelery") properly identified and evidence of notability provided. This seems very unlikely, as the only Google presence of "Fergus Dye" is from a Yahoo! Group (i.e., discussion board) called "my-bareabck-videos", and Tchelery appears to be in New South Wales, which syncs with the anon creator's Australian IP address. In other words, it adds up to a vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 06:41, 20 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 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Jacinto Caetano

Another article with 1 quote, no intro, and no apparent Google presence. This one was created by ILVI, who also created Ségur, as well as deleted vanity articles "Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa" and "James Norman Bowks Sr." (for himself and an apparent relative). This one looks to be a police officer of ILVI's acquaintance. However, ILVI is a long-time Wikiquotian; although he's an infrequent contributor, he has started many solid Wikiquote articles and contributed to others. I think he's just not clear on the notability requirement, so, as presumptuous as it feels for a "younger" Wikiquotian to advise an "older" one, I've left him a note. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 13 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa

Was voted on in conjunction with James Norman Bowks Sr. (second entry).

Both created by User:ILVI, the first page is himself, the second presumably a relative. Neither has any notability outside of Wikiquotes and its mirrors. Rmhermen 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The first is the editor himself according to his userpage on Wiktionary, so it should be on his own page (not on normal namespace), the latter can't be found elsewhere than this page, and almost meaningless, so should be deleted. --Aphaia 17:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion, but technical problems with the software currently prevent its deletion. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:54, 2 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 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Pownall

Not notable. ~ UDScott 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a transparent hoax, whose sole quote is stolen from Albert Einstein. It was created by 195.224.207.61, who also created Geoffrey Markham, making that article even more suspect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 15 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 due to copyvio. --Aphaia 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jacques D'Amboise

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Deleted due to copyvio. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikipedia. Our article actually has far more information than the WP stub! And this is another case of red WQ links from another WQ article (Dance, which is full of them!) that someone erroneously believes should be made into an encyclopedia article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, this appears to be a copyright violation of the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio delendum est. --Aphaia 09:37, 15 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

James beaumont

There is an actor at IMDb named James Beaumont, but I have not found any mention of any noted scientist or philosopher by such a name, and these quotations have the appearance of being merely personal anecdotes that might belong on someone's User page, not in a Wikiquote article. Perhaps if noteworthy quotations of the actor can be found it can be revised, but otherwise, I think it should simply be deleted. ~ Achilles 19:38, 13 Aug 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

James Chin

• Probable vanity page. Only contribution from anynmous user and provided link goes to similar but different quote. Rmhermen 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only place this shows up in Google (besides on a website with a copy of our page, including the VfD notice) is on the web board cited in the Wikiquote entry. The ability to post something witty on a web board does not make one notable. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Strongly suspecting a vanity page.--Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James Chin is an important part of many lives. He inspires people to reach out and be cool and funny. If it were not for James Chin, I would have commited suicide long ago. If you delete him, what's to say I won't contemplate it again? Or at least consider doing it over a Macintosh App-- aha, see! I could have died if not for his wisdom! -Steelix 13:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no edits except this vote. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I find this presumably lighthearted attempt at emotional blackmail in incredibly poor taste. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe this is another case of a Beloved Forum Personality. According to his user profile, he has 2,700+ posts to the referenced forum, with the majority in the Banter & Brawl section. Perhaps a Colorful Characters page, where a few sayings from the village jesters of the world could be preserved?--Eustace Tilley 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any notability to this person. MosheZadka 08:20, 21 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 06:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

James Coates

No intro, no wp article. Google search brought me to a PHP programmer's personal page. The single quote is unsourced, and is a variant of a fairly popular theme. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is evidence of notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:27, 8 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

James Mallard

No Wikipedia page, no relevant Google results. This is almost certainly a hoax page. —LrdChaos 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per request.Dashiell 02:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 18:28, 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: delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

James Norman Bowks Sr.

Was voted on in conjunction with Jacinto Javier Bowks de la Rosa (first entry).

Both created by User:ILVI, the first page is himself, the second presumably a relative. Neither has any notability outside of Wikiquotes and its mirrors. Rmhermen 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The first is the editor himself according to his userpage on Wiktionary, so it should be on his own page (not on normal namespace), the latter can't be found elsewhere than this page, and almost meaningless, so should be deleted. --Aphaia 17:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 2 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: Transwiki to English Wikipedia. --Aphaia 02:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

James Oppenheim

Encyclopedic stub, no quotes, no obvious notability (wikipedia link is to an empty article). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Transwiki to English Wikipedia.(2 transwiki, 1 delete [with sugesstion of transwiki possibility], substantially no dissent)--Aphaia 02:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)
  • And possibly move to wikipedia. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 3 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikipedia (w:James Oppenheim). He is surely notable (google hits : 282,000 results), however of course less than Emily Dickenson or T.S. Eliot...... Later we will be able to have his quotes like "Bread and Roses". --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WP. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• Comment: Eik, I deleted it. Should it have been kept as a link page? If anyone thinks so, I willingly support to undelete it. --Aphaia 09:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Now this vote was moved to the WQ:VFDA. --Aphaia 16:10, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

James Randall

Non notable, plagiarised quotes, almost certainly vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I restored it from SD ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This person does not appear to be notable and I question the validity of the quotes (even if they are valid, the person is not notable). UDScott 23:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Fits profile of standard inane vanity page. Common name makes Google essentially useless in doing article creator's work for him by identifying person for notability research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:29, 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. — MosheZadka 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

James Tarmy

None-notable student. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (controversial: 3 delete, 3 keep, but keeps were mostly by new users [2 of which have no edits outside James Tarmy and VfD], and no notability was established, the users refused to discuss notability policy in general and asserted importance. I urge all those who feel that this closure is wrong to raise the issue on the village pump. I will also wait before I execute the discussion -- I intend to contact all keep voters and ask them to copy any and all quotes they find useful to their page or a subpage thereof, so they will not have to start from scratch should notability be established, as an act of good faith) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at least as notable as Emile Cioran. In the ancient world philosophers did not publish but were preserved in writing by their disciples. Mgasner 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This user was created 5 minutes before posting this comment, and this was their only contribution. Might be a sockpuppet or a meat puppet of Mdmalinowski (talk · contributions) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Emile Cioran has several publications. No evidence was provided for any publications by Mr. Tarmy. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Mr. Tarmy is an aristocrat of the spirit and, like Socrates, does not publish. Mgasner 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tarmy is a student, and students are almost never notable. A Google check of 1 confirmed hit (a website devoted to the U of C Class of 2007) demonstrates that he's even less known than a university student of the same name who rows competitively. This is an obvious non-notability case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Tarmy is specifically described on the page as a nihilist philosopher. At this stage in his academic work, his nihilism tends towards that described in Nietzsche's later work. Nietzsche characterizes his brand of nihilism as a philosophy regarding the world and human existence as empty of meaning, purpose, and value. Tarmy does not formally publishing any of his works, though they are in informal circulation. Tarmy's philosophy revolves around filling a life left devoid of meaning with the one thing that remains to satisfy the human heart: material wealth. Tarmy approaches the postmodern concept of nihilism (a philosophy less defeatist than that of Nietzsche) from this direction. Material wealth is the only thing left for humans to "fill the void" (Tarmy, 06/25/04), the only thing that can provide any semblance of happiness or fulfillment in human existence in a world where such a individualistic capitalist slave-state exists. As Tarmy's philosophy moves from Nietzsche's concept of nihilism (with defeatism a distinct characteristic) towards a more postmodern nihilistic stance, his attitude towards formal publication may change, but it is impossible to say for sure. User:Mdmalinowski 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mdmalinowski is probably Matthew David Malinowski, who is, like James Tarmy, a University of Chicago student. Mgasner, assuming they're not a sockpuppet of Mdmalinowski, may be Max Gasner, apparently yet another U of Chicago student. We have a straightforward policy on students that follows Wikipedia guidelines as well. No amount of fellow classmate voting makes a student notable, and shouldn't override basic Wikiquote policy. Nor should any amount of flowery prose, arrogant enough to discuss a mere college student on the same level as world-famous, time-honored philosophers, replace the basic requirement for notability. Many college students think they're the next Socrates or Einstein; we only cite quotations from people who prove their notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm new here - are we supposed to try to defend our existence as autonomous human beings? Or is the accusation of "sockpuppet" sort of to be taken as one possibility which cannot, once raised, be discounted? Mgasner 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC) I mean, why not just ask us who we are? Why go on Google adventures? Who's on trial? Mgasner 03:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • These are good questions. Normally, one need not identify oneself, as we value privacy. However, when people refuse to abide by Wikiquote policies, it is not unusual for others to try to ferret out reasons why they seem determined to flout them. (This is different from arguing changes on appropriate policy talk pages, which then are available for the community to review and debate.) Wikiquote accepts personal quotes (and quotes from friends, family, and other non-notables that a user finds quotable) on user pages, but maintains a need for notability for main namespace articles. As for sockpuppets, they are sufficiently damaging to the community consensus process that we make some effort to identify possible ones through editing pattterns. MosheZadka listed why he suspected this as a possibility, and my further research suggested this may not be the situation. Neither case is proven. But regardless, policy requires notability, and students are considered unnotable unless significant evidence exists to show otherwise. (I won't even try to count the number of high school and college students who have assumed they deserved quote articles alongside Shakespeare et al. just because they are able to create the page.) The Tarmy article and its two supporters' arguments so far effectively make the case that we won't find such evidence. This does not make Tarmy uninteresting or unquotable, just not eligible for a Wikiquote article. Other quote sites have different inclusion and exclusion guidelines; we ask that editors respect ours. I suggest Mdmalinowski and Mgasner copy whatever Tarmy quotes they like to their own user pages. As far as asking who people are, I think we don't usually bother because in most cases, we don't expect straightforward answers from people who are deliberately trying to violate policy. But we may have been too hasty here. Users are welcome to say as much or as little about themselves as they want to on their user pages. As this point, Mdmalinowski has no user page, Mgasner has a brief statement without identifying information, and neither has confirmed or denied any of the above research. I hate to sound so repetitious, but even if these users were Steven Spielberg and J.D. Salinger and made passionate arguments above the worthiness of Tarmy, what matters is verifiable sources for notability, not personal acclamation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's worth pointing out that the criteria we have cited in favor of Tarmy's notability specifically exclude the possibility of there being verifiable sources of the kind you require. It is a point of philosophical significance that certain thinkers refuse to publish. I suppose however that "policy" must prevail (it certainly will once a decent period has elapsed, as you have fiat power and we do not) and look forward to everyone's return to the important work of amassing tidbits from Zorro and Gilligan's Island so that they "will exist forever as a summary of the collective insights of society, communal knowledge passed on from one generation to the next." Mgasner 05:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I am pretty much sick of this discussion, and won't return to it again. I will note, however, that as you have pointed out, "disciples" often collect wisdom of philosophers and publish it. If you and your friends decide to collect Tarmy's wisdom, such as it is, and publish it via a non-vanity press, I'm certain that everyone here will be more than happy to have a page with quotations from that book. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikiquote sysops have no "fiat" power; we must follow the policies that the community has developed, and we must use the same mechanisms any other editor is obliged to use if we wish to change rules. Neither MosheZadka nor I created Wikiquote, nor did we develop these notability requirements. (Check out the Wikipedia article on Wikiquote if you're interested; it specifically mentions "prominent" quotees, and James Tarmy is prominent only in the minds of a rabid few.) I have addressed why Wikiquote does not accept unpublished quotees; Mgasner refuses to accept this policy or attempt to change it by bringing it up in the Village pump or other appropriate venue. Mgasner is implicitly arguing that Tamry is more valuable than movies or TV shows. Whatever one might think of specific examples in any genre, there is no objective way to evaluate quoteworthiness; Mediawiki projects like Wikiquote have centered on sourceable published material collected by editors and reviewed by the community. By this guideline, Gilligan's Island has had enormously more cultural impact than Tamry, no doubt even at the University of Chicago. (That may very well change in years to come; if so, Tamry fans are welcome to create a new article with his works based on whatever sourceable references are used by Wikiquote at that future time.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. Some projects set vote eligibility for VfD or VfA - like "50 edits on Main namespace". I assume it is the time for us to consider if we also need such a rule, avoiding fraud with sock- and meatpuppets . --Aphaia 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Of course he's not published; he's only 20 years old! I must confess I only came across this entry while browsing Mr. Tarmy's Facebook page, but after a quick look through it I can tell that he should stay on Wikiquote. Why? Because all of his quotations are quite deep for a college student, and that is a good sign. Plus, they're at once funny and interesting to read. --sstigler 22:56, 6 November 2005 (PST)
  • Note: This user was created 10 minutes before writing this comment, and this was his only contribution. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:05, 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: delete. — Jeffq 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

James Wylie

Page with no quotes for a college student with no claims to notability provided. Wikipedia link is to a nonexistent page. InvisibleSun 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 14:03, 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. — Jaxl 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Jan Kaim

• Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). -- Robert 19:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the only reference I can find to someone of this name is a 15-year old high school student, which certainly does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion here. ~ UDScott 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. No Wikipedia article. If this is indeed the high schooler who worked on a Colchester Theater Company website and who was quoted in a Burlington Free Press article dated today about a school reopening (as seems likely given the physical location of the anonymous editor's IP address), it's slightly unusual in that this person was actually mentioned in a newspaper. By itself, however, this doesn't make a person notable. (Unnotable I can make the same claim to semi-fame from my college years.) If we decide to delete, we should also remove Kaim's quotes from Imagination, Time, and Writing, as well as speedy-delete the redirect Jan P. Kaim (which was originally a duplication of Jan Kaim). I must say, I'd like to have this editor working toward non-vanity ends, as he's admirably thorough. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can show notability. —LrdChaos 19:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Note: article was blanked by an anon, probably the creator himself. jni 08:20, 4 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jarrod Hill

Not notable. ~ UDScott 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). I've removed info from other articles and added 24.211.139.79's Alka-Seltzer quote to advertising slogans as described below as well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is presented. ~ UDScott 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. If we delete, we need to remove his name from List of people by name and should probably remove all the Anonymous quotes he added as likely vanity quotes (although "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" could be moved to List of advertising slogans, as it's from Alka-Seltzer). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 31 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 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason Beattie

• Not notable. ~ UDScott 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. Obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:31, 17 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 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jason Dunn

• A vanity page by some random kid. w:Jason Dunn has been speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Looking the deleted version, this page seems to be about the same person. jni 04:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack of the Teen Vanities. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Aphaia 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity. 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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Jean Seberg

Somewhere between encyclopedic and unverified conspiracy theory. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

• Vote closes: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a quote article; Wikipedia already has an encyclopedia article. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 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 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Detweiler

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep from anon creator, who subsequently forged additional votes and deleted others; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 20:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, possibly vanity. I had just been in the process of nominating this when I hit an edit conflict adding the VfD tag to that article. —LrdChaos 20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: Although the page appears to be inuseful, I saw it some time ago normal and unvandalised with the "BLEH" 69.196.121.87 01:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This user (69.196.121.87) had deleted both my and UDScott's delete votes from this nomination. —LrdChaos 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Weird stuff happening here: (A) Wikiquote's first double nomination (an encouraging sign); (B) one anon vandalizing (or perhaps just commenting on) another anon's likely vanity page. I also found 69's comment confusing; they were apparently trying to say that "BLEH" was the vandalization, not the original text. I've reverted 72.56.10.227's edits to provide the original quote text for proper review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete because nothing is wrong about an article that doesn't hurt anybody (Such as this one) 69.196.121.87 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The above vote is an illegal second one from 69.196.121.87 (talk · contributions). This user attempted to forge it with the username "dsantesteban", but I have reverted this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete because this article is an article of Quotes and is not being created with disrespect to anybody. What's so wrong about an article about somebody who is known by many people but not so many? 71.34.10.291 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The above vote was forged by 69.196.121.87 (talk · contributions). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:45, 18 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 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rupert

As I mentioned in the David Kretch VfD entry, this is another apparent unnotable from that article's creator. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no further info provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 11:47, 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)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Rodgers

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 19:08, 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. I've also created a {{vanity-warn|Article}} template to help regular VfD reviewers post a polite and informative message on these article creators' talk pages to encourage them to review our policies and either save the quotes on their user pages or provide notablity evidenc. I posted a version of this message on this editor's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:34, 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: delete. — Jeffq 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeyakumar Nadarajah

Unsourced, single-quote article from unidentified person with no WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeffq. ~ UDScott

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Jim Oblak

No quotes, no wp article, google hits show nothing special. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided of notability and quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now this vote is placed at the third of google result.--Aphaia 14:10, 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

1. Article at best is advertising or a Vanity page. See also Advertisments

2. Article does not meet this Wikiquote Notable standard: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. It does not have potential to meet this standard and become a proper Wikiquote page.

3. Most likely it was created in support of an article currently up for deletion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability of subject.Dashiell 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the main "article", Jim Shapiro has been speedy deleted.Jawesq 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (8 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per request and in conjuction with the speedy delete on wikipedia.Dashiell 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Neither the man nor his quotes are notable. In fact, the article in Wikipedia meets a speedy deletion A6 category, as someone else pointed out. I suspect this does, as well. Jawesq 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, also per discussion below. Jawesq 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears that speedy delete was passed on at Wikipedia. Even if it were not, I don't think Wikiquote's different policies would support a speedy delete here. I support the nom.65.97.18.237 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually WP:BIO does support speedy deletion.Jawesq 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article.) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per discussion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm the administrator who deleted the Jim Shapiro article from English Wikipedia. I agree that it all looks like a hatchet job. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Following WP's lead, I've blanked this article as a likely attack page, but following our own practices, I've added a convenient link for review. We could conceivably speedy-delete this, but I'm a bit troubled by the failure to look into an apparently legitimate source for information on this person, a New York Lawyer magazine article titled "Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended" (3 May 2004). However, given the lack of VfD/AfD participation from the original editor, the tide of opinion, and the restricted nature of the source, I suspect we'll end up deleting this article anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good call. It appears that "New York Lawyer" is an attorney's site of some sort ....if you were to look at my state's similar type of website, I daresay you would find attorneys in the Southeast who have been sanctioned, as well. Not sure that changes the nature of the attack, since even the last 'version' was poorly sourced. The fact is that you would not find reputable national sources discussing this individual, because he simply isn't that well known. Therefore, the only possible purpose in creating a Wiki article is to make him well known, and for being an unsavoury lawyer. Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip rag? I do take this personally, even though I do not know this individual. I am sick to death of finding articles like this on Wikipedia, that are poorly sourced lawyer-bashing. This, however, is the most clear cut abuse of Wikipedia that I have seen, that falls squarly in WP:BIO of what NOT to do. Jawesq 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The registration process for NYLawyer.com, which looks much like many print publications' website registrations, made me think this was a magazine. I stand corrected by its own words: "New York Lawyer is an online career guide for young lawyers. Backed by the resources and reputation of the 113-year-old New York Law Journal…". I decided to try to resolve this source question to see if there's any reason not to SD this article like WP, but found that its registration process seems to be using an invalid security certificate. My attempts to find a reference to "New York Lawyer" or "nylawyer.com" on the NYLJ website resulted in a number of matches whose excerpts did not include the search term, and whose full content would only be revealed by starting a $300 subscription to NYLJ. As a result, I've changed my mind (see above) — I think there's no reason not to SD this article like WP did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! There are too many TLAs (two and three letter acronyms)! I have to have Wiki TLA training.  ;-) I just wish the lawyer bashing in WIkipedia would stop. Someone said I was treating this as a personal 'crusade'. WEll, I am an attorney, and I really have a problem with gratuitous lawyer insults. And this is all that article was about.Jawesq 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, keep deleted. Non-notable person, nothing notable said by or about him. BD2412 T 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'm not sure that any of our formal policies and/or guidelines would permit speedy deletion of this page at present. —LrdChaos 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We have an as-yet-unwritten practice, established shortly after an infamous Wikipedia scandal and following their lead (as we often do), of speedy-deleting attack pages against unnotables. (Yet another reason we've got to update our policies.) I'm wavering on using it, though, because (A) blanking the page renders the attack moot, and (B) we now have a deletion review for the WP article. The latter seems exceedingly unlikely to change anything, but one can hardly be blamed for pausing while such a flurry of activity resolves itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining this, Jeff. I wondered what clarification you were referring to in your discussion. Iit does seem that there should be SD for attack pages on unnotables, and this should be better clarified in Wikipedia as well.Jawesq 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Articles, case 6 does cover this, and includes a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. Our draft policy includes a similar "Attack page" clause, but it is still awaiting final review, discussion, and approval. As far as my "clarification" goes, I'm not sure what you're referring to. (You don't make clear which discussion you're talking about — this one, the WP AfD, or the WP deletion review.) If you mean italicizing of my VfD entry as you cited it in the WP review (and incidental removal of the unmatched "blockquote" end tag), I did that to make it visually clearer that I did not post that edit, so that my subsequent vote didn't look like a second attempt to weigh in on the subject. (Yes, you did say before and after the text that it was copied by you, but visual formatting cues can be very useful to others when reading such a voluminous text as that review entry. Being a lawyer, I suspect you're more adept than most (myself included!) at careful reading of incredibly long texts. ☺ For many editors, such a detailed discussion tends to discourage participation by folks not already involved in the discussion. (I suspect this is a factor in the unusual absence thus far of most of the regular VfD participants in this one. But I must keep my reputation as Wikiquote's most verbose sysop. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had no problems with any of your edits. I didn't mean clarification of your edit. I meant a clarification of what was being proposed for the SD...I found it very interesting that you mentioned this. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I just need to leave all of this alone, since I seem to be stumbling.  :-( Jawesq 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest now leaving the quotes, since the original deleted article has now been recreated using "James" instead of "Jim" Shapiro, before the deletion review was even completed. An AFD or speedy delete is apparently meaningless, and not worth the time. The new "james" Shapiro article in WP is a broader attack on lawyers, and is not specifically an attack on Shapiro, who is used primarily as a bad example. I suggest that the authors of the Wikiquote and Wikipedia article on Shapiro get the names of their article/quotes (or whatever recreation of those) to link up properly. I will not participate further, since I am leaving WIkipedia altogether. WIkipedia (I can't speak for here) is probably the worst example of juvenile politics and tabloid 'journalism' I have ever seen. I am only surprised there have not been more lawsuits against this group. The environment is not one in which I have any desire to participate. Jawesq 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above discussion. ~ UDScott 18:31, 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: Deleted. --Aphaia 18:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Jhonson

• Maybe from a movie? Maybe random vanity? I couldn't tell. Rmhermen 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (4 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 18:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without evidence of notability. If the name is correctly spelled (which seems unlikely), I don't see this happening, based on my quick Google search. If it's supposed to be "Jimmy Johnson", I think it's reasonable to put some burden on the author to explain who this is supposed to be. The inanity of the quotes strongly suggests it's simple vanity. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Jeffq said and no input from the author yet. --Aphaia 14:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Jeffq and Aphaia said:) Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Vandal supported. jni 08:14, 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. — MosheZadka 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Williams

No intro, quote not found anywhere except wq and mirrors, there are lots of people named Jimmy Williams that google points to (at least two sportsmen). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless identified and evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 21 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 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Joakim noah

While there is a notable person with this name (an NBA player), but this page doesn't appear to relate to him. There's no intro to explain it, but the nature of the quotes appear to be unrelated to the NBA player. The same anon user (68.101.66.175) has also created two other pages which I've tagged for speedy deletion. —LrdChaos 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. While there is a person who is currently notable of this name (not quite yet in the NBA - he just won the NCAA national championship with Florida), but these quotes are most likely not his. ~ UDScott 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided to tie these (or any) quotes to a notable subject. (In the unlikely event that this happens, the article would need to be moved to Joakim Noah.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:51, 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 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe Regan

Non-notable "upcoming influential thinker for the 21st century" with no relevent Google results on the first page and no Wikipedia page. —LrdChaos 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, one vote to keep (by anon who created article and whose only edits have been related to it, including blanking this VFD discussion)). —LrdChaos 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 18:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even his "personal website" is just spam. ~ UDScott 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - Personal Site isn't spam. Author does rank on first page of Google for his name. I added it as an external link. (EzineArticles.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.169.157 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-20 20:21:48 (UTC)
• Delete - The first four Google results return four different people. None of these guys are notable. Koweja 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity article. My name in Google brings me up for every one of the first 20 hits. This does not make me notable; it just means I've had my name mentioned in more Google-collected webpages than others with the same name. Google is a tool to discover notability through Web references, not evidence of notability itself. It pops up here so often because the reverse is usually meaningful — no Google presence is near-conclusive evidence of an un-notable. When there are Google hits, they must be examined, and the only potentially notable "Joe Regan" I noticed was a 19th-century baseball player. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 01:14, 21 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 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe Roskowski

No wp article, no intro, google points to WQ as first hit, and to an engineering student. Likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. vanity. jni 16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete smelling vanity. --Aphaia 19:24, 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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

Johannes Kayßer

Only German quotes, no wp article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
• Delete neither on German projects (see w:de:Johannes Kayßer and Wikiquote page). Strongly assumed as vanity. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 23:32, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Dunford

More unexplained stuff from the author of Bert Macleod (VfD above). jni 13:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 20:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 17:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it could have been speedy-deleted by citing the above reason. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody should post a "WQ is not a personal website" notice to this IP address. (I was going to, but I'm struggling with a civility deficiency at the moment, and every WQ user (except spammers) deserves a polite first contact.) — Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 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: deleted. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

John Foley

No intro, no wp article, google points to a biologist, a journalist, a manager and a bishop, none of them are connected with these quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seconded. --Aphaia 14:14, 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. — MosheZadka 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

John M. Anglin

No intro, no wp article, google points to wq and mirrorsm, and lists someone of that name as a secretary in some company ("Farmer Brothers Co. Torrance"), apparently having gotten a scholarship too. None of this makes this person notable, I believe. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 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. — LrdChaos 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

John Mavridis

Non-notable. No Wikipedia page, and from the results on Google, he appears to be just another lawyer. —LrdChaos 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided. —LrdChaos 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:07, 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 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan davies

This appears to be a vanity page; there's no assertion of notability, and the quotes themselves don't appear to have any real value except a few people who might know the individual. —LrdChaos 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless person identified properly, evidence provided of notability, and major cleanup done, including sourcing the quotes. There is a WP article on Welsh rugby player Jonathan Davies, but this article doesn't make clear if this is who is meant. In fact, this article doesn't make anything clear. It looks like an attempt to mock someone, whether it be the rugby player or just some ordinary person who is being insulted. If someone identifies this very quickly as WP's Davies, we should clean it up ASAP, especially removing the POV statements and unsourced "interpretations". If not, we might blank it as an attempt to demean an unnotable individual. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 20:40, 24 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)
• Comment. The user at the same IP as the one that created the article recently added this: "Jonathan Davies is a student at Gleneagle Secondary school. Jon was born on September 6 1991." I believe this clears up the subject of the article. —LrdChaos 16:39, 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. — Jeffq 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Prendergast

Unsourced, single-quote article from unidentified person with no WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeffq. ~ UDScott 12:28, 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 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Jon Canter

No intro, google results do not point to someone obvious, and the quote seems taken from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided of originality. Jon Canter and Douglas Adams were both writers of the Cambridge Footlights Revue in 1974, in which Canter acted as well. It seems likely that Adams reused this line, perhaps only spoken by Canter in a role, in Hitchhiker's Guide four years later. However, without evidence that Canter actually wrote it, one must strongly suspect that it originated with Adams. Who is claiming Canter wrote it? I found nothing other than the usual-suspect websites making undocumented assertions, and a reference to an older version of the Wikiquote page. (I couldn't easily find which version, because its anon editors almost never use the edit summary like they're supposed to.) Anyone can claim originality; let's see the proof. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:05, 29 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.. — Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Jon Schaffer

No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. This article was obviously created from the people template, but the creator merely saved the blank page, then added a single line. (This is a downside of the template scheme, which is nonetheless a good system.) I've removed the misleading template material to show the real substance of the article (or lack thereof). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:21, 23 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. — Aphaia 08:00, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Blake

No notability, no pithy quotes. A somewhat humourous epitaph which could have been in epitaph list, possibly. MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Deleted. (4 deletes, no dissent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 June 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An anonymous user added this Halloween joke tombstone inscription to Epitaphs on 10 May, found it deleted, then readded it and created this article from its red-linked name on 5 June. Whether or not the epitaph is legitimate, the person article surely isn't. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No sign of notability - epitaph could go into epitaph list as "anonymous", if someone prefers. --Aphaia 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article about an average man; explains its own non-notability. jni 06:30, 9 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 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Jones Soda Co.

Seems to be commercial promotion,with no added value to wq. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this commercial, but it's a "anybody can create their own quotes" system. We already have a policy on that issue. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:04, 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. — LrdChaos 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jose sousa

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 121a0012 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was unable to find any evidence of notability. —LrdChaos 16:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete almost certain vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:33, 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 20:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Alexander Scruggs

Non-notable 20-year-old; Google turns up less than 200 hits between "Joshua Alexander Scruggs", "Joshua Scruggs" and "J.A. Scruggs," and none seem to be this person. —LrdChaos 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sole claim for source of quotes, something called "Destined By Circumstance", doesn't exist on Amazon.com. The author doesn't show up at all in the U.S. Library of Congress author index. Google search for title with name turns up exactly zero. Nearly everthing else in article besides intro and supposed "Sourced" section is leftover boilerplate. Conclusion: probable vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 04:55, 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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

JRM

Appears to be a vanity page. (Neat quote, though.) — Jeff Q 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thanks. And I can assure you I didn't do it :-) This sort of stuff is supposed to go at Meta:IRC channel quotes. JRM 20:13, 28 Feb 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: deleted.. — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Juergen Heine

No wp article, the CEO of a (probably) one-man company without any google-juice, only link I can find written by him is a request in german, from Martin's response probably for a half-baked idea to rewrite the debmirror software. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless compelling reason given for why this particular CEO should be considered notable (as opposed to the tens of millions of small business owners and shell-corporation officers around the world). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. jni 09:34, 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 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kai Parkinson

Non-notable vanity page. Google only turns up 14 hits on the name, and the username of the page's creator is "Kparkinson". I've posted {{vanity-warn}} on their talk page. —LrdChaos 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (6 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 17:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I got 6 unique Google hits, all of them in Greek, and only two (related) ones from a potentially reliable source. If this is an English translation of a Greek quote from the person or persons in those pages, they don't seem notable enough even for el:Wikiquote. Either way, we need evidence of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:28, 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. — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kaosu Rah

Search yields bulletin board postings without notability. - InvisibleSun 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed. Result: delete (eight votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Koweja 03:29, 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. A search turns up various profiles at forums and such, with nothing to suggest that this person, or the "Kaosu Buntai" group, is notable. —LrdChaos 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 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. — MosheZadka 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Karl herrick

Misspelled name, no wikipedia article, google links to a personal site, no intro, no source for quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:09, 31 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 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn Champlin

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with InvisibleSun. ~ UDScott 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete likely vanity page. Interestingly, there appears to be a semi-notable Kathryn Champlin who owns and operates a Rhode Island marina and has stirred up some local controversy, but the quotes in the WQ article appear to be from a student with a MySpace account, a red flag for unnotability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page for a non-notable person. —LrdChaos 14:30, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Keith Suter

No quote. Note: those sentences resemble strongly with this description. --Aphaia 21:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE unless they are coincident and a quote is added. --Aphaia 21:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless Aphaia's conditions met. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I left a note for Advanet, who created this and Darius Peczek, to ask for more information and/or article improvement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:01, 13 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 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Heins

Non-notable. In the nearly two months since the page was created, there haven't been any further edits to provide an intro; a search on the name doesn't turn up anyone particularly notable. —LrdChaos 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; person not identified). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 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: delete. — Jeffq 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Kevin McCarron

Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes from regular editors, incl. 1 implicit; 3 keeps discounted as 2 are from 1-shot anon editors, 1 from anon vandalizer; no other dissent; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:217.41.95.145 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2006, 12:48 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm undecided on the issue of notability; the page makes no claims, but a Google search turns up a British stand-up comic with the name, and certainly nothing on the page seems to contradict that as an assumption. However, none of the quotes presented are, in my opinion, memorable, noteworthy, or worth including in Wikiquote. —LrdChaos 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: After looking at the history for the page, it seems like it's been edited (though not created) by the same IP (217.41.95.145) which created several other pages for non-notable people, which are also up for deletion. Therefore, I think it extremely unlikely that this is the aforementioned comedian. —LrdChaos 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:81.156.58.145 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This IP address has no contribution history outside of this vote. —LrdChaos 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided and some meaningful, sourced quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Clearly a great guy and one of thebiggestlegendsandstarseverinthis...GAH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.206.77 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment: This IP address has no contribution history outside of this vote. —LrdChaos 17:43, 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: delete. — Jeffq 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Miller

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. Somehow, given the listed quotes, I don't think this is the same person as Kevin Miller. ~ UDScott 19:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability given. - InvisibleSun 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability shown and quotes reliably sourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeffq and UDScott. —LrdChaos 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 20:30, 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 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Kim

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 struck vote from no signature; no other dissent). ~ Jeffq 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I would like to say Kim Stolz I think or Slotz is a quoty girl.
  • Struck out unsigned, undated, anonymous vote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd ordinarily suggest the potential for keeping based on evidence of notability, but looking at the current article, I hold little hope for such. First, this person surely isn't famous enough to go by a single incredibly common name. Second, she was apparently eliminated in one of the zillions of hardly-notable shows which are nothing more than Warholesque attempts to manufacture celebrities out of ordinary people. Very few winners remain notable beyond their "15 minutes" of fame. Third, we don't have any information on when this supposed surnameless contestant was on the program, so it's rather problematic using a source like TV.com's article to verify this information. Fourth, even if all these obstacles are overcome, the quotes listed are not only misspelled, but they're extremely common statements. We might as well quote someone for saying "Hi". If she is notable, a quote like "I'm bisexual" is more useful as a reference for a Wikipedia bio. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I belatedly thought to check WP's article on America's Next Top Model to see if I could deduce who this person is. It seems likely this "Kim" is Kim Stolz from Cycle 5. The article says nothing about when this cycle aired, but TV.com says this Kim was eliminated on the 23 November 2005 show, "The Girl Who Retaliates" (ep #58 or 5.10). (This show is so unoriginal, it even borrows its title scheme, which resembles Friends' "The One With…" titles.) Even if I've solved the identity and sourceability problems, the rest remain. I'd suggest, as an alternative to deletion, that this article be turned into a companion quote article for ANTM itself, but I still favor deletion unless and until someone actually does the work to make this happen (especially finding useful quotes, instead of random things these pseudocelebrities say). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Jeff Kim talked and that quoted her in ANTM KIM should get credit like anyone else huh!
  • Reformatted unsigned, undated, anonymous edit above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 5 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 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Kishor

Wp article was deleted due to non-notability. I believe we should follow. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:35, 22 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 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Konstantin Mechler

Not notable. ~ UDScott 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite (or maybe because of) the glowing introduction, this article about a person who supposedly just celebrated their 19th (!) birthday is almost certainly a vanity article. No corresponding Wikipedia article exists, and Google returns not one hit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:41, 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 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kristy Swanson

This page isn't about a person; it's the words "I like cheese and" appended to a complete copy of the Wikipedia page for The Lord of the Rings, including the header/side/footer areas, not just the content. —LrdChaos 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no changes or clarification of article). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is just rubbish (and it would be nice to be able to just SD it). ~ UDScott 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless content replaced with sourced quotes from and/or about w:Kristy Swanson, a notable American actress. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:42, 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.

Deleted articles L-P

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lachlan

• Vote closed: Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : "Lachlan Newcombe" does not appear to be anyone notable enough for an article here. ~ Achilles † 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability or actual quotes are provided. UDScott 13:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you mean "notability and actual quotes" :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course I mean and -- my mistake :-) UDScott 15:25, 12 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. — Jeffq 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Laputian proverbs

Includes only 1 unreferenced quote in an unknown and unexplained language, without "translation". Possibly a reference to the Laputians of Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, but I couldn't find it in the relevant text (Part III, Chapters I-IV). — Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already said. --Aphaia 12:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I also tried to verify this, but couldn't find anything. jni 05:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't belong in en.wikiquote without a translation. 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. — UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Leeroy Jenkins

Not notable, and no quotes. ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissents)
• Delete unless evidence of notability and quotes are provided. ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:47, 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: delete. — Jeffq 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lehi (group)

• No quotes. This article is more suited to wikipedia. ~ UDScott 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no activity to address issues). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Where to begin with this? First, it's clearly not a Wikiquote article, so it should be deleted unless specific quotes are cited, which would still require a massive reduction of the text and probably a reduction of the introductory prose. Second, it appears to include an entire work, which is never acceptable on Wikiquote (or Wikipedia, for that matter). If it's covered by copyright (which the editor uses some questionable arguments to claim it isn't — see my talk page comments), it should be summarily deleted; if not, it belongs on Wikisource, not here. Third, it seems awfully POV, but that could just be the nature of the document it has incorporated. Fourth, I'm quite troubled by the intimate involvement of the editor with the subject. It is increasingly bad form among WikiMedia projects to write articles about subjects that one has direct involvement in, and commissioning a full translation of a document seems like significant involvement. At the very least, an editor shouldn't be posting their user ID in an article. If Zero0000 has a legitimate claim to offering the document for public domain, they should be providing a real-world name for proper sourcing. (Not that I'm suggesting this; I think the whole situation reeks of agenda and should be dealt with on a higher level.) Conclusion: The only way I currently see to salvage this article is to reduce it to a set of pithy quotes from the document (which is supposed to be what Wikiquote delivers), with appropriate sourcing. I'm not sure what to do about the Wikiquote editor commissioned-translation aspect of the source. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jeffq. —LrdChaos 19:46, 31 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 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Leonard Brandwein

No wp article, no intro. Only google hits are free-for-all quote sites of various types. Variants of this quote exist far and wide, so even if he said it, it is likely he paraphrased something else. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 22:47, 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. — Jeffq 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lery PointDuJour

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. No Wikipedia article, only 22 hits on Google (and most of those are different URLs to the same forum thread). —LrdChaos 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. If so, the article still needs some work, as most of the Wikiquote:Templates/People boilerplate was left in place and used incorrectly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:09, 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: delete. — Jeffq 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lexi Q

Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In the absence of a proper intro (or even one with a name), I'll assume the intended person is "Lexi Q", who doesn't appear to be at all notable (less than 100 Google hits on it, and the top results are from Myspace, which certainly doesn't do much to help the case for notability). —LrdChaos 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless person identified and evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 06:42, 20 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)

Libbie Fudim

No wp article, ambiguous intro, google hits are quote collections, no sources. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Aphaia 14:18, 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. — MosheZadka 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Lifespan

One quote, which is not particularly pithy nor accurate (some calculations I made show neither estimate to be particularly accurate, assuming one millilitre as a drop and a 1x10x10 meter size "child's pool"), made by someone without a wikipedia article and a few scattered blogger-like google profile (some blog copies and some references). The theme is not a particularly important theme either, most quotes would belong in Life, I'd assume. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: deleted (two deletes, no dissent). ~ MosheZadka 12:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC) (added fm history by User:Jeffq)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
• Delete. Quotee is likely LiveJournal user, a university mathematics student in Vilnius, Lithuania, and is almost certainly not unnotable, making the single quote in the article a vanity quote. Without it, this article isn't even a stub. Irrelevant aside: the quote is accurate, in that the ratio of universe age to human lifespan is far closer to a drop in a child's swimming pool than to one in the ocean. Using a Fermi estimate of 10 (not 1) for drops in a milliliter (cubic centimeter), and a 3-meter round, 30cm-deep child's swimming pool (~2 million cc) vs. the world's oceans (~10⁹ km³ = 10¹⁸ m³ = 10²⁴ cc) and a Fermi-estimate universe age of 10 billion years compared to human lifespan of 100 years, we get:
  • Age_universe/Lifespan_human = 10¹⁰/100 = 10⁸ = 100 million
  • Drops in swimming pool = 10 x Vol_pool(cc) = 10 x 2,000,000 = 2 x 10⁷ = 20 million
  • Drops in ocean = 10 x Vol_ocean(cc) = 10 x 10²⁴ = 10²⁵

  Therefore, the swimming pool ratio is within an order of magnitude, whereas the ocean ratio is 17 orders of magnitude greater, making the former a far, far closer comparison. BUT it still doesn't make the quotee notable. (Please pardon the digression into my old hobby of Fermi calculations. ☺) Jeff Q (talk) 29 June 2005 10:03 (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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

L'inconnu de ce Monde

Another page tagged as needing translation, with no activity since April. Additionally, just from the structure and repetition, this looks to be a whole work, not just select quotes from one. —LrdChaos 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 deletes; no dissent; no translation provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless a translation is provided. —LrdChaos 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Neither English nor French Wikipedia have an article for L'inconnu de ce Monde or its putative author, Jacques Montaur (or even his supposed real name, "Florimond Dierckx"). (The U.S. Library of Congress shows only 1 work by Montaur, Les essais d’innocence, which at least suggests the potential for notability.) The Wikisource link goes to a non-existent article. Even if evidence is given, I would still want to have a translation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:13, 21 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: deleted. — Jeffq 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics

Shabby creation by anon. Google gave me two results on searching Mr. "Amir Afsai", one is Law page and one seems to be his own website.--Aphaia 16:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; creator told how to list personal quotes and has transferred sole content of this article to their user page). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it is proved both he and his quote are notable. --Aphaia 16:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: having a comment from Amiracle, I keep my vote as above. --Aphaia 08:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes from notable people are added. If Amir Afsai is not shown to be notable, delete his quote(s). If article is empty because of the deletion of its sole quotee, delete it and wait for someone to create a new one with appropriate quotes from notables. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Remove quote from page and then speedy delete it (no content) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, I am the person who added this quote, as well as the others under the name Amir Afsai. First of all, forgive me if I'm not going about this through the proper channels. Now, is there a problem with adding an apothegm of my own to your database? After all, it is relevant and original. Thank you.
  • Added by User:Amiracle, moved by me to standard format. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I left Amiracle a note about putting personal quotes on user pages and where to find more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the sense of Moshe proposed.
  • Struck unsigned vote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 19 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.

Lions

See 4 Strings.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

List of speeches

No longer any use to the project, as it mostly says that there should be no speeches here. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we ever have a reason to list speeches (perhaps if people come up with useful excerpt articles that aren't folded into appropriate people articles), Category:Speeches should suffice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 21 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 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes

This list is copied straight from Wikipedia. Since we don't have pages for most of the episodes listed (and those that do exist are tagged for merge or deletion) most of the links are red, and the images used don't exist here. While there has been some talk about how to handle the case of The Simpsons over at WQ:VP, it seems that the likely outcome is going to be splitting the main page into pages by season, not individual episodes, so nearly all of those links are going to remain red, or just be created as redirects to the season page. If and when the split for the main article is done, this page is going to become mostly redundant to that. —LrdChaos 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ 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 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Long Dong Silver

No quotes. ~ UDScott 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). I will also delete the redirect to this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless legitimate quotes are added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes provided. jni 20:14, 25 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) 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lores of Halkyn

This article and its Wikipedia partner are about a work of fiction created by two school chums, CTwells (WP userpage) and Pavickers@btinternet.com. While I admire the creative efforts of such individuals, this work is currently so unnotable that even Google hasn't found its website yet (returning only the WP article and another search-engine's results). CTWells, in a response to another Wikipedian's complaint about falsely "protecting" the WP article (possibly just a misunderstanding), admits to Lores of Halkyn "not being a published work (more really a story that appears in a section of the local paper occasionally)". The WP article has been prod'd (i.e., nominated for speedy deletion after 5 days). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm afraid it's too early to be collecting quotes from this work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: w:Lores of Halkyn has since been speedy-deleted after an uncontested prod. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Jeandré

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Love Inc.

This page doesn't contain any quotes, just a single sentence saying that it's a TV show. No quotes are provided (which is not say some couldn't be; it is a real show, but articles here shouldn't be created without any quotes at all, in my opinion). —LrdChaos 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes added to this U.S TV show . IMDb doesn't even have any quotes yet, and with the UPN/WB move into the W.C. — er, I mean the CW Television Network, I wonder if this show will survive. But we may yet get some quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. ~ UDScott 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 04:52, 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. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mabvuto Munthali

Vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: Delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Moshe. ~ UDScott 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with the two fellows, doubting what kind of notability evidence can be added. --Aphaia 11:09, 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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia

No quotes. Created through a red-link in Freedom, which I changed to point to wp. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless quotes by notable sources added ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. If quotes are added, intro will need be rewritten to sound less like a travel brochure. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:30, 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 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Madelyn Kren

18 yo "writer". Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Moshe. No WP article; Google shows, besides the usual suspect quote DBs, only 3 distinct mentions that are likely referring to the same San Francisco Bay Area student. She sounds like she has a promising future, but she's isn't yet notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:42, 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 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Manoj Sati

No quotes, looks like a beginnings of a vanity biography entry. Delete. jni 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep [from repeat disrupter 0Waldo]; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only does this person not appear to be notable (no WP article, and the most significant Google hits are all personal blogs — always a bad sign), but the editor creating this article doesn't seem to get the idea of NPOV, like so many of our obvious vanity-article contributors. I'd have to see very compelling evidence of notability for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Am I allowed to vote here? If so I say that this should be deleted unless proof of notability is provided. --Teabeard 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with the above. ~ UDScott 15:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Munchovie say for CHRIST'S sake KEEP! This guy is notable as hell! Delete the JNI page or something useless like that!!! 0Waldo

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Manuel de Castro

If the author of this page is Manuel de Castro, you are welcome to register and create a user page here and post quotes in it that you believe are worthy of attention. Whether you are Manuel or someone else, more information about the author will be required for this page to remain in the main article space of Wikiquote. Articles in the main article space should be by people who are already significantly noted in some field. I personally feel the quotation you added was a notable statement of beliefs and disbeliefs, but if it is not by someone already famous, the page will probably eventually be deleted. If it is by someone still obscure you are still welcome to post it on any user page that you create. All manner of ideas are welcome for presentation in various places in their appropriate forms. The main space is for quotations of people and works already generally considered notable. I hope you will like it here and remain a contributor. ~ Kalki 19:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I found no reason to keep it. Or it could be a candidate of moving to WikiPeople, now being proposed. --Aphaia 23:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would vote to delete it. Nothing has been done with it since June 2004.--Sasquach 22:36, 5 Feb 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. — Jaxl 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Manus Flanagan

Search for name yields nothing notable. - InvisibleSun 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely vanity page. No WP article, only Google hits are for Urban Dictionary (anyone can edit), a discussion board, and a college graduate list. Since the article creator registered a user name, I've posted a {{vanity-warn}} to his talk page so we might move these quotes to his user page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 11:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeffq. —LrdChaos 14:25, 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: delete. — LrdChaos 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mar

This page has been without an intro since it's creation in February, but from all appearances, it's a vanity page for a student. —LrdChaos 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes for deletion, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 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. —LrdChaos 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Adams and Zezima

Both of these pages were created by the same user and are both just meant to be insults to their subjects. —19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result delete (5 deletes, 1 keep). —LrdChaos 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have blanked the content of these articles (leaving a link to the previous content) based on precedent for likely libelous articles. I have also blocked the anon editor for 3 days because its 7 edits in 24 hours, all of a vandalistic or libelous nature, cannot be construed as innocent test edits. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both pages. ~ UDScott 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Mark Adams is gay. So is Zezima. If they are deleted, I will be:

………………..,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………\
..............f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,.....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per what Wikiquote is not. SorryGuy 00:12, 28 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 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark R. Watson

Non-notable vanity page. —LrdChaos 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:28, 19 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. — LrdChaos 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Marshall medo

Based on his Wikipedia article (catch it while it lasts), a cross between a vanity page and a hoax, the subject has been at the "forefront of teenage culture for the last quarter-century"- i.e, since about five or six years before he was born. Notability, dare one say, has not been demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both the WQ and WP articles. Koweja 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: 62.135.93.17, creator of the page in question, removed this Vote for Deletion (it was restored by LrdChaos). - InvisibleSun 21:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in either this article's edit history or the anon user's contributions that indicate the VfD tag was removed and then replaced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The removal was not from the article but here on the Votes for Deletion page; he removed this nomination. - InvisibleSun 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. I've posted a warning to the anon editor about this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity article. If Marshall creates a logon (perhaps User:Marshallmedo, like he has done on Wikipedia to create his article there), I might suggest moving this article to his user page. I have also nominated his WP article for deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Posting to Yahoo! Answers and having a profile on MSN spaces (most of the first page of Google results for the name) no not make one notable. Searching on "Muhammad Ahmed Ahmed farag" (given in the article) yields no results. —LrdChaos 14:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:03, 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. — LrdChaos 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Martin K. Indik

Non-notable lawyer. —LrdChaos 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (three votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided and reliably sourced quotes added. This is more like a business card than a quote article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:54, 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. —LrdChaos 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Martins Dzelde and Dzelde

Both were posted by an anon. Supposedly a vanity. --Aphaia 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete. (six votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless either moved to the User namespace or notability proved. --Aphaia 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless clear evidence of notability can be presented. —LrdChaos 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. I support moving to a user page, but only if the anon registers, as IPs are not "owned" by editors or even their ISPs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:31, 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 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Matt Sealy

Search for name and quote yields nothing notable. - InvisibleSun 00:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (6 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. —LrdChaos 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Robert 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. It's unlikely a 22-year-old mathematician has already established notability; more likely it's a vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 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. — MosheZadka 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Mason Stahl

No obvious notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, 1 keep, no verifiable evidence and only non-subjective evidence provided is "featured in PBS documentary" which I'm not sure establishes enough notability) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep MosheZadka first let me thank you for your contibutions to wikiquote and your fastidious attention to the material that is presented here. I am voting to keep because I am aware of the significance of Mason Stahl. Mr. Stahl is a well known lawyer and rapper in the Boston area. His has been featured in a PBS documentary about his unique blend of law and hip-hop. Since he has been featured in a documentary produced by a reputable source I am voting to keep.Muzakman 16:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind words. Can you give links to any of the stuff you mention, for independent verification? If he's a "well known rapper", has he produced any CDs? A link to amazon, or indeed giving the ISBN (some CDs have them) or anything like that would be nice. Regarding that PBS documentary, can you give a link to the schedule of that documentary? Has he been featured in any Boston newspapers? Again, specific dates and articles (and links, if they're online) would do a world of good here. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Stahl has little or no presence on Wikipedia (even mentions in w:May 4 and w:List of hip hop musicians were apparently removed). All-Music Guide doesn't list him. On Google, besides cached versions of WP and the current WQ page, I didn't spot him on the first few pages, where I even found mention of a high school student of that name. This strongly suggests he's at most a local phenomenon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I too can find no information about this person other than what has been cited above. Unless proof of his notability is produced, I vote to delete this page.UDScott 19:09, 8 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 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt Smith

Not notable. ~ UDScott 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 implicit keep from anon; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I couldn't find anything on this person or the films he is supposed to have directed. ~ UDScott 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You beat me to nominating this one; a search at IMDb doesn't turn up any matches for the person or the films listed. —LrdChaos 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously, Matt Smith is famous, havent u guys seen his movies? Theyre awesome, you guys are missing out. I love his movie called "Breakup.beer.party." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.250.115 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
• Delete. There are 28 Matt or Matthew Smiths listed in IMDb. If someone can identify which one is supposedly the subject of this article, we might have a reason not to delete it. As for the films this "famous director" is supposed to have helmed:
  • Two Guys Talking: no IMDb record of this exact title; no prominent Google presence; Two Guys Talking About Girls was directed by Steven Pearl
  • Pillow Talk: neither the famous Doris Day/Rock Hudson film nor the apparently obscure 1991 short film lists Smith as participating, let alone directing
  • This Is Not a Pipe: there's a book by philosopher Michel Foucault, but no record in IMDb as a film; the article's phrase "steadily building popularity" is an alarm bell for "non-notable"
  • Breakup.beer.party: also no IMDb record; not one Google hit, with or without the punctuation, spelled either "breakup" or "break up"

  In short, as of this point, we have no reason to believe this is anything but a hoax or an incredibly obscure person. Unless someone can cite actual evidence from a reliable source that we can verify, this is certain to be deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 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 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt Whiteman

The page is two nearly-identical quotes by a non-notable Internet radio co-host. The quotes themselves don't really contribute anything to the site; I can't imagine anyone who would come here looking for quotes from this person and be rewarded by having read two quotes merely saying that two things "are fun." —LrdChaos 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (1 Delete, implicit delete). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've done a little cleanup and WP linking to aid review of this article. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this person, but it does have one for w:Orange Lounge Radio. If it weren't for the recently added "duck" quote, which at least seems potentially memorable, I'd say delete this article. That one quote makes me stop to consider moving the article to Orange Lounge Radio, if we think the program might eventually have additional interesting quotes. I'll hold off a specific vote until I see how things go. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No improvement to this article, no response to concerns. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:13, 16 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 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Matt Wisniewski

Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the poster would like to move it to his user page (as a registered user, of course). --Aphaia 10:22, 2 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 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Conrad

Not notable. ~ UDScott 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep from unsigned anon with edits only here and at Peter Kraft, another VfD entry). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 19:54, 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)
• Keep!!* This actually is a very influential and important person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.10.167.1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 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 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Wilcox

This does appear to be a quote from this person but he appears to be a 20-something minor computer software developer. Does he qualify as notable? Or is this an actual quote from another source? Rmhermen 03:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I couldn't find any notability deserving to Wikiquote, though he seems to be known as a Linux related developer. Just now, an anon claimed we should google for saving it, but from a moral of Reirom issues, I think we don't listen to such attempt to try to have us go outside source. If someone wants to save it, he should state his opinion clearly here and show the evidence of notability of article in question, in my opinion. --Aphaia 02:14, 2 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. — UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mavani Vinay

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Delete (3 deletes, no dissent)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• These people aren't in history and should not be in an online encyclopedia
  • Moved anon comment to std. format. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. No WP or Google presence; likely vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:50, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Max Hartshorn

• Vanity page? Non-notable. Rmhermen 16:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not on Wikipedia; no notable Google hits. Surely a vanity page. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost two weeks passed and now on WQ and its mirrors and only there. A vanity page, for sure. --Aphaia 19:23, 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. — Jeffq 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Meade skelton

Only biography (and link to the official site, now commented out). I wonder if I can speedy it, but I prefer now to list it here.

• Vote closed. Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No quote. --Aphaia 12:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rmhermen 14:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't think this should be speedy-deleted, as this person seems at least somewhat notable (he has several CDs listed in All-Music Guide), but without quotes, the article is pointless. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No quotes. I wonder who keeps creating this, with bad title and all. jni 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No quotes. 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: Deleted. — Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Mervin Gonin

The wikipedia link does not exist, all I see in google is the same extract quoted. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after moving quote to an appropriate article, like War. I suspect Colonel Gonin's only fame is this single quote, so he doesn't rate an article himself. Besides, this quote comes by way of UK graffiti artist ("art terrorist", by the article author's wording) Bansky, whose "Manifesto" page provides the quote. I couldn't find the quote with a quick search at the indirectly-referenced source, the Imperial War Museum site. I've copied and edited the relevant info to make this quote better formatted for inclusion in a thematic article. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: moved the quote to War ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:45, 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.

• Bring him back. If we have an opinion about somebody, why not allow others to form an opinion of their own?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 May 2006 (UTC)

Metal Gear Awesome

This pages looks to be just a transcript of a Flash movie parodying the Metal Gear series of video games, and is almost certainly a copyvio. —LrdChaos 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 implicit Keep from creator; basic notability issue unaddressed). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of both notability and non-violation of copyright provided. Interesting note: the second Google hit, right after the site providing this Flash movie, is from deviantART.com. Suddenly, I'm beginning to get paranoid. Are the deviantART folks making a community effort to post their works on Wikiquote? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Enzin's Reply: Look i have all the copyright perission needed to post this. Also it is off the flash but you know people might need to know. Also Egoraptor (Head of MGA) wants this information spread around. Its better to have more on wikiquote than less so there is more info to search. Good day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.254.179 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with transcriptions is that Wikiquote only features fair-use excerpts of material. If this article is a complete or even substantial part of the work, it should go to Wikisource instead. And they will only accept it if the material is either public domain or explicitly released under a GFDL or Creative Commons license, not just a personal attestation that an editor is allowed to distribute it. But we're getting ahead of ourselves; the first issue is whether this subject is notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeffq & LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jeff Q. SorryGuy 00:01, 28 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 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Methuselah Jones

Google result with his name was: 1) Wikiquote 2) another quote site, 3) archive of alt.geek, one of alt newsgroup category. Plausibly vanity. Aphaia 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is proved. --Aphaia 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:31, 17 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 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Micahel Stuart (statistician)

This page was created by an anon user (134.226.1.136) and blanked just a few minutes later (which I take to mean that the author is requesting deletion, but our current speedy deletion policy doesn't cover that as Wikipedia's does). The subject doesn't appear to be notable (52 Google hits for the name, of which none seem to be the mentioned person). —LrdChaos 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closesd. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 22:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 12:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. InvisibleSun 04:57, 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 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Askey

There were a bunch of quotes by MA on theme pages. I gathered them all into one page, which I am nominating for deletion. I found no wikipedia article, and google hits find someone named Michael Askey-Doran, possibly the same, who does not seem too notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If we delete the page, we should remove all quotes from theme pages. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka on both points. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Me too. --Aphaia 21:36, 13 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 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

• No quotes after four months. Delete. jni 07:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikiquote is not a biographical dictionary. --Eustace Tilley 10:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rmhermen 03:42, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael C. Rush

Cannot find any Michael C. Rush who is a poet. Non-notable. Rmhermen 23:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Votes closed. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissents). Will also remove quotes from Religion. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This guy could be a rationalist - but I don't know if he is a poet too. --Aphaia 00:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide cite references for quotes (e.g., published work) or other evidence of notability. (It's a shame, too — they're good quotes.) If we delete, we should remove his quotes from Religion as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:43, 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. — Jeffq 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Joseph Neils

This article has only a single unsourced quote, supposedly from an email. This person has no WP article (either under the full name or "Michael Neils"). Google presents this WQ article as its most prominent webpage. Also, someone decided to turn the latter half of the article into a current-news write-up of the man and his church. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no reliable source provided for quote, nothing but single ELCA press release even offered to suggest notability). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quote properly sourced. If so, then merge quote (not news) into Iraq and/or Politics#Iraq War. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jeff. —LrdChaos 15:07, 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 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman

The notability of this user is under severe question. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Laitman . -- Avi 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (six explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with arguments in wikipedia AFD discussion. ~ UDScott 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a promotional campaign for an apparently well-known fraudster, based of WP's AfD info. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - At best he's a famous fraud, at worst he's completely non-notable (or should that be reversed?). Either way, he doesn't belong on Wikiquote. Koweja 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 16:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per the AfD discussion on Wikipedia. —LrdChaos 13:59, 4 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 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael morrison

Not notable. ~ UDScott 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no identification provided or any other improvements made). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the specific Michael Morrison is identified, evidence of his notability is provided, and the quotes are sourced. There is an Wikipedia article on Michael Morrison, an accomplished computer book author. But this Wikiquote article currently fails to include any information that indicates whether this is the person intended. (Its Wikipedia link points to a non-existent article.) The quotes listed aren't especially profound or unique, but it's conceivable that they are accurate. However, because this name is so common, and because this article has a whiff of vanity-page about it, I'm going to insist on a verifiable source for the quotes (which should help resolve the other two issues as well). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:18, 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.

Midnight

See Sharmell.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Might Makes Right

A page for a phrase. This could have been (and indeed, with some effort, could be turned into) a page about the philosophy that "might makes right", but as it stands, it's just a short list of a couple of places where the phrase, or one very much like it, was used. —LrdChaos 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless, as LrdChaos suggest, some effort is undertaken to turn this into a page of quotes related to the philosophy captured in its title. ~ UDScott 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't want to encourage any "theme" so specific, lest we be inundated by essays on such topics. (Single-quote essay incidents have been growing in the past few months.) A more general topic like Power might be a more appropriate home for related quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Jeff. 121a0012 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Robert 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and copy quote to Power - Koweja 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:11, 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: deleted. — Jeffq 20:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Gannon

A teacher at a college -- no evidence of notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 24 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 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike mccaughan

Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 2 Keeps from anons whose sole contributions are creation of article and vote to keep; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 11:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 68.60.202.74 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Mike McCaughan will be a household name someday. 69.248.50.23 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim to notability, no sources for any quotes. —LrdChaos 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos. Even the anonymous supporter above makes the argument for non-notability ("household name someday"). This is an obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 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 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Minotaur

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:26 (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) 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Encyclopedic, exists in WP. jni 05:44, 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: transwiki to Wikipedia, then delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Miramax Family Films

The page really belongs on Wikipedia, not here, as it doesn't provide any quotes or really have any potential for quotes (nothing in the article seems particularly worthy of being included at Wikipedia, so I don't think anything needs to be transwiki'd. —LrdChaos 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: transwiki to Wikipedia, followed by deletion (2 Transwikis; 1 Delete). I'll do this myself shortly, unless someone beats me to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki completed; article deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikipedia with a {{merge}} tag to w:Miramax Films. There are no quotes, and we aren't likely ever to see useful quotes from a company that don't come from its products, each of which should have its own article. It's not really much of a WP article, either, being primarily a partial list of films, rather than a real description of the company. But it might be useful to merge it into the parent company's article. Anyway, WP can decide that for itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 13:49, 2 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 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misquotes for comic effect

This was an old instructional (not quote) page that was moved to Wikiquote:Misquotes for comic effect last May. Its talk page didn't get moved, so I just did that myself. It is very unlikely someone would ever think to type this in the Search to find this information. In fact, the WQ: version is an orphan as well. We should delete this redirect (and the redirect of its talk page) and de-orphan WQ:Mfce by categorizing it and possibly linking to it from one or more Help pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent). I've added WQ:Mfce to Category:Wikiquote guidelines. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and categorize WQ: article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 11:32, 9 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mnemonics

Former speedy deletion candidate. Copy and paste from its note:

As user 1-is-blue points out, This page should be removed as it merely duplicates the dynamically generated category list for mnemonics.

"Mnemonics" is one of the Main page "browse" hyperlinks. It currently links to Category:Mnemonics, not this page. (Eustace Tilley, signature added from history) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 09:48, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Results: Delete (1 Delete, 1 Delete/Rename; no dissent; additional support from 1-is-blue's irregular request for deletion and Eustace Tilley's implied vote by speedy-deletion tagging). I will change its links to Category:Mnemonics. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rename I think this proposal is worthy to consider. The list on this page contains now only four articles, and some other Wikiquotes seem to go well with categories and no list. If we keep it, I propose to rename it List of mnemonics following our naming conventions. --Aphaia 09:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The main page does link to this page in the categories section but not in the browser bar. There are several pages on list of categories that don't follow the "List of" format like last words and Epitaphs. Rmhermen 13:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This list provides no current advantages over Category:Mnemonics, which has the same content, but the former must be manually maintained. The current link in "MainPage-> SelectedPages-> Categories" should be changed to the Wikimedia category as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:18, 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: Consensus to remove from Wikiquote, but not how. — Jeffq 17:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mojahedin-e Khalgh

Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Consensus to remove from Wikiquote, but not how (1 Delete; 1 Transwiki; no dissent). Moved to "Pending" section in WQ:VFDA, where it can be transwikied and then speedy-deleted by policy, accomplishing both goals. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikipedia, which has no article by this title. Appears to have been created from a red link in Ruhollah Khomeini. I've redirected all non-quote links from that article to WP. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• UPDATE: Deleted 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC) by me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:44, 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: Delete. — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky

• One-line content resembles more someones opinion than quote. Delete. jni 07:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikiquote is not a biographical dictionary. --Eustace Tilley 10:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 03:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rmhermen 03:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --RPickman 02:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Possible quote, but not from Monica.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

Motivational

I think this is a bad idea akin to the recently deleted "Favorites" Rmhermen 16:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Agreed with Rmhermen. --Aphaia 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Motivational" is subjective. --RPickman 23:18, 11 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. --Aphaia 11:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mousetrap

Assumingly test or mischief, so candidate of speedy deletion, but I would like to listen to others. --Aphaia 06:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closes 06:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks more like a graffiti than quote to me. jni 09:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. vandalism Rmhermen 23:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for patent nonsense and vandalism (cases #1 and #3), so it doesn't even need a VfD entry. Your caution is commendable, but I believe we can retire this vote immediately. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: thank you for your vote. I'll later propose a procedure for such a case on Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy . --Aphaia 11:44, 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: deleted. ~ Kalki 00:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Burns

The page Mr Burns has been posted here because it's contents have been added to the Simpsons page, and several users have declared they believe it is not generally appropriate to make seperate pages for fictional characters. ~ Kalki 22:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

This has been deleted. ~ Kalki 00:44, 2 Jul 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 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ryan, Mr. Beauvoir, and Mr. Murphy

Not notable.

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes-all; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all three. They appear to be either vanity pages or lists of a few teacher's quotes. In any case, they don't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion here. ~ UDScott 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, concur with UDScott. —LrdChaos 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all of them. - InvisibleSun 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. 121a0012 20:29, 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 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mudslinging

Inherently POV title (one's man mudslinging is another's open criticism). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move single quote to Thomas Jefferson ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
• Delete after quote move, as MZ said. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Be it deleted or not, the quote belongs on Thomas Jefferson too, so I've already added it to that page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:01, 21 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 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Music groups

This was nominated for VfD but not listed here. All existing articles in this list are now tagged with Category:Bands or Category:Musicians as appropriate. It could still be used as a "requested" list for musician quote articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep/Rename). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have a tradition of red link lists on this project but only lists of actual articles. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of music groups or List of bands. Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. jni 10:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is only true when a list provides information or formatting that a category cannot. Other than providing a "requested bands" list, are there some additional benefits to this list? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.　We are enough with categories. --Aphaia 00:04, 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat Mongioi

No quotes. This page was blanked by its creator shortly after its creation, and recently was tagged by another anon for speedy deletion, for which it does not qualify. —LrdChaos 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this bio stub, likely a permanently quoteless article about someone without even a WP article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 01:38, 24 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 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nathalie Loisau

Not notable. From the results of a Google search, this person seems to be a spokesperson for the French Embassy in Washington, DC, but doesn't seem to be anyone of particular importance there. Certainly, the position is not like the White House Press Secretary, and in general, spokesperson positions are not that notable. —LrdChaos 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although it is a funny quote, she is certainly not notable enough for inclusion here. ~ UDScott 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete provided that quote is moved to an appropriate theme page. 121a0012 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (without copying quote to theme article) unless evidence of notability provided. Alternatively, I'd accept moving the quote to a theme if we could get a reliable source for it, even if Loisau's notability isn't clear. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- 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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Naz Baker

Not notable. UDScott 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, a handful of ineligible anons wanting to keep) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable UDScott 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, involves quotes relevant to a remarkable individual, however collection of quotes is still being updated. 70.242.130.248 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quotes pertaining to wonderful person- still being created. 68.188.83.61 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all information is factual and quotes that are relevant to an excellent specimen of the human race70.130.145.211
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: struck out all anon votes as per policy, added {{vfd}} tag to article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has nothing whatsoever to do with the admirable traits of a person. Adolf Hitler is unquestionably notable enough for an article. Unfortunately, the vast majority of high school teachers are not, however witty and respected they may be. For these local fans of this "Naztastic" teacher (which I deduce from the St. Louis IP addresses), might I suggest creating your own school wiki? It would be a fascinating project, and might give you a feel for the challenges of establishing and maintaining inclusion and exclusion guidelines. You can download your own copy of the free MediaWiki software at the MediaWiki site ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 28 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 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neil

Not notable, and an obvious nonsense vanity page. ~ UDScott 16:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 unsigned anon complaint). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ UDScott 16:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• you do not get to chose who is important and what is well known, it seems as if yout to like to own this deletion page practically putting you in charge, i very much disagree seeing as brian evans is a very important philospher but when he becomes more famous you shall see! —This unsigned comment is by 69.152.227.209 (talk • contribs) . jni 07:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just junk. jni 07:12, 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. ~ Kalki

Netcraft

I believe this page (Netcraft) should be deleted. Though articles in magazines, newspapers, and websites can and should be cited as evidence of a quotation, and some journalists who work for them provided article pages, I do not believe sites or magazines should be given their own article pages. In many cases the content could become overwhelming complex and extensive.

Additionally, the comment "BSD is DYING" appears to be wishful thinking on the part of someone NOT at Netcraft:

At http://news.netcraft.com/ : Searched for "BSD is dying" No pages were found containing "BSD is dying".

some articles that did mention forms of BSD: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/07/05/most_reliable_hosting_providers_during_june.html

~ Achilles 03:19, 17 Jul 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours

No quotes. —LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 2 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC)
  • Vote extended 1 week, to 9 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC), to give time for recent request. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 deletes; 1 keep; 2 undecided, both leaning toward delete; no sources provided to confirm validity of quotes). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless valid quotes are added. —LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Quotes have been added, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as to their validity, but I am concerned about the notability issue that Jeffq raised. The Wikipedia page had been nominated for deletion in May, but the vote was closed early as a "bad-faith nomination"; the issue of notability was not addressed. There are a fair number of Google hits (118,000), which puts it at about 1/4 of that for The Order of the Stick and about 1/2 of Little Gamers (two other webcomics with pages here, though they aren't Flash-based), but there's no definitive line as to how many results 'are enough.' The status of the Wikipedia page, as well as the quotes that exist on the page here, don't exactly instill confidence that it is notable; in particular, the edit history for the WP page seems to indicate that there are a number of various anons and the same few registered members who primarily edit the page. While this is not particularly unusual (people often assume some level of "ownership" of articles, no matter what the policy is), the page still looks and reads like more of a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. All in all, through the convoluted processes of my mind, my feeling is that this isn't really notable enough to merit inclusion here or on Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure. —LrdChaos 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with LrdChaos amd UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided for now. The quotes Skotavus has added strike me as rather inane (except for the somewhat amusing "Jesus was cool" quote), which isn't by itself a compelling reason to axe an article. But since I've never heard of this work before, since it falls into a grey area of notability, and since it hasn't yet been reviewed on Wikipedia (see my comment under Koweja's vote), I'm not willing to support it yet, either. (I'm not up to a WP AfD at the moment.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Even if acceptable quotes are found, is NY considered notable enough to be here? - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good question. We have rejected some online webcomics (essentially what this is) before on the basis of insufficient notability. w:Neurotically Yours has a modest (but non-trivial) multiuser edit history, but seems to be weak on sources at the moment. It might be a good idea to nominate it for deletion to force a review of its notability there, especially as it would be decided within 5 days of nomination, possibly giving us time to benefit from the results. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete! At least let me have some time to put quotes up, people! ;Skotavus
  • Considerable experience at Wikiquote has shown that quote articles created without quotes often (usually?) remain that way for long periods of time, apparently abandoned by their creators. (There may be several reasons for this, but the end result is the same.) Frequently, this problem is resolved by calling attention to it here with a nomination for deletion, which also serves as a "use it or lose it" announcement. It's a bit brusque, but it can get results more readily than simple waiting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: With 1 day left to go on this nomination, we have a problem. Quotes have been added to the article, but no source is provided, and my quick scan of the Neurotically Yours website shows no obvious way to get these quotes except for wading through all the original material. Therefore, it's hard to say whether these are valid quotes, making LrdChaos and UDScott's position unclear. That leaves what could be considered a lack of consensus, even though only 1 user is definitively supporting the article at the moment. I would ask two things: that Skotavus add to the article specific source information for the quotes (e.g., named "episodes", flash clips, etc., complete with specific URLs for each to allow readers to verify them); and (B) that LrdChaos and UDScott consider whether they believe the quotes are "valid", with or without further evidence. (UDScott is otherwise occupied at the moment, so this may be problematic.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have a life. —Skotavus 2:08, 6 August 2006 (AEST) If you absolutely feel the need to remove my page, regardless of the fact that it appears I am the only one that edits it and don't spend all my time on the Web looking for things that are wrong on a site that spends plenty of server space on other such inane articles as big-bust actresses, then by all means go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • On the assumption that the mis-signature above was an honest mistake (and not a vandal trying to put words in Skotavus's mouth, as occasionally happens) . . . Skotavus, I'm sorry you seem be taking this personally. It isn't. Wikis are an aggregation of material added, deleted, and edited, by a huge population. Each person decides how much and what kind of the many kinds of work they can and will do. Within that population, there are some who choose to spend their time examining existing material for its adherence to the policies of the project. When someone nominates an article for potentially reaching beyond those policies, these folks will do the work they've volunteered for. There will always be articles that don't meet the guidelines, and it may take a while for folks to get around to addressing any particular subject, big bust or no. ☺ We can only address them as a community when they are brought to our attention. In the case of Neurotically Yours, as I've said above, this is not an obvious decision (else I'd have closed it on the 2nd), and further work toward sourcing and/or adding material may — or may not — change the minds of participants. (It's very common for people to change their votes when suggestions are followed, but it's very uncommon for editors to follow them, which is one reason why many nominated articles are deleted.) Regardless of what happens here, I hope that you will consider the larger picture of the project and not get too attached to any one article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 6 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: delete. — MosheZadka 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New Providence High School

Seems to be quotes from an unnotable HS. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delele. I would say rather, "quotes from unnotable folks at a high school". There is a New Providence High School article on WP (apparently created by the same network IPs that contributed our article, likely from the school's own network), but that doesn't make its students and teachers notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 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.

NFL Quotations

See 4 Strings.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Aranda

Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find much on anyone notable in a Google search on this name. ~ UDScott 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:45, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 03:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo

• VOTE CLOSED. Results: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 03:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nicely structured page, devoid of quotes. Wikiquote's Category:Electronic games has developed around quotes from specific games, so this is like having a page for "Library" instead of for individual books. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Rmhermen 15:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nicely structured page. - 68.72.123.164 06:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed, but its scope is too wide and doesn't follow our policy. --Aphaia 09:26, 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: delete. — Jeffq 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obeng de Lawrence

Self created entry linked from a [commercial web page] to lend credibility. See wikipedia AfD entries [] [] -- Jamorama 13:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nominator, as above - Jamorama 13:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above and the WP AfD entries also provide a pretty good case for the deltion of this article. ~ UDScott 14:47, 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. This guy shamelessly advertises his own Wikipedia article on the associated "college" website! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with nomination. jni 08:23, 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. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Discrete

This is page is (at the time) an exact duplicate of User:Obvious Discrete, and the quotes appear to be attributable to the user only (with no claim to notability). —LrdChaos 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (5 Deletes; 2 Keeps, one from vote-forger User:Obvious Discrete, one from probable sockpuppet of same; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —LrdChaos 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, "no claim to notability." ?! What is a claim but an opinion. We all know opinions are like... and everybody has them! You yourself "claim" to be a "Lord" of "Chaos", but do you rule under a feudal society of peasants and slaves and create chaos amongst them? No, but do I question your "notability" to question my "notability". <-- That's a rhetorical question... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious Discrete (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, why does one need to be notable in order for their quotes to belong here? and to that notion, who are we to chose who is notable and who is not? i thorougly enjoyed reading Obvious Discrete's quotes rather than your "notable" opinions - Commander Andersen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.110.144 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on style, timing, and sole contribution as VfD, this is likely a sockpuppet of Obvious Discrete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:01, 25 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 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted vanity page, based on above unsigned vote from the putative subject. I have already removed its entry in List of people by name and a vanity quote from Beauty. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I change my vote. It's funny how those who choose to label others as notable are anything but notable themselves. The irony is amusing. I vote to keep this page because not only did the quotes ammuse me, but to disagree with you peons is pleasure enough. There is as much mention in the votes to keep this page of "self-admitted vanity" as you so proclaim as there is testosterone in your body Mr. Tuttle. Jeff Q (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious Discrete (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The above "vote" is from Obvious Discrete (talk · contributions), not Jeff. —LrdChaos 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Wikiquote:Blocking policy, I have blocked User:Obvious Discrete indefinitely for impersonating another user. I have also struck the entire content of their forged vote under my name. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The vote was vandalized (Jeff's text changed and the struck-through portion restored) by 159.53.78.143 (talk · contributions). —LrdChaos 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We don't accept personal quotes. It is our policy. --Aphaia 10:54, 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. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Olav Mjelde

Contains nothing but a question ("Who the heck is olav mjelde?"). Looks like anonymous page creator did so to call attention to a quote in Computers by Mjelde, which itself looks like a vanity quote from an unfamous person (possibly the Olav Mjelde who pops up on various movie- and computer-related websites). — Jeff Q 05:45, 10 Feb 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: Deleted. ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Putzier

• Only Google hits for this person are mirrors of this site. Rmhermen 19:53, 9 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. — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Ong Lee Shyh

No wp article, no intro, google hits are numerous and all point to the same quote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent, not adding to Computer)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
• Delete - His or her name can't be found even in the USENET archive (on google). But this quote sounds a bit witty, so merge to Computer as anonymous quote.--Aphaia 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. And I wish people would stop suggesting that unnotable but interesting quotes, even when attributed to specific people, should get tossed into Anonymous as if it's a garbage can for wit (which is exactly what Computer is right now). Serious quote compendiums require that quotes by "Anonymous" be well-known, not just witty, and they don't accept sourced quotes unless the person is proven notable. Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though your opinion is different from me, but it is still suggestive. I found two possibly helpful ideas on your opinion: how do you think we being to draft two guidelines: Wikiquote:Guideline for anonymous quotes and Wikiquote:Guideline on notability? --Aphaia 00:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think these are good ideas, but I don't see how we'll be able to get them going properly when we're still having trouble:
      • working on: Help:Transwiki, Blocking policy, Category schemes, Deletion policy
      • updating: FAQ, Guide to layout, Policies and guidelines, Speedy deletions, Templates
      • lagging on: Manual of style, Reference desk, Requested entries, Shortcuts, Spellings, Utilities, What Wikiquote is not
      • just getting started on: QotD/Quote proposals, Vote, Voting
      • trying to manage: Vandalism in progress, Village pump, Votes for deletion

      and dealing with other pages that I'm not even tracking. And that doesn't even include all the red links to other policy pages that we don't have yet, or the informally-borrowed Wikipedia practices that are rather complicated and not-quite-relevant to Wikiquote. Nor does it include all the time we spend arguing with one-issue editors with plenty of time to burn. We've got enough work for 20-30 very active editors, and we don't have half that number working these issues. I feel that these policy drafts we create wind up being one person's ideas tweaked by thoughts from 1-5 other people, which makes me extremely uncomfortable contemplating new drafts. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Other people's money

Notability in this case is not even claimed, since no name has been provided for the quote. - InvisibleSun 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; 1 discounted delete (late); no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. —LrdChaos 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete extremely specific theme article with only a single, unsourced quote from an unidentified quotee. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it is possible that the quote is from either the movie Other People's Money or the book Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It. In any case the article title is incorrect, the page isn't formated correctly, etc. May as well delete, unless the actual topic of the page can be clarified. Koweja 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ~ UDScott 18:24, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

OwlWhacker

Non-notable online post reposted here. Rmhermen 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting quote, but non-notable bulletin board source. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:43, 19 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 20:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Özhan Öztürk

Copyvio (admitted) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:36, 24 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. — MosheZadka 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ozymandias

exists on wikisource. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MosheZadka (talk • contribs) 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 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: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Painkiller Supreme

Vanity. Certainly not a quote page. Just someone perhaps trying to seem profound by being by being puzzling by posting obscure and obscurantist statements here. ~ Achilles 07:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MosheZadka 07:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We should also remove these quotes from QOTD proposals if we delete it.
• Delete ~ Achilles 09:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have no problems with removing these quotes from a likely un-notable person immediately (and have done so). The editor couldn't even be troubled to put them on the quote page they should be on. (I'll volunteer to restore them if we don't delete this article.) — Jeff Q (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, no quotes. jni 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, 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. — MosheZadka 07:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Pam Cannon

11th grade teacher, no claim to notability. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with MosheZadka. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 7 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. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pan-atheism

This quoteless encylopedia stub was marked as a transwiki to Wikipedia, but I found that WP had already voted to delete this exact text, and has apparently had recurring attempts(1),(2) to restore it. In short, it ain't gonna be accepted as a transwiki. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• VOTE CLOSED: Result delete (4 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks for the info, Jeffq... Seems like someone failed to create it on wp, so he tried wq instead... iddo999 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Thank you for your research, Jeffq. --Aphaia 08:16, 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. — LrdChaos 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pangea

Appears to be an infantile prank; bogus info, and bogus quotes from a non-existent work; no sign of it or its "directors" or "writers" through Google searches. ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes, no dissent). —LrdChaos 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Harry Tuttle. ~ UDScott 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Pangea is just an inocent article and should not be deleted. Pangea was a high school project and some of the kids decided to make a Wikiquote article on it for fun. It should not be deleted because they don't know the proper format for an article. Just tell them to redo it a bit and then, if it's still not in the correct format, schedule it for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.106.28 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted unnotable film. WP link is to the ancient continent, not a film. WWW link is to a technology firm, not a film. Completely unsourced. May be a hoax. Created by 72.68.106.28 (talk · contributions), who's been previously warned about adding nonsense to WQ. I don't mind helping users (especially registered users) getting started with Wikiquote and wikis in general, but this user shows no interest even in looking at existing articles to see how pages are edited, and they seem to intentionally break the template wiki (and HTML) code to mangle their articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Harry Tuttle and Jeffq. —LrdChaos 14:27, 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.