diff --git "a/en/full/wikiquote/val.csv" "b/en/full/wikiquote/val.csv" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/en/full/wikiquote/val.csv" @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +outcome,text +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Image:Hippocrates.jpg: — Jeffq 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Hippocrates.jpg [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +merge,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: 3rd Rock From The Sun: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] 3rd Rock From The Sun [ edit ] Two reasons to delete this: It is a copy of about half of quotes on IMDB 3rd Rock from the Sun is a different article without (I guess) any copyright violations — Koweja 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: merge with 3rd Rock from the Sun (2 Merges; 1 Delete). I have merged the Dialogue section into the latter article and posted a warning to Talk:3rd Rock from the Sun to warn editors that this material will be severely edited down soon unless someone does some copyediting and formatting that make the quotes a proper Wikiquote article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , perhaps with some trimming, with 3rd Rock from the Sun . ~ UDScott 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , although if I'm involved in the merge, I may mercilessly reduce the material. I don't like to add quotes from IMDb unless I can review the episodes to correct the expected mistakes, and I don't have 3rd Rock to review. I advise interested parties to merge what they will before the Grim Reaper's scythe descends. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Sweat of the Damned: — Jeffq 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Sweat of the Damned [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Kent Hovind: — Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kent Hovind [ edit ] This is a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia already has one . This one appears to be an essay on Hovind's views, which is not the purpose of Wikiquote. I don't know if it is material considered undesirable or too detailed for the WP article, but that's irrelevant. We need quotes and only quotes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: keep (4 keeps; no dissent; article signficantly improved). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless all text (except a 1-paragraph intro) replaced with actual quotes (preferably sourced). I'd recommend transwiki, except that the sole editor is already actively editing the WP article and can add this material to it if they wish. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that C56C has done considerable work to convert this to a proper quote article. Some issues remain, including a few not-really-quote items and a need for better sourcing, but I think it's mostly cleanup at this point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Jeffq. — LrdChaos 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that it's actually a quote article. — LrdChaos 12:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I cleaned it up and added quotes and their sources. C56C 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 22 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Gwen from Tempe: — Jeffq 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Gwen from Tempe [ edit ] Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless notability can be established. — LrdChaos 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No WP article, no Alexa rating for the cited website, 6 unique Google hits, all but one of which are from flickr.com (i.e., personal stuff). Clear vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - InvisibleSun 15:52, 26 May 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Kathryn Champlin: — Jeffq 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kathryn Champlin [ edit ] Notability not demonstrated. - InvisibleSun 02:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with InvisibleSun. ~ UDScott 12:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete likely vanity page. Interestingly, there appears to be a semi-notable Kathryn Champlin who owns and operates a Rhode Island marina [48] and has stirred up some local controversy, but the quotes in the WQ article appear to be from a student with a MySpace account, a red flag for unnotability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Vanity page for a non-notable person. — LrdChaos 14:30, 30 June 2006 (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. ###Output: " +redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: The Doctor (Doctor Who): — Jeffq 15:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) The Doctor (Doctor Who) [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Image:Wilsonwoodrow1.jpg: -- Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Wilsonwoodrow1.jpg [ edit ] Identical image with identical location on Wikicommons. Suggest: link Commons image to Wikiquote Woodrow Wilson entry, and delete redundant Wikiquote image. -- Benn M 09:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). -- Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . I think merely deleting this image will automatically link the article to the Commons image. We should promote the use of the Commons on this project as we have not developed/imported an extensive set of copyright tags/rules for images yet. Rmhermen 14:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete , then verify Wikicommons image shows up. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:56, 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: SydLexia.com: — MosheZadka 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] SydLexia.com [ edit ] Vote closed : Result: delete (4 delete, 2 keeps - one from originator (who has a handful of the VfDed article and vote edits, and one from a user whose only edit was the vote, both keeps discounted as users with too few edits) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Seems to be little more than a rather crude vanity page, and a bit spammy as well. ~ Achilles † 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete vanity (web sites are almost never notable) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A group of site fans got together and compiled some of our favorite quotes from this site, which I have posted. After checking the Vanity rules and the What Wikiquote is Not pages, I have found that this particular WQ page falls under neither category. Therefore I am voting to keep, and furthermore propose that this vote is erroneous. Valdronius 06:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] In general, fan compilations are fine: as long as the original is notable. You have not commented on the notability of the site itself. I strongly suggest giving some evidence regarding such notability, or else it is unlikely the page will be kept. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I've tried looking through the giudelines for what constitutes notability, but as there is quite a bit of text, I can't seem to find it. So please allow me to ad lib. SydLexia.com is a review site of pop culture from 1980-1995. Topics discussed include Television, Movies, Video Games, Music, and Toys. It has garnered a fair bit of popularity on the web, and its current alexa rating is sitting somewhere near 65,000. Not too shabby IMO. Basically, its a funny site, and a great read for anyone who spent any time growing up in the aforementioned time period. So, if there's anything else that would help contribute to its notability, I'll be more than happy to bloviate some more. Valdronius 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your questions and helpfulness. The general guideline is ""if we don't have a WQ policy, we use WP policy if applicable"". The relevant wikipedia (draft!) policy is at w:Wikipedia:Websites , which would be helpful (sorry for not making it more obvious earlier!). Also, please note that even if a web site is notable, comments of random forum members are still not notable: you would do well to edit the quotation page to have URLs marking each quotation for both verifiability and to be sure who the quotation is attributed to. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Done and done. Thanks again for your patience with this particualr WQ newbie. Comment: I've looked at the site's about page . If this article is kept at all, it should be a quote page for ""Syd Lexia"", the (pseudo-?)nym of the site's writer. However, I do think that not sufficient evidence has been produced for the person's notability: a site with Alexa rank of 65K is far from the guidelines presented in the draft mentioned above (it talks about 10K). Being funny and a great read is not relevant to notability: being published or otherwise ""famous"" is. Has the site (or the man behind it) been cited in any academic reviews of culture? Any newspapers? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to be within the guidelines. Since WP all but begs users to create companion WQ entries for accepted articles, I don't see a problem regardless of notability. ~ FloydDoorz (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] It should be noted, probably, that w:User:Floyddoorz is the only editor in the page's history, with the exception of an application of an experimental deletion procedure and its reversion by an admin: see wp history . Usually a wikipedia article implies enough notability: however, this stub article has only one editor and has not been nominated for AfD, and so there is no relevant notability discussion. Also, as of now, the user above has no edits except for his vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This page doesn't appear to be a collection of anyone notable, but rather a string of quotes from a perhaps notable site. Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough to be included here. UDScott 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've created an AFD entry for the corresponding Wikipedia article in order to solicit opinions on its notability from the vastly larger audience there. Though we don't have to follow their ultimate decision, I think this will help inform our debate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: WP decided to delete this article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Fascinating issue... The w:Wikipedia:Websites page is interesting, and its talk page links - I didn't know the bash.org website mentioned there, it's great... Anyway, I'm not too sure about the argument that ""Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough"", because the same would also apply to Slashdot.org . Or perhaps we want to delete the slashdot.org wq page too? Note that there's a difference between a page that should be deleted on principle, and a page that needs a major rewrite because it's a mess. And as to whether this SydLexia website itself is notable enough, I guess it depends on whether we want to use the same guidelines as wikipedia, or stricter ones, or kinder ones... iddo999 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I pretty much hate the slashdot page. It is pure crap :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps we could use slashdot as a precedent for a page that is notable enough, suitable for wikipedia, but unsuitable for wikiquote? Or alternatively, require that the wq slashdot page contain only quotes by notable people? Or keep using the de facto option, meaning that if the subject itself is notable enough, then quotes by unnotable people related to it are ok? A lot of the info in the w:Slashdot subculture page may be of debatable importance, but if people seem to be interested in it, then fine... iddo999 15:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the very concept of ""precedent"" is wrong here. Slashdot was never up for VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Unlike SydLexia.com, which is debatable, Slashdot.com is obviously WP-worthy, because it's an extremely well-known website that has received considerable attention from the mainstream press. I don't think we have any clear rules about website quote articles, but Slashdot.org is a perfect example of why we need them. Unnotable people shouldn't be able to get around the notability policy just because they know how to post to a well-known site that'll accept anyone's commentary. By that rule, any ""interesting"" thing we post on Wikiquote should be fair game for a ""Wikiquote"" quote article. Come to think of it, maybe I'll start it and add my oh-so-clever personal quotes from my user page. (I hope everyone realizes I'm just kidding.) I repeat what I've said elsewhere, ""interesting"" is not a sufficient qualification for Wikiquote inclusion . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The general question, related not only to a wikiquote websites policy, is whether the author of a quote must always be notable himself, or whether we may include quotes where the quote itself is defined as notable under some criteria, even though it's agreed that its author isn't notable. If the author must always be notable (except for quotes in user pages), then e.g. slashdot.org is beyond repair in it's current form, and probably should be deleted too. iddo999 21:04, 28 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Die Hard 4.0: — MosheZadka 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Die Hard 4.0 [ edit ] This film does not yet exist, it probably won't have this (working) title, and there's no way we can confirm quotes from it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete at least until trailers come out. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is a bit premature. UDScott 20:25, 20 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Beaujolais Bulman: — Jeffq 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Beaujolais Bulman [ edit ] Non-notable person (no Google hits, no WP page) and no quotes on the page (though the page's creator added one quote, attributed to this person, to God ). — LrdChaos 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . LrdChaos 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless notability is shown and quotes are added. ~ UDScott 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Likely prank page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - InvisibleSun 15:54, 26 May 2006 (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. ###Output: " +redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Aphorism: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Aphorism [ edit ] Quotes which are aphorisms. If we took it seriously, this page would grow tremendously. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: redirect to List of proverbs (1 delete, 2 redirect) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless replaced with a proper theme page (quotes about aphorisms) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of proverbs after moving quotes to appropriate proverb articles. (Actually, it should be probably be ""Aphorisms"".) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect concur with Jeff. Personally I love the idea to have a quote collection ""about aphorisms"". It could be fun to read as well quotations . -- Aphaia 04:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Adenosine triphosphate: — Jeffq 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Adenosine triphosphate [ edit ] No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . It seems unlikely that we'll establish a collection of quotes on this admittedly important biological substance, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. The way this brief description is written, and the name inexplicably attached to the end, makes me suspect that this may be a ""quote"" from a California middle-school student. If so, it fails a notability test. I've posted a note to the anon editor requesting more information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Kyle XY: — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kyle XY [ edit ] No quotes. — LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless valid quotes are added. — LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added. I'd like to see articles with no quotes made speedy-deleteable, just to further discourage people from creating pages with no quotes. — LrdChaos 22:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] This would be part of the ""Articles: no-content"" clause of the proposed new WQ:SD , if we can summon the effort to get the draft approved. Robert , Essjay , and I have been discussing jump-starting the finalization on my talk page . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC . I've restored the deleted VFD tag. ~ UDScott 13:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added. -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. - InvisibleSun 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Music groups: — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Music groups [ edit ] This was nominated for VfD but not listed here. All existing articles in this list are now tagged with Category:Bands or Category:Musicians as appropriate. It could still be used as a ""requested"" list for musician quote articles. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Result: Delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep/Rename). — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . We don't have a tradition of red link lists on this project but only lists of actual articles. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep and rename to List of music groups or List of bands . Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. jni 10:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) That is only true when a list provides information or formatting that a category cannot. Other than providing a ""requested bands"" list, are there some additional benefits to this list? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .　 We are enough with categories. -- Aphaia 00:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: 24: — Jeffq 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 24 [ edit ] Roboaction put a vfd tag on this in December but may not have listed it here. It was blanked by its creator and never had any quotes. Rmhermen 01:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Results: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete, no dissent, no change to article). — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete unless someone adds quotes in next week or two. I love this show, but have a problem with content-free pages. (I'd add quotes myself, but I usually only contribute when I can verify quotes, and I have none from this excellent show.) If it's deleted, I'll put it back on the ""requested"" list of Television shows , so it won't be forgotten. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete unless someone adds quotes before the vote is closed. -- Aphaia 09:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Elizabeth Lank: — Jeffq 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Elizabeth Lank [ edit ] I changed this from a speedy delete because this person appears to be at least slightly notable, with one claimed publication. Her biography [40] , apparently self-written, and the solitary current, rather inane quote, suggests this could be a vanity page. I think we should give the community a chance to review it. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 observation w/o vote; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . I listed this as a speedy. I believe that this isn't a quote but an attempt to ask the community here a question that should have gone on the Reference Desk or Village Pump. I could be wrong. Rmhermen 14:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . I believe it is a question, too. More appropriate to Reference Desk. But I don't deny the possibility her book ( I found it on amazon.com) contains this phrase ... -- Aphaia 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Yesterdays Somebodies: — Jeffq 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Yesterdays Somebodies [ edit ] Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable and vanity. — LrdChaos 20:39, 11 April 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Bush Administration: — Jeffq 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Bush Administration [ edit ] More nonsense from 169.244.143.115 . How does this article fail? Let me count the ways: Ambiguous. There have been at least 2 Bush adminstrations (counting only the U.S. government's Executive Branch). Bad title capitalization. A disambiguating page should be Bush administration , like its Wikipedia counterpart . Bad spelling, capitalization, and formatting. These, of course, are easily fixed, but is it really too much to ask for en:Wikiquote editors to demonstrate basic English competency? (I understand if English is not one's native tongue, except for those who native tongue seems to be English-based IM-speak.) Obviously manufactured quotes. This is the worst problem. Wikiquote prides itself on accuracy, but this anonymous user apparently feels (based on this article and their other contributions) that's it's more important to establish a junk article than to actually find real quotes. This is the opposite of the wiki philosophy of adding content after one collects it. No sources. Again, not an uncommon problem, but this puts the burden of making a useful article on people who are busy with other, sourceable information. Wikiquote, like all other wikis, is a project that encourages people to invest their time to generate useful content. Littering the database with stubs filled with nonsense serves no purpose, and is but one step above vandalism. I would like to encourage this anon to make useful contributions, but others seemed to have tried with no success. Experience suggests it's a losing battle in this situation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeffq 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless someone creates real, substantive articles for either or both U.S. Bush adminstrations (to follow Wikipedia's articles), in which case this one should be turned into a disambiguation page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Jeffq. -- Jaxl 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with Jeff and Jaxl. ~ UDScott 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ Achilles † 16:15, 4 January 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Ségur: — MosheZadka 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ségur [ edit ] Although there were several persons whose family name were Ségur, I suspect it would be a vanity based on google result [59] -- Aphaia 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTES CLOSED : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless specific subject and evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:05, 13 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Andrew T. Butcher: — LrdChaos 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew T. Butcher [ edit ] Not notable. - InvisibleSun 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 delete votes, no dissent). — LrdChaos 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with above. ~ UDScott 11:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as obvious vanity. — LrdChaos 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no quotations. 121a0012 20:32, 17 June 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Mike mccaughan: — Jeffq 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Mike mccaughan [ edit ] Not notable. ~ UDScott 11:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: delete (3 Deletes; 2 Keeps from anons whose sole contributions are creation of article and vote to keep; no notability evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 11:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 68.60.202.74 03:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, Mike McCaughan will be a household name someday. 69.248.50.23 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No claim to notability, no sources for any quotes. — LrdChaos 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos. Even the anonymous supporter above makes the argument for non-notability (""household name someday ""). This is an obvious vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: George Will: -- Aphaia 23:53, 8 June 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] George Will [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Catz: . — Aphaia 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Catz [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Chiropractic medicine: — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Chiropractic medicine [ edit ] Transwikied article from English Wikiquote. It has two problems: Wrongly transwiki way: though it has a link to the original article, but lack the information of history (so GFDLvio, if we follow it strictly). ... and imho it is weird as Wikiquote article. Seems to an extract from news or just memorandum to a certain topic. -- Aphaia 12:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (no explicit votes; 1 implicit Delete). Some may consider this to be sufficient to delete, but I feel that if the community isn't able to muster any explicit votes at all, we cannot consider this a consensus to delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Diege: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Diege [ edit ] I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be about a person named ""Diege"", or just some pointless thing that a nobody (""Dylan Jeffrys"") said. Either way, it isn't worth keeping around. Vote closed early. Speedy-deleted for ""no meaningful content"". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 17:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 18:06, 11 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Mar: — LrdChaos 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Mar [ edit ] This page has been without an intro since it's creation in February, but from all appearances, it's a vanity page for a student. — LrdChaos 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes for deletion, no dissent). — LrdChaos 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. - InvisibleSun 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . 121a0012 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Pan-atheism: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Pan-atheism [ edit ] This quoteless encylopedia stub was marked as a transwiki to Wikipedia, but I found that WP had already voted to delete this exact text, and has apparently had recurring attempts (1) , (2) to restore it. In short, it ain't gonna be accepted as a transwiki. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result delete (4 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Thanks for the info, Jeffq... Seems like someone failed to create it on wp, so he tried wq instead... iddo999 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Thank you for your research, Jeffq. -- Aphaia 08:16, 15 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Christopher Chippindale: Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Christopher Chippindale [ edit ] Wikipedia is a link to a non-existing article and no quotes. MosheZadka 06:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed : Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia ( talk • contribs ) 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 06:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I've added a link to provide confirmation of this person's existence, for what it's worth. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: If someone were to find a half-way verifiable quote and put it there, I would change my vote. But as is, I couldn't find anything via a google search or otherwise. MosheZadka 13:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . -- RPickman 19:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . No expectation of any quotes. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Image:Mark twain.jpg: — Jeffq 05:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Image:Mark twain.jpg [ edit ] Unused image, article uses different picture: Image:Mark Twain.jpg I don't believe we need multiple pictures - beside linking to Wikicommons should be the preferred method. Rmhermen 14:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . -- Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . — Jeff Q (talk) 10:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Quiz: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Quiz [ edit ] Quiz isn't really a quote, it's a quiz someone just added. They also added it to the front page as a link, so I deleted that, but I can't delete the actual entry. PERHAPS there is call for a ""Famous Quizzes and Tests"" page, but it seems to stretch the definition of what Wikiquote is for. So I vote to DELETE ""Quiz"" entry, and I also vote NO to a ""Famous Quizzes"" page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.205.177.231 ( talk • contribs ) 01:01, 10 February 2004 (UTC) Delete ""Quiz"", and no to famous quizzes 219.88.47.67 23:33, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) Delete and no as well. ~ TOR 09:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Deleted ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer): -- Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) [ edit ] We do not have character pages for any other characters on Buffy, most quotes would be dialogues anyway. I've already added a few ""five-by-five"" themed quotes to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer page. MosheZadka 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed: Deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent; for ""expand"" vote, see below). -- Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 06:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . The Buffy page is very thorough, so Faith quotes have a good forum already. -- RPickman 20:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete , but with some reservation. This is a recurring issue and will only become more visible as Wikiquote grows. Just as individual's quotes are duplicated in theme pages, it can be useful to have some character quotes in their own pages as well as show pages, especially for show articles as large and as heavily formatted as Buffy … but only if the character has a large number of pithy quotes listed . That is not currently the case for Faith, but it is for Darth Vader and other Star Wars characters. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Expand I suggest someone make more quotes from her charicter. -- Admiral Roo 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't count this vote, because it was voted after the deadline. -- Aphaia 03:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Template:Imdb: — LrdChaos 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:Imdb [ edit ] This template, which was used only on one page until I changed it, mostly duplicates the functionality of the much more widely-used {{ imdb name }} template. — LrdChaos 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent). — LrdChaos 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:06, 13 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Sabri Kalic: — Jeffq 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Sabri Kalic [ edit ] No quotes. ~ UDScott 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no further information provided.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added. ~ UDScott 12:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , for three reasons. First, this quoteless article is an exact copy of the en:Wikipedia stub article . (Kalic, or Kaliç, does have a tr:Wikipedia article , but it's not much better, looking like similar stubby information followed by a bunch of credits — in Turkish, of course.) Second, Kalic doesn't even have a Turkish Wikiquote article under either ""Sabri Kaliç"" or ""Sabri Kalic"". Third, and most important, how do we know how notable this person is? A Google search of English pages provides only 36 distinct hits, very few of which seemed to have any meaningful content. Without sources or links, and with most other Google hits in Turkish, we can't really verify anything. We expect editors to provide some evidence of notability even of English-language subjects. Surely this is far more important for Turkish subjects on en:WQ. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Inka Vendari: -- Aphaia 23:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Inka Vendari [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: But Chi Huen: — Jeffq 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] But Chi Huen [ edit ] Not English Might be Vanity Rather nonsensical Sydneyfong 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes, 1 Delete/Transwiki w/ emphasis on former, 1 implicit delete; no dissent; no evidence provided [at least in English]). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This looks like a typical article about a professor from an admiring college student. Google suggests this person is real, but is unlikely to rise to a wiki notability level. (I've been wrong before, however, so evidence is requested.) The WP link in the article points to a non-existent w:But Sir , and this name is not explained in the largely irrelevant WQ intro text. (The author seems to have been trying to do both a WP stub and a WQ article here, and talks more about the class than the quotee.) The intro itself is extremely POV and is unsourced. Finally, these quotes are likely all unverifiable, and seem to be the usual stuff picked up by students in class. (I admit some are entertaining; they remind me of a computer professor I had who would always say ""that take cares [sic] of that"".) I'm sure the instructor is interesting and honorable, but that isn't sufficient for a WQ article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable. ~ UDScott 11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Transwiki to ZH Wikiquote . I prefer to delete it, since all quotes including Chinese ones seem not so significant, but rather ""favorite criches of Prof But"". Even this professor is wiki-notable, the current content isn't in my humble opinion. -- Aphaia 10:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: College football: — LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] College football [ edit ] Neither of the quotes on this page are really about college football; the one from the quarterback is more of a personal quote about he ended up playing football (and is present on the just-created page for that person) and the JFK quote is about going to the moon, and includes only a passing reference to college football by mentioning two rival teams. — LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: no consensus/keep (two votes to delete, three votes to keep). — LrdChaos 18:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as page author. One of the quotes is from a US president who is making the analogy that going to the moon is like Rice University playing University of Texas at college football. In both cases, the objective is hard yet people choose to attempt it anyway. (UT almost always wins the football matchups with Rice). The other is by a college football player who talks about his decision to play football being a choice about turning his life around and not ending up ""dead or in jail"". Both quotes are right on point to the subject matter. Johntex 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. There is already a page for Football . The Vincent Young quote could simply be moved there. As for the Kennedy quote: to say that it is about football merely because it mentions football as a reference is like saying that ""I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore"" is a quote about Hell. - InvisibleSun 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the Football page is a confusing melee of quotes on soccer, college football, pro-football, probably Canadian football also, I'm not sure. all about soccer, not American football, and certainly not about college football. The specific sentence from the Kenedy quote ""Why does Rice play Texas?"" Is 100% all about those two universities and their college football rivalry. The fact that he compares going to the moon to a football rivalry is what makes the quote interesting to college football. Johntex 02:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] PS - I've now added 3 additional quotes related to college football. I need to clean up the formatting, since I copied them from Wikipedia, but that is a clean-up problem, not a deletion problem. Clearly there is/will be enough content to fill this article. Johntex 02:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] PPS - added one more. Johntex 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I have done the restructuring and reformatting that Johntext acknowledged needed to be done. (I'm still a bit concerned about all the explanatory text, but I accomplished my main goal with the basic cleanup.) I think this subject makes a reasonable theme article, although I share LrdChaos and InvisibleSun's concern that a theme article should not be treated as a catch-all place for quotes that are not fundamentally about the subject, but only mention it in passing. (To this end, I have deleted the Kennedy quote, as it is fundamentally about space travel, not college football, overseas flying, or mountain climbing.) To Johntex, whose enthusiasm is appreciated, I would point out that, just as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikiquote is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. Not every quote that is of interest to fans of a subject necessarily makes a good theme-article quote. If we don't keep theme quotes tightly on target, theme articles would rapidly expand to include anything even tangentially related to their subjects, vastly increasing the repetition of quotes throughout many articles. Please note that the ""Search"" function will find quotes across all articles, and truly related subjects can be linked to under ""See also"". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This could be a huge collection eventually, it's just new is no reason for deletion. I just added about 10 sourced quotes. -- MECU 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Quote websites are not legitimate sources, as they are not reliable by Wikimedia standards, and rarely provide true source data, like publication titles, articles, dates, etc. They are, in fact, the most efficient modern method of spreading misquotations, as I can personally attest to after quite a bit of source cleanup. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed the referencing format, and changed from a ""quote website"" to more improved source (mostly About.com). It's still a work in progress. -- MECU 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Kevin Heins: — Jeffq 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kevin Heins [ edit ] Non-notable. In the nearly two months since the page was created, there haven't been any further edits to provide an intro; a search on the name doesn't turn up anyone particularly notable. — LrdChaos 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; person not identified). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. InvisibleSun 05:07, 17 May 2006 (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. ###Output: " +no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Just war: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Just war [ edit ] Redirect. Just war → Just War Theory → Just war theory . I'm not sure if it is a good idea to turn it into a redirect to ""Just war theory"". -- Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The correct name is either ""Just war"" or ""Just war theory"", and the latter is better imho because it's a common phrase. All other capitalized names, i.e. ""Just War"" and ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"" are wrong. The redirects were created because I wanted to conform with the wikipedia article name, and they changed the name there a couple of times. This was a bad idea though, as the people there seem to be clueless about the correct use of capital letters. The current name on wikipedia is ""Just War theory"", which doesn't have a wikiquote redirect, so the wikiquote template box doesn't work in the other direction (it works from wq to wp because wp has a redirect article for the correct name). iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: keep Just war theory as article, redirect Just war to that article, delete Just War Theory only if doing so automatically goes to article, and verify WP and WQ link boxes correctly link to their counterparts, per vote analysis below . Final report will follow shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Final report: with ""Just War Theory"" deleted, all capitalization versions properly present the sole article within Wikiquote. No variation except the actual article title works from WP to WQ, but the only way to fix this is to create redirects from every variation that WP may have, which isn't usual practice, besides which the current WP title is ""Just War theory"", which didn't even exist as a redirect here. I've verified that the WQ→WP and WP→WQ article links are now completely working, so I'll leave ""JWT"" deleted unless someone objects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all the redirects, except for the ""just war"" redirect. iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""Just war"", delete ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"". I've heard the phrase ""just war""; I've never heard ""just war theory"", although I can believe it's common. But I'm certain that many who might think of looking for quotes on this topic would enter ""just war"", and that's one purpose of a redirect. As for the capitalization problem, if we delete all versions but one, I believe MediaWiki will automatically present the correct article even if the capitalization is wrong. (If we have two versions, I think it fails because it doesn't know which to assume.) If there's a problem with linking to Wikipedia, we can either use {{wikiquotepar}} or, better yet, move the WP article to the correct capitalization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps we should keep exactly one redirect, between ""just war"" and ""just war theory"", depending on which one of these would contain the article. I personally think that ""just war theory"" is better, as in the wikipedia article, but it's not a big deal either way. iddo999 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] What I'm saying is that there is no need for multiple capitalization versions of both phrases. One ""Just war"" redirect to ""Just war theory"", and no other capitalization variations, should have exactly the same result as if we'd had every likely capitalization variation of both phrases. In fact, it's better to have only the two, because redirects display the line ""Redirected from..."", whereas the MediaWiki-driven matching will take you straight to the correct form, regardless of the way you capitalized the phrase. But you need to have only one variation per phrase for this to work. Example: enter ""Just War"", and you'll see that MediaWiki assumes you meant ""Just war"" (note that it says ""Redirected from Just war "", not ""Redirected from Just War ""), because there's only a single variation of that phrase as an article title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarification: When I said keep ""Just war"", I meant as a redirect. When I said delete ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"", I was implicitly agreeing with whoever wrote the paragraph above the ""vote closes"" that ""Just war theory"" be kept as the main article. However, I don't really care which of ""Just war"" or ""Just war theory"" is primary, so long as we have only one article and one redirect. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies. I wrote the comment above, and forgot to sign it when signing my vote. I also created this page, btw:) Thanks for the info on mediawiki auto redirecting capital letters. As I mentioned, I like the ""just war theory"" title better than ""just war"", but ""just war"" is also good. Please add more quotes there, instead of wasting energy to determine the correct name:) iddo999 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""Just war,"" delete ""Just War theory,"" and redirect from ""Just war theory"" (only because it is listed this way in WP and people might search for it here after reading that article. BUt I would agree that the proper title for this set of quotes is merely ""Just war."" UDScott 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE ANALYSIS: This is our month for confusing votes. First, allow me to summarize this vote's context. The 3 existing articles on WQ are, as Aphaia listed: Just war theory (the current article) Just War Theory (currently a redirect) Just war (currently a double-redirect) Wikipedia's article is ""Just War theory"" (which doesn't exist here), they have a mess of redirects (in both senses of the word ""mess""), and we don't know what the final name of their article will be. As best I understand our discussion, we have the following votes: iddo999 , Jeff Q : Just war theory is best article name; redirect Just war to it; delete all other redirects. UDScott : Just war is best article name; redirect Just war theory to it; delete Just War theory . (Both iddo999 and Jeff Q consider this article/redirect combination acceptable, but it would entail an article-title swap, which seems unwise since we might want to swap it back if WP changes their minds again.) Aphaia: No actual vote, but the nomination of Just war for deletion, plus asking about making this a direct redirect to Just war theory , implies favoring iddo999 and Jeff Q's position on these 2 pages, with no comment on any variations. I believe the following can be extracted from this: Most (3-1) want Just war theory as the article (the current state), and Just war to redirect to it. Half want Just War Theory deleted. (UDScott may have meant ""Just War Theory"" when he said delete the non-existent ""Just War theory""; that would make it 3-0 [Aphaia not commenting].) As long as it exists, however, it may cause MediaWiki auto-redirection problems for the many variations people might try. Most (3-0; Aphaia not commenting) don't want a Just War theory redirect. (If the above possible interpretation of UDScott's vote is accurate, this one is 2-0, with 2 not specifically commenting on this variation. But nobody suggested creating it, either, so it should probably stay non-existent.) Therefore, I propose to close this vote with the following interpretation and subsequent actions: Redirect Just war to Just war theory . Delete Just War Theory and test all possible capitalizations for auto-redirection. If they work, we didn't need it anyway. If they don't, restore ""Just War Theory"". Ensure that both the WP and WQ articles link directly to the current articles on the other project, using the {{projectpar}} templates. I'm asking my fellow sysops (who happen to be the voters as well) to review my analysis to see if they concur. Unless someone objects before 24 November 2005, 12:00 (UTC), I will close this vote with the above interpretation and take the stated actions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed the votes and analysis: you are right, it is confusing, but it seems you have summarised it correctly. Thanks! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Anime: . — Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC) Anime [ edit ] One quote from a user where the link is to a wikipedia user page (not a main page). Likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closes : Result: deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent) -- Aphaia 9 July 2005 03:50 (UTC) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete unless at least one notable quote about anime is posted before the close date. This article title has potential, but without the quote from a Wikiquote user (which is inappropriate by policy), it would be blank. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:08 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Dhammapada: — Jeffq 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Dhammapada [ edit ] I changed its status from speedy deletion candidate. -- Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (3 Keeps, no dissent). Article name already fixed per original deletion requestor. Redirects fixed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep : Currently it seems to be a good article (though a bit stubby). See also Talk:Dhammapada . -- Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep : Just tag it with {{stub}} to encourage additions. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep Rmhermen 14:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Jon Schaffer: . — Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jon Schaffer [ edit ] No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: Deleted. (2 deletes, no dissent). -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with MosheZadka. This article was obviously created from the people template, but the creator merely saved the blank page, then added a single line. (This is a downside of the template scheme, which is nonetheless a good system.) I've removed the misleading template material to show the real substance of the article (or lack thereof). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Mark Adams and Zezima: — LrdChaos 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Mark Adams and Zezima [ edit ] Both of these pages were created by the same user and are both just meant to be insults to their subjects. —19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Vote closed. Result delete (5 deletes, 1 keep). — LrdChaos 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I have blanked the content of these articles (leaving a link to the previous content) based on precedent for likely libelous articles. I have also blocked the anon editor for 3 days because its 7 edits in 24 hours, all of a vandalistic or libelous nature, cannot be construed as innocent test edits. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. InvisibleSun 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both pages. ~ UDScott 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP . Mark Adams is gay. So is Zezima. If they are deleted, I will be: ………………. .,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~, …………. .,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-, ………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-, ……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. \ …. ;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\ …. .\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-, …...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………. .`~-~-,…(. (¯`*,`, ……. \llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\. .*`*;. .) ……. .\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~. ………….../ ……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………. /. \ ……. ./.../…/…/. .,-,. .*~,. `*~*……………. *...\ ……. |.../…/…/. *`...\...……………………)…. )¯`~, ……. |. /…/…. /……. )……,. )`*~-,……….../…. |. .)…`~-, ……/. /.../…,*`-,…. .`-,…*`…. ,---…...\…. /…. ./. .|……...¯```*~- …...(……….)`*~-,…. `*`. ,-~*. ,-*……|…/. …/…/…………\ ……. *-,……. `*-,...`~,. .``. ,,,-*………. |. ,*...,*…|…...\ ………. *,………`-,…)-,…………. .,-*`...,-*…. (`-,…………\ ............. .f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*…. ,-*……|…`-,.... . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 ( talk • contribs ) 23:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Delete per what Wikiquote is not. SorryGuy 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Urdu proverbs: — MosheZadka 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Urdu proverbs [ edit ] None of the proverbs has either an original script (Urdu uses what looks to be a variant on the Arabic script -- I could at least make out the word ""Urdu"" in the wp links), a literal translation or the colloquial meaning. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes (no translations provided), no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless English translations provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless English translations provided. -- Aphaia 20:50, 24 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Incognito: — Jeffq 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Incognito [ edit ] This page has nonsense quotes, and the film description provided isn't even for a film of this title, but instead describes The Devil's Advocate . ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no salvage attempt made). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 12:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with UDScott. Only way to salvage this article would be to replace the current material with quotes from one of the 12 Incognito productions listed in IMDb, or a literary work with this title. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Olav Mjelde: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Olav Mjelde [ edit ] Contains nothing but a question (""Who the heck is olav mjelde?""). Looks like anonymous page creator did so to call attention to a quote in Computers by Mjelde, which itself looks like a vanity quote from an unfamous person (possibly the Olav Mjelde who pops up on various movie- and computer-related websites). — Jeff Q 05:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Deleted ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Kaosu Rah: — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kaosu Rah [ edit ] Search yields bulletin board postings without notability. - InvisibleSun 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: delete (eight votes to delete, no dissent). — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. 121a0012 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . -- Robert 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . A search turns up various profiles at forums and such, with nothing to suggest that this person, or the ""Kaosu Buntai"" group, is notable. — LrdChaos 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Carolyn Crouch: — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Carolyn Crouch [ edit ] Not notable: Publications in [29] are few and have no books. General consensus for Professor notability is ""widely cited research or publication of a book"". ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability is found UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I think we need more than 3 (unquoted) professional articles for reasonable notability. There must be literally hundreds of thousands of academic professionals with at least these qualifications. Besides, the content suggests that a student attending a single class is trying to mock the professor with mostly inane quotes. Mocking the famous with their own words is fair game, but doing it to non-notable folks is just a mean kind of vanity. Without better notability evidence and no way to verify the quotes, I see no reason to have this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Reirom: ~ Kalki 11:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Reirom [ edit ] A google search finds half a dozen sites with this same strange misspelled quote and definition. Some sort if hoax surely. Rmhermen 16:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete : like this ? Anyway it isn't atributed even to anonym and means almost nothing. Not worthy to keep in my opinion. -- Aphaia 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep : Reirom is very known in the emulation scene, it redefined the concept of Troll, it is very famous in the EFNet. Some people and many tech-scenes says: Have two ages: before reirom, and after reirom . -- Mateusc 00:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep -- Oblivion 21:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete : Unless some understandable context can be provided for this peice of gibberish,it should be disposed of within the next week. It does not seem to be ""very known"" on the ""emulation scene"", nor have any common usage beyond the handful of google hits that have been mentioned, where it seems to have been posted in a similar fashion as on this wiki. It seems to be perhaps some personal prank or private code, neither widespread nor noteworthy beyond some very small clique, and perhaps merely the contrivance of some odd individual. ~ Kalki 14:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Amending my comment slightly: there does seem to be some reference of ""Reirom"" on some talk pages for emulation games dating back to at least 2000. But it still does not seem to be either very widespread, nor very clear what these statements refer to: and until there is some more information and clearer context provided, as to why this should be considered a ""quotable"" or ""notable"" statement of someone, I would still vote to delete. ~ Kalki 18:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Wait . Wikipedia has a similarly confusing article on Reirom , but they have 1,000 times the eyeballs to poll for hard details and references. I've VFD'd its page in the hopes that someone other than the contributors of these articles (on both sites) can substantiate it or confirm it to be unencylopedic. — Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete . I changed my vote because the Wikipedia article has now been deleted after an overwhelming vote (with only Wikipedia's Mateusc and an anonymous user dissenting). Furthermore, both our Mateusc and Oblivion above have exactly the same total contribution pattern at Wikiquote — recording their Reirom Keep votes here, creating a one-line User page, and tweaking Reirom , suggesting that they only registered here to vote against deletion, and that one may be a sockpuppet of the other. Finally, Mateusc has not responded to my request on their talk page that they provide some hard evidence of assertions that ""Reirom"" is somehow notable. — Jeff Q (talk) 14:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Aphaia just reverted vandalism of this page by an anon who removed all but the two Keep votes. I just reverted yet another removal of the vfd tag on the article itself and blocked the user for 24 hours for vandalizing VFD, after earlier removing two anon votes that were fraudulently masquerading as registered users. I am too involved in stopping these assaults (even while trying to get these people to actually make a case ) to feel comfortable closing the vote, even though we're well past the two-week recommendation AND the Wikipedia page has been deleted by loud acclamation. Could some other sysop finalize this vote, please? — Jeff Q (talk) 09:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Strongly delete : We need no vanity. -- Aphaia 07:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Moved 09:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) by author herself) Deleted ~ Kalki 11:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Jim Shapiro: — Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jim Shapiro [ edit ] 1. Article at best is advertising or a Vanity page. See also Advertisments 2. Article does not meet this Wikiquote Notable standard: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. It does not have potential to meet this standard and become a proper Wikiquote page. 3. Most likely it was created in support of an article currently up for deletion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability of subject. Dashiell 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I would add that the main ""article"", Jim Shapiro has been speedy deleted. Jawesq 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (8 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete as per request and in conjuction with the speedy delete on wikipedia. Dashiell 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom. Neither the man nor his quotes are notable. In fact, the article in Wikipedia meets a speedy deletion A6 category, as someone else pointed out. I suspect this does, as well. Jawesq 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete , also per discussion below. Jawesq 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . It appears that speedy delete was passed on at Wikipedia. Even if it were not, I don't think Wikiquote's different policies would support a speedy delete here. I support the nom. 65.97.18.237 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually WP:BIO does support speedy deletion. Jawesq 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article .) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete , per discussion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'm the administrator who deleted the Jim Shapiro article from English Wikipedia. I agree that it all looks like a hatchet job. -- Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Following WP's lead, I've blanked this article as a likely attack page, but following our own practices, I've added a convenient link for review. We could conceivably speedy-delete this, but I'm a bit troubled by the failure to look into an apparently legitimate source for information on this person, a New York Lawyer magazine article titled ""Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended"" (3 May 2004). However, given the lack of VfD/AfD participation from the original editor, the tide of opinion, and the restricted nature of the source, I suspect we'll end up deleting this article anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Good call. It appears that ""New York Lawyer"" is an attorney's site of some sort .... if you were to look at my state's similar type of website, I daresay you would find attorneys in the Southeast who have been sanctioned, as well. Not sure that changes the nature of the attack, since even the last 'version' was poorly sourced. The fact is that you would not find reputable national sources discussing this individual, because he simply isn't that well known. Therefore, the only possible purpose in creating a Wiki article is to make him well known, and for being an unsavoury lawyer. Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip rag? I do take this personally, even though I do not know this individual. I am sick to death of finding articles like this on Wikipedia, that are poorly sourced lawyer-bashing. This, however, is the most clear cut abuse of Wikipedia that I have seen, that falls squarly in WP:BIO of what NOT to do. Jawesq 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The registration process for NYLawyer.com, which looks much like many print publications' website registrations, made me think this was a magazine. I stand corrected by its own words: "" New York Lawyer is an online career guide for young lawyers. Backed by the resources and reputation of the 113-year-old New York Law Journal …"". I decided to try to resolve this source question to see if there's any reason not to SD this article like WP, but found that its registration process seems to be using an invalid security certificate. My attempts to find a reference to ""New York Lawyer"" or ""nylawyer.com"" on the NYLJ website resulted in a number of matches whose excerpts did not include the search term, and whose full content would only be revealed by starting a $300 subscription to NYLJ . As a result, I've changed my mind (see above) — I think there's no reason not to SD this article like WP did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Yikes! There are too many TLAs (two and three letter acronyms)! I have to have Wiki TLA training.   ;-) I just wish the lawyer bashing in WIkipedia would stop. Someone said I was treating this as a personal 'crusade'. WEll, I am an attorney, and I really have a problem with gratuitous lawyer insults. And this is all that article was about. Jawesq 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , keep deleted. Non-notable person, nothing notable said by or about him. BD2412 T 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , but I'm not sure that any of our formal policies and/or guidelines would permit speedy deletion of this page at present. — LrdChaos 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] We have an as-yet-unwritten practice, established shortly after an infamous Wikipedia scandal and following their lead (as we often do), of speedy-deleting attack pages against unnotables. (Yet another reason we've got to update our policies.) I'm wavering on using it, though, because (A) blanking the page renders the attack moot, and (B) we now have a deletion review for the WP article . The latter seems exceedingly unlikely to change anything, but one can hardly be blamed for pausing while such a flurry of activity resolves itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for explaining this, Jeff. I wondered what clarification you were referring to in your discussion. Iit does seem that there should be SD for attack pages on unnotables, and this should be better clarified in Wikipedia as well. Jawesq 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Articles, case 6 does cover this, and includes a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. Our draft policy includes a similar ""Attack page"" clause , but it is still awaiting final review, discussion, and approval. As far as my ""clarification"" goes, I'm not sure what you're referring to. (You don't make clear which discussion you're talking about — this one, the WP AfD, or the WP deletion review.) If you mean italicizing of my VfD entry as you cited it in the WP review (and incidental removal of the unmatched ""blockquote"" end tag), I did that to make it visually clearer that I did not post that edit, so that my subsequent vote didn't look like a second attempt to weigh in on the subject. (Yes, you did say before and after the text that it was copied by you, but visual formatting cues can be very useful to others when reading such a voluminous text as that review entry. Being a lawyer, I suspect you're more adept than most (myself included!) at careful reading of incredibly long texts. ☺ For many editors, such a detailed discussion tends to discourage participation by folks not already involved in the discussion. (I suspect this is a factor in the unusual absence thus far of most of the regular VfD participants in this one. But I must keep my reputation as Wikiquote's most verbose sysop. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I have had no problems with any of your edits. I didn't mean clarification of your edit. I meant a clarification of what was being proposed for the SD...I found it very interesting that you mentioned this. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I just need to leave all of this alone, since I seem to be stumbling.   :-( Jawesq 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. - InvisibleSun 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I suggest now leaving the quotes, since the original deleted article has now been recreated using ""James"" instead of ""Jim"" Shapiro, before the deletion review was even completed. An AFD or speedy delete is apparently meaningless, and not worth the time. The new ""james"" Shapiro article in WP is a broader attack on lawyers, and is not specifically an attack on Shapiro, who is used primarily as a bad example. I suggest that the authors of the Wikiquote and Wikipedia article on Shapiro get the names of their article/quotes (or whatever recreation of those) to link up properly. I will not participate further, since I am leaving WIkipedia altogether. WIkipedia (I can't speak for here) is probably the worst example of juvenile politics and tabloid 'journalism' I have ever seen. I am only surprised there have not been more lawsuits against this group. The environment is not one in which I have any desire to participate. Jawesq 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per above discussion. ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 August 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Jeff Rupert: — Jeffq 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jeff Rupert [ edit ] As I mentioned in the David Kretch VfD entry, this is another apparent unnotable from that article's creator. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no further info provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 11:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I moved this and five other nominations to the bottom of this page and changed their closing dates, effectively extending their ealier nominations, because I'd failed to add the {{vfd}} tag to the articles. My apologies for the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Image:Americanpsycho.jpg: — MosheZadka 06:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Americanpsycho.jpg [ edit ] Deletion requested by only uploader, uncertain copyright status, not used. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'd speedy it, but there doesn't seem to be any allowance in policy for it. I'm going to ask to disable uploads soon. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -o-Tron Sveden 19:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 8 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. ###Output: " +redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Proverbs, Book of Proverbs: — Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Proverbs , Book of Proverbs [ edit ] Supposingly a copy from The Bible . Vote Closed : Result: Proverbs turned to redirect to List of proverbs (2 Redirects, 1 redirect to another), Book of Proverbs to The Bible ; (3 Redirects) -- Aphaia 00:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to The Bible : because currently this is a dull copy from the Bible. Unless we determine to have a page for each book of the Bible, I think this page is better to be deleted or turned into redirect. -- Aphaia 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect Proverbs to List of proverbs ; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible for now although I can see that page needing to be subdivided in the future. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect as Rmhermen states. Let he who addeth much material to The Bible article bringeth up the subject of dispersal at a future date. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) Both were turned to redirects: Proverbs to List of proverbs ; redirect Book of Proverbs to The Bible . -- Aphaia 00:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Adrian Speyer: — MosheZadka 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Adrian Speyer [ edit ] Assumingly vanity: on English Wikipdia there is no article, but 13 deleted revisions since last June 3. -- Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:29 (UTC) Vote closed : Result delete and ask about quote on reference desk (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MosheZadka ( talk • contribs ) 12:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Delete . -- Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:29 (UTC) Delete and move ""you can call a horse a duck"" quote to Anonymous ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:30 (UTC) Comment: Is this quote notable itself? (Just curious. I know such sense varies by person). -- Aphaia 6 July 2005 08:12 (UTC) Well, it does seem to be a popular idiom, if not precisely in that format (usually, just saying something like ""you can call a horse a duck, but still college students are not academics"" or something similar -- that is, not quoting the second part). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:20 (UTC) Delete unless evidence of notability provided. And technically this quote shouldn't go into Anonymous , as it isn't. If this person isn't notable, and the sense of his quote isn't original (which is certain; I've heard variations on this for decades), then just delete it and wait for someone to add an older anonymous version. Every one of these ""but we can fix it with a little research"" situations adds to the burden of those who actively participate on broad Wikiquote issues, and we're already getting behind and sloppy on important problems that must be handled by a tiny fraction of Wikiquotians. Let the community do what a community can do best. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ 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 ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Juergen Heine: . — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Juergen Heine [ edit ] 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative: — Jeffq 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative [ edit ] This experimental alternative page for Frenetic Five was nominated for speedy deletion because ""main page already has that format"", which I infer to mean that the tested format was transferred to the main article after it was agreed upon. However, it does not meet SD criteria. It is not a ""test page"" in the Wikipedia/Wikiquote sense of an inappropriate sandbox; it was apparently a community attempt to develop a consensus to change the format, and as such, should be handled by VfD when its purpose is done. ( Personal subpages may be speedy-deleted, but not article subpages. Also, it's inappropriate to use the Talk: namespace for a full-blown test of an article; it should be a subpage of the article , and its talk page used to discuss the experiment. But that's another issue.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) Delete . Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:54, 16 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: A blind man running for his life will never see the difference. Scot proverb (Granny Kerr): — MosheZadka 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] A blind man running for his life will never see the difference. Scot proverb (Granny Kerr) [ edit ] Not really a proverb (proverbs should be folk wisdom, not attributed to a specific grandmother), and not really a proverb article. One of the problems, probably, with the Help:Starting a new page system :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I also tweaked the input box for proverbs, calling it ""proverb collections"", which will hopefully make a little clearer what we expect a proverb article to be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Aphaia 18:07, 9 September 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: James Chin: — Jeffq 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] James Chin [ edit ] Probable vanity page. Only contribution from anynmous user and provided link goes to similar but different quote. Rmhermen 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; 1 Keep). — Jeff Q (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The only place this shows up in Google (besides on a website with a copy of our page, including the VfD notice) is on the web board cited in the Wikiquote entry. The ability to post something witty on a web board does not make one notable. — Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . Strongly suspecting a vanity page. -- Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep . James Chin is an important part of many lives. He inspires people to reach out and be cool and funny. If it were not for James Chin, I would have commited suicide long ago. If you delete him, what's to say I won't contemplate it again? Or at least consider doing it over a Macintosh App-- aha, see! I could have died if not for his wisdom! - Steelix 13:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) User has no edits except this vote. Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) I find this presumably lighthearted attempt at emotional blackmail in incredibly poor taste. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . I believe this is another case of a Beloved Forum Personality. According to his user profile , he has 2,700+ posts to the referenced forum, with the majority in the Banter & Brawl section. Perhaps a Colorful Characters page, where a few sayings from the village jesters of the world could be preserved? -- Eustace Tilley 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . I don't see any notability to this person. MosheZadka 08:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Brian Evans: — Jeffq 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Brian Evans [ edit ] Not notable. ~ UDScott 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete obvious vanity page. Article itself states non-notability and makes clear that the author is a personal acquaintance of the subject. Wikipedia's article on Brian Evans is about a cricketer, not a philosopher. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with above. jni 07:13, 28 March 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Harlan Tufford: — MosheZadka 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Harlan Tufford [ edit ] No evidence of notability, likely vanity. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I couldn't find anything notable about him. UDScott 13:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Obvious vanity. No presence on Wikipedia. Surely ""one of the worlds [sic] most influential video gamers"" would have more than 2 Google hits. He also takes credit for the phrase ""no pun intended"", which was in common use before he was born (1989). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Amber: -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Amber [ edit ] No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: Kept (2 keeps, no dissent). -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a way to vote ""either Delete or Transwiki, but I don't care which one?"" I do not have enough time to research whether it would make a good wp transwiki, but it is certain it has no place here. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] You just have. If there's enough support for delete and/or transwiki (which from Wikiquote's POV is ""get it off Wikiquote""), I'll personally shepherd it through a transwiki to WP, which will accomplish both. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki to Wikipedia. They already have an article there (which I've linked ours to), but there is at least one item missing from WP that's included here (her real name). If we don't transwiki or delete it, the ""introductory"" material should at least be significantly edited down. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that the encyc text has been replaced by some quotes (although one of them is really a Ulysses quote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that there are quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:13, 5 October 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Portal:Law: — MosheZadka 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Portal:Law [ edit ] Bunch of red links. While portals can be useful, I would appreciate some discussion as to how to best affect them, or at least some out-of-the-way experiments (user or wikiquote namespaces) before implemented. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless anonymous user registers and convinces the community what use such pages would be. We don't have the adminstrative bandwidth for novel subprojects from unregistered users. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Now. Though portal is a basically good idea, portals with maintenance is horrible and shabby, so community approval is necessary to keep it, or a portal can't survive its own community, even very small. -- Aphaia 04:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, note that on Wikiquote, as opposed to Wikipedia, The ""Portal:"" is not a namespace. It's a good thing, probably: it means we don't have portals right now officially. Anyone who wants to start portals should probably start them at Wikiquote:Portals subpages until they get wide acceptance. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:53, 15 October 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Chaitanya Kamisetty: — MosheZadka 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Chaitanya Kamisetty [ edit ] Marked for VfD by User:Aphaia but not listed here. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless giving info about notability. Google result [30] . And thank you Moshe again for your listing. -- Aphaia 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of notability. It's a shame, too; I like the second quote. (I wonder about the originality of the first one, given my recollection of such statements from Juran quality training back in the early '80s.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Neglected Mario Characters: — Jeffq 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Neglected Mario Characters [ edit ] Vote closed. Result: keep (3 Keeps; 1 Delete; 1 Neutral). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This wikiquote page not really needed. - SPKx 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't see why the above user feels this page ""is not really needed."" This seems to be a legitimate webcomic, and the quotes seem fine. It might need some expansion, but it certainly seems to be enough to warrant having a page here. ~ UDScott 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ummmm.... I created the NC wikipedia page and I should be qualified enough to decide whether or not a wikiquote page is really required for NC. - SPKx 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] SPKx, creators of Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles do not have any special rights or authority over their content or appropriateness. Wikipedians and Wikiquotians, as a community, determine whether an article should or shouldn't exist, subject only to basic project guidelines. The best way to make an argument for or against an article is to cite specific information that would persuade others to agree with your opinion. Argument from authority usually doesn't work well on wikis. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Agree with above user; seems legitimate. ~ Jesussaves 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The comic certainly appears notable, and while the page could definitely use expanding, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. — LrdChaos 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral . The current content of the article seems fairly inane, but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article, merely one to improve or stub-tag it (the latter of which I just did). The real questions are (A) ""Is this a notable subject?"" and (B) ""Is it likely to have enough quotes for a minimal article?"". I don't know enough to answer (B), which seems to be the basis of SPKx's objection, but other webcomics seem to provide enough quotes for their subjects. As far as (A) notability goes, w:Sprite comic claims that this is the ""first well documented sprite comic"", but the WP article doesn't currently list a single reliable source , making this assertion highly questionable. (The webcomic itself only hits 224K in Alexa, although it has a solid Google presence.) If I was sure this couldn't be remedied, I'd vote delete (and nominate the WP article for deletion as well). But I'm not, so I'm going to remain on the fence for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Clarence McCoy: — Jeffq 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarence McCoy [ edit ] 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 [31] ~ 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Category:1919 births: — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:1919 births [ edit ] I removed the one or two articles in this category because we don't have any sort of consistent or well-used plan for this. While it might be useful to, down the line, include some sort of categorization by year of birth/death, it should perhaps follow the standard for pre-2000 films, which are grouped by decade instead of by individual year. — LrdChaos 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent). -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . — LrdChaos 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. 121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Image:Einstein.jpg: — MosheZadka 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Einstein.jpg [ edit ] This image has no copyright information and has been replaced by a Commons one on Albert Einstein . I have asked the uploader Alan J Franklin to provide a source for the image but have received no response. -- Rmrfstar 09:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, one implied delete by nominator, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete possibly copyvio when there are good free images ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Doubly so when no pages link to the file now (thanks Rmrfstar) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete even if it is properly licensed. If acceptable license info is made available, it should be uploaded to Commons. Once there, folks can decide which one they want to show here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and use the Commons image. UDScott 14:02, 16 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. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: Manoj Sati: — Jeffq 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Manoj Sati [ edit ] No quotes, looks like a beginnings of a vanity biography entry. Delete . jni 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep [from repeat disrupter 0Waldo]; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Not only does this person not appear to be notable (no WP article, and the most significant Google hits are all personal blogs — always a bad sign), but the editor creating this article doesn't seem to get the idea of NPOV, like so many of our obvious vanity-article contributors. I'd have to see very compelling evidence of notability for this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Am I allowed to vote here? If so I say that this should be deleted unless proof of notability is provided. -- Teabeard 10:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with the above. ~ UDScott 15:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP . Munchovie say for CHRIST'S sake KEEP! This guy is notable as hell! Delete the JNI page or something useless like that!!! 0Waldo The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: " +delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input: David Kretch: — Jeffq 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] David Kretch [ edit ] Not notable. ~ UDScott 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Concur with UDScott. Intriguing that the sole current quote is essentially saying ""I wish I was quotable""; it almost makes the deletion case by itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Seems to be a relatively common name, but which David Kretch produced this quote and whether the quote or he is notable are both in question. Oswald Glinkmeyer 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The anonymous user who created this article also created Patti Cannon and Jeff Rupert (both apparent non-notables), as well as the overlapping Basheer Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed , which, despite the substance in the former, appear to be referring to someone other than the Googleable people with those names. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ 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. ###Output: "