Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 July
This is an archive of closed deletion discussions. Please do not make any changes to the discussions listed on this page.
Sysops: Add new entries in reverse-chronological order by nomination date. This will usually mean adding the entry at the top.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (also Image:Mccoy.jpg)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; 1 Keep; 1 illegal vote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]- Comment: vote struck out by me for being forged by Wikipedophile. For evidence see [1] ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Def keep. Wikipedophile 21:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I made a relevant proposal on Talk:Abortion - investigation on their sockpuppecy. --Aphaia 07:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Sockpuppet limit has been breached. jni 16:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unnoticed relic of Dr. Crane's dispute. Unused. --Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of uncertain copyright status, if nothing else. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Copyright is not an issue (Four Minute Essays was published in 1919), but WQ has no real use for this image. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the book is public domain. The picture of the book is new and under copyright protection, AIUI. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, my mistake. U.S. law would agree, I believe; works are now considered copyrighted unless waived. Aphais warned GwenOgren about the need for a license on 9 Jun 2005, but she has made no replies or contributions since her original 12 May 2005 image additions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the book is public domain. The picture of the book is new and under copyright protection, AIUI. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused image, hard to see any valid usage. jni 16:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image, and Commons has the equivalent (PD). --Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless duplication of Commons. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment: I removed Poetry and Lyrics because of possible copyright violation. Hope it will not be deleted now.
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn. vanity. jni 16:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete smelling vanity. --Aphaia 19:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worthless shock "quotes" without source. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete UDScott 20:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax or stupid vanity. jni 09:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Aphaia 14:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverifiable, nonsense. jni 09:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (1 delete, 1 delete conditional on "The Sims" deletion which happened, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
- Delete unless The Sims survives its own VfD. If so, redirect there and create a section for this program's quotes (if any). Even Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article on The Sims 2, and it actually has something to say. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Delete~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep now, as usual wonderful work by UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless 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)[reply]- Keep now. Excellent work on a neglected article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Movie synopsis, no quote content. jni 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Keep Now. --Aphaia 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. JButler 15:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established. jni 09:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No wp article, ambiguous intro, google hits are quote collections, no sources. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Aphaia 14:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seconded. --Aphaia 14:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment: But, of course, proceed with the VfD now knowing there is no wp article :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No quotes, no wp article, google hits show nothing special. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability and quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete now this vote is placed at the third of google result.--Aphaia 14:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No wp article, no obviously relevant hits of google, not sure why he is notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This "Morrie Weeks" is apparently the friend of the boss of Tulocay Wines in Napa, California, and is quoted on their webpage. Might be a interesting guy; doesn't make him notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Aphaia 14:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep now. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- 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)[reply]
Deletesaid 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)[reply]- Keep currently; if this quote could be attributed to the work Jeff pointed, it might be notable. --Aphaia 09:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. jni 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No intro, no wp page, creation comment seems to indicate someone fairly average. Google hits exist, but none establish notability. Suspect vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. jni 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find mention of this movie in IMDB or wikipedia -- not even when I looked in IMDB under the actors. It is probably a low-budget student movie, and much like college papers, should not be on WQ. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Jeff said. --Aphaia 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20 yo, made article by same-named user. Probably vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 deletes, no dissent. The editor who shares the same name was asked to move it to his own user page, but did no action). --Aphaia 14:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless he moves it to his user page. I left a note for him. If deleted, this entry should be removed from List of people by name. --Aphaia 09:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and concur with Aphaia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. jni 09:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete and concur with Aphaia's speedy-delete criterion suggestion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
Completely empty article except for Wikipedia link. Nothing added in week since creation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- VOTE CLOSED: Kept. (4 keeps, no dissent; article was fairly expanded.) --Aphaia 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (rewrote page) I believe a quote about the movie is also useful ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I changed my Delete vote (see above) as promised once quotes were added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Deleteunless a quote from it is added. --Aphaia 13:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and thank you for your contribution, UDScott! Aphaia 13:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
Encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed: Deleted due to copyvio. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 14:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]- Delete. Actually, this appears to be a copyright violation of the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Copyvio delendum est. --Aphaia 09:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are better to not have it. Like "anime" or "favorites". In the past time we need to have lists but today we are discussing replace lists with categories. From my view, this is out of date attempt. We have already Category:Places and this list is redundant and less convinient to maintain.
And even if this page should survive, it should be "List of places" following our convention in my opinion. --Aphaia 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: --Aphaia 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agreed. Lists are a pain to maintain, and are seldom maintained correctly. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Created by new user Richard Allen, who's acknowledged elsewhere that he's still on a learning curve. He probably didn't know about Categories. I've left him a (hopefully) encouraging note. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No intro, no wp article. Google hits are personal geocities site and various free-for-all quote collections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. jni 05:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete unless turned into theme page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)- Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless turned into a useful theme page. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep now, after Alan Liefting's substantial additions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No quotes. jni 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added a bunch of quotes. Alan Liefting 19:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, likely vanity. jni 05:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
No wp article, no intro, google hits are wikiquote and mirrors, and this [2] 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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help, no quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)
- Delete. The person described in this article needs help, all right, mostly to protect her from her "vivid imagination". But this is not a quote article. In fact, it looks like an experiment to see whether WQ will catch garbage inserted into its pages. (Consider this QotD addition, which I've removed as a likely prank.) — Jeff Q (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- UPDATE: Deleted 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC) by me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete. Encyclopedic, exists in WP. jni 05:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keepto 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)[reply]- Move to match Wikipedia. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No quotes. jni 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Deleteunless some context and evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not found. jni 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
- Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article itself establishes non-notability. jni 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: also remove quotes from Science if we delete the page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No quotes. jni 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to Greek myths. --Aphaia 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete. Encyclopedic. jni 05:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Googling for the single quote got exactly one hit – Wikiquote. jni 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Vote closed: Result delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long excerpt from a copyrighted work, and even if it is not a copyvio, it should go into the appropriate work's page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
- Vote closed. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this qualifies as being much too long an excerpt, especially with all the context, to be considered a "quote". Speeches (that aren't copyvios) should go to Wikisource, but I don't think this qualifies for that, either. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 8 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
No intro, no wp, no quote sources, google points to a couple of community chess boards where he seems to be a decent, but average, chess player. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent)
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Dead copy of studyworld.com. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
- VOTE CLOSED: delete and replace with better version (4 delete, 3 replace, no dissent)
- Delete: strongly assumed copyvio. and if not, encyclopedic. WP has his article already. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
Keep: I've blanked out the bio, and put in a new QT article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Is it okay just to blank it if it is copyvio? I heard we can search history, not only the current version in the future. --Aphaia 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. On the face of it, it sounds unlikely, but I could be wrong. If necessary, it should be possible to delete and recreate, no? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it okay just to blank it if it is copyvio? I heard we can search history, not only the current version in the future. --Aphaia 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with User:MosheZadka/Quentin Tarantino. As per Aphaia's suggestion, I am editing in a version that has no history in common with the current version. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace as MosheZadka describes. We don't need to prove copyvio to achieve a consensus that the current article isn't suitable for Wikiquote, as it is more of a biographical discussion than a quote page. Deleting it would remove any issue with copyvio, and moving MZ's version into its place would preserve the history of his (and anyone else's) work on this much more appropriate article. — Jeff Q (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace like MosheZadka and Jeffq suggest. jni 05:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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
[edit]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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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: 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)
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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:
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3].--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)[reply]
- Ah, it wasn't when I looked at it. Sorry. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mind. ;-) --Aphaia 23:14, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, it wasn't when I looked at it. Sorry. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? It has been already categorized. Are you not content with the current categorization? --Aphaia 21:06, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then improve it: add intro, category, references. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:01 (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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:32 (UTC)
No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
- Delete unless quotes and Wikipedia-linked intro provided. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
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[4],
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)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like a reasonable stub now. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:48 (UTC)
No quotes, just some encyclopedic stub. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent)
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
- Delete unless any quote would be added. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (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) 23:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Only one member (who is other, more objective, categories). Also, I don't believe it is the business of wikiquote to give out marks for good behaviours (let's just quote those who do!) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent). ~ MosheZadka 08:50, 21 July 2005 (added from history by Jeffq)
- Delete: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
- Comment: For your information the one under this category is categorized on Wikiquote as below:
Categories: 1914 births | Nobel Peace Prize winners | Humanitarians | Norwegian-Americans | Biologists | Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients | People from Iowa
- And I assume "humanitarians" is not "mark for good behaviours" but a sort of activists (but not so political) here ... --Aphaia 6 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
- Delete until Wikiquote has enough active sysops and other conscientious editors to ensure that such a category won't be abused. (Check out the Wikipedia category description to consider how easily this may be done in a wiki that can't keep up with its less scrupulous editors.) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
Image:Keyes-sharon-3.gif Image:Keyes sharon 2002.jpg Image:Keyessharon2002.jpg Image:041102speech keyes conceding defeat.jpg
[edit]All are unused and unverified (no source information). I asked the uploader if he or she would like to provide us information on the talk. --Aphaia 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Vote closes: Result: deleted. (2 deletes, one comment favorable to delete, no dissent) --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
- Delete. Why do we have any images being uploaded to Wikiquote? Offhand, I can't think of any ordinary image that would be appropriate for Wikiquote that wouldn't be at least as appropriate for Wikipedia, so they should all be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead. Perhaps we should disable image uploading here? — Jeff Q (talk) 00:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: A proposal worthy to consider. French Wikipedia allows its editors to upload images copyrighted and never used on encyclopediac artices (and most of such images will decorate their user pages or talks). Unless we have a similar policy and have our own facebook, and unless we don't use fair use image, I think Jeff Q's idea "upload disabled" is very reasonable. Some projects which don't allow Fair Use images, like French Wikinews, make upload function disabled for your information. --Aphaia 01:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. And move the interesting discussion here about fair use and disabling uploads to a policy page or the Village Pump. 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 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)
- Comment: Is this quote notable itself? (Just curious. I know such sense varies by person). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:12 (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)[reply]
- Comment: How about putting it on Wikiquote:Reference desk, if anonymous lacks the original quote? --Aphaia 23:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Comment: How about putting it on Wikiquote:Reference desk, if anonymous lacks the original quote? --Aphaia 23:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)
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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability provided. Jeff Q (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
Deleteunless 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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: deleted.. — Aphaia 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of double redirects. Is there any reason we need to keep them? --Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
- Vote closed: Result: deleted. (2 deletes without the requester, no dissent). --Aphaia 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What is the purpose of the 26 current pages that begin with "Recovered" and have subpages representing existing articles (mostly from Wikiquote: namespace):
- Although the two currently nominated for deletion are one-edit pages, some of these have long histories. I don't feel comfortable voting until I understand why they exist in the first place. — Jeff Q (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just assumption. They were once in the project namespace, they were named "wikipedia" (because then the site was "quote.wikipedia.org"). From some point, Wikipedia:XX can't be accessed as a page on Wikiquote, and then those files were recovered by a developer and then moved to the current places by Kalki, around 17 July 2004. So I guess those files (including redirects) aren't necessary to keep, but also not neccesary to delete. They occupy "Ancientpages" and some special pages and a bit annoying but it would be okay simply to turn them to redirects.
- Those two merged because they were double-redirects; I fixed them to the correct descinations. --Aphaia 23:24, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all. The main article namespace shouldn't have titles like "Recovered", even if they're redirects. As long as the page histories are intact in the current articles (and based on a few spot checks, it looks like they are), we should get rid of all of these unneeded and confusing pages left over from a maintenance operation. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. There seems not to be anything worthwhile in page histories we need to keep. jni 06:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- As for Dalai Lama, concur Jeff. Keep it as redirect to Tenzin Gyatso.--Aphaia 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- As for Dalai Lama, concur Jeff. Keep it as redirect to Tenzin Gyatso.--Aphaia 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
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)[reply]
- Comment: Other candidates for "War" subcategory: Terrorism, War (of course), Peace (perhaps?). Any others? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.