Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 May

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

Anything Goes

Unclear what this is about, and a google search did not reveal anything useful. It's possible this could be rescued with more background information.

Vote closed. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article slightly improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: MosheZadka 05:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Now that it's clear what it refers to, and has quotes. MosheZadka 13:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unless the author provides info/link to the movie or whatever that he's referring to. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Deserves at least a stub. Thanks for the info. Sams 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a musical.
Keep. This is a famous 1934 musical whose Cole Porter songs are a notable part of Americana. I've added a brief intro line to the article and a stub message. I've also asked one of the anon editors to help us expand this and other musical theater articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cole Porter musicals deserve articles - even stubby. --Aphaia 20:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Redirected to Doctor Who. — Jeffq 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dalek

Delete or redirect to Doctor Who#Enemies. Dalek quotes are already there and this page is very short. --Jawr256 11:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTE CLOSED. Result: Redirected to Doctor Who (2 Redirects, 2 Delete/Redirects; merged descriptive text with single quote that already existed at target article). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Bolstering my argument about excessive expansion of WQ links, Dalek was created by a user 1 minute after editing Villain, which contained a link to Dalek. — Jeff Q (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Doctor Who because # can't function in redirect. --Aphaia 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting, I didn't know that. --Jawr256 12:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect I guess, same reason as with "Doctor Who" above. Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Doctor Who. This is another article that is unlikely ever to have more than one quote (and will never be substantial; the Daleks aren't particularly talkative or quoteworthy). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vice President

One quote from a news service that could just move to the utterer. Doesn't seem an important enough theme. MosheZadka 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; single quote copied to John McCain). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article might be expanded with "Vice President" quotes, but its title and current content imply "U.S. Vice President", as opposed to other nations' vice presidents; corporate, NGO, or non-profit organization vice presidents; or any other vice presidents, for that matter. Easier to delete article with only 1 quote that already exists in John McCain than to hash out NPOV scope of "theme" article with no other quotes. Unless someone has a trove of VP quotes, I suggest putting any into Politics or other appropriate articles until enough VP quotes appear to justify a theme. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What JeffQ said. Sams 20:44, 27 May 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: Redirected. — Jeffq 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor (Doctor Who)

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

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

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sheng Long

No quotes, just discussion probably belonging in wikipedia. MosheZadka 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aphaia 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not create a whole Wikiquote page for a single quote, which is all this is or ever will be. The quote is already recorded in Street Fighter. Interested parties may want to transfer the discussion of this obscure controversy to wikipedia:Street Fighter. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tender Crisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch

Full lyrics, probably copyrighted, to an ad songs. It's possible some should be extracted into Advertising slogans.

Vote Closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 08:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aphaia 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it isn't copyrighted (which seems unlikely), it should go to Wikisource, anyway. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it's not copyrighted, then I suppose JeffQ is right, and that full lyrics should be on wikisource and not wikiquote, but is there anywhere a formal discussion on that, where a policy was formed? If not, perhaps we should form a clear policy on lyrics? Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For earlier lyrics discussions, see Wikiquote talk:What Wikiquote is not. When Wikiquote grows up, we should probably create a policy article called Wikiquote:Lyrics whose talk page would also provide a logical place for questions and discussion about this popular topic. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Keep. — Jeffq 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving

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

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

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed deities

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No quotes. Not likely to get any. Rmhermen 03:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-Npov-compatible theme. MosheZadka 04:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What MosheZadka said. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably nothing notable here, like Rmhermen said. But I don't see why this has anything to do with npov, nor do I see what wikiquote in general has to do with npov. Sams 20:44, 27 May 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. — Jeffq 07:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vulcan Proverbs

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

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

Keep. It is now vastly expanded upon.Caiman 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Now a new and usual fear struck me: Is it remaining within the sphere of Fair Use? Quotes is not the citation of whole things .... --Aphaia 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The article is expanded, but from a source called "Surak's Scroll" that has no legitimate citations, no mention in the Wikipedia article on Surak, and zero hits on Google in any of the forms I tried. As it stands, this strikes me as an even greater reason to delete the article. I've posted a note on its talk page to encourage explanation. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK... seems like you're right, but since 2 other people already tried to contribute to this article, I don't think that we should have eagerness to delete it, and instead we can keep it and wait for some time, perhaps more input from 'trekkers' will emerge... Sams 03:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Sam, do you convince those contribs are legitimate quotes and not fan creations? --Aphaia 03:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I personally know nothing about vulcans and star trek, therefore my opinion here is only in the level of general principles. I think that if we notice articles that seem like a hoax that were created with malicious intent, creating confusion, or containing insults, then we should even speedy-delete them (in the rare cases where we would get it wrong, no big deal, they can be recreated). However, if it seems that the intent was ok, but the contribs didn't get it right, then, assuming that it's possible for the article to be improved (I don't really understand if that's the case here), we should have a more liberal approach, and first try the talk page (like JeffQ did) for a while, before VFD. I note that Jeffq raised a good point, about "legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines". However, JeffQ, with all due respect to TV series, there might be better places to start... For example, I noticed the George Galloway article and cleaned it up a little, but someone dumped in there his 1994 speech with no good source, and if you google sentences from it now, you'll get wikiquote as the result, and perhaps a few message boards with the same thing. It's probably more or less accurate, perhaps completely accurate, but we give it legitimacy on wikiquote without really knowing... BTW in this particular case, the entire page should in fact be divided into 2 wikisource articles, but it seems that the wikipedia people like to use wikiquote for dumping their superfluous data... Sams 10:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I'd actually be in favor of keeping this article if what my inadequate recollection suggests are many proverb-like quotes were reliably listed. But I'd rather delete an article filled with junk now than wait from someone to do due diligence to make this article accurate, which can take months or even years on WQ, while we lend legitimacy to spurious information by getting it replicated in search engines. I think the warning of impending deletion serves to motivate keepers to do the work necessary to make this a useful and accurate article. If not, it can always be recreated later. If no evidence is provided for the legitimacy of the current content and we still keep the article, I'll probably just remove everything not backed up by references (which is currently all but the original single quote). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result was: deleted. --Aphaia 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Will

No quote. --Aphaia 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CLOSED: Deleted, 4 deletes, no dissent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

Delete: unless quotes submitted. --Aphaia 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP already has an article about him, so no need for a transwiki. jni 15:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No quotes. Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless quotes added. Jeff Q (talk) 04:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. --Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inka Vendari

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

Vote closed: Deleted. 2 deletes, no dissent. --Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 08:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Sams 09:26, 23 May 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 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Painkiller Supreme

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

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 07:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We should also remove these quotes from QOTD proposals if we delete it.
Delete ~ Achilles 09:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no problems with removing these quotes from a likely un-notable person immediately (and have done so). The editor couldn't even be troubled to put them on the quote page they should be on. (I'll volunteer to restore them if we don't delete this article.) — Jeff Q (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense, no quotes. jni 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense, no quotes. Sams 09:26, 23 May 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 05:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eric Fulton

No trace of notability in Wikipedia or Google (only high-school and genealogical records). Has the markings of a vanity page, although it was created by a (newly) registered user. If deleted, should also remove his quote from Morality. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; author acknowledged error in article creation). Also removed cited Morality quote. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'll ask Citrate, the new user, to provide evidence of notability. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MosheZadka 07:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be on Citrate's user page maybe, not as an article. Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just received a note from Citrate, who is apparently Eric Fulton himself (as I suspected). He simply misunderstood the nature of Wikiquote articles. I've advised him to move his quotes to his own user page. We should have no trouble deleting this article by the close date. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[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 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bert Macleod

No notability, google search brings up nothing useful, no external links. Possible vanity page. MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So un-notable that he doesn't even have his non-trivial quotes in free-for-all sites like QuotesPlace. Must be a vanity page. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Author removed the vfd tag. jni 13:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bret Easton Ellis

No quotes, just a line describing the person, and no external links MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added as requested). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless quotes added. I've asked the anonymous user to add some. They may have simply created the page because of a WQ (not WP) link from American Psycho. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No quotes. Sams 09:26, 23 May 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 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Kit

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

Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; notability evidence provided and article revised to address some concerns). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete MosheZadka 13:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless provided with some evidence of notability. Quotes seem thoughtful enough to be real, but without context, this sounds much more like a vanity page than a published or otherwise documented source. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, based on article revisions. Would have been useful if author had provided the Wikipedia link in the article ([2] below); I've rectified that omission. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's genuine then... Sams 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually this page is translated by me, Jerry Crimson Mann, a wikipedia user. Its Chinese version should be at [1]. To Kit is a famous Hong Kong columnist. (For further details, see here: [[2]])(vote from anon, 218.102.234.33).
- I point out "votes from anon" is problematic in the view of legitimacy. Hence registration is recommended ;-) Aph.
Keep And now the Wikipedia link was also provided. --Aphaia 06:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[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 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modest Mouse

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

Vote closed. Result: Kept (3 Keeps; no dissent; problem quotes removed). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like fair use to me, at least most of it. There are other pages with even more than this one, see for example Talk:Leonard_Cohen. Perhaps we need a policy on at what stage exactly do we delete/modify a page with lyrics, i.e. if we should do it only after a formal complaint from a record label, etc. I think that there're cases where the lyrics are technically copywritten, but the copyrights holders don't have any objections to having the lyrics on websites - I know that this is true with some books for example - therefore automatically deleting lyrics would be wrong. Sams 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything published received copyright protection under modern international treaties; however, these are fair use samples. The complete lyrics to a song would not qualify as fair use and we should not encourage that. Rmhermen 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've removed quotes from 3 songs that seemed to me to be too much for comfort, but I've also suggested that the editors can restore a tighter, more pithy portion of those songs to avoid copyvio concerns. The other songs I checked seemed easily within common fair use expectations. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[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 04:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sholey

This appears to be a film stub with three translated Hindi(?) quotes, but no such film shows up at IMDb. There is a similar title listed there, Aaj Ke Sholey (1985), but the listed characters don't match, and the IMDb page has no quotes to cross-check. The editor(s) have provided no context to allow us to verify that this film exists. I've asked the editor(s) to provide some information to supercede this deletion request, but if they don't respond, it should probably go. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No response from the editor(s). — Jeff Q (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What JeffQ said. Sams 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aries

Don't know who/what Aries is supposed to be but the only quote on this page is widely attributed to Abraham Lincoln. Rmhermen 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Since this is one of those quotes that easily gets misattributed, I've asked the anonymous user to provide a source, on the off chance there is a solid one. — Jeff Q (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I assume it's some Japanese cartoon character quoting Lincoln:) Unless the person who created this article wants to elaborate... Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen no response from the author. — Jeff Q (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is indeed a Lincoln quote, therefore should be attributed to Lincoln. Not the zodiac sign (or cartoon character). Benn M 16:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. — Jeffq 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meade skelton

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

Vote closed. Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No quote. --Aphaia 12:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rmhermen 14:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't think this should be speedy-deleted, as this person seems at least somewhat notable (he has several CDs listed in All-Music Guide), but without quotes, the article is pointless. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No quotes. I wonder who keeps creating this, with bad title and all. jni 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No quotes. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laputian proverbs

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

VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already said. --Aphaia 12:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also tried to verify this, but couldn't find anything. jni 05:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't belong in en.wikiquote without a translation. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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. — Aphaia 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Dowell

Couldn't find this person with Google. Content is quite inane. jni 16:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTE CLOSED: Delete. 3 deletes, no dissent. --Aphaia 06:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be a U. of North Carolina graduate student. (Judging by the frequency and insipidity of these college vanity pages, the U.S. educational system is clearly doomed.) — Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --Aphaia 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dunn

A vanity page by some random kid. w:Jason Dunn has been speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Looking the deleted version, this page seems to be about the same person. jni 04:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VOTE CLOSED: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Attack of the Teen Vanities. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --Aphaia 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. vanity. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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 18:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Jhonson

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

Delete without evidence of notability. If the name is correctly spelled (which seems unlikely), I don't see this happening, based on my quick Google search. If it's supposed to be "Jimmy Johnson", I think it's reasonable to put some burden on the author to explain who this is supposed to be. The inanity of the quotes strongly suggests it's simple vanity. — Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jeffq said and no input from the author yet. --Aphaia 14:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Jeffq and Aphaia said:) Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Vandal supported. jni 08:14, 23 May 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 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Internet limecat.jpg

Unused picture uploaded by banned user/vandal. Rmhermen 17:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thank you for your listing, Rmhermen (I forgot it). I suspect it is a copyvio too. --Aphaia 23:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider speedying it if still used for vandalism. jni 07:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 11:55, 13 May 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 18:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ujeev

Seems vanity. As a person's name, only this site and mirrors are available. And contents seem nonsense. I doubt it is worthy to keep even as anonymous quotes. --Aphaia 14:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 18:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: --Aphaia 14:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a hoax then he could have created an account and put this in his user page. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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 17:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reirom

I hope we needn't to keep it now. --Aphaia 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). --Aphaia 17:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC) (added from history by Jeffq)[reply]

Delete. --Aphaia 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete at appropriate time at sysop discretion as continuation of previous VfD process. Technical cleanup like this should not require re-voting. jni 07:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it could be speedy-deleted (case #5, although this was done for administrative reasons). I hope we aren't doing it too soon. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:54, 13 May 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. --Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Thought

Like [[Favorite]] we deleted recently, it will be not feasible. (Confucism, Taoism, several schools of Buddhism including Zen, Hinduism, Jainaism, Islamic thought and so on ...) unless we use it as a portal not a simple article. -Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed: Delete. (3 deletes, no dissent) --Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be more appropriate as a category, not an article. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Jeffq. Sams 21:49, 20 May 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, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Rush

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

Votes closed. Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissents). Will also remove quotes from Religion. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This guy could be a rationalist - but I don't know if he is a poet too. --Aphaia 00:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide cite references for quotes (e.g., published work) or other evidence of notability. (It's a shame, too — they're good quotes.) If we delete, we should remove his quotes from Religion as well. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[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 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:People articles in Wikipedia to be linked to Wikiquote

Not only is this page breathtakingly out of date, but with Wikiquote at over 3100 articles, it is monstrously unscaleable. It is far easier to use "Random page", "All articles", or "Recent changes" to inspect articles and take a few seconds each to fix missing links as one comes across them. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly scalable, currently abandoned (so out of date); by the way I recommend New articles rather than All articles, though the former is not dynamicly generated. --Aphaia 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I forgot "New articles". With "All articles", I was thinking more of a systematic effort to clean up all 3100+ articles. Not that I'm volunteering! ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I noticed this on before but couldn't quite determine it purpose. BTW I recommend "Old pages" where I have been doing a lot of work. Rmhermen 21:27, 3 May 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 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Can'tDelete

Delete: Replaced with Template:Pending deletion. --Aphaia 02:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for duplicates. Rmhermen 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So we're voting to delete something called "Can'tDelete". Hmm. ☺ Jeff Q (talk) 09:30, 3 May 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 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Parker

~~No quotes at all. Delete unless expanded. jni 17:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~ After seeing the expanded version, I wish to change my vote to keep and withdraw this VfD nomination. jni 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE CLOSED. Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article improved). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added some wiki structure and the single quotation about Parker from Wikipedia. It's still a fairly minimal article. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep now. I have also expanded it. Rmhermen 13:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep now, after Rmhermen's substantial expansion. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and I would like to have a rule on withdrawal ;-) --Aphaia 12:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[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.