outcome,text,pred
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Rachel Johns: — Jeffq 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Rachel Johns [ edit ] Non-notable person.  A search on the name yields around 700 results, of which none seems notable or to be the person meant (though the lack of an intro means this is just a feeling).  — LrdChaos 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless specific person is identified and evidence of notability provided.  (A reliable source for the quote is also highly desirable).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with above.  ~ UDScott 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all above.  SorryGuy 23:58, 27 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: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  T-34 tank: NO SIGNATURE T-34 tank [ edit ] Too stubby (and I can't imagine how it will be expanded or developped).  Perhaps better to merge into Technology or another article.  -- Aphaia 4 July 2005 03:49 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: merge with Tiger I to form Tanks , under War (two supporters, no dissent) Comment: Perhaps we can merge this with Tiger I ?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC) Merge this and any other stray tank articles with Tiger I , move the latter to Tanks , and change the category to War rather than the overused Themes .  — Jeff Q (talk) 4 July 2005 06:08 (UTC) Merge (I completely agree with above comment) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:13 (UTC) Comment: Other candidates for ""War"" subcategory: Terrorism , War (of course), Peace (perhaps?).  Any others?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:17 (UTC) Comment: Since then, I've created Category:War for other reasons.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Self-proclaimed deities: — Jeffq 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Self-proclaimed deities [ edit ] Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) No quotes.  Not likely to get any.  Rmhermen 03:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-Npov-compatible theme.  MosheZadka 04:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  What MosheZadka said.  — Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Probably nothing notable here, like Rmhermen said.  But I don't see why this has anything to do with npov, nor do I see what wikiquote in general has to do with npov.  Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Selena Ravot: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Selena Ravot [ edit ] Self-admitted vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete and remove quotes from theme articles (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless replaced with a decent article about a provably notable person ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Her only notable quote is already captured on the Procrastination page.  UDScott 13:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: excellent catch!  We should probably remove the quote from Procrastination if the result is to delete (as seems likely) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] This is another of many examples of how littered with unnotable quotes our theme pages are.  Someday , we'll have to invest some major effort in weeding these out.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] In general, wikiquote seems to have gathered vast acres of crap in which you can plant crops .  Slowly, but surely, the crap seems to die out faster than the new crap is moving in, meaning that after a finite time, we'll have zero crap :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Mixing your Buffy metaphor with my park metaphor, MosheZadka, I've noticed no general trend in pulling weeds out of otherwise healthy gardens, only removing undesirable gardens in toto , which is much easier to do.  Have you looked at Computers lately?  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm avoiding looking at Computers because of exactly that reason :) My point is that there is enough in-toto crap to fix (articles with no intro being my latest craze, you may remember the categorizing drive a while ago which flushed many VfDs out, etc.) Once we reach a more or less stable ground article-wise, we can start cleaning out themes (for example, by mandating that every theme quote has to come from a specific source page, which is wikilinked — that will at least reduce the problem to the Anonymous hell-hole).  I'm a hardcore eventualist, which is why I referenced ""slowly but surely"" and a ""finite amount of time"".  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:10, 10 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Matthew Wilcox: — Jeffq 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Matthew Wilcox [ edit ] This does appear to be a quote from this person but he appears to be a 20-something minor computer software developer.  Does he qualify as notable?  Or is this an actual quote from another source?  Rmhermen 03:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I couldn't find any notability deserving to Wikiquote, though he seems to be known as a Linux related developer.  Just now, an anon claimed we should google for saving it, but from a moral of Reirom issues, I think we don't listen to such attempt to try to have us go outside source.  If someone wants to save it, he should state his opinion clearly here and show the evidence of notability of article in question, in my opinion.  -- Aphaia 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Constantine: — MosheZadka 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Constantine [ edit ] Encyclopedic stub.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and next time we have a lull in in new policies, we should consider VfD withdrawal.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the entry, adding quotes, cast, and taglines.  It is no longer merely an encyclopedic stub.  UDScott 16:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on current content.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:59, 3 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire: — Jeffq 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire [ edit ] A page created for a single episode of The Simpsons , with no quotes.  — LrdChaos 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Even if it had quotes, any attempt to make a decent article out of a TV show episode will violate any reasonable interpretation of ""fair use"".  Best to include a very select sample in the overall article or a reasonable subset (like a season).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with above.  ~ UDScott 12:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , quoteless - any quotes which are added before closure could be merged to The Simpsons .  Smurrayinchester 22:43, 7 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Wikiquote:People articles in Wikipedia to be linked to Wikiquote: — Jeffq 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikiquote:People articles in Wikipedia to be linked to Wikiquote [ edit ] Not only is this page breathtakingly out of date, but with Wikiquote at over 3100 articles, it is monstrously unscaleable.  It is far easier to use ""Random page"", ""All articles"", or ""Recent changes"" to inspect articles and take a few seconds each to fix missing links as one comes across them.  — Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Hardly scalable, currently abandoned (so out of date); by the way I recommend New articles rather than All articles, though the former is not dynamicly generated.  -- Aphaia 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I forgot ""New articles"".  With ""All articles"", I was thinking more of a systematic effort to clean up all 3100+ articles.  Not that I'm volunteering!  ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I noticed this on before but couldn't quite determine it purpose.  BTW I recommend ""Old pages"" where I have been doing a lot of work.  Rmhermen 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Vladislav Sukonnikov: — LrdChaos 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vladislav Sukonnikov [ edit ] Vanity page for a non-notable subject.  No results in a Google search on the name, and the Wikipedia page has been tagged for speedy deletion.  — LrdChaos 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Update : The Wikipedia page has been speedy-deleted.  — LrdChaos 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Koweja 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:54, 1 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: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Academy Award: NO SIGNATURE Academy Award [ edit ] Non-quote expository article.  Text lifted directly from two pages [24] [25] of Motion Picture Academy website, in clear violation of their copyright .  — Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED: deleted.  (2 deletes, no dissent).  Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  We should probably develop a copyright violation procedure as well.  Rmhermen 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Category:Commercials, Category:Quotes by nationality: — MosheZadka 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Commercials , Category:Quotes by nationality [ edit ] Unused categories.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (4 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : for now.  -- Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see what articles we're likely to have that would be grouped into a ""Commercials"" category; quotes from commercials can be found in List of advertising slogans .  ""Quotes by nationality"" are already grouped in Category:People by nationality .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with Jeff that these quotes are better collected on the List of advertising slogans page.  The Category:Quotes by nationality is also already handled and is superfluous.  UDScott 19:13, 8 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Wannes van Deursen and Van Deursen,Wannes: — Jeffq 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Wannes van Deursen and Van Deursen,Wannes [ edit ] Two (identical) pages that are almost certainly vanity: Google turns up no matches for the name, which happens to the same as the username that created the pages.  — LrdChaos 15:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , almost surely vanity.  ~ UDScott 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Thanks, LrdChaos, for posting the {{ vanity-warn }} message on User:Wannes van Deursen 's talk page.  Let's hope this new user understands this common mistake and lets us move one of these to his user page instead.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:56, 2 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Wiktionary.png, Image:Wiki-textbook.png, Image:Wiki-meta.png, File:Sourceberg.jpg: — MosheZadka 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Wiktionary.png , Image:Wiki-textbook.png , Image:Wiki-meta.png , File:Sourceberg.jpg [ edit ] Weird things that look like images but are redirects, nothing links to those.  Can't imagine the possible use even if they were images, since everything exists on commons.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete .  [Closed implicitly during archiving by MosheZadka 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC), as recorded by Jeff Q (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) .] [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Looks like old attempts to provide image-based links to sister projects, which is now handled by {{otherwiki}} .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Queenmum2.jpg: — MosheZadka 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Queenmum2.jpg [ edit ] On Wikipedia, it should have been deleted about 6 months ago according to their policies: it comes from an unknown source.  I believe it should be deleted here, without regards to whether WP follows policies correctly.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent, deleted from wp) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and I agree that it should go regardless of the actions on WP.  UDScott 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If a GFDL- or CCL-compatible source is found, it should be uploaded to Commons for general use.  I was hoping to find an image and blanket public-domain ruling for images on a UK government site (like the U.S.'s "".gov"" provides), but a quick sifting of info at www.royal.gov.uk suggests the UK may not have the same guidelines.  ( Its ""Crown Copyright"" page seems both to restrict general use to downloading, printing, and hyperlinking, and to allow both broader and more restrictive licenses for images on its site.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I have managed to get it deleted on WP too: see w:Special:Undelete/Image:Queenmum2.jpg ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:44, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Phreaky A: — Jeffq 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Phreaky A [ edit ] Supposed 15-year old rapper with no WP article or All-Music Guide entry under ""Phreaky A"", ""Andrew Nikulin"", or even ""D2M"".  Only current evidence of existence (let alone notability) is from 2 links: an indirect mention in a D2M entry on Soundclick.com, which allows anyone to upload their music (I'll have to try this myself sometime), and an MSN Spaces page, hardly a reliable source .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no further info provided, no request to move to user page).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article created by Phreaky A .  I've posted a note to ask the user if he wants to move this article to be his user page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 11:48, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Auschwitz11.jpeg: — Jeffq 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Auschwitz11.jpeg [ edit ] Unused image, no mention of license.  Commons will have pictures on this subject.  Rmhermen 14:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ' Delete we shouldn't accept {{unsourced}} a/o Template:Unverified . And as for this image with another Auschwitz one, I doubt they were uploaded on a good faith. Cf. User:Harrykel . I asked the editor to modify his or her user page. -- Aphaia 18:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . Uploaded for no apparent Wikiquote purpose. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Ezra Deutsch-Feldman: — MosheZadka 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ezra Deutsch-Feldman [ edit ] ""Very little is known"" is probably a euphemism for ""is unnotable"" ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, one anon ""keep"" after close date with pooorly phrased rationale) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Moshe.  No WP article; Google strongly suggests this is a suburban Maryland student who likes movies and participates in the Washington Post's Style Invitational contest.  So do I, but I'm not notable, either.  (I have to admit that he gets about twice as many Google hits as my name does.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] On the other hand, he gets a third as I do -- and I ain't notable either :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't Delete No Washington Post article?  Plus I like the quote.  Is the fact that he's not famous (outside of DC, at least) really a good reason to delete him?  I mean, his quote is good, right?  Struck out anon vote by 70.17.84.66 ( talk · contributions ) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Concrete Hippo: — Jeffq 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Concrete Hippo [ edit ] I'm not even sure what this is - is it a hoax?  It appears that this page had been previously deleted at wikipedia, but was recreated today (to coincide with the creation of a page on wikiquote).  ~ UDScott 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  How can a statue have quotes??  ~ UDScott 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless credible evidence provided that this is not a hoax.  I found no ""Concrete Hippo EP"" at All-Music Guide, and based on the corresponding, unsourced Wikipedia article , it sounds rather fantastic (as in ""complete fantasy"").  Quotes from a statue don't help the case.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I nominated the WP article for deletion , which may also shed more light on the situation.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP AfD for ""Concrete Hippo"" resulted in a delete, with the single line of useful information merged with w:Walsall .  During this vote, at least one of the article's editors made 2 attempts to add fictitious references for the looney essay they wrote.  I seriously doubt we'll get any real sources for statue ""quotes"" here.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the partner of a Wikipedia page which had similar hoax content about the statue itself, and is undergoing AfD.  -- Mithent 00:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete patent nonsense.  CPMcE 00:33, 14 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  C is for Cookie: — Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) C is for Cookie [ edit ] This is almost certainly a copyright violation as it ""quotes"" the entire text of the song.  We could shorten it to a couple quotes or, maybe better, put them on a Sesame Street page.  Rmhermen 21:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete - Currently copyvio.  and put a shortened one on a Sesami Street page.  -- Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  What Wikiquote is not #10: A place for posting the entire lyrics of songs.  (Much as I might wish we could. ☺) — Jeff Q (talk) 03:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) -Deleted.  Rmhermen 14:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Talk:Reirom: — Jeffq 11:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Talk:Reirom [ edit ] Wikiquote is being trolled. -- Eustace Tilley 10:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote closed. Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I've suggested to the folks who keep trying to resurrect the Reirom article (through fair means and foul) that they might have more luck with the Portugeuse Wikiquote/Wikipedia, as this seems to be a Brazilian tech community thing. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . Reirom is Brazilian; the emulation community is international and conducts its affairs largely in English, but at the moment he has achieved the status of Colorful Forum Personality.  To break through to the next level, he needs to originate a phrase which becomes an w:Internet phenomenon and his advocates need to do some promotional stunts similar to w:All_your_base_are_belong_to_us . -- Eustace Tilley 11:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Protect if necessary.  Rmhermen 13:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) There were two anonymous votes; I removed it because this is not a vote literal but factly a discussion to make the community consensus.  (Wikipedia currently made a good and brief explanation of this point as a template).  So not only anonymous votes but also new comers' vote are not welcome here, specially those people have no legitimate edits on this project.  (On the other hand, Veronica Mars vote showed us a good model what Wikiquote editors can do and how they can save the article from deletion).  No vote without signiture (and both were from IP) is allowed as far as I understand on our project.  So I got rid of two anonymous votes.  I don't oppose any registered Wikiquote editors restore them from history but at that time I hope that editor will join the discussion what kind of vote we have here on VfD.  -- Aphaia 01:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . WQ is not a discussion forum about already deleted topics. jni 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . Jni said quite well. -- Aphaia 19:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Aleksis Kivi: — MosheZadka 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Aleksis Kivi [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: keep (3 keeps, no dissent, one struck out delete) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now, thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've expanded the page, adding some quotes.  UDScott 14:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since it has been expanded.  Kivi is a well known Finnish author.  jni 16:05, 29 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Bleed: — Aphaia 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Bleed [ edit ] I debated whether it was a speedy.  Has nothing useful except a wikipedia link to a redirect about a medical condition.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: Deleted (3 deletes, no dissent; as for the new speedy-criteria propossal, see also Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions ) -- Aphaia 14:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and I propose to create a new speedy criteria - ""an article which only contains either links including interlang links."" -- Aphaia 09:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and concur with Aphaia's speedy-delete criterion suggestion.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Hugo romano: — Jeffq 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Hugo romano [ edit ] Not notable.  A search of Google turns up just over a hundred hits (but only 22 'not similar' ones), mostly photo uploads with some blog posts thrown in.  — LrdChaos 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (6 deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided and the sole quote is properly sourced as original with this person, which I strongly suspect cannot be done.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:20, 20 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Status Quo: — Jeffq 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Status Quo [ edit ] This new article's sole quote is the title of ""The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades"", their 1996 cover of Timbuk 3 's 1986 Billboard #19 pop hit.  Timbuk 3's founders are Barbara and Pat McDonald, the latter of whom is credited on All-Music Guide as author.  Status Quo has apparently been around a long time, but if their only notable quote is from a song they didn't even write (and which was vastly better known in its original form), I don't see what's left to include in the article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and add quote to Lyrics , properly sourced.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added the Timbuk 3 line to Lyrics as suggested.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 18 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Paul Boese: — Jeffq 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Paul Boese [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no response from creator, no improvement to sources or evidence provided).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 11:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced.  At least one quote is indeed widespread as claimed in the article.  However, that only means it's popular, not that it comes from this person.  I've fixed the WP link to point to a (currently nonexistent) WP article (instead of ""Name"" — another inputbox/template oversight).  I've also asked the article creator for notability evidence.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 5 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Nathalie Loisau: — LrdChaos 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Nathalie Loisau [ edit ] Not notable.  From the results of a Google search, this person seems to be a spokesperson for the French Embassy in Washington, DC, but doesn't seem to be anyone of particular importance there.  Certainly, the position is not like the White House Press Secretary, and in general, spokesperson positions are not that notable.  — LrdChaos 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , although it is a funny quote, she is certainly not notable enough for inclusion here.  ~ UDScott 21:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete provided that quote is moved to an appropriate theme page.  121a0012 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (without copying quote to theme article) unless evidence of notability provided.  Alternatively, I'd accept moving the quote to a theme if we could get a reliable source for it, even if Loisau's notability isn't clear.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 17:39, 12 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Paul Sally: — Jeffq 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Paul Sally [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep (2 Keeps; 1 Delete).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This person currently has a Wikipedia article and seems to be on the threshhold of notability.  (Sally is a university professor who heads a University of Chicago department, has received several awards for special projects, and has been cited in some news articles.)  I've nominated the WP article for deletion as well in order to determine which side Sally falls on by current standards, and in the hopes that we can get sources for these quotes (as well as improvements to the WP article).  As it stands, the quotes here all sound like conversation with students, which will get axed without sources as being unverifiable .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP article survived its AfD nomination.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - eminent in the mathematics community.  — Dan | talk 07:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm satisfied with the notability arguments in WP's AfD.  However, all of the current quotes in the article sound like classroom talk, which is impossible to reliably source or verify.  Assuming this survives our VfD (which seems likely), I will remove any quotes I can't find a proper source for, which at the moment will leave this article empty.  I urge Sally fans to scare up some verifiable quotes.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",1
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Iron Jawed Angels: — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Iron Jawed Angels [ edit ] No quotes.  Aside from its creation, the only activity on this page was to add a WP link and a tagline, which is the closest thing to a quote from the film.  — LrdChaos 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  .  Result: keep (six votes to keep, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that it's been turned into a valid stub with some quotes.  — LrdChaos 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless valid quotes from the film are added.  ~ UDScott 15:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that some quotes have been added.  ~ UDScott 13:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Agree with UDScott.  - InvisibleSun 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the addition of quotes.   - InvisibleSun 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It qualifies as notable enough to get a page here.  Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree with UDScott.  There is apparently so little quote interest in this film at present that not even IMDb, as error-prone as it is, has a single quote.  Nor are there any in the WP article.  It is easy to recreate a proper article when quotes have been found, but I'm against creating film stubs as long-term placeholders, which would make it easy to overwhelm WQ with quoteless stubs from legitimate films (as this one certainly is).  Better to require that article creators add the primary justification for a WQ article on their pet subject — at least one real quote.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that quotes have been added.  (Thanks again, Robert!)  I see that, since I posted, the IMDb article has gained quotes as well.  (Or at least they fixed the oddity that allowed quotes to exist, but failed to show character quote links on the main page. I notice that their Osmosis Jones article also now shows character quote links.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've expanded the article a bit.  I'll see if I can find any more good quotes from watching the official trailers.  -- Robert 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Since Jaxl has added some quotes to this after the original date/time to close this vote, but before the article was deleted, I've extended the vote for one week to give everyone a chance to reconsider their votes.  — LrdChaos 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Gus Arredondo: — Aphaia 03:16, 23 June 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Gus Arredondo [ edit ] No notability, blatant advertising, no actual pithy sayings.  MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia ( talk • contribs ) 03:16, 23 June 2005  (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 10:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) If it survives the VfD, add it back to List of people by occupation page.  Comment: Do a quick search on any of the major search engines and you will see how many times Gus Arredondo is mentioned.  He is one of the fastest rising comics around and is held in high regard by his peers.  Moshe thinks she can decide the content of this site for all of us.  She has requested more page deletions than all of the other users combined.  -- Cortypie 02:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: Save this page !!! I agree with cortypie. Has Moshe been hiding with Osama Bin Laden? Gus Arredondo is going to be a big star. He has performed at some of the biggest comedy clubs in the country. No Notability? Moshe you need to get out of the house. -- Tonytimes 02:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I have moved the enthused comments (for some reason, without an actual vote) to the proper format, so the discussion will be clear.  The only site I have found is Gus's own site, which I assume everyone agree is not evidence enough of notability in and of itself.  If the enthused commenters would care to vote, and to add quotes to the article as well as external links pointing to those same peers avowing their high regards for Gus, I am sure we will all be happy to keep the article.  MosheZadka 04:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  I did as the users above suggested and found only 5 relevant, non-self-promoting hits in Google, which makes him only 1/20th as famous as me, a nobody.  This person may be up-and-coming, but so are millions of would-be comics, actors, and other entertainment industry folks who never actually become notable.  HOWEVER, the bigger problems are the blatant advertisting (unacceptable on Wikiquote) and, above all, the complete lack of relevant quotes.  A stand-up comic's quote article ought to have quotes from his routines.  (After all, that's what makes him notable.)  I might reconsider if this article gets rid of the fawning prose, adds relevant quotes, and trims the self-promotion down to a matter-of-fact external link.  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jonathan Blake: — Aphaia 08:00, 20 June 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jonathan Blake [ edit ] No notability, no pithy quotes.  A somewhat humourous epitaph which could have been in epitaph list, possibly.  MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed: Deleted.  (4 deletes, no dissent).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia ( talk • contribs ) 08:00, 20 June 2005  (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 03:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  An anonymous user added this Halloween joke tombstone inscription to Epitaphs on 10 May, found it deleted, then readded it and created this article from its red-linked name on 5 June.  Whether or not the epitaph is legitimate, the person article surely isn't .  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete No sign of notability - epitaph could go into epitaph list as ""anonymous"", if someone prefers.  -- Aphaia 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Article about an average man ; explains its own non-notability.  jni 06:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Shane Fender: — Jeffq 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Shane Fender [ edit ] Search for name reveals no evidence of notability.   Search for quotes yields zero results.   - InvisibleSun 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes, 1 implicit delete; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 11:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I've put {{ vanity-warn }} onto the talk page for the page's creator ( User:Rockinmoshin ); perhaps this page should be userfied.  — LrdChaos 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless creator wants this for user page (in which case, move per LrdChaos).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:31, 30 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Transcendentalism - A New Revelation: -- Aphaia 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Transcendentalism - A New Revelation [ edit ] With a very liberal interpretation of the arguments that I presented in the section on Manuel de Castro, what appears to be the self promotions of Kurt Kawohl by creating his own article for quotations can be tolerated.  However considering his own works as notable enough to be listed in the List of literary works is a step beyond, for which I feel I must definitely register disapproval.  I did not delete this page immediately, but am posting it here for the consideration of others on the matter.  ~ Kalki 18:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) I prefer to delete it;  or keep as a part of contents of his userpage.  -- Aphaia 23:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) Delete .  I must admit I'm a bit torn on this.  The author is gifted at self-promotion, as evidenced by his self-quotes on this page and his chutzpah posting a review of his own book on Amazon.com.  It flies in the face of Wiki practice against writing about oneself in article namespace.  But he has apparently whipped up some notable controversy.  Nevertheless, the self-referential content isn't worthy of a article.  If someone other than the quotee feels any of these quotes are notable, I suggest they place them in an appropriate theme article.  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete Rmhermen 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment: There is also a Kurt Kawohl page.  Rmhermen 12:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  His selfpromotion has been deleted from Wikipedia also.  jni 09:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Deleted -- Aphaia 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Ian McDiarmid: — Jeffq 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ian McDiarmid [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  jni 08:38, 10 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: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  A Tryst With Destiny: — Jeffq 06:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) A Tryst With Destiny [ edit ] Page simply says this was moved to Wikisource.  Is this a type of page that we want to have?  Rmhermen 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote Closed .  Result: no consensus (1 Keep [as redirect]; 1 Delete; original posting a question, not a vote).  Recommend discussing this at Category talk:Transwiki as a policy issue, rather than a per-article VfD.  (There is already a related discussion there under Ct:TW#Speedy delete old articles? .) — Jeff Q (talk) 06:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep but as a redirect to Wikisource:A Tryst With Destiny .  There might be interlang links on other projects (once I was led to such a page on English Wikiquote from another project, supposingly Japanese Wikiquote).  And now we have no way to find such links.  Recently German User Aka has developed a search engine for interlang links on Wikipedia.  I asked him if he would like  to customize his engine for Wikiquote.  If he agree, then we can delete this type ""article"" without worrying ;-) -- Aphaia 14:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) I have found a whole set of these pages -stemming from List of speeches and Charles, Prince of Wales : Ain't I a Woman?  , The_Gettysburg_Address , Give_Me_Liberty_Or_Give_Me_Death , I_have_a_Dream , Ich_bin_ein_Berliner , Installation_Speech_(Adrienne_Clarkson) , La_Liberte , On_Women's_Rights_to_Vote , Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury , Whiskey_Speech , Woodrow_Wilson_declares_war_on_Germany , We_shall_fight_them_on_the_beaches , A_speech_made_by_The_Prince_of_Wales_at_a_Business_Lunch_in_Mumbai_held_with_members_of_the_business_community , A_speech_for_the_opening_of_the_Pembrokeshire_Meat_Company_Abattoir , A_Time_to_Heal_by_HRH_The_Prince_of_Wales , A_speech_to_open_the_second_Prince_of_Wales_Education_Summer_School , The Four Freedoms Speech , Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address Rmhermen 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep all the above for now .  These suggested changes of existing practice for transwiki links deserve some discussion.  (From what I'm finding, Wikipedia doesn't even follow the official transwiki process completely, either, but we should proceed from a plan, not expediency. I think we might be doing too much radical cleanup in too short a time.)  I've started a discussion on this topic at Category talk:Move to Wikisource .  — Jeff Q (talk) 15:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete all .  I've been persuaded by the delete arguments, and other projects seem to be ignoring the generic ""keep a redirect"" policy.  But it's gonna be real fun adding these to the VfD archive!  ;) — Jeff Q (talk) 23:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Remark This page has been deleted later due to VfD result.  -- Aphaia 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",3
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Modest Mouse: — Jeffq 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Modest Mouse [ edit ] On talk an anon pointed out those lyrics are copywritten.  Some quotes seems to be a whole of lyrics.  Or not (hence within a limit of Fair Use).  Any input will be welcome.  -- Aphaia 02:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: Kept (3 Keeps; no dissent; problem quotes removed).  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Seems like fair use to me, at least most of it.  There are other pages with even more than this one, see for example Talk:Leonard_Cohen .  Perhaps we need a policy on at what stage exactly do we delete/modify a page with lyrics, i.e. if we should do it only after a formal complaint from a record label, etc. I think that there're cases where the lyrics are technically copywritten, but the copyrights holders don't have any objections to having the lyrics on websites - I know that this is true with some books for example - therefore automatically deleting lyrics would be wrong.  Sams 10:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Everything published received copyright protection under modern international treaties; however, these are fair use samples.  The complete lyrics to a song would not qualify as fair use and we should not encourage that.  Rmhermen 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've removed quotes from 3 songs that seemed to me to be too much for comfort, but I've also suggested that the editors can restore a tighter, more pithy portion of those songs to avoid copyvio concerns.  The other songs I checked seemed easily within common fair use expectations.  — Jeff Q (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Post-72-1104633338.jpg, Image:Post-72-1104633316.jpg, Image:Post-72-1104633289.jpg: — Jeffq 13:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Post-72-1104633338.jpg , Image:Post-72-1104633316.jpg , Image:Post-72-1104633289.jpg [ edit ] No licence info, no used on articles.  Poster have no intention to give licence information, see User Talk:OA .
 -- Aphaia 13:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Deleted all three images (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all.  These are from Reirom , am I right?  Consider changing WQ:DP to allow routine deletion of article's non-shared images when the article itself gets deleted.  jni 12:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment: NO ... they are from nowhere.  The folk who uploaded them said images were related, but they didn't nothing --- even putting those images on the page. Besides that, your proposal seems to me worthy to consider. -- Aphaia 14:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete all.  Rmhermen 13:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete all.  — Jeff Q (talk) 02:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete all.  Vote for clarification.  -- Aphaia 19:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jason Beattie: — Jeffq 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jason Beattie [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Concur with UDScott.  Obvious vanity page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:31, 17 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Broken links: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Broken links [ edit ] Broken/Wikipedia:Other Language Wikiquotes , Broken/Wikipedia:Template and Broken/Wikipedia:Help .  I'm convinced we don't need them.  Vote closed : Result: delete everything, including new additions (4 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck out Aphaia's vote, because of her vote below just to make sure it isn't counted twice by accident (this is going to be a clear delete, but we better avoid giving any impression of not following procedure) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the bunch of them. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete eos (delete them all). I thought we got rid of all these leftovers already. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, no, User:Aphaia and I only find them when they cause problems: I was looking for ""articles without category"" and she, I suspect, was looking through ""list of double redirects"". Each sysop, it seems, has his or her own ""favourite"" problems. If anyone wants to complete the above list, they would be welcome to. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I see. Well, one of my favorite things is using ""All pages"" to find article groups, so I belatedly used this just now to come up with the rest of the leftover ""Broken/Wikipedia"" crowd: Broken/Wikipedia:Announcements Broken/Wikipedia:FAQ Broken/Wikipedia:Logo Broken/Wikipedia:Sandbox Broken/Wikipedia:Utilities Broken/Wikipedia:Village pump Broken/Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers Broken/Wikipedia:What Wikiquote is not I recommend we delete these as well. (Sorry I didn't think of this sooner.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete original ones and new additions: concur with Jeff ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all, including those that Jeff found. UDScott 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all, including those additional stuffs. Jeff you beat me ;o The proper way to fix them was definitely to council ""Allpages"". -- Aphaia 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Georgie Henley: — Jeffq 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Georgie Henley [ edit ] This is a virtually empty quote article on a child actress (Lucy in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)) created by 169.244.143.115 , an anonymous user who at first seemed merely not to understand what Wikiquote is about, but now seems to be going out of their way to cause problems by creating vapid articles and making silly requests.  I would have suggested moving this article to the above title and converting it to a film-quote article, but there's nothing worth keeping currently in it.  Henley's only film credit is this movie, making the film article much more logical.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep not taken seriously because it was registered to disrupt; no other dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Jeff.  ~ UDScott 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Aphaia 14:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP .   It's notable, we MUST keep this because it is, of a truth: ""notable"" 0waldo 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above vote was registered in a block of edits as part of a concerted effort to disrupt the VfD process as part of his ""continual commuted confusion"" campaign.  (See WQ:VFD#Walter Muncaster .) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  SMTP: -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] SMTP [ edit ] Large ""quotes"" from RFC. Useless. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed . Result: deleted. (3 deletes, no dissent). -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless replaced by an article with quotes re: SMTP ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 00:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with MosheZadka.  (Hmmm… should we have a category for protocol quotes? My favorite one from SMTP is ""HELO"", but it's not nearly as notable as HTTP's ""404"". ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] This article actually contains very little quoting from the RFC.   It's an encyclopaedia article about the protocol, plain and simple.   The RFC links are citations .  Uncle G 00:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Happy coinsidence, my favorite is RCC 821's HELO, too.  -- Aphaia 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) BYE [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Sven Mattson: — Aphaia 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Sven Mattson [ edit ] Another single-liner that I cannot verify.  No Wikipedia page.  Title is a normal Swedish name so I got many Google hits but nothing seemed relevant.  Delete .  jni June 27, 2005 12:57 (UTC) Vote Closed : Result: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) -- Aphaia 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless we're provided with evidence of notability.  — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:34 (UTC) Delete I've searched for this quote, found a few variants and it is not widespread ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:40, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Bret Easton Ellis: — Jeffq 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bret Easton Ellis [ edit ] No quotes, just a line describing the person, and no external links MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote Closed.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added as requested).  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 14:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  I've asked the anonymous user to add some.  They may have simply created the page because of a WQ (not WP) link from American Psycho .  — Jeff Q (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No quotes.  Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
merge,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Azerbaijani proverbs: — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Azerbaijani proverbs [ edit ] I merged the data from this stub int Azerbaijanian Proverbs , but the former is the proper title, based on Wikipedia's spelling of the language, Azerbaijani .  I would have moved the latter to the former, except the latter had significantly more material and history.  Although the stub is now a redirect, it has a history, so I anticipate an error moving Azerbaijanian Proverbs to Azerbaijani proverbs .  Meta-Wiki says that deleting the stub should clear the way for the move.  — Jeff Q (talk) 07:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) Support : I propose two resolutions;  1) once deleting ""Azerbaijani  proverb"", after copying its history on talk of ""Azerbaijanian Proverbs"" and then move the latter to the former (the correct name)  2) manually copying the (merged) content of ""Azerbaijanian Proverbs"" to the correct one and making the latter a redirect to the  former (for preserving its significant history).  -- Aphaia 09:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't understand Aphaia second step.  If the article is moved its history and talk page moves with it and a redirect is automatically created.  Why would anything have to be moved manually?  Rmhermen 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)  2) is not the second step, I proposed two ways - we can choose one of them.  The second way is helpful to preserv history (and I am sure most of editors don't care the differences between two):  because if we delete one of them to move another, then the history of the former will be lost, and technically it is GFDL violation unless the history of the former won't be kept under the most strict analysis.  To prevent this we can merge it technically like  1) but I don't prefer it generally because such history tends to be painful to read.  Explanation: when we merge two article technically, (it follows those steps:  0) merging two article on title A manually  1) delete article A.  2) move article B into A.  3) undelete former A, their histories appear cumlatively: then it appear oldest revision of former A, oldest revision of former B, second oldest revision of fromer A ... and it is very painful to read as I say on the above.  -- Aphaia 04:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Resolved .  Kalki expeditiously merged the cumulative article into Azerbaijani proverbs and redirected the bad name (Aphaia's 2nd resolution) on 27 March.  — Jeff Q (talk) 04:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Alice Hoeltke: Aphaia 23:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Alice Hoeltke [ edit ] All the revisions seem to be without notability.  The person herself is unclear (at least on googling) but we have her quotes on other article(s) including Change .  Wikipedia has had no article since last June.  I doubt even her ""quotes"" should be changed their attributions into ""anonymous"".  Any information will be welcome.  -- Aphaia 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closes : Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia ( talk • contribs ) 23:30, 29 June 2005  (UTC) Delete .  And change change .  Rmhermen 16:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  This article seems to be a game sandbox for one or two anon editors.  The only external instances of Hoeltke quotes are on notoriously unreliable quote sites, and there are only 2 or 3 at that.  Extremely unnotable; remove Change quote before deleting.  — Jeff Q (talk) 00:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Hindi proverbs: — MosheZadka 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Hindi proverbs [ edit ] No translation for single proverb.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless proverbs with translations are provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless proverbs with translations are provided. -- Aphaia 03:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with MosheZadka and Aphaia.  Do we have any Hindi speakers out there who could help here?  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Long Dong Silver: — Jeffq 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Long Dong Silver [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added).  I will also delete the redirect to this article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless legitimate quotes are added.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes provided.  jni 20:14, 25 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  It's A Big Big World: — LrdChaos 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] It's A Big Big World [ edit ] If you look past the lack of formatting, the only quote is not memorable or noteworthy.  Considering that the page is for a children's TV show, I think it's unlikely to move beyond that stage; even if someone wanted to add more to it, they could recreate the page (which might be better for it).  — LrdChaos 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (three votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 17:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 01:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with LrdChaos.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 26 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: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jalal ad-Din Rumi: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jalal ad-Din Rumi [ edit ] Quoteless short essay on Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi , who already has substantial Wikiquote and Wikipedia articles.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi (2 Redirects; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi , just like Wikipedia.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , concur with Jeffq.  ~ UDScott 12:27, 14 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: ",3
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Hymn to Satan: — MosheZadka 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Hymn to Satan [ edit ] Full text of a poem.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: move (3 move, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] As said, Move to Giosuè Carducci ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to a more general title, like Giosuè Carducci , the Nobel prize-winning author of the work.  I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative source (not surprising — who wants to be an authority on this subject?), but the sites I've found thus far suggest that our article has only a small portion of a 200-line poem.  However, it doesn't look like a useful article title by limiting itself to a single poem.  (It was added to List of literary works by the article creator, but that list is typically for large works that can support an entire article without invoking copyright concerns.)  Placing the excerpt in an author stub article would make more sense.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Giosuè Carducci .  I wonder who was the translator; original text seems to be in PD, because it was written in the 19th Century.  -- Aphaia 08:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",3
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  InuYasha: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] InuYasha [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed: Redirect (3 redirect, one delete) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 21:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott, and really wanting to update our SD criteria so that ""no meaningful content"" is updated to clarify as ""no quotations or useful context"", which would finally allow us to SD this kind of stuff instead of spamming VfD with it.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Inuyasha .  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , per MosheZadka.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Inuyasha .  -- Aphaia 14:03, 3 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: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  List of The Simpsons episodes: — Jeffq 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] List of The Simpsons episodes [ edit ] This list is copied straight from Wikipedia.  Since we don't have pages for most of the episodes listed (and those that do exist are tagged for merge or deletion) most of the links are red, and the images used don't exist here.  While there has been some talk about how to handle the case of The Simpsons over at WQ:VP , it seems that the likely outcome is going to be splitting the main page into pages by season, not individual episodes, so nearly all of those links are going to remain red, or just be created as redirects to the season page.  If and when the split for the main article is done, this page is going to become mostly redundant to that.  — LrdChaos 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per LrdChaos.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with LrdChaos.  ~ UDScott 12:12, 1 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Bert Macleod: — Jeffq 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bert Macleod [ edit ] No notability, google search brings up nothing useful, no external links.  Possible vanity page.  MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete : MosheZadka 14:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  So un-notable that he doesn't even have his non-trivial quotes in free-for-all sites like QuotesPlace.  Must be a vanity page.  — Jeff Q (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Vanity.  Sams 09:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nonsense.  Author removed the vfd tag.  jni 13:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Lachlan: — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Lachlan [ edit ] Vote closed : Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ""Lachlan Newcombe"" does not appear to be anyone notable enough for an article here.  ~ Achilles † 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless notability or actual quotes are provided.  UDScott 13:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I hope you mean ""notability and actual quotes"" :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course I mean and -- my mistake :-) UDScott 15:25, 12 December 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Bonus Stage: .  — Aphaia 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Bonus Stage [ edit ] No quote content.  Expand or delete .  jni June 27, 2005 06:06 (UTC) Vote Closed : Result: Kept.  (2 keeps, 1 expand or delete).  -- Aphaia 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 09:09 (UTC) Keep ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 27 June 2005 10:50 (UTC) Keep for now.  As long as Wikipedia supports the notability of these comics with articles with a significant history, and if they have quotes, I'm willing to go along with them.  But I'd like to know if WP has addressed the general issue of web-comic notability.  — Jeff Q (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] It did.  See w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines .  And to parrot myself, I suggest we ape that policy :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Gandhi.jpg, Image:Jefferson.jpg, Image:Hesse.jpg, Image:Keller.jpg,: — MosheZadka 06:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Gandhi.jpg , Image:Jefferson.jpg , Image:Hesse.jpg , Image:Keller.jpg , [ edit ] Unused source-less images.  All have versions from commons used on the relevant person's page.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  ACPOC Syndrome: — Jeffq 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] ACPOC Syndrome [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes adding; title never verified as legitimate either on WQ or WP, where it was also deleted).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , since there are no quotes, and I can't imagine that there would be quotes that specifically dealt with this topic.  This would probably be better served as a WP entry.  ~ UDScott 12:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This article was created by an anonymous editor 6 minutes before the same article was created on Wikipedia by a registered user.  I strongly suspect it was the same editor who tried to post this unsourced apparent neologism to both projects, except Wikipedia no longer allows article creation from anons.  w:ACPOC Syndrome was tagged for proposed deletion (1 step before actual nomination) to encourage improvement, so its progress during our VfD should be illuminating.  However, I concur with UDScott that our copy should go unless the encyclopedia article here is replaced by quotes, and I further expect that they be sourced to prevent someone just making some up or quoting an unpublished lawyer.  (Adding sources to the WP article could provide a means to get solid quotes, if they exist.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No quotes.  jni 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Per w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACPOC Syndrome , the WP article has been deleted.   ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:37, 10 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: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jokes: — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC) Jokes [ edit ] One anonymous quote.  I suspect it was coined by its contributor.  -- Aphaia 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Redirected.  Rationale: With 2 Redirect and 3 Delete votes, there is no consensus for either specific action, but doing nothing would thwart all five votes.  Most seem satisified to have the original White quote in Humor , making this article redundant.  Therefore, there is consensus to remove the current quote, but no consensus to delete, making a redirect the most appropriate action that supports all five intents unless and until another vote is taken (after some time has passed).  — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:34 (UTC) Redirect to humor .  And the quote is a mangling of E.B. White 's ""Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.""  Rmhermen 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Redirect .  and thanks for enlightment.  ;-) -- Aphaia 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Redirect .  Thanks Rmhermen.  I think it could be done instantly, without a vote - no info that isn't already on wikiquote would be lost, and everything remains in history anyway - therefore it's pretty trivial editing.  Sams 17:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Merge and delete .  If this were an article of general jokes, we might need to consider whether Wikiquote should have a joke collection.  But since its only quote is a joke about humor, merging it with the existing Humor article seems adequate.  However, redirecting ""Jokes"" would suggest to editors that ""Humor"" is a place for adding general jokes.  Do we want this?  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Merge what?  An inaccurate paraphrase?  Why?  Although adding the quote from E.B. White's article would be good.  As for redirecting vs. deleting: I agree that the issue of having a wikiquote jokes collection page is unclear (e.g. one might claim that having jokes is similar to having proverbs), and we might want to discuss this...  But while it's pending, or if we decide that jokes don't belong here, I think that it's better to use redirect instead of delete, so it won't be created again by someone else.  Sams 21:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Oops!  My mistake.  I mean copy the White version, not the anonymous one.  Which means I vote Delete for this article.  I think no article is better than a misleading redirect.  If someone recreates it, we speedy-delete it per policy ( case #5 ), assuming we vote to delete it the first time.  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Well, both ""no article"" and ""misleading redirect"" aren't good options.  But an appropriate redirect might be useful.  If you think that redirecting to Humor is misleading (I think that perhaps you're overstating this possible problem, but anyone's guess is as good as mine), we could redirect it to the future/archived version of this discussion, or to our future policy article that says that jokes don't belong in wikiquote.  Sams 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: redirect to the discussion exact is impossible currently (redirect to WQ:VFDA is okay), and if we decide  ""no jokes, thank you"" as policy, it would be better to have redirect to this project document or just ""What Wikiquote is not"".  But before decision, we need to talk . -- Aphaia 00:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) If what you wanted with having separate VFDA pages for each article that is deleted is used, then this discussion will appear in a page of its own in the future, and we can redirect it there, no?  Sams 01:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) If this is perceived as a real issue, it deserves much more visibility than being buried in a VfD archive, however it may be linked.  And we should never redirect a main articlespace title to a discussion page; it's ugly and violates the principle of least astonishment .   — Jeff Q (talk) 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) OK, agreed, redirecting to a discussion was a bad idea.  I also note that there're some jokes on wikipedia, e.g. if you start at w:Category:Jokes .  I think that in general if any wikimedia project should have whole jokes in it, it should be either wikiquote, or some separate wikijokes project (though the jokes in wikipedia to demonstrate the point of the articles also work nicely).  I don't think that the policy on jokes should be decided by the wikiquote community, but by other wikimedia communities as well.  Anyway,  nobody tried to add jokes to wikiquote so far anyway, we're just contemplating the issue that Jeffq brought up.  I still think that it's a little better to redirect instead of delete (to the humor article, unless there're better suggestions).  Sams 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I've put in the best phrased White quote I could find with some attribution at Humor .  MosheZadka 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Do we really want an article that invites everyone to post their favorite knock-knock joke?  ""Funny"" is subjective; this seems to open the door to plentiful disputes and major editing headaches.  -- RPickman 19:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Having an article with jokes is an idea that so far hasn't been advocated by anyone, including the person who created this article that has nothing in it. The only options considered above are whether it's better for now to delete or redirect it, to prevent it from being created again. Since I saw mentioned regarding some other VfD entries that it's better to redirect rather than delete, I guessed that it's better here too. It's weird that no one bothered to mention why they prefer delete to redirect... But whatever, it's such a minor issue, doesn't matter either way... Sams 28 June 2005 21:14 (UTC) Excuse me, Sams, but I did mention why I felt it was better to delete than redirect, on 15 June: ""I think no article is better than a misleading redirect""; i.e., a redirect misleads, whereas a delete gives the correct impression that we do not have a joke collection. It's the principle of least astonishment again. — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC) Delete . Concur with RPickman. -- Aphaia 28 June 2005 15:51 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  John Mavridis: — LrdChaos 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] John Mavridis [ edit ] Non-notable.  No Wikipedia page, and from the results on Google, he appears to be just another lawyer.  — LrdChaos 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided.  — LrdChaos 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with LrdChaos.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:07, 9 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Shane Lively: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Shane Lively [ edit ] Vanity (wp page links to userpage) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Aphaia 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Madelyn Kren: — MosheZadka 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Madelyn Kren [ edit ] 18 yo ""writer"".  Probably vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Moshe.  No WP article; Google shows, besides the usual suspect quote DBs, only 3 distinct mentions that are likely referring to the same San Francisco Bay Area student.  She sounds like she has a promising future, but she's isn't yet notable.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Daniel Mawson: — Jeffq 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Daniel Mawson [ edit ] This seems to be a vanity page.  The page does not assert notability of any kind, and a quick Google search of the name returns only 208 results; compare this to my unique and entirely non-notable username, which returns 86,800 .  I haven't delved into Wikiquote's policies and guidelines yet, so I tread blindly on VFD grounds.  // Pathoschild 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes. 1 implicit delete; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'd say it should be moved to a user page, but it was created by an anon.  — LrdChaos 02:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable.  ~ UDScott 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Advising vanity-page posters on establishing user pages for their quotes is, like all other wiki activities, completely voluntary.  I try to do so whenever a registered user creates a vanity page, because they've invested at least a tiny bit more effort than anons in establishing themselves.  (Plus, it's often easy to match the vanity article to the user name.)  I don't usually bother with anons because that would add quite a bit of work, and I'm already spread way too thin.  But anyone can do this anytime, for as many or as few article creators as they wish.  It's always possible that the anon you advise will welcome the assistance and eventually become a valuable member of the Wikiquote community.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Lehi (group): — Jeffq 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Lehi (group) [ edit ] No quotes.  This article is more suited to wikipedia.  ~ UDScott 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no activity to address issues).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Where to begin with this?  First , it's clearly not a Wikiquote article, so it should be deleted unless specific quotes are cited, which would still require a massive reduction of the text and probably a reduction of the introductory prose.  Second , it appears to include an entire work, which is never acceptable on Wikiquote (or Wikipedia, for that matter).  If it's covered by copyright (which the editor uses some questionable arguments to claim it isn't — see my talk page comments ), it should be summarily deleted; if not, it belongs on Wikisource, not here.  Third , it seems awfully POV, but that could just be the nature of the document it has incorporated.  Fourth , I'm quite troubled by the intimate involvement of the editor with the subject.  It is increasingly bad form among WikiMedia projects to write articles about subjects that one has direct involvement in, and commissioning a full translation of a document seems like significant involvement.  At the very least, an editor shouldn't be posting their user ID in an article.  If Zero0000 has a legitimate claim to offering the document for public domain, they should be providing a real-world name for proper sourcing.  (Not that I'm suggesting this; I think the whole situation reeks of agenda and should be dealt with on a higher level.)  Conclusion : The only way I currently see to salvage this article is to reduce it to a set of pithy quotes from the document (which is supposed to be what Wikiquote delivers), with appropriate sourcing.  I'm not sure what to do about the Wikiquote editor commissioned-translation aspect of the source.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per Jeffq.  — LrdChaos 19:46, 31 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Template:Substub: — Aphaia 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Template:Substub [ edit ] Page blanked.  Probably a level of detail we don't need on this project.  Rmhermen 15:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; finally no dissent during 26 days discusion).  -- Aphaia 22:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Many Wikipedians seem to think they don't need that level of detail, either.  I'd say {{stub}} (and its more specific relatives, courtesy of RoboAction ) is adequate.  — Jeff Q (talk) 19:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wait , pending discussion of use for ""framework"" articles (i.e., structure but no quotes).  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  I'm thinking that using this template name for ""framework"" articles would be confusing, so I'm going back to my original deletion vote.  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Too fine-grained mechanism for a project smaller than WP.  I prefer either stub or nothing.  jni 10:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Deleted.  -- Aphaia 22:15, 27 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Sophie (Sixth Former): — Jeffq 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Sophie (Sixth Former) [ edit ] Non-notable student.  — LrdChaos 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 Keep & 1 half-hearted implicit keep, both from purveyors of other vanity articles about admitted acquaintances w/o notability evidence).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This looks like yet another vanity article, this one created by User:Gary Kirk , who has already shown his desire to flout notability guidelines in supporting verified and admitted vanity articles ( Eddie's Stories , Get ahht ).  The content of this article, together with the edit summary ""lol"" (laughing out loud) in its creation, doesn't suggest a serious interest in contributing useful material.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I say Jefferty and you other chaps, I only put lol as that is one of our Sophie's catchphrases!  (I used to love Catchphrase - didn't you?)  I mean, the Kill Bill 2 was legendary!  Anyway, I would compare S (SF) to brilliant articles like Hannah Richardson as high quality quotes written with love and carefully transcribed by editors who happened to hear them!  Gary Kirk 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Gary, you might want to avoid pointing to other articles that are up for deletion as evidence of similar pages that already exist.  Yes, there is a similar page on Wikiquote, but it's also up for deletion, and with the current consensus in favor of deletion of that article, it doesn't really help your case for keeping this article.  — LrdChaos 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm...I voted keep on that quote too.  I think I shall create a ""move to the Amusement Wiki template soon. (It's down atm, hopefully back Thurs :D roflmao Gary Kirk 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jeffalonius Q, I must protest, for the quote in question, the girl honestly did say ""lol"". Also, when unable to read 'Kill Bill - Room 101', she pondered aloud ""Why does it say 'laugh out loud' on the board..."" leading to several witticisms such as ""Pai Mei may not reply because his or her status is set to Be Right Back. "".  Jeffititus Q, you are a rapscallion and a spoilsport, but quite cool really, and if anyone should debunk Gary Kirk's inspirational albeit foolish articles, I am glad it is you.  Hoorah for Jeffalongo Q!  Horatio Apple 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Jeff.  SorryGuy 00:04, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Tom Henderson: — MosheZadka 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Tom Henderson [ edit ] No intro, no wp article, no sources for any of the quotes.  There is a networking researcher by that name that Google points to, but I'm not sure that  a) he is the one referenced or  b) that he is notable.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of notability.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:19, 21 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Template:Intro: — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:Intro [ edit ] Pointless template created by an anon and not used on any pages.  — LrdChaos 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (6 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I had neglected to include the {{ vfd }} template on the template page.  Having now added it, I've extended the vote on this to let it run for a full two weeks after the page was tagged.  — LrdChaos 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is apparently an experimental edit from an Oregon public-school student.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:07, 26 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Dom Reeve: — Jeffq 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Dom Reeve [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable and vanity.  — LrdChaos 13:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott and LrdChaos.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 05:04, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Trigun episode guide: — Jeffq 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Trigun episode guide [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: transwiki, then delete (1 Delete; 1 Transwiki).  I will take care of the transwiki, since I called for it.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki executed; article deleted.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are no quotes and this should more properly be in wikipedia.  ~ UDScott 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki to Wikipedia, where it should be somehow merged with or attached to w:Trigun media .  (The Trigun articles there need some WP title standardization even without this new article, but that's WP's problem.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 10 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: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Amirali Zohrenejad: — UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Amirali Zohrenejad [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: Delete (2 deletes, no dissent) Delete unless evidence of notability is produced.  ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I suggest handling Amir Zohrenejad in the same way.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I concur with Moshe and also suggest the same for Reshma Nichani and Nima Mojgani as well.  ~ UDScott 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  David Kline: — Jeffq 07:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] David Kline [ edit ] No wp article, single quote unsourced, no intro, google search points to half-a-dozen different people (violinist, farmer) and to wq.  Suspect vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:06 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:06 (UTC) Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  — Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Googling for the single quote got exactly one hit – Wikiquote.  jni 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Second discussion -- should have been a SPEEDY No wp, no intro, quote unsourced, google hits point to different people with WQ being the fifth.  Probably vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of notability.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Kishor: — MosheZadka 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Kishor [ edit ] Wp article was deleted due to non-notability.  I believe we should follow.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with MosheZadka.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:35, 22 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Gary Wilmott: — Jeffq 11:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Gary Wilmott [ edit ] ""Let's go and vandalize Wikiquote and Wikipedia"" - this quote was the first warning sign.  Further evidence from other projects made me to conclude this is a work of w:User:Gazwim .  Looking at deleted revisions of w:Gary Wilmott we find: *  01:45, 2 Dec 2004 .  .  Norm (The Gary Wilmott vandal returns)
 * 09:14, 1 Dec 2004 .  .  212.219.56.244 ()
 * 14:40, 11 Oct 2004 .  .  Gazwim (Redirect) where the earliest revision is a redirect to Gazwim's user page and second is the same IP as is the sole author of the quote page.  Delete since this appears to be a page about a non-notable Wikipedian who has a history of vandalism.  jni 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Inane.  -- Eustace Tilley 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete. Someone has way too much time on his hands. -- RPickman 02:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Wonder Showzen: — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Wonder Showzen [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 23:33, 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 23:33, 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 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC .  I've restored the deleted VFD tag.  ~ UDScott 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Dustin Gawrylow: — LrdChaos 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Dustin Gawrylow [ edit ] Non-notable person, and this is probably a vanity page, since the creator is Dgawrylow ( talk · contributions ).  I've posted {{ vanity-warn }} on their talk page.  — LrdChaos 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (five votes to delete, one undecided vote).  — LrdChaos 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided for now .  It seems quite likely that this is a vanity article, but Gawrylow may actually be notable.  His WP article (also created by a User:Dgawrylow whose sole edits are for his article) lists some accomplishments and publications.  I suspect a WP notability review would reveal him not to rise above the thousands of political bloggers and activists who don't merit their own articles (especially as a 2005 college grad), but I don't have time at the moment to do enough basic research to feel comfortable nominating his WP article for AfD to initiate such a review.  On the other hand, w:Wikipedia:Autobiography 's current policy says: Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned.  Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines.  and Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged.  If you create such an article, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion.  Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself.  which may be enough to warrant a fast AfD on WP, regardless of the documentation.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 17:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:04, 9 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Paramount Go Christmas!: — Jeffq 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Paramount Go Christmas!  [ edit ] Possible hoax, and too far in the future if valid.  See WP Article for Deletion .  This may also include this page as well: 20th Century Fox & Paramount: The Curse of the Imagine Entertainment ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Apparently, WP had problems with these and other hoaxes in the past.  ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No credible source is possible this far in advance of release, even if it isn't a hoax.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:37, 11 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Brian Ratkus: — Jeffq 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Brian Ratkus [ edit ] No intro, no wp article, google search finds nothing.  Possibly vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Delete (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:43 (UTC) Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  — Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability not found.  jni 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Styx: — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC) Styx [ edit ] No quotes, just some encyclopedic stub.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC) Delete unless any quote would be added.  -- Aphaia 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC) Delete .  Charon , Minotaur , and Styx are more articles created because someone wanted to fix red WQ links with encyclopedia articles.  In these cases, however, they came from ""en:"" Wikipedia links that now point to WQ.  I've fixed these links in their link-source article, Max Payne .  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  User:SlawekP: -- Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) User:SlawekP [ edit ] The text on this page is confirmed as Polish and Polish Wikiquoter TOR gave his opinion to us (see my talk). Briefly, The content is a religious sorts of quotes including Bible At least one publisher is mentioned Links seems to aim to increase google rank It seems to violate Wikiquote policy ""not personal website"" hence he suggested to delete this page. And I need to add, this is the sole editing from this account. -- Aphaia 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED: Deleted.  (4 deletes, no dissent.)-- Aphaia 08:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete . Wikiquote is not a hosting service.-- Aphaia 02:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  en:Wikiquote can demand even user pages to be in English in order to determine appropriateness.  This is a clear example of how non-English text can be used to subvert WQ standards (no personal webpage hosting) without the community being aware of it.  It harms the legitimate use of other languages (e.g., original-language quotations with translations).  — Jeff Q (talk) 04:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  en.wikiquote user pages should be in English.  If, in addition to the English text, a user also wants to add a short comment in his first language, that might not be an issue, but other than that it should be in English because that's what appropriate for en.wikiquote, and also so that we could easily see whether he's using the page to host personal stuff, as opposed to wikiquote stuff, like in this case.  Sams 08:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I humbly oppose your idea, Sams.  English text on the user page is preferable and kind for other users.  But I don't think it as must or mundatory.  I have many accounts on various wikis whose languages I can't understand (mainly for interlang links) but there has been no problem.  The point is in my opinion ""if we allow advertisement on the user page"" not ""if we allow other language(s) than English on the user page"".  -- Aphaia 15:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete (would look odd if I didn't support my own suggestion, right? ;)).  As for the ""should be in English"" rule proposal I'm with Britty - no language-related constraints should be used to limit the freedom of a user to put whatever he/she wishes on his/her User page.  As long as it doesn't violate any Wiki policies.  This one does, and that's that.  Don't look at the language, look at the meaning and the goal of the author.  -- TOR 16:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree with Aphaia and TOR in principle, but there are severe practical problems with non-English pages in en:Wikiquote.  How can we tell if pages violate policy if we can't read them?  We don't have the active multilingual eyeballs on en:Wikiquote.  I respectfully suggest that finding such a page in Polish was exceedingly lucky.  If we had 200,000+ readers, we could probably expect someone to bring such pages to our attention regularly, but I really doubt we have any idea whatsoever whether others are doing this.  I'd rather craft a policy encouraging English use on en:Wikiquote user pages (without restricting them to English-only, of course) than getting into the business of monitoring user pages and then finding translators for non-English pages just to verify they're not violating policy (which they almost always wouldn't be).  Our maintenance staff is stretched thin enough as it is.  — Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I assumed that since a user pages shouldn't be a personal page but should be related to wikiquote, and since this is en.wikiquote, the conclusion is that a user page should be related to English:), or more strongly, should use English primarily.  But it seems that I was wrong, and at least in principle everyone else disagrees... ok then, no problem...  I agree with JeffQ that in practice we might have a significant problem, but if you prefer, we could wait and see whether this problem repeats itself, before trying to formulate a policy.  Sams 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: your look to User:Aphaia/User page draft and comment will be appreciated.  Also elaboration & copyediting ;-) -- Aphaia 07:05, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Andrey Marchuk: — Jeffq 05:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Andrey Marchuk [ edit ] Probably misplaced user page.  Rmhermen 14:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 arguably implied Delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  No quotes.  Does not exist in Wikipedia.  jni 14:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Supposingly the editor intended to create his user page, but this editor was an anonym.  (Or we could move it to his places ...) -- Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Adam Margolin: ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Adam Margolin [ edit ] See w:Adam Margolin (which may very well be deleted by now); this person is completely unnotable and has said nothing interesting.  -- Pyrop 18:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) I would have to disagree with your assessment.  He has some very funny taglines and has made some very interesting observations on life.  I agree that he shouldn't quit his day job (he helps me too much), but I think he's going places.  As for his unnotablity, he is reknowned in his field, as he is considered by many to be the best computer programmer in the specialized aspect of his field.  I believe that quotes provide an interesting slice of life of a graduate student at Columbia. Andreas C 20:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) I intend to conform my actions to whatever decision is made at the Wikipedia on the article there, but I confess I fully expect the article to be deleted as a vanity page, sometime within the next few days. ~ Kalki 20:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) That sounds fair, but I have to disagree with you about the chances of Mr. Margolin's article.  His article is far longer than any of the articles that are tagged for speedy deletion, and his is clearly the only one that makes a point or even makes sense.  Either way, we will let fate play out. Andreas C 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Do you really think the article is that bad?  If so, is it salvagable?  Or he is too ""unnotable"" and completely unworthy of a page? Slambodog 02:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I do not know who you were addressing, but though I can disagree with the statement made by Pyrop, that would imply Margolin or anyone is ""completely unnotable and has said nothing interesting"", I yet understand the reaction that produces such comments; there are definitely practical limits to the levels of notability of people that can be given an encyclopedia article at the Wikipedia, or an article here. No decision has yet been made at the Wikipedia, and both articles have some interesting statements, but I still believe the article at the Wikipedia is unlikely to survive more than a few days. ~ Kalki 03:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Just one hour ago, the user Frazzydee has deemed this not to be a ""speedy.""  Assuming Mr. Damji has authority to do this, I proud to report that Mr. Margolin has survived the speedy deletion process. Slambodog 06:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Your statement was a little dense, so I had some trouble understanding it, especially considering how late it was getting.  Now that I understand, let me clarify.  What I meant was that, if you (Kalki) were so sure that the article would be deleted, was it because the article itself was bad or was it because the Adam Margolin is simply not worthy of a page?  If it were the former, I could try to get in touch with Mr. Margolin, and add some substance.  However, if it were the latter, then que sera, sera. Slambodog 20:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I am for deletion. Even if we accept quotations by unnotable persons but with interesting contents, this article has no intelectually interesting significance. Just a silly talk. -- Aphaia 23:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) Despite my own impressions that the person is probably not as yet notable enough to merit a page at Wikipedia, the page there remains, probably because of his published papers, and thus I will retain one here, so long as that is the case.  ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) The status of this article at Wikipedia has changed... it is now to be deleted, pending the technical problems that are currently preventing some deletions.  I think that the time has come to delete this as well, if possible.  ~ Kalki 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure how other projects handle archives of superceded VfDs, but in this solitary odd case (so far), I think I could attach this dialog to the new vote as a subsection so that (A) it's not lost and (B) the article's complete VfD history is available in one place.  If no one objects to the proposed archive reformatting , I hope to do this when I convert the archive.  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Craig Collie: -- Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC) Craig Collie [ edit ] Was tagged with the VfD template, but not listed here. MosheZadka 06:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed . Deleted (2 deleted, no dissent). -- Aphaia 29 June 2005 23:30 (UTC) Comment: I can't guess the context of this quote, but is there any relation to this guy ?  -- Aphaia 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete.  Based on the context provided by the article creator (""craig's stoned idea of what we should do""; emphasis mine), this is an obvious vanity page (and probably has nothing to do with Aphaia's cited author(s), Craig Van Collie).  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Notability, vanity one-liner.  jni June 27, 2005 06:03 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Vectorman, Vector Man and Vector-Man: — LrdChaos 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vectorman , Vector Man and Vector-Man [ edit ] At this time, these pages are identical.  The pages seem to be intended to be quotes from the videogame Vectorman , which has a decent Wikipedia page, but none of the quotes on the page are remotely memorable or worth including (granted, including lots of non-memorable quotes is a problem for many of the other video game pages here as well, but those usually just need to have those trimmed out, leaving the quotes that are unique to the game).  — LrdChaos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 20:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ""Vectorman"" unless the unoriginal quotes are removed and legitimate, non-trivial quotes are added.  If so, redirect ""Vector Man"" to it; otherwise, delete ""Vector Man"", too.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Also delete or redirect ""Vector-Man"" per above.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Jeff.  If the article is improved, redirect the duplicate article Vector-Man to it as well as Vector Man .  -- Robert 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  There is yet another page, Vector-Man , which I have now added to this nomination for deletion.   - InvisibleSun 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all three.  121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out - If this is the game I'm thinking of, you're not going to get any worthwhile quotes from it.  - Koweja 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all three, unless valid quotes can be found.  If so, consolidate onto one page and add redirects.  ~ UDScott 13:13, 9 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jim Oblak: — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jim Oblak [ edit ] No quotes, no wp article, google hits show nothing special.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent).  -- Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of notability and quotes added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete now this vote is placed at the third of google result.-- Aphaia 14:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Daniel dawson: — Jeffq 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Daniel dawson [ edit ] Daniel Dawson has a talent for drinking.   We ourselves have a talent for deleting.   His notability has not been demonstrated.    - InvisibleSun 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (6 deletes from regular editors, incl. 1 implicit; 2 keeps from editors who have only engaged in multiple voting and/or vandalism; no response from article creator).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete obvious vanity page.  I've posted a {{ vanity-warn }} in case the article creator wishes to move or copy these quotes to his user page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this man deserves to be on here because of his bass and drinking talents.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 ( talk • contribs ) 19 July 2006, 8:50  (UTC) Keep Daniel Dawson sounds to be a good man with traditional ideals and religious beliefs (a fervent Opus Dei member as a matter of fact).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 ( talk • contribs ) 19 July 2006, 8:54  (UTC) Keep i like the cut of this mans jib, i would like to meet him, so we can drink and play bass.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:194.72.50.161 ( talk • contribs ) 19 July 2006, 9:00  (UTC) Note:The above three ""Keep"" votes were made by User:194.72.50.161 , who was then blocked after vandalizing my userpage six times.  - InvisibleSun 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Keep him, blatantly that is the right thing to do.  Who else drinks and plays bass splendidly and is a maths prodigy?  I vote KEEP, and becaus ei am so superb and the mother of many oragnizations I count for many others.  I count I tell you, keep him!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Emlynisnota ( talk • contribs ) 10:53, 21 July 2006  (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Meade skelton: — Jeffq 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Meade skelton [ edit ] Only biography (and link to the official site, now commented out).  I wonder if I can speedy it, but I prefer now to list it here.  Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (5 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No quote.  -- Aphaia 12:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Rmhermen 14:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Don't think this should be speedy-deleted, as this person seems at least somewhat notable (he has several CDs listed in All-Music Guide), but without quotes, the article is pointless.  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No quotes.  I wonder who keeps creating this, with bad title and all.  jni 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No quotes.  Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Be and Do: — Jeffq 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Be and Do [ edit ] Identical pages that contain nothing worth keeping; neither of these pages can really be expanded to include anything more than the same 'joke' present on both of them.  — LrdChaos 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete both (7 deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't recall where from at the moment, but I'm fairly sure these three consecutive quotes are a single joke from some routine or comedy.  If it can be sourced, it belongs wherever it may be properly attributed.  It certainly doesn't make for a reasonable theme article, let alone two.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It appears the ""fortunes2"" database on my Linux machine, as two variants.  The closest just starts off with Shakespeare's ""To be or not to be"", and the other includes a couple of others, ending with ""Yabba dabba do"" from The Flintstones .  For neither one is any sort of source listed.  — LrdChaos 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Cast Away: — Jeffq 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Cast Away [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep (3 serious Keeps; 1 Keep from inveterate VFD protester 0waldo; article significantly improved).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added, and the intro is cleaned up.  ~ UDScott Keep , now that some quotes have been added.  Thanks Jaxl.  ~ UDScott 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP .  I think it's cute about the ball!  0waldo 01:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've cleaned up the page and added some quotes.  -- Jaxl 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after Jaxl's improvements.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:45, 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: ",1
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  A Course in Miracles: — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] A Course in Miracles [ edit ] Quotes are being used to promote, or advertise, a book on WP, and are being used as a circular source for both to appear to have more content and notability.  72.128.30.205 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep (5 keeps, 1 delete (nom), no dissent).  -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , regardless of whether one agrees with this text, it appears to be a legitimate source of quotes and certainly meets the notability requirements for WQ.  ~ UDScott 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It should be cleaned up and marked as a stub, but it meets the standards of notability for a page here.  Koweja 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , concur with UDScott.  — LrdChaos 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP article is over 2 years old, with no apparent attempt to delete it.  Amazon ranking of one edition is higher than 2,000, which would suggest it's fairly notable.  Wikimedia articles can use each other for content referral (i.e., quotes or encylopedia material), as long as the actual sources are wiki-reliable , and the WP article (and now this WQ article, since I've added the WP intro) includes verifiable references.  (Note: I haven't specifically verified these references other than to see that they exist.)  I don't see a clear case of using Wikimedia for self-promotion here, so I'll say keep unless evidence for deletion is provided.  (A WP AfD nomination would probably such evidence, if it is available.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  - InvisibleSun 02:40, 29 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Neurotically Yours: — Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Neurotically Yours [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closes : 2 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC) Vote extended 1 week , to 9 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC), to give time for recent request.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: delete (4 deletes; 1 keep; 2 undecided, both leaning toward delete; no sources provided to confirm validity of quotes).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless valid quotes are added.  — LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided .  Quotes have been added, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as to their validity, but I am concerned about the notability issue that Jeffq raised.  The Wikipedia page had been nominated for deletion in May, but the vote was closed early as a ""bad-faith nomination""; the issue of notability was not addressed.  There are a fair number of Google hits (118,000), which puts it at about 1/4 of that for The Order of the Stick and about 1/2 of Little Gamers (two other webcomics with pages here, though they aren't Flash-based), but there's no definitive line as to how many results 'are enough.'  The status of the Wikipedia page, as well as the quotes that exist on the page here, don't exactly instill confidence that it is notable; in particular, the edit history for the WP page seems to indicate that there are a number of various anons and the same few registered members who primarily edit the page.  While this is not particularly unusual (people often assume some level of ""ownership"" of articles, no matter what the policy is), the page still looks and reads like more of a fan page than an encyclopedia entry.  All in all, through the convoluted processes of my mind, my feeling is that this isn't really notable enough to merit inclusion here or on Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure.  — LrdChaos 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless valid quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with LrdChaos amd UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided for now.  The quotes Skotavus has added strike me as rather inane (except for the somewhat amusing ""Jesus was cool"" quote), which isn't by itself a compelling reason to axe an article.  But since I've never heard of this work before, since it falls into a grey area of notability, and since it hasn't yet been reviewed on Wikipedia (see my comment under Koweja's vote), I'm not willing to support it yet, either.  (I'm not up to a WP AfD at the moment.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Even if acceptable quotes are found, is NY considered notable enough to be here?  - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Good question.  We have rejected some online webcomics (essentially what this is) before on the basis of insufficient notability.  w:Neurotically Yours has a modest (but non-trivial) multiuser edit history, but seems to be weak on sources at the moment.  It might be a good idea to nominate it for deletion to force a review of its notability there, especially as it would be decided within 5 days of nomination, possibly giving us time to benefit from the results.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not delete!  At least let me have some time to put quotes up, people!  ; Skotavus Considerable experience at Wikiquote has shown that quote articles created without quotes often (usually?) remain that way for long periods of time, apparently abandoned by their creators.  (There may be several reasons for this, but the end result is the same.)  Frequently, this problem is resolved by calling attention to it here with a nomination for deletion, which also serves as a ""use it or lose it"" announcement.  It's a bit brusque, but it can get results more readily than simple waiting.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : With 1 day left to go on this nomination, we have a problem.  Quotes have been added to the article, but no source is provided, and my quick scan of the Neurotically Yours website shows no obvious way to get these quotes except for wading through all the original material.  Therefore, it's hard to say whether these are valid quotes, making LrdChaos and UDScott's position unclear.  That leaves what could be considered a lack of consensus, even though only 1 user is definitively supporting the article at the moment.  I would ask two things: that Skotavus add to the article specific source information for the quotes (e.g., named ""episodes"", flash clips, etc., complete with specific URLs for each to allow readers to verify them); and (B) that LrdChaos and UDScott consider whether they believe the quotes are ""valid"", with or without further evidence.  (UDScott is otherwise occupied at the moment, so this may be problematic.)  Thanks.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I have a life.  — Skotavus 2:08, 6 August 2006 (AEST) If you absolutely feel the need to remove my page, regardless of the fact that it appears I am the only one that edits it and don't spend all my time on the Web looking for things that are wrong on a site that spends plenty of server space on other such inane articles as big-bust actresses, then by all means go ahead.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.138.35 ( talk • contribs ) 04:39, 6 August 2006  (UTC) On the assumption that the mis-signature above was an honest mistake (and not a vandal trying to put words in Skotavus's mouth, as occasionally happens) . . .  Skotavus, I'm sorry you seem be taking this personally.  It isn't.  Wikis are an aggregation of material added, deleted, and edited, by a huge population.  Each person decides how much and what kind of the many kinds of work they can and will do.  Within that population, there are some who choose to spend their time examining existing material for its adherence to the policies of the project.  When someone nominates an article for potentially reaching beyond those policies, these folks will do the work they've volunteered for.  There will always be articles that don't meet the guidelines, and it may take a while for folks to get around to addressing any particular subject, big bust or no.  ☺ We can only address them as a community when they are brought to our attention.  In the case of Neurotically Yours , as I've said above, this is not an obvious decision (else I'd have closed it on the 2nd), and further work toward sourcing and/or adding material may — or may not — change the minds of participants.  (It's very common for people to change their votes when suggestions are followed, but it's very uncommon for editors to follow them, which is one reason why many nominated articles are deleted.)  Regardless of what happens here, I hope that you will consider the larger picture of the project and not get too attached to any one article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Charlie Murphy: — Jeffq 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Charlie Murphy [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  Come on, folks — this guy was on a famous show!  What's the point of creating a quote article unless you can cite some quotes ?  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Dr. Frank Crane: — Jeffq 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC) Dr. Frank Crane [ edit ] Google points to just various quotes collection (first entry is wikiquote!), article is a mess, no obvious notability...  MosheZadka 04:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote extended; it closes: 0:00 30 June 2005 (UTC) to make clear the consensus; cleanup or delete .  -- Aphaia 03:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED after extension.  Result: Kept (3 Deletes; 1 official Keep, 1 Keep just past deadline that was solicited by deadline extender; article substantially improved, but still needs work based on several voters' comments; 2 of Delete votes consider cleanup an acceptable alternative).  Since I did a good bit of the cleanup (and grabbed copies of the page images specifically to verify the quotes, just in case), I'll finish my suggested work.  (I find it amusing to contribute to the preservation of an article whose author savaged me.) — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 04:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep Better these quotes than the plagarized ones that JohnQ [13] calls his ""Personal Quotes""!!!  Photolinks on Frank Crane site have been removed, article edited.  RocknRollEdder 21:24 8 June 2005 MST (UTC) The human heart is a great green tree, and many strange birds come and sing in its branches; a few build nests, but most are from far lands north and south and never come again.  (Frank Crane)  The human heart is the throne of God, the council-chamber of the devil....  (Frank Crane)  The quality of the author's writing is self-explanatory, the author widely quoted but lacking in volume EXACTLY because his words have not previously published ON-LINE!  KEEP Let's get rid of plagiarized quotes [14] and leave bona fide pre-1923 (OPEN-SOURCE!) works for public enjoyment!   (UTC)  Comment: Vote from anon.  ""(UTC)"" was written by its voter.  -- Aphaia 17:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Struck out illegal (forged or double) vote (see details below). — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource; an editor uploaded a photo of its source; if it is not an extract, it would be suitable for Wikisource (unless they consider it unnotable). And I confess I was not impressed by this author. -- Aphaia 03:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: As for user's ""self-quotes"", it is rude to refer it as the above way in my opinion, we encourage Wikiquote editor to create their own quotes collection as long as they make it on their user page; and it might underestimate the author in question to compare with the quotes which is thought clearly infringement of project policies.  Revevant discussion: #Image:Crane5002 Pub and Contentsa.jpg See also: w:Frank Crane (As of 04:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) empty page) Aph.  PLAGARISM  You obviously have no ethics against plagarism,  Or you would recognize that when someone says, ""These are my own original quotes."" as JohnQ JohnQ [15] does, he IS taking credit for concepts that would be best cited as ""SOURCE UNKNOWN"".    If someone sues your website, or big government censors your crap, your disregard deserves it.  Above comment was added by 24.117.255.9 .  — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) I will find another more profitable venue for the publicity of these classic essays, and you will be left with your pathetic cyberworld virtual past time because you will never be a real-world editor.  Above comment was added by 24.117.255.9 .  I removed the bolding, as it interferes with bold-for-vote formatting.  — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comments: My, my.  How to untangle this mess?  It's not in my nature to be concise ☺, but let me try.  The rambling text added in fits and starts by RocknRollEdder and 24.117.255.9 (possibly the same person) demonstrates only a minimal grasp of clear thinking, wiki editing, and basic concepts like ""public domain"" (which they incorrectly referred to as ""open source"").  We must try to look beyond this ""blundering ignorance"" (in the good Dr. Crane's words) to consider the value of the article itself.  Let's not blame the article for the rudeness of its defender(s).  The book probably is public-domain now, as it was published in 1919.  I have reworked the article to remove all the POV editorializing, breathless emphasizing, and duplication.  (Edder seems to consider a Wikiquote article as an essay opportunity.)  I've left in a cleaner version of the introduction, as it is within Wikiquote practice to have a brief introduction.  The article still needs some serious copyediting, as I made no attempt to compare the quotes to the photographs we have (which I've added links to so that others may do just this.) The ""Clean Business"" transcriptions are in the form of individual sentences on separate lines, giving no indication of where an excerpt starts and stops.  If these passages are indeed entire tracts, they probably should be edited down to their essentials.  There also appears to be many unnecessary hyphens in the text, which should only be there if the original spelled the words that way, not just because there was a line break.  (That's elementary typography.)  I have not evaluated the content of the quotes or the notability of the author.  There is no Frank Crane (or ""Dr. Frank Crane"") page on Wikipedia at this point, so I can't tell whether it was there and deleted, or never there.  If, after all this, the article survives VfD, it should be moved either to Frank Crane or Four Minute Essays .  Neither the current title nor its redirect follow any Wikiquote practice.  RocknRollEdder's ""keep"" vote, however libelous, is valid, but the second ""keep"" was added to his later text by 24.117.255.9.  That second vote is therefore either an attempt at forgery or a double vote.  Either way, it doesn't count.  Again, I think this is not malevolent intent; I think it's just ignorance of wiki practices (bordering on disrespect).  And when I say ""libelous"", I'm being literal.  His accusation of plagiarism is not only raving and misattributed (my name is Jeff , not John), but unjustified.  Not only do I have records to prove when I first thought of my quotes, I also protect myself (and Wikiquote, although it hardly needs it) by prefacing my personal quotes with the statement: ""If anyone knows of earlier sources of any of these quotes that are essentially the same phrasing, please tell me so I can stop calling it mine.""  I've had no takers thus far.  I feel fairly certain that our blustering Frank Crane fan not only will not, but cannot provide such evidence.  Last and least, I want to thank 24.117.255.9 for his unintended compliment of considering my personal quotes good enough to be attributed to ""source unknown"", which implies pithy but untraceable.  My quotes, however, can be traced.  Because of the wiki markup complexity of my commentary above, I ask that subsequent comments, if any, be added after this whole block, not interspersed between.  Thank you.  — Jeff Q (talk) 13:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I, as a temporal admin on English Wikipedia, abused my power a bit --- check if there is a trace of deletion of article on this topic there. I think every admin knows how to find deleted revisions from archive. And there is nothing on English Wikipedia. On the other hand w:WP:VFU says ""Pages deleted prior to the database crash on 8 June 2004 are not present in the current archive"". So the article in question was ether deleted before 8 June 2004 or never created. -- Aphaia 14:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete or further heavy cleanup and trimming.  Rmhermen 17:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Rather Delete , however don't oppose to keep but cleanup .  I propose pending deletion for one week for waiting for editor(s) who will clean it up willingly.  If not, it should be deleted.  -- Aphaia 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep but moved to Frank Crane : Though I don't find a great deal of intrinsic value in many of the quotes, and suspect the poster might be a descendent or relative of Dr. Crane, they may arguably have some historical value.  The page does need further work and clean-up though, and I feel the photos of the pages should be deleted as unneeded by Wikiquote, and probably by any of the other Wikimedia projects.  ~ Kalki 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",1
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Abortion: — Jeffq 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Abortion [ edit ] NOTE: THIS IS NOT A VOTE IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE.  This is an attempt to assess the will of the community.  If you have no user, feel free to comment (especially if you have new information which has not been presented here), but any recommendation in bold you make will be struck out to help the closing admin count recommendations correctly.  If you make a recommendation with a newly created user, especially one with few or no edits, it will not be struck out but might be discounted by the closing admin, per his or her discretion.  There is absolutely no need to vote multiple times, and in fact, such practice is frowned upon.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Please sign all your comments with ~~~~.  Please put new comments in new bullets or subbullets.  Please do not modify bullets posted by others, with the exception of striking out anon votes.  If any remark is not in a proper bullet, you can move it to bulleted form, and then you must add a subbullet documenting your action, and preferably also comment on the identity of the poster if the original is unsigned.  Thank you for your co-operation.  Mis-signatures and other such modifications will be reverted to keep the vote authentic and coherent.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] What could be a useful, balanced article on the topic is repeatedly and consistently made into an anti-abortion crusade.  We have made many different efforts to get balance, but they are inevitably sabotaged by the sheer amount of time that anti-abortion supporters have devoted to turning the pro-choice section into anti-abortion advocacy by overwhelming it with the worst possible quotes from pro-choicers.  One anonymous user has clearly demonstrated through her talk-page postings that she believes there is really only one side, and no amount of effort from the sysop staff has been able to stem her mission to ensure this article promotes her opinion.  As I believe I suggested before, if we can't have true balance or neutrality on this subject, we should simply delete the article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Procedural comment: My knee-jerk reaction is to extend the discussion by one week to December 8.  I feel that this article had enough prominent contributors and is on an important enough subject that a decision should not be taken lightly.  Currently I don't believe we have any clear policy on who is allowed to extend votes, but in general the consensus tended to be ""any sysop"".  If there are no objections soon, I will extend it.  Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Extended to December 8, as per my intention stated above.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I support the extension to my original deadline.  I had pretty much expected both the fervent arguments and the extension to accomodate them anyway.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: no consensus (default keep) (3 Deletes; 4 Keeps; 1 Keep struck for no proper signature; 1 Keep discounted because of improper signature followed by confusing attempts to verify and standardize; all anonymous, unsigned, and policy-violating multiple votes discounted).  WELL.  This may have been the sloppiest votes I've ever seen on Wikiquote.  Between the irritation of the sysops at the POV editing, the cries against censorship, the illegal and occasionally indecipherable votes from anonymous editors, and the deck-stacking through freeping, I'd say I (perhaps needlessly) proved how hard it is for Wikiquote to address this subject calmly and rationally.  In the end, however, there is no consensus to delete the article, and probably would have been a clear Keep consensus had more supporters voted properly.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It is not possible to achieve NPOV in this article when the only frequent contributors are avowed anti-abortionists who consistently sabotage the inadequate attempts of pro-choicers and sysops to restore balance.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one.  On the one hand, I understand that this page has become a nightmare to maintain, and yet I feel a bit uncomfortable about simply deleting it when there are some valid quotes to be found on the subject.  Can we protect it instead?  I know this raises other concerns -- namely that it limits the addition of new quotes (unless someone asked an admin to add it and admins would have a say over whether a quote that someone wants to add is valid), and an admin's personal bias could intrude.  But again, I'm reluctant to just delete the page.  I would like to hear some more discussion before rendering a vote.  UDScott 21:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article is a horrible mess, and is no doubt one of the single biggest ""headache"" articles we have here... and probably will long remain such.  I think this leads most of us to simply avoid it, so much as we are able to, but I am against deleting it or protecting it permanently merely for those reasons.  It is an issue about which many statements are made... and they should be given place for expression, even if one particular editor seems fixated on mis-characterizing all manner of statements in ways that will most support and promote her particular views.  I am removing it from ""featured article"" status on the Main Page though... something I have wanted to do very early on, even before it became much of a problem, but felt uncomfortable doing merely because of my own preferences not to draw to much attention to the subject.  I think most of us can agree the article itself is one of the worst, most POV-intensive, and most frustrating that we have and shouldn't be on the main page.  ~ Kalki 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (and keep unprotected) - this is a slippery slope , in the direction of censorship.  You want to delete Guns too?  It's filled with quotes by people who haven't yet heard the news that the gov has nuclear weapons, and thus their guns won't protect them in case the gov becomes tyrannical.  Also, my understanding is that some of the quotes there are taken straight from NRA magazines, and thus might be fraudulent - need someone who cares about this issue (and isn't lazy) to check it out.  The wiki process is what people make of it.  You, as an admin, have no obligation to protect a page against (what you consider to be) POV sabotage.  If all the people who wish to contribute are anti-abortion, then you can assume that all the people on earth are anti-abortion.  If other people start to contribute, and complain to admins about anti-abortion vandals (e.g. vandals who delete quotes, or don't accept majority vote), only then you should make the effort and help, by banning vandals perhaps.  If neither you nor anyone else wish to make the effort and remove the ""sabotage"" from the page, then you should leave it as it is, and wait for people who do wish to invest their time in this page to do so.  iddo999 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Jeff, perhaps try to see a positive side too: if the sabotage is so horrible, then keeping it as it is would probably increase the probability that other people who come across this page and have different views on abortions would start editing it, and then perhaps also edit other wikiquote pages.  So don't try too hard to guard pages against POV sabotage, unless it's a page that you personally care about right now.  Let the wiki process fulfill itself, with perhaps the positive side-effect of gaining new wikiquote editors.  iddo999 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The comments of the others echo many of my feelings about whether or not it is approrpiate to remove a page simply because it is controversial and is subject to a lot of heavy maintenance to keep it viable and neutral (as much as possible).  I remain uncomfortable with the idea of deleting a page when there are numerous valid quotes associated with a topic - it smacks too much of censorship to me.  As painful as this page can be to us all, I think it should remain.  UDScott 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah?  This page is painful for all of us?  I have no idea what you and Kalki are talking about.  How can it be painful if I've never even bothered to look at it?  iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and replace with a message summarising the reason, and protect it.  I've thought a lot on this issue.  The page, as it is right now, is pure crap as far as I'm concerned.  I do not see it as becoming non-crap without significant work, but I am not prepared to do the work myself.  Here is my suggestion: blank all the page, keeping only something like ""This page is now protected since no version was of sufficiently high quality. If you are interested in helping, please feel free to work on a prototype of this page in your userspace, and make a note of it in the talk page. On your prototype, you are free to insist on only editing it yourself or you can allow others to edit it. If some prototype achieves wide consensus in the talk, please alert the Admin team so they can instate the consensus version and unprotect the page.""  Any thoughts?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The solution is not to censor accurate quotes, but rather to edit out any inaccuracies and edit in quotes that satisfy your own view of balance.   Not sure how a quote page is supposed to be balanced, though.   As long as the quotes are accurate and pertinent, they ought to be on the page.    Quotes generally have a POV.   Abortion is controversial, so POV of the actual quotes will be strong in many cases.   Presenting those POVs to readers is the goal of a quote page for a controversial topic - to see what views people have on that controversy.   What is the actual problem?  Are any quotes inaccurate?  Have quotes from others with different POVs been deleted?  Have people not been permitted to add quotes with oter POVs?  Or are the quotes that people find objectionable simply ones that expose the weakness of one POV and highlight the strength of another?   Again, the solution is to add quotes that represent a POV you think is under-represented.  I use the page as a source for abortion quotes because the quotes listed are amazing.  I cannot believe that abortion providers and feminists have said some of the things they have said - but I have verified each and every one of them, and they all come from reliable sources.  What is the underlying basis for the disappointment some of you have with the page as it currently exists?  I don't see any history of trying to work the problems out, or of being specific as to why most of the quotes are objectionable.   If a quote is in the wrong section, move it to the right one.   If a quote is not accurate, explain why you believe so, ask for input, and then consider removing it.  Censoring the page by deleting or blanking it is simply a heavy-handed extremist tactic.  Mr. Grace 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the page is that the only people who have time to edit it think that a quote which starts with ""In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning"" should start the pro-choice section, and when people object, they cry out ""then edit it to be better"".  However, the content should not be decided by who has more energy to invest in edit wars.  This is why I feel forcing everyone to come to a consensus, and I'm pretty sure that enough will object to any ""compromise"" which isn't really, will finally get the edit-warriors to come to their senses.  If you are interested, you could help in making the page not be crappy...that is likely to save it from deletion, even if you have to actually find quotes which do not support your POV.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The content should be decided by those who wish to edit that page.  If you're not one of them, then just leave it alone and wait for other people to improve it.  If there're vandals who e.g. don't accept majority vote of the people who edit on that page, then we can ban them.  If you don't like the content, don't wish to edit it, and still want to delete what others do there, then it's censorship.  iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is that quote listed first?   The protocol for a ""theme"" page (such as the abortion page) appears to be very simple.  [1] Following it would address your concern.  Mr. Grace 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Let's consider that these disputes and sabatoges we're discussing here and on the Abortion article talk page have been ongoing since at least July .  I'll repeat the [Talk:Abortion#NPOV_and_accuracy|objections] I made on the talk page for the article: Some, . . . have spammed th[e] article as well as th[e] talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism.  A [Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#Abortion|thorough complaint] about this was filed.  Many ""quotes"" are listed without links.  This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take . . . the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus ""study"" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).  Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the ""Pro-choice"" section.  Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section.  Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the ""Indefinite"" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page.  This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones.  That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.  ""Dismemberment and extraction"" is not a medical term .  Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.  The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. . . . were from discussions that were not about abortion.  (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)  Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of "". . ."" in that quote.  Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.  One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads ""contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)"".  (And, again, some of the ""quotes"" seem questionable.)  This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement.  That's not what this page is for.  And it conforms to a particular POV.  Some of these biased editors . . . have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV.  In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to [certain user]'s versions, and administrators deemed [certain user]'s versions biased and questionable.  And a further [Talk:Abortion#Troll_problem.3F|objection] I made later: Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved.  His explaination on the edits page was (""no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns"") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy.  It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised.  Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags.  Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.  And an [Talk:Abortion#Neutrality_of_quote_sources|observation] from Jeff Q, who put this better than can I: I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article.  Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting.  This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion.  I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a ""pro-abortion"" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called.  That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.  In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters.  . . . Maxine Waters' idiotic statment was quoted by several reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wash Times [2] and National Review [3] - and Tucker Carlson even debated James Carville about the statement on CNN and Carville defended Waters, but did not deny she said it) - with your statement above you have proven yourself to be  either a terrible researcher or to be very hasty in rushing to judgment - and perhaps to have an extreme bias against anyone with views that differ from your own (such as a website that espouses views that you think should not be voiced, or exposes certain views to be shallow.   The fact that any mention of Waters' participation in the rally (where she made the idiotic statement) has been scrubbed from nearly all old media reports of the event (and even edited out of the CSPAN coverage) demonstrates the extreme bias of most ""reliable"" media outlets.  Imagine if a conservative congressman had said something as dumb as the extreme liberal Waters did - it would be on CNN every 5 minutes for 2 weeks.  Instead the mainstream media has largely hidden Waters' incoherence or stupidity from its readers and viewers to protect her and the pro-abortion facade.  Mr. Grace 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's quoted in the WSJ news section, then it's reliable.  But if it was quoted by the yoyos in the WSJ op-ed section, then it's useless.  WashTimes is less reliable, they even fabricate quotes by people that they like when it suits them, such as Tom Delay [4] .  Carlson and Carville are also obviously useless.  It's supposed to have been shown on TV?  Why don't you seek for a video footage then?  There're plenty of anti-abortion people with video recorders...  For example, the conspiracy theories crowd managed to get the Fox News live broadcast on 9/11 where their correspondent who went on air after the 2nd plane hit the WTC said that it's a cargo plane that doesn't have windows.  iddo999 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure where this ends, as you have now pointed to an obscure blog website (that claims a certain quote is bogus) as your reliable source to note that some websties are not reliable.  Ardent apologist (Carville) for all things liberal admitted that Maxine Waters made the idiotic statment.  Several highly-respected media outlets also reported her rant.  Not sure what your standard of proof is - seems like liberal blogs and liberal newspapers (NYT, for example) are good sources, but conservative ones are not reliable.   That is a standard that is thoroughly unacceptable.  Mr. Grace 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""obscure blog"" links to the WashTimes article, and mentions what the Repub senator said on CNN, so it's as credible as the senator is.  If you meant that the blog fabricated the senator's words, and you're too lazy to even check this out, then here [5] - but then you're probably way too lazy to seek for video footage that you claim that the big brother at C-SPAN removed into the memory hole...  Getting such footage is a lot easier than 9/11 footage, because the rally was known in advance.  To repeat, the WSJ news section is very reliable, much more than the NYT I'd say, but again, info from the WSJ op-ed section is useless.  Do you know how that quote appeared in the WSJ?  Anyway, I suggest that for now you should be graceful and remove that quote into the talk page, pending a proof.  iddo999 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] When former White House advisor (Carville) discusses Maxine's rant (and in doing so admits the rant occurred) you find it meaningless, but when a senator fails to elaborate on why he thinks a quote was false you find it definitive as to whether the statement was made.  Your standard of proof is slippery at best - and certainly biased toward getting your way.  Maxine's rant was widely published in 4 well-respected publications with no retractions and therefore it is most definitely ""sourced"" - its not going away.  The only lazy user here is the one who has claimed that the page is filled with bogus quotes, offered no proof, and then demanded the page be deleted.  Mr. Grace 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by ""senator fails to elaborate""?  The senator said that the WashTimes fabricated the quote.  What else is there to elaborate on?  You want the senator to elaborate on the motives behind the decision to fabricates quotes?  I just used this example to show that the WashTimes is less reliable than e.g. the WSJ.  I'll assume that the point was taken.  What Carville used to say on the Crossfire circus was meaningless in general, and certainly meaningless with regard to the sourcing of quotes in particular, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that.  Why don't you answer my question about how the quote appeared in the WSJ?  I urge you again to be graceful and remove that quote until there's a proof for it.  iddo999 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] As Jeff Q also put it on the same page (again, better than can I) about one abuser (sic), which I believe can accurately others editors: She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact.  . . . she cannot be permitted to subvert it [the article/Wiki standards] in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff.  Let's consider the anti-choice side's insistence on continuing to do those things, and insistence on keeping the article that way or reverting it back to that way Conclusion: I think the only permanent remedy would be to would to permanently protect the article, and I'm not sure if Wikiquote's administrators are willing to permanently deny us nonadministrators any editing of an article.  Unless the administrators can agree to do that, then the article is like a severly medically risked patient's fetus w/ 100% chance of quick terminal illness outside the womb: sadly, it has no hope, and the best thing to do would probably be to mercifully abort it.  Dr. K 06:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Yikes, all this does sound very bad...  However, I consider your solution to be even worse.  In general, the solution for removing quotes from dubious sources is to stop being lazy (i.e. use nothing but google?) and try to research the issue.  However, it can be quite hard to prove a negative, so if the only sources appear to be fraudulent (as indeed in your examples above), then I think that it would be a good idea to remove them (into the talk page, perhaps), pending a reliable source.  The solution to POV comments next to a quote is simply to remove them, because other than info that's really relevant to a particular quote, everything else should go to wikipedia - we should seek to editorialize as little as possible.  If the anti-abortion crowd refuses to follow such guidelines, then you should report it to admins who will revert what they do there and perhaps ban them.  But first, there should be an effort by editors of that page to create a good version - if you just leave the page to the anti-abortion crowd to do what they want there, then we can leave them alone until other people would come and try to improve it.  iddo999 10:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is one of my first times using this site.  It is amazing, and has been extremely helpful to me in preparing a case study on Abortion for a Medical Law & Ethics class.  I was really disturbed to see that it was being considered for deletion.  I believe in free speech, and that we, the public, have the right to be informed.  Therefore, I equate deleting a page such as this, with an incredible amount of useful information, to ""book burning.""  Simply because the totality of content seems weighted towards one side of an issue, is NO REASON to DELETE IT!  I am NOT making this statement based on personal bias.  If something is out of balance - then BALANCE IT!  Put the simple facts of this question in to almost any analogy: If preparing a meal, and some parts are done before others, do you throw it ALL out?  If you plant a garden, and one crop grows faster, and more abundantly than another - do you plow under the whole plot, and tell yourself ""I'll try for more EQUAL growth next year...""??? Of course not!  From my perspective, as new to this site, this argument seems rooted in issues other than the benefit/accuracy of the information presented.  Yes, the bulk of information presented represents one position over the other ... but that doesn't make all that is there inaccurate or with out value.  PLEASE, consider it a work-in-progress, and don't ""burn the book"" to teach someone a lesson!  KellyD Moved to standard format by me, including striking out the vote because it came from an anon (as per our policy that anon votes are ineligible) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] KellyD, why do you lecture us about how you think that other people should improve the page, instead of offering to do it yourself?  iddo999 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps what KellyD is sayingis that:  1) the page is accurate and therefore should not be censored, and  2) additional accurate quotes should be added by those who do not like the current (and accurate) content of the page, and  3) the responsibility to add aditional accurate quotes belongs to those who find the current accurate content disturbing enough to do the work.  Mr. Grace 06:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] As I understand you, this is a misstatement of a crucial policy: writing for the enemy.  The responsibility to keep NPOV and balance belongs not ""to thos who find the current content disturbing"", but to everyone.  I realize it might be hard to add quotations which actually refute your point of view, but it is crucial for the proper functioning of the wiki.  Please see my suggestion above, tantamount to deleting the page, for a way to force the various POV warriors here to seek consensus.  Please note that intentional violations of NPOV are disruptive to wikiquote, which is the reason Jeff suggested the deletion, to reduce disruption.  The more I hear the arguments against that decision, the more I believe he is right, since not one argument appeared relevant.  Perhaps when wikiquote grows to have 20 regular editors (commited to NPOV) and 6 active administrators, we can deal with the disruption brought about by such a page.  As it stands, I believe that this page draws more heat than light.  Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Whats with the censorshiip?  Aslan originally posted 2 December 2005 (UTC) (comment originally added by Mr. Grace , moved to subbullet by me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] This is this user's only edit (done as two edits: one to add the vote, one to sign it) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Following ""votes"" are all by the same anon: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks ok to me Keep I think it is an excellent page Keep Sure, why not?  Keep Dont abort the abortion page!!!! Keep Babies arent that cute.  Keep Keep it.  Keep I have thought long and hard on this and I say keep.  Keep Keeping it is a good idea.  Keep Keep good.  Delete bad.  Keep I agree with many others...keep!  Following vote is by another anon ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP--DO NOT CHANGE A THING.  You are part of an open forum that debates ideas.  People DO COME HERE to get informed.  DON'T HINDER THAT.  Short note: Wikiquote is NOT an open forum which debates ideas, it is an encyclopedia of quotations.  Just in case anyone thought it is.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Anon 'vote' in a separate section moved here by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Keep"" It's not the fault of us ""neanderthal womyn oppressors"" if some of the pro-choice comments look REALLY bad.   If you are going to censor it now because advocates like Margaret Sanger (a racist supporter of Eugenics and Nazism) and Pete Singer (an unqualified homicidal maniac urging 'postnatal abortion' up to the age of  2) don't represent your side in the best light, you betray your bias and put the whole WIKI institution at risk as an objective resource.   It's bad enough that no High School or College would (ok, should) accept Wiki as a suitable bibliography.   We've got Nicolae Ceaucescu (a Communist dictator who ended up at the right end of the firing squad he used to terrorize the population) on the Pro-life side.   Not exactly the kind of candidate we want but, why not?   It's in the interest of fairness, isn't it?  BTW, I've got a quote for you: ""Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision. 3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts.""  Norma McCorvey's, Jane Roe of ""Roe v. Wade"", Affidavit to the US District Court of New Jersey.  PS: For claiming to be unbiased, there are a lot of ""anti-choicers"" and ""anti-abortion"" epithet thrown around.   Should I call you guys then, ""pro-death""?   It's only fair if you choose to denigrate us at every turn.  Keep ""13:46, 7 December 2005 Jwindle (adding signature of poster Jwindle who did not sign, anon below merged his comment with Jwindle's)"" (this is a comment by Mr. Grace , moved to std.  format by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) ) [ reply ] The fight becomes controversial only after your fighter hits the canvas after receiving a Mike Tyson uppercut.  Work and train 'em harder?  Beef up your arguments?  Or quit and recognize the Championship is not within your grasp?  Sorry for the sports analogy.  But what this is mostly about is, ""If I can't win I'm going to take my ball and go home!""  Unsigned comment, moved to std.  form by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I would recommend to whoever closes this vote to discount any and all voters with less than 50 edits excepting the VfD page itself, Abort and Talk:Abortion .  I don't suppose it will change the result of this vote (as it is going so far), but I think it would make a nice precedent, similary to how I closed the Tarmy vote, which would make at least one good thing come out of this VfD.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Your attitude is certainly no way to expand the number of active users on Wikiquote.  And please do try to be more courteous when making this section look how you want it to.  Mr. Grace 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Being ""active"" only on one vote and POV-warring on one page is not my idea of ""active"".  If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to make useful edits on a bunch of pages unrelated to abortion: we have a large number of pages which could use expansion ( The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay , which I started), accuracy checks ( Sherlock Holmes ) or format improvements ( Morton Feldman ).  Since the goal of VfD is to assess the will of the community , we need to have some definition of community.  I truly hope, but sadly, I do not expect, that you will decide to join the community by improving wikiquote.  Perhaps this will give you an idea of why the regular editors are overworked enough that they do not have time to respond to ultimatums on Talk:Abortion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Pro-abortion rights users are perfectly free to add their quotes as well.   There is no reason such an article need be censored.   It's open to all.   -- Jakes19 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] This was the user's first edit, less than five minutes after being created.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) \ [ reply ] I spend most of my time on Wikipedia as Jakes18.   I intended on creating an account here, but never got to it until a few days ago, when I saw this garbage was going on and felt it necessary.   Does the Abortion article portray abortion rights supporters in a negative fashion?   I think that's what most would come out with.   Does it matter?   No.   They are true quotes.   To delete them would be more or less censoring true statements you are not comfortable with.   If pro-abortion rights Wikiquotians are unimpressed with the page, they are perfectly free to edit it themselves.   Should we delete ""Bushisms"" because it sheds a negative light on GW, and that may annoy his supporters?   No.   -- Jakes19 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The expiration date of this vote has passed - our busy sysops have not had the chance to tally the vote.  Looks like there is no consensus to sensor the abortion page.  Please do not vandalize this comment by deleting it.   I am simply making a reasonable and relevant note in this section regarding this vote.  Mr. Grace 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The large puppet contingent was due to a Freep: [6] I scanned this section and didn't see anyone enter this information, apologies if this was known.  Just thought you might like to know.  KillerChihuahua 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",2
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  University of Texas at Austin: — LrdChaos 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] University of Texas at Austin [ edit ] None of the quotes are about the university; instead, they seem to be quotes from alumni of the university (or were said during a speech at the university).  This would be best done as a category, if it should be done at all.  — LrdChaos 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (three votes to delete, one vote to keep).  — LrdChaos 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as page author.   Two of the quotes directly mention the university.   The other one should perhaps be removed as it is by an alumni who is speaking of his decision to play football - it does not specifically mention him playing football at that university.   Still, the other two quotes are sufficient content to justify the article.  Johntex 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The university is really not the focus of the Kennedy or Cronkite quotes; it is secondary at best.  - InvisibleSun 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the entire point of the Cronkite quote is the University.   It is an advertisement for the university recorded by Walter Cronkite.   The Kennedy point has been trimmed to be just the portion that references the university.  Johntex 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes (preferably sourced) about the university are included.  Theme articles are not intended to include quotes that merely mention the subject in passing, as in the Kennedy quote.  If that were the case, Christianity could be filled with quotes that merely include the phrase ""good Christian"".  They are supposed to be fundamentally about the theme.  And advertisements are not suitable material for Wikiquote.  ( Advertising slogans includes concise commercial lines, but not testimonials like Cronkite's.)  That said, I believe this article has potential.  For example, the single phrase "" Hook 'em Horns "", cited with a source (like the university website, or better yet, one of the many provided by the WP article on this phrase), would make a valid, sourced quote entry.  (It's a start, at least.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:51, 26 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Godfather, The (Parts II & III): — Jeffq 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Godfather, The (Parts II & III) [ edit ] This is (or was) a redirect to The Godfather: Part III .  Each of the three Godfather films is now listed in List of films individually using their IMDb names, each of the existing articles has links to the other two titles, and there is nothing that links to this redirect.  I think we can do away with this title, since no one is likely ever to type in this sequence of characters.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I moved the article from this name (which contained just a Godfather III quote) to current name.  I wanted to keep the redirect for a while so the anon creator will not recreate an article in this place, but now it has served its purpose.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree that this is a redundant entry.  UDScott 15:34, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Brett Hatfield: — LrdChaos 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Brett Hatfield [ edit ] Notability not demonstrated.   - InvisibleSun 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (six explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete vanity page about a high school student.  I've posted {{ vanity-warn }} to the creator's talk page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Vanity page for a non-notable person.  — LrdChaos 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Koweja 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:54, 1 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Tomb Raider: ~ Kalki 18:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Tomb Raider [ edit ] The page was created 3 months ago and still has no content.  - 70.64.43.247 18:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) As it is a fairly popular series, I think eventually quotes are likely here, and see no need to delete it.   One problem that will probably arise is whether the pages for the games or the movies should be given priority for the ""Tomb Raider"" designation, or both eventually given names like Tomb Raider (games) and/or Tomb Raider (movies) .  ~ Kalki 18:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",2
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Ekaangi: — Jeffq 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ekaangi [ edit ] It appears not unlikely that such an indian movie exists, based on links.  It has a couple of hits, http://www.ekaangi.com is no longer alive, IMDB has ""Ekaanki"" as a '78 movie which doesn't have five users who bothered to vote on the page and there is no wikipedia article.  This is on the border I guess, which is why I am not voting, but I am wondering if it should be deleted?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; 1 implicit Neutral; no dissent; no clear idea what this article is about; no response from original editor).  I acknowledge that this is a controversial decision.  The vote was extended several times (the record of which I've left here), then left rather open-ended, with no one in the community responding firmly one way or another for a considerable time.  Because of this, I invite any Wikiquotians who feel this article did not get a fair shake to bring it up on the Village pump.  If this happens, we may need to formalize an Undeletion policy.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote extended to 0:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC) awaiting email response from original editor.  — Jeff Q (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote extended to 0:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) by ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've given it a few more days.  Any idea what to do about it?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: We have to assume there will be no e-mail from the original editor.  Given that, does anyone have a vote?  Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm not sure we can still count votes on these continued extensions, since we haven't solidified policy yet.  But in general, I maintain that, in the absence of easily determined notability (like IMDb for films), any editor should provide some evidence of notability if they don't want the article deleted.  Whatever ""Ekaangi"" is, is appears to be so unnotable that even the article's author can't be bothered to justify it.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: We have two possibilities in my opinion, to say ""delete, because no one wants to keep it explicitely"" and to say ""keep, because no concensus has been made"".  As for notability I found a link [39] .  I suppose IMDb is not perfect to cover non English films.  Sometimes I find IMDb has no information about popular (so-called mega hit) Japanese films.  I agree on this film has no notability in the English-speaking world,  but two websites suggest its potential notability in India.  So I would like to ask our Indian editors, if possible, like in the case of Rajinikaant.  -- Aphaia 16:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Aphaia, your link above points to Ekaangi itself.  It can hardly be its own evidence of notability.  ☺ We've established in other VFDs that if works that are so unknown in the English world that a modest amount of research that turns up nothing significant, we can reasonably delete them unless someone helps us out.  I believe the only real reason we're still having this discussion is that no one else is available to hunt this down, because all our active editors are tied up on other issues.  If we don't start forcing one-time editors to justify their unheard-of contributions, Wikiquote will become a collection of vanity pages and obscure articles with no sources.  Until we get 20-30 conscientious editors, we can't afford to humor people who slap unsourced stuff into WQ and disappear.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concured by Jeff.  Anyway deletion wouldn't disturb further submission, so seems no harmful.  We have been waiting for a good enough time, or not?  -- Aphaia 14:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Technically, if someone resubmitted the article, it would be subject to speedy deletion per Wikiquote:Speedy deletions, case #5 .  Personally, I would welcome a new submission if it explained what this thing is supposed to be.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: We may need to refine our speedy deletion policy.  ""An artcle under the same title with already deleted article AND with the same content with the deleted one"" like that.  Personally I would welcome a new submission if expanded fairly and enlighting us what Ekaangi is.  ;-) -- Aphaia 10:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  The Searchers: .  — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The Searchers [ edit ] No quotes ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: kept.  (5 keeps, 1 delete w/o 2 withdrawn votes; due to expansion, those voters changed their mind).  -- Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now, as usual wonderful work by UDScott .  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes provided.  This is an encylopedia stub that hasn't had any quotes added in nearly 6 months.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  Excellent work on a neglected article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Movie synopsis, no quote content.  jni 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added quotes for this film.  Question: should the synopsis remain?  If so, is this something that we should be including with all film entries?  UDScott 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I've restructured the intro to show the more-or-less consensus: an extremely short one line intro describing the movie's main premise, with some information about cast.  In movies, like in other wikiquote articles, a one (or perhaps two or three at the most) sentence introduction is ideal.  No introduction is bad -- we want readers to have some idea. A paragraph long introduction is probably too long -- either link it to wikipedia (in case there is an article) or create a stub based around the paragraph in wikipedia if there is none.  Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now.  -- Aphaia 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  JButler 15:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  The Sims: — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC) The Sims [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: delete (2 deletes, no dissent) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC) Delete unless quotes and Wikipedia-linked intro provided.  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Kim: — Jeffq 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kim [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 struck vote from no signature; no other dissent).  ~ Jeffq 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable.  ~ UDScott 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I would like to say Kim Stolz I think or Slotz is a quoty girl.  Struck out unsigned, undated, anonymous vote.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'd ordinarily suggest the potential for keeping based on evidence of notability, but looking at the current article, I hold little hope for such.  First, this person surely isn't famous enough to go by a single incredibly common name.  Second, she was apparently eliminated in one of the zillions of hardly-notable shows which are nothing more than Warholesque attempts to manufacture celebrities out of ordinary people.  Very few winners remain notable beyond their ""15 minutes"" of fame.  Third, we don't have any information on when this supposed surnameless contestant was on the program, so it's rather problematic using a source like TV.com's article to verify this information.  Fourth, even if all these obstacles are overcome, the quotes listed are not only misspelled, but they're extremely common statements.  We might as well quote someone for saying ""Hi"".  If she is notable, a quote like ""I'm bisexual"" is more useful as a reference for a Wikipedia bio.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I belatedly thought to check WP's article on America's Next Top Model to see if I could deduce who this person is.  It seems likely this ""Kim"" is Kim Stolz from Cycle 5.  The article says nothing about when this cycle aired, but TV.com says this Kim was eliminated on the 23 November 2005 show, ""The Girl Who Retaliates"" (ep #58 or 5.10).  (This show is so unoriginal, it even borrows its title scheme, which resembles Friends ' ""The One With…"" titles.)  Even if I've solved the identity and sourceability problems, the rest remain. I'd suggest, as an alternative to deletion, that this article be turned into a companion quote article for ANTM itself, but I still favor deletion unless and until someone actually does the work to make this happen (especially finding useful quotes, instead of random things these pseudocelebrities say). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jeff Kim talked and that quoted her in ANTM KIM should get credit like anyone else huh! Reformatted unsigned, undated, anonymous edit above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Word jokes on proverbs: — Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Word jokes on proverbs [ edit ] Patent nonsense, vandalism.  I would have requested speedy deletion if the page didn't exist already for over half a year.  Gpvos 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting closed.  Result: delete (7 deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per request.  Gpvos 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per request.  Dashiell 02:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't speak to whether this supposed systematic joke, reminiscent in style (if not in interest value) to Cockney rhyming slang , is real, but even if it is, I see no reason for an article that seems like nothing more than a search-and-replace on Dutch proverbs .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  per nomination.  William Avery 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 18:29, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Super Nintendo: — Jeffq 03:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Super Nintendo [ edit ] A page for a one-time Simpson's quote.  Rmhermen 00:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Results: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete, no dissent).  Sole existing quote already confirmed on Simpsons page.  — Jeff Q (talk) 03:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Simpsons quote can go on its page.  Other electronic game quotes should go into game pages.  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Too wide.  Already said by Jeff Q. -- Aphaia 09:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Netcraft: ~ Kalki Netcraft [ edit ] I believe this page (Netcraft) should be deleted.  Though articles in magazines, newspapers, and websites can and should be cited as evidence of a quotation, and some journalists who work for them provided article pages, I do not believe sites or magazines should be given their own article pages.  In many cases the content could become overwhelming complex and extensive.  Additionally, the comment ""BSD is DYING"" appears to be wishful thinking on the part of someone NOT at Netcraft: At http://news.netcraft.com/ : Searched for ""BSD is dying"" No pages were found containing ""BSD is dying"".  some articles that did mention forms of BSD: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/07/05/most_reliable_hosting_providers_during_june.html ~ Achilles 03:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) This was deleted ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Richard Ryan: — MosheZadka 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Richard Ryan [ edit ] Another professor.  Professor notability guidelines: [57] has papers of his in books, but that falls short of actually writing a book.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As I implied in the ""Carolyn Crouch"" VFD entry, a handful of publications is practically a requirement for university professors, most of whom aren't typically considered notable enough for WQ articles.  However, I might be persuaded if the existing quote is sourced (maybe from one of the publications cited on the Self-Determination Theory website?), more quotes are added, and (especially) a Wikipedia article is created that the WP crowd finds notable enough to retain.  If this last step is in progress, I'd be willing to extend the vote a few weeks to see how things pan out.  (But article promoters should expect me to nominate the WP article for AFD [articles for deletion] to encourage WP editors to consider the matter thoughtfully, so the other evidence is highly recommended.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:57, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Austin James Schock: — Jeffq 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Austin James Schock [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is produced.  ~ UDScott 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 12 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  The Crystal Method: — Jeffq 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The Crystal Method [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 19:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this latest from serial non-quote article creator 169.244.143.115 unless evidence of notability is provided and legitimate quotes are added.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:33, 7 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Adrian Edmondson: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Adrian Edmondson [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ UDScott 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; no quotes added).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Don't think he has said anything notable as Ade Edmondson.  Quotes could be put on The Young Ones from Vyvyan.  Dbiv 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  I've added a WP link to help identify the subject.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:35, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Duke Nukem vs. South Park: — MosheZadka 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Duke Nukem vs. South Park [ edit ] No notability.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 2 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  CHHS Improv: — Aphaia 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] CHHS Improv [ edit ] No wikipedia article.  Besides people mentioning it as a resume item, there's http://www.hanestheatre.com/theatre/improv.html which gives some information.  Notability seems not very high, and the quotes seem inherently unverifiable.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: Deleted (2 deletes, no dissent).  -- Aphaia 09:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete , unless Chapel Hill High School (CHHS) has been written up in something other than in the Chapel Hill News or Herald Sun of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (population 48,000+) for the notability of its Hanes Theater-based CHHS Improv Company.  (I've asked about this organization's notability on the Chapel Hill talk page .) — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 05:04 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Emily Riebe: — MosheZadka 17:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Emily Riebe [ edit ] No wp article, no intro, google points to wikiquote and mirrors.  Date of birth (1987) leads me to suspect this is vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC) Vote closes : Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 15:20 (UTC) Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  — Jeff Q (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable, likely vanity.  jni 05:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift: — MosheZadka 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Fast and the Furious 3: Tokyo Drift [ edit ] This appears to be an article for a June 2006 film which is still either in pre-production or possibly in production, so its claimed quotes are highly dubious.  (Never mind the formatting issues, the lack of any WP or other links, no references, and the likely title error [supposedly it's Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo ].) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless verifiable source provided, in which case, it needs serious cleanup and probable moving.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with Jeff.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:25, 3 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Category:1920 births: — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:1920 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 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 23:18, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Category:1998 deaths: — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:1998 deaths [ 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 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 23:19, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Image:Franklin.jpg: — Jeffq 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Image:Franklin.jpg [ edit ] Unused image.  The article appears to use a different one from the Commons although we don't have the nice Commons message that Wikipedia has.  Rmhermen 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  — Result: Deleted (2 Deletes, 1 implicit deleted; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Superfluous.  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete We can just import Commons message from Wikipedia, I guess, like some other templates like {{test}} -- Aphaia 20:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  ""Broken"" pages: — MosheZadka 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Broken"" pages [ edit ] Broken/FAQ Broken/Wikipedia:All pages by title Broken/Wikipedia:Bug reports Broken/Wikipedia:Copyrights Broken/Wikipedia:Deletion log Broken/Wikipedia:How to start a page Broken/Wikipedia:Long articles Broken/Wikipedia:Most wanted articles Broken/Wikipedia:Orphaned articles Broken/Wikipedia:Recentchanges Broken/Wikipedia:Short articles Broken/Wikipedia:Upload log Broken/Wikipedia:User preferences help Broken/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress Broken/Withnail \x2526 I Bunch of pages which were broken, and some developer got them to be editable.  I don't think any are useful.  Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes [2 in Latin], no dissent [in any language]) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete them all.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Caedite eos.  Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.  (Loosely translated: "" Delete them all. Let God sort them out."") ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Et ceterum censeo, delenda est Carthago , sive patinas quas catalogo cui mittentur.  Aphaea scrivit in 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) .  (Summary: delete) [ reply ] Comment: the same decision should probably be applied to Broken/mail:daily-article-l ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:01, 3 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: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Miramax Family Films: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Miramax Family Films [ edit ] The page really belongs on Wikipedia, not here, as it doesn't provide any quotes or really have any potential for quotes (nothing in the article seems particularly worthy of being included at Wikipedia, so I don't think anything needs to be transwiki'd.  — LrdChaos 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: transwiki to Wikipedia, followed by deletion (2 Transwikis; 1 Delete).  I'll do this myself shortly, unless someone beats me to it.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki completed; article deleted.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki to Wikipedia with a {{ merge }} tag to w:Miramax Films .  There are no quotes, and we aren't likely ever to see useful quotes from a company that don't come from its products, each of which should have its own article.  It's not really much of a WP article, either, being primarily a partial list of films, rather than a real description of the company.  But it might be useful to merge it into the parent company's article.  Anyway, WP can decide that for itself.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki , concur with Jeff.  ~ UDScott 13:49, 2 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: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Ed Howdershelt: — MosheZadka 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ed Howdershelt [ edit ] Voted for deletion on wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ed Howdershelt ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence that has not shown up on the WP VfD provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm inclined to go along with WP on this.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:19, 13 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Daniel Aubrey: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Daniel Aubrey [ edit ] It is not appropriate to put information on such an obscure person among the articles at Wikiquote.  Placing this information on a user page , where it should be moved, could be appropriate and amusing.  Placing it in among the articles is neither.  ~ Achilles 12:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) Delete or move to user page.  -- TOR 21:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time.  The developers are aware of the problem.   ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Category:1964 films: — Jaxl 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:1964 films [ edit ] This category is currently empty, and given the existence and use of Category:1960s films , should remain that way, and is therefore unnecessary.  — LrdChaos 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I had neglected to include the {{ vfd }} template on the category page.  Having now added it, I've extended the vote on this to let it run for a full two weeks after the page was tagged.  — LrdChaos 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I prefer to stay with decade categorization unless and until we ramp up to Wikipedia's scale of (proper) film articles.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 26 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Geza Pal & Geza Palatos: ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Geza Pal & Geza Palatos [ edit ] ""Geza Pal"" or ""Geza Palotas"" does not seem to be a famous individual or work, so I am placing the vfd notice on these pages.  As was explained in a note from Achilles to the IP which was used to create these, if someone wishes to create a User page, and place these comments on it, they are welcome to do so; we are not out to silence opinions and views of anyone, but to keep them in their proper channels: The comments posted do not seem to be by anyone as yet prominent enough to merit an article page here.  ~ Kalki 12:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) DELETE I was new to Wikiquote and sort of playing around.  I was not aware that quotes were for only famous people.  I am not only not-famous but Nobody, and would like to stay nobody.  So please Delete.  -- Geza Pal 17:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) This kind of mistake does happen, and is understandable, and I am glad you have created a User listing.  I am considering a few options on how the situations might be reduced.  You can post the statements you had made on your user page if you wish.  ~ Kalki 18:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) These pages have been deleted.  ~ Kalki 14:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Chris Elliott: — MosheZadka 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Chris Elliott [ edit ] This page has no quotes, and the text is inaccurate (the actor on the show is Christopher Meloni).  UDScott 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes and information are added.  There is an actor of this name who might have some interesting quotes, but they need to be added for this page to stay.  UDScott 12:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott.  Almost certainly the result of someone filling a redlink from Groundhog Day (movie) .  I've edited the movie page to link to wp pages for the actors (and also tagged it cleanup).  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes are given.  -- Aphaia 11:04, 16 December 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jonathan Prendergast: — Jeffq 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jonathan Prendergast [ edit ] Unsourced, single-quote article from unidentified person with no WP article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with Jeffq.  ~ UDScott 12:28, 14 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Places: — MosheZadka 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Places [ edit ] I think we are better to not have it.  Like ""anime"" or ""favorites"".  In the past time we need to have lists but today we are discussing replace lists with categories.  From my view, this is out of date attempt.  We have already Category:Places and this list is redundant and less convinient to maintain.  And even if this page should survive, it should be ""List of places"" following our convention in my opinion.  -- Aphaia 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: deleted (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : -- Aphaia 20:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agreed.  Lists are a pain to maintain, and are seldom maintained correctly.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Created by new user Richard Allen , who's acknowledged elsewhere that he's still on a learning curve.  He probably didn't know about Categories.  I've left him a (hopefully) encouraging note.  — Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Get ahht: — Jeffq 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Get ahht [ edit ] I don't see the need for a page for a single line.  The only way I could see this surviving is if an article was created for the TV show ( Warning: May Contain Nuts ), and this page redirected to it.  ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 serious Keep, 1 Keep from apparent prankster; no notability evidence provided).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think the quote is noteworthy/memorable enough (certainly, to me, as someone who's never seen the show, I can't understand why someone would find it noteworthy/memorable) and certainly isn't enough to start a page for the whole show.  — LrdChaos 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This article, created by new WQ editor Gary Kirk , looks like a hoax article.  Neither Wikipedia nor IMDb have anything to say about either the show or this supposed ""British actor IMcG"", nor is there any indication of such a person working on Titanic II .  Google, besides pointing to a book titled Warning! : May Contain Nuts! by British author Barry Gibbons, lists a ton of uses of the phrase without any mention of a TV show.  There is a Wikipedia image of a supposed DVD of this spoof TV show, but it was uploaded by User:GaryKirk , who seems likely to be the same editor as our new user.  The only use of this image is in a user subpage, w:User:Garykirk/Jamie Tuffield , which is an apparent tribute to a school-age actor.  This completely unsourced tribute reads like a hoax itself, although it is quite detailed.  (Then again, so was "" Concrete Hippo "".)  I hold out the possibility that this is not a hoax, especially since Gary Kirk seems to have contributed a lot to WP without being tagged as a hoaxer, but at the very least, this is likely an unnotable show, so even a proper article of quotes from it wouldn't meet Wikiquote notability standards.  NOTE: The fate of redirects Get ahht! and Get Ahht! are also tied to this article. ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nonsense.  ~ Harry Tuttle 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have been privileged enough to produce the show which is the source of this quote, in fact, I wrote the aforementioned tribute to it.  I must say that while it is a relatively unknown quote as of yet, it still has much value to the casual observer, and will undoubtedly be more well known in the near future.  ~ Horatio Apple 13:19, 01 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikiquote's purpose is not to promote new creative works, but to quote from established ones whose notability provides us with a means to verify them.  I can appreciate your desire to disseminate the work of an up-and-coming artist, but that's just not what we do here.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Even if only say, 300 people know of Get Ahht!, it is far more well known than some obscure, and frankly ridiculous articles such as Eddie's Stories (""How will we get out of here?"" ""The same way we will get out!"" ""Get Ahht!"".  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.112.229.153 ( talk • contribs ) 14:19, 3 May 2006  (UTC) This user created the ""Eddie's Stories"" article (also under VfD consideration).  This and his/her repeated vandalism suggests a lack of serious intent.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Areti metuamate: — Aphaia 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Areti metuamate [ edit ] Appears to be a New Zealand college student.  Rmhermen 14:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent). -- Aphaia 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete No sign of notability.-- Aphaia 17:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Wikiquote:Yo, Millard Fillmore!: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikiquote:Yo, Millard Fillmore!  [ edit ] One more leftover redirect from a move, this one to proper article Yo, Millard Fillmore!  .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:44, 2 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Robert Pastel: — Jeffq 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Robert Pastel [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; 1 Keep from vote-only editor; 1 unsigned vote struck; no source for notability claims cited as requested).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is produced.  ~ UDScott 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , He is known for thirty-two publications, 2 patents, B.S. Mathematics, M.S. Engineering Science, M.S. Computer Science, and a Ph. D. Physics Cearum 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] This vote is user's only edit to date.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Prof Pastel is one of the most memorable professors to students that have had him at MichiganTech.  Pastel’s random quotes inspire students to listen in an abstract but intuitive way.  Many people come to class just to hear his odd remarks only a small fraction of which are posted here.  Unsigned vote struck (user was warned to sign votes 10 days ago); was newly-registered user's only edit to date.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Understandable admiration by one's students does not qualify as notability for a global quote compendium.  (I had a wonderful history prof whose clever quotes were well-known throughout my school, but that doesn't make him WQ-notable, either.)  Nor does Pastel have a Wikipedia article.  None of the qualifications listed above by Cearum are cited, nor are they evident in a quick Google search, and probably wouldn't raise him above the usual professor-notability threshhold anyway.  Furthermore, as is usually the case with university professors with wiki-editing students, there is likely no published source to allow editors to verify the quotes that are included in the article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:49, 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: ",4
merge,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  First Things First: — Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] First Things First [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: merge with Stephen Covey (3 merges; no dissent).  I've performed the merge.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless valid quotes are added.  — LrdChaos 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Stephen Covey, per InvisibleSun.  — LrdChaos 13:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, now that quotes have been added, with Stephen Covey - InvisibleSun 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Covey, per Invisible Sun.  As I've mentioned before, I'm against book articles except when the book is so famous that it needs a separate article (e.g., The Bible ).  With book articles, editors have a tendency to assume no further source information need be provided, which requires verifiers to read the entire work to find the quotes cited.  (Proper sourcing should include page numbers and ISBNs.)  Besides, they needlessly invite copyright infringement by practically begging to be expanded beyond a select set of quotes.  Although there are two co-authors cited, their names are so de-emphasized on the cover that I think a note under the heading for this book's quotes in the Covey article would be sufficient.  (I do note that the co-authors, A. Roger Merrill and Rebecca Merrill, have (only) one other book credit in the Library of Congress: Life Matters: Creating a Dynamic Balance of Work, Family, Time, and Money (2003).  But given that First Things First was published in 1994, they seem to have been extremely junior partners at the time. ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Gareth Cushley: — Jeffq 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Gareth Cushley [ edit ] Name search reveals nothing notable.   - InvisibleSun 11:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (6 deletes from regular editors, incl. 1 implicit; 2 keeps from editors w/ minimal contributions who have voted multiple times or vandalized; no notability evidence provided).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emlynisnota ( talk • contribs ) 20:24, 19 July 2006  (UTC) Comment .  This vote is the first contribution from this user, made less then five minutes after registering the account.  — LrdChaos 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- sheerly deserves a wiki quote dedication.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emlynisnota ( talk • contribs ) 20:50, 19 July 2006  (UTC) Delete unless evidence of notability provided and some meaningful, sourced quotes added.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this man sounds worthy of wikiquote status.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Emlynisnota ( talk • contribs ) 10:48, 21 July 2006  (UTC) Note: User:Emlynisnota , having voted three times on this nomination and having been warned after the second time, is now blocked from editing for two weeks.  - InvisibleSun 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 ( talk • contribs ) 31 July 2006, 09:10  (UTC) Comment : This user has no meaningful contributions; other than this vote, they created the Kevin McCarron page which is up for deletion, and vandalism of UDScott's user page.  — LrdChaos 13:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Please, by all means delete this little experiment, but honeslty, you people have way too much time on your hands.   Bound to be English! ,  Thank you.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.88.214 ( talk • contribs ) 1 August 2006, 14:56  (UTC) It's not that we have time to waste: it's being wasted  by those who create worthless articles.   We are then compelled, as a matter of fairness, to do searches on the subjects and quotes in these articles and to put them to a vote.  Speaking of wasted time: do you think you might actually manage to sign your comments, instead of hiding behind anonymity and leaving it to others to supply  your signature?   - InvisibleSun 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Brian Morin: — MosheZadka 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Brian Morin [ edit ] No obvious notability, born 1992, smells like vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Moshe; this ""math gen"" sounds unnotable.  No WP article; Google produces plenty of other Brian Morins, none apparently notable, either.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 12:56, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Alejandro Murillo: — Jeffq 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Alejandro Murillo [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is produced.  ~ UDScott 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  No identification, no WP article, no obvious candidate from Google, typically insipid quotes all point to likely vanity article.  (See ""Jeremy Rodgers"" VfD entry for other actions taken for the creator of this and that other article's common creator.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC) [ 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  DJ Scrodanus: — MosheZadka 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] DJ Scrodanus [ edit ] No intro, no wp, no google results (at all!).  Smells like vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete now he has one google result - Wikiquote VfD.  -- Aphaia 22:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Freakin Awesome!  The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Obvious Discrete: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Obvious Discrete [ edit ] This is page is (at the time) an exact duplicate of User:Obvious Discrete , and the quotes appear to be attributable to the user only (with no claim to notability).  — LrdChaos 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 Deletes; 2 Keeps, one from vote-forger User:Obvious Discrete , one from probable sockpuppet of same; no other dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with LrdChaos.  ~ UDScott 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , ""no claim to notability."" ?!   What is a claim but an opinion.  We all know opinions are like... and everybody has them!   You yourself ""claim"" to be a ""Lord"" of ""Chaos"", but do you rule under a feudal society of peasants and slaves and create chaos amongst them?  No, but do I question your ""notability"" to question my ""notability"".  <-- That's a rhetorical question... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious Discrete ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 24 April 2006  (UTC) Keep , why does one need to be notable in order for their quotes to belong here?   and to that notion, who are we to chose who is notable and who is not?   i thorougly enjoyed reading Obvious Discrete's quotes rather than your ""notable"" opinions - Commander Andersen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.110.144 ( talk • contribs ) 20:59, 24 April 2006  (UTC) Based on style, timing, and sole contribution as VfD, this is likely a sockpuppet of Obvious Discrete.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Personal quotes on the User's page are fine... not in the articles; Wikiquote clearly adheres to the guidelines for Wikipedia on the matter of vanity pages.  ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Self-admitted vanity page, based on above unsigned vote from the putative subject.  I have already removed its entry in List of people by name and a vanity quote from Beauty .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I change my vote.  It's funny how those who choose to label others as notable are anything but notable themselves.  The irony is amusing.  I vote to keep this page because not only did the quotes ammuse me, but to disagree with you peons is pleasure enough.  There is as much mention in the votes to keep this page of ""self-admitted vanity"" as you so proclaim as there is testosterone in your body Mr. Tuttle.  Jeff Q (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obvious Discrete ( talk • contribs ) 13:59, 25 April 2006  (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The above ""vote"" is from Obvious Discrete ( talk · contributions ), not Jeff.  — LrdChaos 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Wikiquote:Blocking policy , I have blocked User:Obvious Discrete indefinitely for impersonating another user.  I have also struck the entire content of their forged vote under my name.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The vote was vandalized (Jeff's text changed and the struck-through portion restored) by 159.53.78.143 ( talk · contributions ).  — LrdChaos 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We don't accept personal quotes.  It is our policy.  -- Aphaia 10:54, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Grumpy Old Men: — Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Grumpy Old Men [ edit ] Strange theme, not sure how useful it is.  Perhaps a rename is better than deletion, but I have no good suggestions for a rename/merge.  MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed: Deleted.  (2 deletes, no dissent).  Aphaia 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete and move single quote to appropriate proverbs page.  MosheZadka 20:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete after moving quote to Anonymous , unless someone can provide a credible source.  Very popular quote, apparently, but who said it?  I found a hint that it might have been said by someone on one of those execrable ""survivor"" pseudo-reality shows, but surely it's an old saying.  I suspected ""Grumpy Old Men"" might refer to the 1993 Matthau/Lemmon film or the BBC2 television show , but didn't find this quote in their IMDb quote pages (which doesn't rule it out, though).  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Libbie Fudim: .  — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Libbie Fudim [ edit ] No wp article, ambiguous intro, google hits are quote collections, no sources.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: deleted.  (3 deletes, no dissent) -- Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of notability. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Aphaia 14:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Caroline Somsen: — Jaxl 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Caroline Somsen [ edit ] Notability not demonstrated.   - InvisibleSun 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (7 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fawning article about a 16-year-old; obvious vanity article.  I've posted a {{ vanity-warn }} to creator Sophie ( talk · contributions ).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as blatant vanity.  — LrdChaos 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 04:04, 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: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  War of the Worlds (television): -- Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) War of the Worlds (television) [ edit ] I moved this page from War of the Worlds and went to post it on Television shows only to find War of the Worlds (TV series) .  The two pages are exactly identical, so obviously there is only need to keep one. Zhaladshar 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED: Keep as Redirect (2 redirected, 1 delete, however already turned to redirect during the vote). -- Aphaia 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Merge any quotes not on one or the other and redirect MosheZadka 13:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Both pages have the same set of quotes.   Redirected.  Zhaladshar 13:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: I'm afraid this confusion was my fault.  Bacteria added War of the Worlds to Television shows and five minutes later saved that new page he was working on.  Unfortunately, I just happened to have done my periodic review of ""Television shows"" right in the middle of that, not only moving WotW to ""Requested"" (as it was not yet created), but disambiguating it (because of the more famous 1953 SF classic of the same name).  When Bacteria found the link missing, he/she used the new link to create the same page.  It was basically a human race condition , one of the inevitable results of using separately-maintained lists rather than MediaWiki categories.  I've fixed one resulting double-redirect, so now all three go correctly to the current War of the Worlds (TV series) page.  — Jeff Q (talk) 13:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment: Can this vote be archived now?  It is no longer relevant.  MosheZadka 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Disambiguity information isn't necessary to redirect.  -- Aphaia 21:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  鲁迅: -- Aphaia 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] 鲁迅 [ edit ] Non-English quote page that had been nominated for VfD but not listed here.  I can't read it, but if it's useful, it might be transwikied .  — Jeff Q (talk) 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED: 2300, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 3 votes for deletion, one of them suggested merge.  No one supported for keeping it.  -- Aphaia 00:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Delete : I checked it and related pages.  This is the same topic of Lu Xun , a Chinese novelist - very famous.  The correspond article on Zh WQ is zh:鲁迅 and its content is same with our [[鲁迅]].  So my proposal is  1) we merge it and ask Zh people to translate it or  2) just delete it and wait for Zh Wikiquoters who would like to expand it.  If I recall correctly, I have already asked them once to save it on their VP but got no response.  Their project is younger than ours and has less population, so I personally prefer the option 2).  -- Aphaia 01:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . If they already have the content (for later translation when they have time), and we have no one to translate it, then I say delete unless they get around to it before the vote close date. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . This serves no purpose here and is present where it is useful. Rmhermen 02:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Question: Does zh:WQ have the contents of Lu Xun , which is tagged to be merged with this article? If not, perhaps we should somehow provide them with Lu Xun's contents. — Jeff Q (talk) 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Reply: Lu Xun has a quote and it is listed on the 9th of zh article. -- Aphaia 22:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Then I suggest that if this article is deleted, the merge tag be removed from Lu Xun .  We might also consider it for deletion, as it contains only a single quote, but that is a separate issue.  (I'd be inclined to leave it for future growth when the zh folks are ready to translate more.) — Jeff Q (talk) 08:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Deleted.  -- Aphaia 00:09, 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Jason Dunn: — Aphaia 06:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jason Dunn [ edit ] A vanity page by some random kid.  w:Jason Dunn has been speedily deleted as patent nonsense.  Looking the deleted version, this page seems to be about the same person.  jni 04:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: deleted.  (3 deletes, no dissent) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphaia ( talk • contribs ) 06:21, 27 May 2005  (UTC) Delete .  Attack of the Teen Vanities.  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete vanity.  -- Aphaia 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  vanity.  Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Kappa Mikey: — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kappa Mikey [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 23:44, 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 23:44, 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 22:36, 9 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: ",1
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Linguistics: — Jeffq 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Linguistics [ edit ] Shabby creation by anon.  Google gave me two results on searching Mr. ""Amir Afsai"", one is Law page and one seems to be his own website [49] . -- Aphaia 16:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; creator  told how to list personal quotes and has transferred sole content of this article to their user page). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless it is proved both he and his quote are notable. -- Aphaia 16:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: having a comment from Amiracle, I keep my vote as above.  -- Aphaia 08:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes from notable people are added.  If Amir Afsai is not shown to be notable, delete his quote(s).  If article is empty because of the deletion of its sole quotee, delete it and wait for someone to create a new one with appropriate quotes from notables.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove quote from page and then speedy delete it (no content) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I am the person who added this quote, as well as the others under the name Amir Afsai.  First of all, forgive me if I'm not going about this through the proper channels.  Now, is there a problem with adding an apothegm of my own to your database?  After all, it is relevant and original.  Thank you.  Added by User:Amiracle , moved by me to standard format.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I left Amiracle a note about putting personal quotes on user pages and where to find more information.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete in the sense of Moshe proposed.  Struck unsigned vote.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 19 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, redirect, merge, no_consensus] : ###Input:  Ujeev: -- Aphaia 18:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Ujeev [ edit ] Seems vanity. As a person's name, only this site and mirrors are available. And contents seem nonsense. I doubt it is worthy to keep even as anonymous quotes. -- Aphaia 14:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Deleted.  (3 deletes, no dissent).  -- Aphaia 18:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : -- Aphaia 14:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If it's not a hoax then he could have created an account and put this in his user page.  Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4