Wikiquote:Deletion review/Archive
Penn & Teller: Fool Us[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Deletion sustained. ~ Ningauble 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-look at Penn & Teller: Fool Us which was recently deleted. There is nothing in stated policy which appears to imply that a show needs to have aired to have a quote page three days before it air. The article contains an introduction to the topic, and wouldn't fit under the closest policy of "no content". ~ Justin Ormont 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the admin who deleted this page, I would like to offer my reasons for the deletion. As I stated on my talk page, until a TV show is aired (or a film is released), any quotes placed on a page for that work are impossible to verify. If quotes cannot be verified, there is nothing to prevent users from inserting quotes that are not genuine. And if the page is created as a placeholder, it will be deleted for not having quotes. ~ UDScott 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Although the deletion reason, "Not yet aired," is not itemized in the speedy deletion policy, it is covered at Wikiquote is not a crystal ball, which explicitly calls for speedy deletion of "articles that are skeletons to be filled in after the work is released." This deletion is also consistent with longstanding precedent and consistent practice that articles without any quotes are speedily deleted because Wikiquote is for quotes. ~ Ningauble 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Pages must contain quotes, and the quotes must be verifiable to their inclusion in the quoted work. Because what was recorded on film is not necessarily what ends up being broadcast, we must wait until the broadcast to see what ends up being contained in the work. BD2412 T 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so, and also to see whether it has Quotability. ~ Ningauble 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I don't know what the content was but the main complain I see was that an editor wanted to release (for lack of a better word) spoilers before the programme was broadcast. Well I can say that the programme was broadcast yesterday having watched it myself so the original rationale for deletion is void so I see no reason why it can't be brought back. The C of E 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
Kedar Joshi[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.
The result was: Deletion sustained. BD2412 T 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-look at the page Kedar Joshi which is going to be deleted very soon, as mentioned by Ningauble on its talk page. The subject of this page could be presumed to be notable as a source of quotes for any of the following two reasons.
1. The subject is cited as a source of quotes[fn 1] in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.[fn 2] Considering the number of such sources, the subject may only be barely (or at the most moderately) notable as a source of quotes though.
2. The subject’s quote “God is a philosophical black hole, the point where reason breaks down.” has appeared multiple times in The Times of India’s well-known Sacred Space column, which is a regular, small, published, thematic collection of quotations, and, as such, it is a tertiary source. Being cited as a source of a quote in a reliable tertiary source could be considered a strong evidence of notability as a source of quotes.
Notes[edit]
- ↑ For example, a research paper beginning with the line “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein can be said to have cited Albert Einstein as a source of the quote.
- ↑ For instance, an aphorist cited as a source of quotes in thousands of reliable sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the aphorist can certainly be presumed to be highly notable as a source of quotes even though he or she may not be notable per Wikipedia for the possible lack of significant coverage on him in independent, reliable sources. So, though Wikipedia may not have an article on that person, Wikiquote may.
The subject's quotes have appeared in multiple reliable journal articles, which certainly are not random websites. e.g. Progress in Oceanography, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Philosophy Pathways, The Times of India (The Times of India is not a journal but it is certainly a source that is considered reliable on en.wp and is widely cited there). Even Boloji.com, for example, is widely cited on en.wp. La Republica PREMIUM, WriteAPrisoner.com can be considered reliable/notable sources. (So one of the main points is: If so many notable/reliable sources had articles on a person, with significant coverage, the person would be considered notable on Wikipedia. The same way, so many reliable sources citing a person as a source of quotes makes that person notable on Wikiquote, notable as a source of quotes. Note: per Wikiquote:Quotability, an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes.) — 49.249.100.224 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This title was deleted pursuant to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Kedar Joshi in 2010, which is the decision being appealed here. (It was previously deleted pursuant to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Kedar Joshi in 2006. Deletion of other re-creations without discussion are listed in the full page log.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, per previous VFD discussions and current discussion on Village pump. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, per UDScott. Subject fails notability and doesn't seem to be cited in the academic world, according to this. Mdd (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Subject does not meet net.kook notability threshold. jni (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I see two potential bases in this appeal for overturning the deletion(s):
- Significant new information about notability of the person, to wit: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
The only source provided that comes close to substantial coverage is the dialogues at Philosophy Pathways. (1) This is not new information, it was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi. (2) In that discussion, it is disputed whether this material constitutes significant coverage of the person. (3) The newsletter of an operation targeting amateur and wannabe philosophers lacks any gravitas as a reliable source. (4) The author of those articles also posted them on his blogs, which are exclusively devoted to dialogues with Kedar Joshi. This looks more like a couple chums, not independent coverage. (5) I seriously doubt that Philosophy Pathways is actually an independent source, but the fact of using its newsletter is the only direct evidence I have that Joshi and Gokhale appear to be clients of the Pathways to Philosophy organization.
I conclude that this is not credible evidence of notability.
- New interpretation of the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline regarding "notable as a source of quotes".
The quoted sentence, "an individual's notability will be weighed more heavily if they are notable as a source of quotes," is taken out of context from a section entitled "Notability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article on a person". The paragraph is very clearly distinguishing between notable people who are not quoteworthy, and notable people who are also notably quotable. The guideline does not in any way suggest that Wikiquote should have articles about non-notable people: it explicitly says just the opposite.
I conclude that this "interpretation" of the guideline is completely incorrect.
- More broadly, I endorse the following comment from the deletion discussion at the French Wikipedia: "Je pense que c'est une blague de potache, une ou plusieurs personnes qui s'amusent à poster des aphorismes et des théories fumeuses un peu partout sur le web." (Google-assisted translation: "I think this is a joke schoolboy, one or more people who enjoy posting aphorisms and smoking theories everywhere on the web.") I am not sure what he is smoking: he may not be aware that his pipedreams are a joke. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant new information about notability of the person, to wit: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.