outcome,text,pred
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: — Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC) AFI's 100 Years. ..100  Movie Quotes [ edit ] In my opinion if I recall correctly we have a policy ""not to create a sort of favorite lists"".  and it can't be more than a dead copy of AFI's list .  -- Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote closed: Result: Kept (4 keeps, 2 deletes) -- Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC) Delete : And I am afraid if it is copyvio too.  -- Aphaia 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete : ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep (Jeff's arguments persuaded me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:54 (UTC) Delete : Sveden 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Wikiquote is, by its nature, a ""favorite quotes"" list; recent objections to ""favorite lists"" were more about the Favorites article that was slated for deletion and about personal lists that don't belong in main article space, whereas this is a properly sourced published list.  In the U.S., copyright protects the presentation, arrangement, and supporting material of lists (i.e., the 3-hour program presenting the AFI list), but not the list itself, if it's based on an obvious order, like poll data (see Feist vs. Rural ); the EU's database rights law may or may not apply, and its sui generis rationale seems ambiguous in this situation, at least as presented in the WP article.  Furthermore, this list is also available on Wikipedia , where basic lists of these types (i.e., produced within copyrighted programs) have apparently passed numerous deletion and copyvio tests.  (See the WP village pump archive for the latest rehashing of this issue on other such lists.)  This strikes me as an obvious article that I had expected someone to add within 24 hours of the program's broadcast (as it was) and would be an obvious thing for a reader to look up here.  I say we keep it unless Wikipedia (which is much more likely to get this issue right) declares such lists as copyvios.  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Nice links, thanks JeffQ.  With regard to the copyvio issue, until a formal argument is presented on why copying this specific list is illegal, I don't see why it should be deleted.  With regard to the other reasons given, I didn't really understand them - perhaps someone could elaborated?  Sams 00:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  It's important!  The greatest movie quotes of all time.  Isn't that worth something?  We are a collection of quotes and this is the most famous collection of quotes.  We need to keep it. - B-101 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree that this list is important, but it can hardly be considered the ""most famous collection of quotes"", except in a Warholian sense, when it's only a few days old.  ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 17:07, 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Anything Goes: — Jeffq 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Anything Goes [ edit ] Unclear what this is about, and a google search did not reveal anything useful.  It's possible this could be rescued with more background information.  Vote closed.  Result: Keep (4 Keeps; no dissent; article slightly improved).  — Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete : MosheZadka 05:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Now that it's clear what it refers to, and has quotes.  MosheZadka 13:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Unless the author provides info/link to the movie or whatever that he's referring to.  Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Deserves at least a stub.  Thanks for the info.  Sams 22:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is a musical.  Keep .  This is a famous 1934 musical whose Cole Porter songs are a notable part of Americana .  I've added a brief intro line to the article and a stub message.  I've also asked one of the anon editors to help us expand this and other musical theater articles.  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Cole Porter musicals deserve articles - even stubby.  -- Aphaia 20:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Category:Marines: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Marines [ edit ] Only four members of category.  Category:Military leaders only has 51 members.  Vote closed : Move (simulate) (1 delete, 3 move) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete little used category.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one member of category.  Category:Military leaders only has 51 members, I do not feel it would be useful to split currently (and splitting along military occupation would not be my first choice at any right: surely splitting along nationalistic boundaries for a nationalistic thing like an army would be better?).  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The Marines Category has only one listing so far, because I have just started.   Marine is not a military occupation, it is a Branch of Service, and for a Marine a way of life.   Marines as a Subcategoy of the Military have a very different take on things especially in contrast to services such as the Air Force.   Marines will produce quite different quotes.  Also they are many Marines worth quoting that are not traditionally consider Military Leaders.  Sgt Maj Dan Daily , winner of two Medals of Honor has many good quotes.   Many of his quotes are as a junior enlisted Marine.   I think you will find that for the most part people will only put generals in the category of Military leaders.  If nothing else this has encouraged add more Marine Quotes.   :-) -- Chalko 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Question Are pages allowed to have multiple categories?  Is it incouraged?  I think many  pages will have multiple categories,  so worry about splitting a category is unnecessary-- Chalko 10:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I went through and grabed the crossovers from Category:Military leaders .   There are now 4 links.  -- Chalko 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrative note: I've moved the comments to std. comment format to make discussion easier. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I fear I do not see the relevance of these arguments. Being a military leader is what made Lt. Gen. Mattis notable, which is why he is in that category. Multiple categories are encouraged -- but not links to supercategories .  Every category, and category split, has a cost, and a value.  Currently, our category system has very rough divisions except where categories grew extremely large.   Again, a more basic subdivision of military leaders is along national boundaries, and after we do that, further splitting will not be justified -- for a very long time. Even if you add 20 more marines, it will not change the situation significantly. But do note that if we later find out we need the category later, reconstructing it is easy enough :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Subdividing by nations does not seem relevant to me.  Books of miltary quotations do not divide by nation.  I read about leaders from all nations.  The profesion of arms is much the same for all nations.  However Marines, Saloirs, Soldiers and Airmen have very different perspectives on things.  However I do concede that I need to find notable Marines that are not considered Military Leaders.  I will continue to look.  My initial take on Officer vs Enlisted is not really enough.  -- Chalko 08:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Zell Miller is a Notable Marine that would not be considered a Miltary Leader.   He attained the rank of Sergeant.   Although Sergeants lead and have a very demanding leadership task.   Sergeants or not usually listed amongst notable Military Leaders.  -- Chalko 08:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure why, though.  Sergeants do have the responsibility to lead troops in combat...that is what I consider military leaders :) (Also, you are aware that ""marines have their own view"" is a US-centric view, right? I doubt US marines and other marines would see eye-to-eye...) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Sergeants are more of the ""foreman"" or shift supervisor level.   Don't get me wrong I have been both a Sergeant and Major in a Combat zone.   I lead both times.   However I am confident that if you picked up a book called ""Military Leaders""  It would list primarily Generals, and very few enlisted members. -- Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] ""marines have their own view"",  I am confident that the Thai, ROK and British Marines think different than there Army counter parts, but the USMC trains with them quite often.  I do agree that US Marines and other Marines think different, but I still feel Marines lend a unique perspective that leads to a distninct kind of quote.  I would consent to changing the Category to United States Marines but I don't think there is a need to distinguish on national boundries.  The profession of Arms respect profesional no matter where they come from.-- Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a general discussion page on the desired scope of a category? -- Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Category:United States Marines under Category:Occupations (a reasonable approximation to ""way of life"" for categorization purposes), much like we have for Category:United States First ladies .  (BTW, that latter needs a capitalization fix, either to USfl or USFL.)  Current category is U.S.-centric, permitting only USMC personnel (who I happen to think are the finest fighting force in the world!) while inappropriately assuming the generic term ""Marine"".  The alternative, allowing inclusion of Marines of all nations, past and present, seems less than optimal, for the following reasons: It's clearly not the intent of the category creator, who is actively adding USMC quotee articles.  It might be difficult to define what makes a ""Marine"" for such an all-encompassing group, but it would be required for our worldwide, history-wide quotation compendium.  We do allow ad-hoc creation of categories based on growing content (though we try to get them integrated into a scheme), but there's no point in widening the category (at least at this time) if we're not expecting any other articles outside the current definition.  I have no inherent objections to a USMC personnel category, as I'm sure there are many notable ones with sourced quotes who might not be considered ""leaders"" per se .  (But when can we expect the Chesty Puller article, Chalko? ☺)  I'm willing to let this develop and revisit the status down the road, if necessary.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Category:United States Marines is a reasonable solution-- Chalko 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Admin note I moved my vote up to the top to make the current count more obvious-- Chalko 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) (cancelled by Jeff Q; see below) [ reply ] Chalko, please do not create novel structures for WQ:VFD entries.  I'm sure you wanted to provide an easy-to-read summary, but in the process, you missed my vote and added work for the sysops to ensure the votes and discussions were in sync.  I have reverted this VFD entry to the official WQ format and removed the apparent double-vote from Achilles caused by this desynchronization.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Category:United States Marines .  Though we as yet have few pages of military leaders, the category can be expected to grow, and hopefully other sub-categories will as well.  ~ Achilles † 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Category:United States Marines under Category:Occupations UDScott 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Poor NPOV.  Not all Marines have participated in a Occupation.   But why do I bother with  facts.   Feel free to add category Occupations and then carefull select those Marines who have quotes about an Occupation.  -- Chalko 15:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Chalko, I'm not quite sure why you're continuing to argue -- I'm agreeing with the move to Category:United States Marines , which you agreed with earlier.  Granted there can be several interpretations of the word Occupation, but for the purposes here, we are treating someone who is in the Marines (or any other branch of service) as having that as his or her occupation.  In the end, I don't think we are advocating doing anything different from each other.  UDScott 15:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry,  I read Occupation as Occupation of Iraq .   Agree Marine is a Occupation (Job)-- Chalko 20:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I hope everyone voting Move understand that in this context it is short for ""Create new category, redirect Marines to it, and edit all articles to contain new category"", since physically moving categories is IIRC impossible.  Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:57, 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Consumerism: — MosheZadka 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Consumerism [ edit ] No quotes, just personal commentary.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: keep (3 keeps, 1 delete with outdated rationale) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless turned into theme page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC) Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless turned into a useful theme page.  — Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now, after Alan Liefting's substantial additions.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No quotes.  jni 05:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have added a bunch of quotes.  Alan Liefting 19:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Denis Leary: — MosheZadka 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Denis Leary [ edit ] No quotes.  UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: Keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added.  UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added.  ~ UDScott 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott.  I've removed the template cruft from the page, so lack of quotations will be more obvious.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that there are quotations.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 206.145.29.246 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Strike out anon vote UDScott 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 68.111.190.180 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Quotes have been added and there will be more.  206.145.29.246 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Moved to std.  fmt by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  -- Aphaia 11:07, 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Dhammapada: — Jeffq 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Dhammapada [ edit ] I changed its status from speedy deletion candidate. -- Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED. Results: Keep (3 Keeps, no dissent). Article name already fixed per original deletion requestor. Redirects fixed. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep : Currently it seems to be a good article (though a bit stubby). See also Talk:Dhammapada . -- Aphaia 00:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep : Just tag it with {{stub}} to encourage additions.  — Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep Rmhermen 14:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Dr. Alfred Kinsey: — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr. Alfred Kinsey [ edit ] One line written in language I don't even recognise (Hebrew?).  Delete unless translated and given some context.  jni 17:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Redirect without text (2 Deletes; 2 Redirects; no translation provided by original editor; redirect essentially accomodates all stated views).  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , perhaps speedy because we have already Alfred Kinsey .  -- Aphaia 22:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect .  Rmhermen 03:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Redirect and drop the text unless translated.  Looks more like Arabic to me, but that's irrelevant.  If it's a quote, the English version should be added to Alfred Kinsey .  I've left a note on the original creator's (IP) talk page in case the quote itself is salvageable.  — Jeff Q (talk) 03:55, 29 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  George Sanders: — LrdChaos 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] George Sanders [ edit ] No quotes, but the main problem with this page is that it's just a copy of the IMDb bio for George Sanders .  — LrdChaos 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: keep (seven votes to keep, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  — LrdChaos 14:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that there are quotes, and the page is no longer a copyvio.  — LrdChaos 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless valid quotes are added, and the superfluous bio information is removed.  ~ UDScott 14:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that some quotes are there and the extra information has been stripped.  ~ UDScott 12:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Keep.  121a0012 02:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of the changes made.  - InvisibleSun 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that I've replaced the copyvio bio with a stub quote article with some infrastructure and 3 quotes.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that it's been fixed up a bit.  - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  -- 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Hugo Weaving: — Jeffq 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hugo Weaving [ edit ] Another quoteless encyclopedia stub , from The Matrix perhaps.  Seems like JeffQ is right... also, there's a wikipedia article on him anyway...  I guess we do need to find a way to remedy this issue...  Sams 13:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: Keep (6 Keeps; no dissent; substantial article improvement).  — Jeff Q (talk) 07:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep MosheZadka 08:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've just added actual quotations to this.  I left the vfd tag up for now.  ~ Kalki 07:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A fair article now.   -- Aphaia 09:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  Nice job, Kalki.  — Jeff Q (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A nice article.  The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Just war: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Just war [ edit ] Redirect.  Just war → Just War Theory → Just war theory .  I'm not sure if it is a good idea to turn it into a redirect to ""Just war theory"".  -- Aphaia 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The correct name is either ""Just war"" or ""Just war theory"", and the latter is better imho because it's a common phrase.  All other capitalized names, i.e. ""Just War"" and ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"" are wrong.  The redirects were created because I wanted to conform with the wikipedia article name, and they changed the name there a couple of times.  This was a bad idea though, as the people there seem to be clueless about the correct use of capital letters.  The current name on wikipedia is ""Just War theory"", which doesn't have a wikiquote redirect, so the wikiquote template box doesn't work in the other direction (it works from wq to wp because wp has a redirect article for the correct name).  iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep Just war theory as article, redirect Just war to that article, delete Just War Theory only if doing so automatically goes to article, and verify WP and WQ link boxes correctly link to their counterparts, per vote analysis below .  Final report will follow shortly.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Final report: with ""Just War Theory"" deleted, all capitalization versions properly present the sole article within Wikiquote.  No variation except the actual article title works from WP to WQ, but the only way to fix this is to create redirects from every variation that WP may have, which isn't usual practice, besides which the current WP title is ""Just War theory"", which didn't even exist as a redirect here.  I've verified that the WQ→WP and WP→WQ article links are now completely working, so I'll leave ""JWT"" deleted unless someone objects.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all the redirects, except for the ""just war"" redirect.  iddo999 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""Just war"", delete ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"".  I've heard the phrase ""just war""; I've never heard ""just war theory"", although I can believe it's common.  But I'm certain that many who might think of looking for quotes on this topic would enter ""just war"", and that's one purpose of a redirect.  As for the capitalization problem, if we delete all versions but one, I believe MediaWiki will automatically present the correct article even if the capitalization is wrong.  (If we have two versions, I think it fails because it doesn't know which to assume.)  If there's a problem with linking to Wikipedia, we can either use {{wikiquotepar}} or, better yet, move the WP article to the correct capitalization.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps we should keep exactly one redirect, between ""just war"" and ""just war theory"", depending on which one of these would contain the article.  I personally think that ""just war theory"" is better, as in the wikipedia article, but it's not a big deal either way.  iddo999 14:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] What I'm saying is that there is no need for multiple capitalization versions of both phrases.  One ""Just war"" redirect to ""Just war theory"", and no other capitalization variations, should have exactly the same result as if we'd had every likely capitalization variation of both phrases.  In fact, it's better to have only the two, because redirects display the line ""Redirected from..."", whereas the MediaWiki-driven matching will take you straight to the correct form, regardless of the way you capitalized the phrase.  But you need to have only one variation per phrase for this to work.  Example: enter ""Just War"", and you'll see that MediaWiki assumes you meant ""Just war"" (note that it says ""Redirected from Just war "", not ""Redirected from Just War ""), because there's only a single variation of that phrase as an article title.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarification: When I said keep ""Just war"", I meant as a redirect.  When I said delete ""Just War Theory"" and ""Just War theory"", I was implicitly agreeing with whoever wrote the paragraph above the ""vote closes"" that ""Just war theory"" be kept as the main article.  However, I don't really care which of ""Just war"" or ""Just war theory"" is primary, so long as we have only one article and one redirect.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies.  I wrote the comment above, and forgot to sign it when signing my vote.  I also created this page, btw:) Thanks for the info on mediawiki auto redirecting capital letters.  As I mentioned, I like the ""just war theory"" title better than ""just war"", but ""just war"" is also good.  Please add more quotes there, instead of wasting energy to determine the correct name:) iddo999 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""Just war,"" delete ""Just War theory,"" and redirect from ""Just war theory"" (only because it is listed this way in WP and people might search for it here after reading that article.  BUt I would agree that the proper title for this set of quotes is merely ""Just war.""  UDScott 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE ANALYSIS: This is our month for confusing votes.  First, allow me to summarize this vote's context.  The 3 existing articles on WQ are, as Aphaia listed: Just war theory (the current article) Just War Theory (currently a redirect) Just war (currently a double-redirect) Wikipedia's article is ""Just War theory"" (which doesn't exist here), they have a mess of redirects (in both senses of the word ""mess""), and we don't know what the final name of their article will be.  As best I understand our discussion, we have the following votes: iddo999 , Jeff Q : Just war theory is best article name; redirect Just war to it; delete all other redirects.  UDScott : Just war is best article name; redirect Just war theory to it; delete Just War theory .  (Both iddo999 and Jeff Q consider this article/redirect combination acceptable, but it would entail an article-title swap, which seems unwise since we might want to swap it back if WP changes their minds again.)  Aphaia: No actual vote, but the nomination of Just war for deletion, plus asking about making this a direct redirect to Just war theory , implies favoring iddo999 and Jeff Q's position on these 2 pages, with no comment on any variations.  I believe the following can be extracted from this: Most (3-1) want Just war theory as the article (the current state), and Just war to redirect to it.  Half want Just War Theory deleted.  (UDScott may have meant ""Just War Theory"" when he said delete the non-existent ""Just War theory""; that would make it 3-0 [Aphaia not commenting].)  As long as it exists, however, it may cause MediaWiki auto-redirection problems for the many variations people might try.  Most (3-0; Aphaia not commenting) don't want a Just War theory redirect.  (If the above possible interpretation of UDScott's vote is accurate, this one is 2-0, with 2 not specifically commenting on this variation. But nobody suggested creating it, either, so it should probably stay non-existent.)  Therefore, I propose to close this vote with the following interpretation and subsequent actions: Redirect Just war to Just war theory .  Delete Just War Theory and test all possible capitalizations for auto-redirection.  If they work, we didn't need it anyway.  If they don't, restore ""Just War Theory"".  Ensure that both the WP and WQ articles link directly to the current articles on the other project, using the {{projectpar}} templates.  I'm asking my fellow sysops (who happen to be the voters as well) to review my analysis to see if they concur.  Unless someone objects before 24 November 2005, 12:00 (UTC), I will close this vote with the above interpretation and take the stated actions.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reviewed the votes and analysis: you are right, it is confusing, but it seems you have summarised it correctly.  Thanks!  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Kate Clinton: — MosheZadka 6 July 2005 07:03 (UTC) Kate Clinton [ edit ] Seems to have no quote.  -- Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:24 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: keep (2 keeps, no dissent) Keep : Comedian, article on wp, I added a sample quote (mildly amusing to me, at least) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:03 (UTC) Comment: add a couple more from Don't Get Me Started ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that quotes have been added.  Although I've never heard of Kate Clinton, this stub article seems a positive example to counteract the Gus Arredondo negative example , whose stub article had no quotes from his routine, the source of his potential notability.  I've also added Clinton's IMDb link to her article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Knock knock jokes: — Jeffq 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Knock knock jokes [ edit ] No meaningful content.  ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: no consensus (1 Delete; 1 Keep), which defaults to a keep.  I guess we'll see how this works out.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless viable quotes are added.  ~ UDScott 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We addressed a similar situation with Jokes back in June 2005.  The consensus was not to have a separate article, but we were undecided on whether to delete it or redirect it to Humor , the latter of which was done.  This subcategory of jokes is perhaps more manageable.  Knock-knock jokes are a very quotable cultural phenomenon, but there seems to be a community reluctance to get into the joke-catalog business.  The lack of sources is also especially problematic, although this could be addressed by finding some joke books from which to cite.  Finally, if we keep this article, we need to figure out how to format it, as each full quote will be exactly 5 separate lines, the first two of which are identical and therefore space-wasting.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Do Not Delete .  The page is meager right now, but it'll grow.  Jokes have as much right to be in WikiQuote as proverbs , which are a good example of how unsourceable quotes can be good, useful content.  -- Eliazar 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, we are remiss in not sourcing all those wonderful proverbs, too.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Kyle XY: — Jeffq 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kyle XY [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep (6 keeps; no dissent; article improved per request).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless valid quotes are added.  — LrdChaos 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added.  I'd like to see articles with no quotes made speedy-deleteable, just to further discourage people from creating pages with no quotes.  — LrdChaos 22:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] This would be part of the ""Articles: no-content"" clause of the proposed new WQ:SD , if we can summon the effort to get the draft approved.  Robert , Essjay , and I have been discussing jump-starting the finalization on my talk page .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , see my entry above for Ghost in the shell SAC .  I've restored the deleted VFD tag.  ~ UDScott 13:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added.  -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  - InvisibleSun 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Koweja 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  London: — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC) London [ edit ] There was one quote which I moved because it was unattributed.  Now there are none.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: keep (4 keep, no dissent) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC) Keep now that quote is sourced ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:29 (UTC) Comment: You could attribute it to ""anonymous"" or ""unknown"", it seems a haste decision.  And it is not considered as copyvio, you needn't remove it, in my opinion.  -- Aphaia 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC) Comment: I moved it to talk, not removed it.  I suspect it is a personal quote.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:36 (UTC) keep This quote appears on mugs for tourists [20] , author unknown, not mine .  Greudin found : Samuel Johnson .  Greudin keep Quotes themed on Place or Location are a useful extension to wikiquote Richard Allen 20:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems like a reasonable stub now.  — Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  LSD: ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) LSD [ edit ] Is not a quote, and already has a Wikipedia article ~ Jman 06:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Seconded.  Quadell 14:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Thirded.   Anusien I turned this into a redirect to Drugs , for now.  I think eventually quotations by famous people specifically about LSD are a likelihood, but have no particular inclination to find them.  ~ Kalki 11:30, 15 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Osmosis Jones: — Jaxl 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Osmosis Jones [ edit ] No quotes from the film, just a single tagline.  — LrdChaos 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: keep (6 keeps, 1 abstain, no dissent).  -- Robert 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless actual quotes from the film are added.  — LrdChaos 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that quotes have been added.  — LrdChaos 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Agree with LrdChaos.  - InvisibleSun 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of added quotes.  - InvisibleSun 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Abstain.  121a0012 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Agree with LrdChaos.  I'm surprised to see that IMDb doesn't even have any quotes.  But a single legitimate quote ought to be a minimum requirement for a quote article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that quotes have added.  (Thanks, Robert.)  I also note that even though the main IMDb article on this film still shows no quote links, the full-cast page does , and there is an IMDb quotes page.  Apparently I'll have to be more careful about checking IMDb in the future.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Though it may still need some work, I've expanded the article and added some quotes.  -- Robert 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that some quotes have been added.  ~ UDScott 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even without much info yet, it might get expanded later.  I've seen articles sit with almost no quotes for a year or more until someone comes along and expands it.  Koweja 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Patsy Kensit: — LrdChaos 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Patsy Kensit [ edit ] Alleged quotes are just another pointless creation from User:Gary Kirk .  InvisibleSun 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: keep .  (3 keeps, 1 implicit dissent from nominator).  — LrdChaos 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  More non-notable stuff from GK.  Actually, the person appears to be notable, but the quotes appear to be fabricated and vanity for Gary Kirk.  — LrdChaos 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to keep now that Jeff has made the page into a valid stub for the real person.  — LrdChaos 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that it is at least a minimal stub for the British actress/pop singer.  I've replaced the vanity text from Kirk with information readily available in the Wikipedia article.  I don't normally do this for garbage articles about real people, as I have no interest in effectively being directed by insincere editors to create articles they want, but I wasn't about to give Kirk the satisfaction of blatant vanity.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, Geoff, Patsy did actually did say that to me, and, being American as you are, you obviously don't see w:Emmerdale , where her character regularly uses the expression BITCH .  Please refer to me as either User:Gary Kirk or King Garald ; ""Kirk"" is unacceptable I'm afraid.  Gary Kirk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Gary Kirk, ""Bitch"" is no more a reasonable quote than ""Hello"" or ""What?"".  As far as Kensit making citable quotes about you, sorry, but I don't believe you, especially given the contempt you've demonstrated toward this project so far.  If you have a reliable source you can quote from, please include it when you add such a quote.  Otherwise I will remove it.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I like Geoff Q, he's well nice to me :).  ""King Garald"" is merely a bit upset that the fact Patsy Kensit called him ""handsome"" means nothing to WikiQuote.  Malcolm Hebden called him ""gorgeous"", but he is certainly not proud of that.  Horatio Apple 20:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Isaac Asimov once had something nice to say about me when I met him 25 years ago, but that doesn't mean such a statement belongs in Wikiquote.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that it has been updated.  ~ UDScott 13:28, 19 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Spaced: — MosheZadka 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Spaced [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: Keep (4 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes are added.  UDScott 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  UDScott 13:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] keep 206.145.29.246 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Various quotes now added, organised by series and episode, more to come.  Tehjess 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now.  -- Aphaia 11:10, 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
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Speeches: — Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) Speeches [ edit ] Ich Bin ein Berliner should be named Ich bin ein Berliner maybe someone can rename it instead of deleting it, so that the content don't have to be pasted 80.143.249.15 16:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) I was about to do a page creation and redirect, but I propose instead that all the speeches be moved to Wikisource, which seems more appropriate a place for entire speeches.  I will post this proposal there as well.  If no one objects to this, I might move them all sometime next week, or soon after.  — Kalki 17:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) It would be better to rename the page before moving it to wikisource, so that you don't forget to replace ""Bin"" with ""bin"" in the heat of the moment.  It isn't much effort is it?  And if you rename it you should also delete Yes!  My name is Pierre Elliot Trudeau which is a blanked vandalism site 80.143.246.58 15:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) I intend to create pages at WIkisource that are arranged to fit in with the structures that are evolving there, with links to them within the Wikiquote pages of the authors of the speeches.  — Kalki 18:07, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) MOST of the speeches have now been transferred to Wikisource, but there are still a few loose ends and bit of tidying up of links to do.  — Kalki 20:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I do not intend to delete the pages that contained speeches, and have posted transfer notices with links on most of them.  I do intend to eventually delete List of speeches by monarchs as it only had 2 items anyways, and perhaps a few other obsolete listings associated with the speeches page.  — Kalki 20:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I like that.   On a very rare visit here I was just looking to upgrade a couple of the links to revised titles at Wikisource.   The system does not want to accept the apostrophe in the title ""Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural address"".   Please address any response to my Wikisource user talk page, since I so seldom come here.  Thanks Eclecticology 21:14, 25 May 2004 (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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz: — Kalki Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz [ edit ] Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz is the same person as Teresa Heinz Kerry , and she now goes by the latter name.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.24.204 ( talk • contribs ) 17:41, 4 August 2004  (UTC) Redirect in place as of a minute ago...  Redirect is sufficient here.  ~ 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
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  The Prophet: — Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The Prophet [ edit ] A notable work by a notable author.   So what's the problem?   It appears to be the entire book (linked here) .   I've placed a copyright tag on the page; but should we really wait in hope for someone to come along and trim it?   As with the earlier deletion of West Side Story in its entirety, it should be removed unless someone volunteers to make reductions.   There are already some quotes from it on the Kahlil Gibran page (and perhaps that page's Attributed quotes, once sourced, would yield some others as well).  - InvisibleSun 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: no consensus (1 revert; 1 implicit delete; 1 comment).  There doesn't seem to be any general community interest in pursuing this, so it stays as an article, but that doesn't prevent editors from addressing the concerns directly in the article and its talk page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This may or may not be a copyright violation (in the US), depending on whether the original work was published with or without a copyright notice and whether or not its copyright status was renewed.  If it was published with notice, and the copyright status was renewed, then the book is still under copyright; otherwise, it is not.  Finding out its status, however, may not be easy.  If this is out of copyright, it should be transwiki'd to Wikisource; otherwise, deleted as a copyright violation.  I'm going to hold off on voting until there's been some time to investigate the status of the work.  — LrdChaos 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Revert to the 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) version [21] by 219.65.137.236 ( talk · contributions ).  This was a reasonable set of quotes before 202.152.11.194 ( talk · contributions ) turned it into an apparently complete copy.  Regardless of whether or not this is a copyright violation, this strikes me as the best thing to do with our article.  If it is not a copyvio, the current text can be transwikied to Wikisource before the reversion (or even after, given the edit history).  BTW, I'd have just done the reversion to and posted the potential-copyvio info on its talk page to avoid a 2-week VfD review.  But then, I'm an ornery cuss.  ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Wikiquote:Reference desk: — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wikiquote:Reference desk [ edit ] Tagged for speedy delete by RoboAction .  I changed it back to VFD because it could have a legitimate purpose on Wikiquote, as it does on Wikipedia — namely, a place for Wikiquotians to ask non-Wikiquote questions, as a library customer might ask a librarian a general-knowledge question.  Should we: delete it because we don't have the community desire for this off-topic forum; redirect it to Wikiquote:Village pump , where we handle most questions in this still-small community; or keep it, as it is harmless if no one responds, and could be useful if other Wikiquotians take an interest in playing reference librarian on occasion?  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: 3 Keeps, no dissent; page also made useful in the interim.  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep .  Now that I know it's there, I'll play librarian if I can.  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep .  It wouldn't be harmful if no one responds to irrelevant questions.  And it is friendly we have a page as such.  And I appliciate Jeff Q greatly for his offer.  -- Aphaia 05:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep Rmhermen 00:11, 31 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: ",4
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  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: — Jeffq 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] A speech made by The Prince of Wales at a Business Lunch in Mumbai held with members of the business community , A speech for the opening of the Pembrokeshire Meat Company Abattoir [ edit ] And also A Time to Heal by HRH The Prince of Wales , A speech to open the second Prince of Wales Education Summer School All of them were transwikied.  Former I thought it were better for us to keep it, but now I change my mind.  We have already Transwiki log.  If necessary, we can keep record on the transwiki log, and of course on Wikisource.  -- Aphaia 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC) Vote closed. Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; apparent enthusiastic consensus to delete all completed transwikis). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I have completed the deletion of all cited speech articles after confirming they have been properly logged and transferred to Wikisource. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :-- Aphaia 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC) Comment: What about A Tryst With Destiny ?  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC) Comment: Others which might be deleted with same rationale: MacArthur's farewell speech to Congress , MacArthur's farewell speech to West Point ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 06:45 (UTC) Yes, I think they are just with the same rationales.  And we have already deleted one former transwikied article, if I recall correctly.  -- Aphaia 8 July 2005 07:00 (UTC) Comment: Another one for the list: I have a Dream ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 08:14 (UTC) Comment: yet another: Installation Speech (Adrienne Clarkson) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 09:31 (UTC) Comment: ""Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens."" (""Kill them all; for (wikisource) knoweth them that are His."") [after Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, 1209, when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars. See w:Albigensian Crusade for this story] ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 07:13 (UTC) Comment: We are better to reorganize this request?  I thought it would be better to review some of them and go ahead gradually, but there are at least ten similar pages (and perhaps more).  See Special:Ancientpages #15-#32.-- Aphaia 8 July 2005 08:20 (UTC) Yes, I'd like to do them all in one go, and forget about it.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 09:31 (UTC) Speech to the Troops at Tilbury , The Gettysburg Address , Whiskey Speech too ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC) Delete them all .  Okay, folks, this is getting ridiculous.  This is our third attempt in a few months to delete articles against transwiki policy, and yet no one has discussed this issue where policy could be changed — Help talk:Transwiki or Category talk:Transwiki — except myself and Rmhermen .  Therefore, I will take a ""delete"" consensus on this vote as an consensus to change Wikiquote policy to permit the speedy deletion of all transwikied articles, which defies m:Transwiki policy, but is in reality the common practice.  Any objections may be raised at Help talk:Transwiki#Deleting transwikied articles .  — Jeff Q (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this speaks, more than anything, to the fact that I (at least, possibly others) were not even aware of this previous discussion.  Thank you, Jeff, for pointing to that discussion.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As I just noted at Help:Transwiki#Deleting transwikied articles , my memory is faulty.  Help:Transwiki (which I wrote — duh!) already includes a speedy-deletion step for articles that have been successfully transwikied.  From now own, we can just delete them (without VfD) once the transwiki process has been completed.  But we need to verify completion before deleting.  Sorry about the confusion.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Untangling these transwikied articles is complicated.  Virtually nobody is logging outgoing transwiki action as required.  I have just verified and deleted every Wikisource-incoming article that was properly logged there and added logs entries for them here.  Any blue links above have not been completely or properly transwikied yet, so please don't speedy-delete them.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Aamir gill: — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Aamir gill [ edit ] Not notable.  No Wikipedia page, and Google turns up only 17 results on the name, none of which show any sort of notability.  — LrdChaos 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 13:11, 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
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Aiven Andrians: — LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Aiven Andrians [ edit ] A search for this name yields unnotable postings (Amazon.com, etc) and a stub page on Wikipedia for the Humanistic American Religious Party .   A search for this  organization yields a lot of mirror references based on the stub, but nowhere is this party actually described or discussed.   Since Andrians'  notability would be due to this party, its lack of note in itself would argue against his getting an article on Wikiquote.   A search for ""Philosophical Taughts"" [sic], the source of various quotes, yields nothing but the Wikiquote page itself.   - InvisibleSun 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 13:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A clarification about the Amazon link: it's for a personal (self-written) profile, not a book or other notability source.  In it, he claims to have ""studied all the major martial-arts systems, including secret systems used by the intelligance [sic] community"", and having appeared in ""the season finaly [sic] of West Wing ( 1st season )"", even though IMDb seems to be missing his credit for that (or any) show.  This strongly suggests the WQ article is a hoax, and the WP article is at least non-notable.  (NOTE: I have just nominated the WP article for the party for deletion as well.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per InvisibleSun and Jeffq.  — LrdChaos 15:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:08, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Ana ivanovic: — Jeffq 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ana ivanovic [ edit ] No quotes, just some POV bio information.  — LrdChaos 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 deletes; no dissent; no quotes added).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless reasonable (preferably sourced) quotes are added.  If we keep, her Wikipedia article suggests a move to Ana Ivanović .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:41, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Andrew Crichton: ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew Crichton [ edit ] The vfd tag has been alternately added to and removed from this page by 212.219.66.215 ( talk · contributions ) (the same IP that created the article) with no rationale stated.  I'm bringing it over here to complete the process.  — LrdChaos 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed early after speedy deletion, under ""test page"" case.  Rationale: sole IP editor (from Warwick University, UK) created a 1-quote article with no provenance, spammed his own article, tagged it for VfD, then unspammed it.  Clearly this person is either test-editing or playing games.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The page doesn't establish notability; the top result on a Google search is the IMDB page for an actor who had only one film in the 1970s.  Second result is an empty page with the name for a title, and third is the Wikiquote page.  Given the edit history, it feels like the account responsible for most of the edits (212.219.66.215) is being used by multiple users who know each other (as the only edits relate to this page).  For whatever reason, this page suddenly started seeing activity from the account again after two months; however, even the 'original' content doesn't really belong.  — LrdChaos 14:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 15:04, 26 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Andrew Finlay: — Jeffq 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew Finlay [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  A google search only yields an assortment of professors and a barrister, none of which seems to meet the notability standard.  ~ UDScott 13:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Actually, I think it's worse than a question of notability.  The anonymous user comes from within the Northern Grid for Learning network, which apparently serves British schools, making me suspect that this is an attempt to disparage the Cardiff University professor with false quotes.  I have replaced nearly the entire content of the article with a notice about this suspicion and a link to the page history for review.  (This will keep the material from being mirrored and search-indexed while we review this case.)  Editors who wish to make a legitimate article from this sub-stub should add brief bio info and quotes, preferably sourced , after the warning.  Currently, there is no WP article to aid this process.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Andrew Nierman: — Jeffq 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew Nierman [ edit ] No quotes, and not notable.  ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep; (unsourced) quotes added, but notability deemed insufficient per WP/WQ guidelines).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless quotes are added and notability is shown.  This appears to just be a professor (and precedent holds that such people are not notable enough to post their quotes unless they have published significant works or are generally considered well-known).  ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Do Not Delete , quotes have been added and this person is of note, having been named the smartest person in the world by the International High IQ Society.  He has additionally published sidgnificant works in the area of XML databases and probabalistic information.  ~ Ealtorfer 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concurring with UDScott.  This article appears to have been created by an understandably admiring University of Puget Sound student of a professor whom an International High IQ Society contest called ""the world's smartest person"".  The article cites a UPS course page instead of the more informative University of Michigan student webpage of former grad student Nierman.  The latter includes citations of an Ann Arbor News article in which he is quoted as saying, ""Pretty funny […] I think there's a little bit of difference between being the world's smartest person and winning this contest.""  Indeed, the International High IQ Society 's website doesn't seem to consider this title important enough even to mention it in any obvious place on its website]; in fact, my quick perusal didn't even turn up the contest itself.  (And how smart can this organization be if they don't even provide a search function for their website? ☺)  Seriously, this newly-minted professor would need a good amount of published work to meet the usual wiki notability requirements.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails the professor test.  No page on Wikipedia despite WQ article linking there (this is not to be construed as an encouragement to add a vanity page to Wikipedia!).  jni 18:10, 9 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Andrew Price, Andrew Alexander Price: — Jeffq 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew Price , Andrew Alexander Price [ edit ] Vanity page.  Lots of Google hits for other people named ""Andrew Price"" (a pro golfer, an actor, etc.) but not a 16 year old student.  — LrdChaos 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no specific dissent).  I was surprised and disappointed that the anonymous editor didn't register to allow a user-page move, as they have continued to contribute to Wikiquote since creating these articles.  But that's their choice, of course.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Since ""Andrew Price"" is such a generic name, I've moved it to Andrew Alexander Price.  Andrew Price, 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.183.131 ( talk • contribs ) 07:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable.  I've added the other page as well, since the first has now been blanked, an the second still seems to be a deletion candidate.  ~ UDScott 11:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I've reverted the blanking as against policy.  Since the anon creator has identified himself as ""Andrew Price"" in the above posting, this is a confirmed vanity page.  Since I've already gone through this much trouble, I've also added a register-and-move-to-userpage note to the anon's talk page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:49, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Anfiniti: — Jeffq 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Anfiniti [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This appears to be a case, similar to the now-deleted SydLexia.com page, where non-notable quotes from a bulletin-board style website have been posted.  ~ UDScott 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:23, 20 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Anton Wolkov: .  — Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Anton Wolkov [ edit ] One (likely) misspelt quote by anon.  No Wikipedia page, no Internet presense except WQ mirrors.  Delete .  jni June 27, 2005 12:50 (UTC) Vote Closed : Result: deleted.  (3 deletes, no dissent). -- Aphaia 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  These apparent vanity pages are popping up so often that I'm beginning to think that we should use VfD to get the anons who create them to justify the article or have them deleted, rather than force the community to research them.  How hard can it be to add a friggin' line about who a person is, and a link to why they're worth quoting?  — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:33 (UTC) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Austin Roberts: .  — Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Austin Roberts [ edit ] No apparent notability, same-named wp article is about someone else (with no disambig nod to this person).  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: deleted.  (2 deletes, no dissent) -- Aphaia 20:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with MosheZadka.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:28, 3 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Bad title: — jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Bad title [ edit ] Unexplained redirect to Antoine de Saint-Exupery , which itself is a redirect to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry .  I considered speedy-deleting it, but I'm not certain that St-Ex didn't have a work with this title (in French, of course).  — Jeff Q (talk) 09:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted and protected with a message.  jni 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think this can be deleted , but except it to be re-created in some form because MediaWiki software has a curious feature to go to that page when it encounters a malformed link.  For example, try to type [[ as a page name in your browsers address bar, and you will be directed to Bad title .  I don't know if it is possible to change this behaviour.  jni 14:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) I updated the page to show the text of MediaWiki:Badtitletext and protected it.  I suggest we delete the history and the VfD tag from it, but leave the one version I put there to prevent constant re-creation.  And maybe a warning/explanatory message on its talk.  This is how WP handles this special case currently.  jni 14:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete and re-create in the way Jni proposed.  -- Aphaia 18:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete as Jni said, and the re-created page would also be protected, if I understood correctly?  Sams 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete as jni said.  Jeff Q (talk) 04:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Beauty that is easiest to find isn't always the substance of a being: — Jeffq 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Beauty that is easiest to find isn't always the substance of a being [ edit ] 1) An article created for a quote and not the person who said it;  2) the person who said it is the person who posted it;  3) notability not demonstrated.   - InvisibleSun 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (7 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  (Rant about one-shot vanity editors creating single-quote articles deleted after better judgment returned.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 14:33, 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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Ben Payton: — Jeffq 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ben Payton [ edit ] This page is a nearly-identical copy of User:Ben Payton in the article space (so probably vanity) and includes no assertion of notability.  — LrdChaos 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 proper Deletes, 1 discounted late Delete; 3 counted Keeps [Forrest Hump, Great Warrior, Changetheworld] since 88.107.104.96 not only attempted 2 deceptions but also is a suspected sockpuppet of Forrest Hump/Ben Payton; most importantly, no attempt was made to change the article either to source the notability of the putative quotee (a British ""orator"") or to replace the material with quotes from the identified notable Benjamin Payton).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not delete Actually this article is not remotely similar to the User: Ben Payton page and it does include an assertion of notability.  Oh, and by the way, why not read the page before you vote to delete it?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 ( talk • contribs ) 14 May 2006 10:39:38  (UTC) Comment .  At the time of the nomination, this was the ""Ben Payton"" page and this was the ""User:Ben Payton"" page .  At the time, they were nearly identical.  Many of the changes since then have been from an anon user, not User:Ben Payton (which, had I noticed, would have been reverted, as edits to User pages (not User talk pages) should only be from that user).  As to notability, while the article does now include an assertion of notability, I'm unable to find evidence to support it.  The top results for a Google search on the name are a Wikipedia user page, a comic book character, a musician, etc.  For all that, there are only 164 results, and only two (both pages on the same site, www.school-portal.co.uk) appear to be this person.  — LrdChaos 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete for those fairly obvious reasons Forrest Hump Don't delete there's some memorable quotes here by a noted public speaker UDScott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.104.96 ( talk • contribs ) 14 May 2006 10:55:27  (UTC) I have blocked this IP address for 3 days for impersonating another user.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Ben Payton is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska and if you've read the article about him you'll see that he's an highly impressive orator.  Incidentally a google search reveals some 1,4100,000 results Great Warrior of the North The first sentence above is not evidence, but a mere claim.  For all we know, the author might not be ""up here in Alaska"", but halfway around the world instead.  That's why personal attestations are not considered evidence.  It also includes the standard attempt to ignore notability and verifiability requirements by selling the qualities of the quotes and quotee.  As for the supposed Google search, here is mine for ""Ben Payton"" [27] , which yields 377 hits, remarkably low for a presumably common name, even if no Ben Payton is notable.  I invite GWotN to provide us with a link to his Google search as evidence.  Otherwise, given his current edit history (1 edit each to ""Ben Payton"", his own user page, and this page), I would have to suspect him of being a sockpuppet of User:Ben Payton himself.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Note .  It is possible that User:Ben Payton , User:Forrest Hump , and the IP 88.107.104.96 are all the same user, given the contribution history of the users, and the fact that 88.107.104.96 has made edits to the user pages for both users.  — LrdChaos 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The current article claims that Ben Payton is ""President of Tuskegee University in Alaska"".  Since Tuskegee University (at least the only one I know of) is in Alabama , this reinforces, along with the impersonation, apparent sockpuppetry , and the complete lack of actual evidence (not just unsupported claims), the idea that these users are all the the person, who is a prankster.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with Jeffq and LrdChaos.  ~ UDScott 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There seems to be quite a bit of confusion promulgated over this article.  User:Ben Payton , who created this article, states that this person is a ""well known British orator"".  User:Great Warrior of the North added a claim that the quotee was ""President of Tuskegee University in Alaska and shared a podium with President George W. Bush when he visited the university in April 2006"", and added the above comment that the quotee ""is an extremely well known figure up here in Alaska"".   An anonymous user in the same network as our impersonator here, 88.107.104.96 , quickly reverted GWotN's edit.  My own research turned up a ""President Benjamin F. Payton"" of Tuskegee University in Alabama , who did indeed give a speech before Bush.  (See Payton bio , White House press release , Tuskegee version , Payton quotes .)  This person has no Wikipedia article at this time, under ""Benjamin Payton"" (the canonical representation) or any reasonable variation.  I draw the following conclusions from this and the above information: User:Ben Payton , who uses British spelling on his user page, created a vanity article about himself.  88.107.101.162 ( talk · contributions ), 88.107.104.96 ( talk · contributions ), 88.107.108.70 ( talk · contributions ) (all of whom operate from within UK ISP Tiscali's DSL network of likely dynamic IP addresses), and User:Forrest Hump are likely sockpuppets of User:Ben Payton .  Even if they aren't, their combined contributions to Wikiquote to-date have been solely to support the British Ben Payton (with only minor exceptions for user pages and a single VfD vote supporting Hannah Richardson while admitting this person is not notable).  User:Great Warrior of the North , who supports the article, seems to think it's about the Tuskegee president, and despite apparently being from Alaska, claims familiarity with this Payton while thinking he works in Alaska rather than Alabama (a rather significant error).  Dr. Benjamin F. Payton seems to be notable enough for quoting, but no one participating in this VfD seems to really know this person or wish to correctly quote him .  My conclusion is that nobody here is willing to make this article even a stub about a notable person.  I would recommend that if Tuskegee fans wish to have an article on their President, they should start one from scratch at Benjamin Payton (and don't forget the sources that I took the trouble to dig up).  This article is a hopeless mess.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep i've read through all the articles nominated for deletion, and this is one of the very few that is any good.  How can it be a 'hopeless mess' when its actually got outstanding pieces of rhetoric?  Wikiquote is supposed to be about good quotations, so lets keep the few that we have.  Changetheworld 19:12 27 May 2006 (UTC) I'm afraid I wasn't very clear when I said the article was a hopeless mess.  I really meant that trying to figure out what this article should be is a hopeless mess, per my above research on the subject(s) and the editors' postings and edit histories.  Pithiness of quotes is irrelevant to Wikiquote if the quotee is not notable.  Wikiquote is indeed about ""good quotations"", but only from ""notable people and creative works"" (from the first sentence on Main Page ), and these should be sourced whenever possible.  ( Wikiquote:Wikiquote mentions quotes that have ""achieved fame"" by themselves, but this means truly well-known quotes of anonymous origin, not an excuse for people to post their own sayings, which is what makes our current Anonymous article a near-total waste of computer storage.)  That's not my policy or the policy of one regular editor or sysop; it is Wikimedia Foundation policy about the purposes and contents of its projects.  There are many, many other quote websites that will accept quotes from anyone without establishing notability.  This just isn't one of them.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per it being a pure vanity page as is made clearer by the sockpuppets which are currently going on.  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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Benzi K. Ahamed: — Jeffq 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Benzi K. Ahamed [ edit ] No notability, as asserted in the page.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent).  Science quote removed per comment below.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC) Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article itself establishes non-notability.  jni 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: also remove quotes from Science if we delete the page ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Boscoe Pertwee: — Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Boscoe Pertwee [ edit ] This looks to be, at best, someone who's posted to many different forums and Usenet groups, but has no claim to notability.  — LrdChaos 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (5 deletes; 1 keep).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  The sole quote isn't even original; I'm sure we could dig up recorded comedy routines that make similar statements.  ( Steven Wright would be my first target, although I doubt it originated with him, either.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, for now.  Although, as has been mentioned, a search  reveals an unnotable poster to forums and the like, it appears that there is a complication.   Some of the Google results come up with a mention of Boscoe Pertwee in Umberto Eco 's book Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition.  One of the search results offers this quote from Eco: ""a quotation from Boscoe Pertwee, an eighteenth century author (unknown to me) which I found in Gregory (1981:558): 'I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.'"" Plainly the forum poster has derived his username from this source; but the Eco book is a nonfiction work, which would suggest that there was an earlier Boscoe Pertwee and that the quotation may count as original.  The question at this point, then, is this: do we allow a page for an exceedingly obscure person (no info other than that he was eighteenth-century), or do we simply delete it and transfer the quote to some appropriate theme page, mentioning Eco's book as the source?  - InvisibleSun 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, IMO, we don't want an article that can only ever have a single quote of such indirect sourcing.  However, it would be excellent to provide a sourced version of this quote in an appropriate theme or work article, or possibly even the Eco article.  (Could you explain the citation of ""Gregory"", InvisibleSun? I couldn't easily figure out what work this is citing. ""Alastair McEwen"" is the only translator I ran across.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It doesn't seem like the author would be considered notable enough to warrent a page.  Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:43, 21 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Carolyn Crouch: — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Carolyn Crouch [ edit ] Not notable: Publications in [29] are few and have no books.  General consensus for Professor notability is ""widely cited research or publication of a book"".  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability is found UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I think we need more than 3 (unquoted) professional articles for reasonable notability.  There must be literally hundreds of thousands of academic professionals with at least these qualifications.  Besides, the content suggests that a student attending a single class is trying to mock the professor with mostly inane quotes.  Mocking the famous with their own words is fair game, but doing it to non-notable folks is just a mean kind of vanity.  Without better notability evidence and no way to verify the quotes, I see no reason to have this article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Collis Hardenbergh: — Jeffq 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Collis Hardenbergh [ edit ] No intro, no wp, google hits point to personal homepages.  Suspect vanity.  Left a message to the only contributor that this is VfDed, asked for notability.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent; no response from originator).  Also deleted ""Collis hardenbergh"" redirect.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable.  jni 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Conor somerville: — Jeffq 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Conor somerville [ edit ] Not notable and no quotes.  ~ UDScott 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 19:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Obvious vanity page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable vanity page without any quotes (three charges for deletion in one sentence, doh...).  jni 12:51, 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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Copy of Wikipedia main page: — Kalki 23:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) Copy of Wikipedia main page [ edit ] Copy of Wikipedia Main Page .  No longer need as non-sysops can now view the source of the Wikipedia main page.  Angela 04:28, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) If no one objects I will delete this after waiting a week.  — Kalki 20:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) This has been deleted — Kalki 23:34, 3 Mar 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Death By Stereo: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Death By Stereo [ edit ] This article has been listed VfD since May 7th by Jeffq .   I understand this article is not a big concern, but I say the sooner we resolve the problem the better.  PEACE ~ RoboAction 05:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) I would vote to delete.  Article is a year old and as yet doesn't contain a single quote. -- Sasquach 22:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) There's a bit of confusion about this page.  I had nominated Death by Stereo (note the lowercase ""by"") for deletion, and Kalki subsequently deleted it.  This is a different title, with a capitalized ""By"", but it appears to have the same non-quote, Wikipedia-stub content that the other one had.  There should be no reason to keep it, either.   — Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Technical problems with the software prevent deleting this at this time.  ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Dillon Chung: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Dillon Chung [ edit ] Looks like advertising, not quotes from a notable person.  Rmhermen 18:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Deleted ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Dogbert's New Ruling Class: — Jeffq 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Dogbert's New Ruling Class [ edit ] This just a copy of a large excerpt from DNRC.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (2 Deletes; no dissent).  Merged quote w/ Scott Adams before deleting.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless replaced by actual quotes from DNRC ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC) Delete after moving quote to Scott Adams .  The DNRC is a creation of Scott Adams, so supposed quotes from it are actually better placed in his article.  The Dilbert Newsletter from which it comes is free as in cost, but still copyrighted, but Adams also explicitly recommends ""forward[ing] this Holy Place argument to any Induhviduals"", which is hard to interpret through the humor.  I would suggest moving the quote unless someone makes a case that it should be deleted completely, but the article should be deleted either way.  — Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Eastern Thought: -- Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Eastern Thought [ edit ] Like [[Favorite]] we deleted recently, it will be not feasible.  (Confucism, Taoism, several schools of Buddhism including Zen, Hinduism, Jainaism, Islamic thought and so on ...) unless we use it as a portal not a simple article.  - Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Delete.  (3 deletes, no dissent) -- Aphaia 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . -- Aphaia 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This would be more appropriate as a category, not an article.  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with Jeffq.  Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Ed Chavez: — Jeffq 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ed Chavez [ edit ] High-school coach with no WP article.  Almost certainly not WP/WQ-notable.  Quotes not sourced; very likely just students' recollections.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No evidence of notability.  jni 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable.  ~ UDScott 12:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable, quotes aren't likely to ever get sources.  — LrdChaos 15:05, 21 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 07:43, 25 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Electronic games: — Jeffq 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Electronic games [ edit ] Redundant to Category:Electronic games .  Each attempts to list all the games that are sources of quotes, but the former has to be updated manually.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seahen ( talk • contribs ) 22:20, 26 April 2006  (UTC) Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  I've changed all relevant links in the  main article space to Category:Electronic games .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seahen 17:20 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [time corrected by Jeff Q] [ reply ] Delete , concur with Seahen.  ~ UDScott 12:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If deleted, this would set a precedent as our first deletion of a major category's mostly-redundant list article.  There are disadvantages to this (primarily in the ease of viewing all members of a category, including subcategories), but I think they're outweighed by the maintenance nightmare and the misinformation provided by an inadequately maintained list.  (MediaWiki should eventually provide a solution to a collapsed view of categories.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  List articles don't work well in MediaWiki, since they require human maintenence every time a relevant article is created or deleted, and too often, they never are, since many people aren't aware of the existence of corresponding list articles for categories.  The one advantage to a list, seeing all the related articles without having to peek into subcategories, doesn't really come into play in this case, since there's only one subcategory of Category:Electronic games ( Category:Final Fantasy (series) ), and none of the entries in the subcategory appear in the list (instead, the Final Fantasy page is linked, but doesn't link to any of the invididual game pages; I'll try to clean that up a bit later today, if I have time).  — LrdChaos 15:23, 27 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  George Fernandez: — Jeffq 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] George Fernandez [ edit ] Nonsense page.  ~ UDScott 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; 1 non-specific move suggestion from creator).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] No it's not. .  But well, I agree that it is pretty irrelevant to the english quote page it should be moved to one of the ""Filipino"" or any eastern language page peachmango Delete , as, the page is non-English.  — LrdChaos 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Based on the attempt to use an irrelevant picture of Tom Cruise from Commons (which I've removed), I'm not sure I believe peachmango's claim.  But it's almost certainly a vanity page, as the vast majority of people born in the 1990s haven't achieved notability yet.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick Google search on one of the section titles turns up a LiveJournal entry from 2004 that appears to be the source of much of the page (copied wholesale).  Unless User:peachmango here is the same person as ""penny_feather"" on livejournal, this is probably a copyvio.  — LrdChaos 18:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 04:51, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Ghrace Jeevasagayam: — Jeffq 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Ghrace Jeevasagayam [ edit ] I can't find any evidence that this person is real and/or notable; the only result from a Google search is the Wikiquote page.  It's been tagged with {{ no-intro }} since late November 2005 (around when it was created) and didn't receive any attention until earlier today when an anon (different IP than the creator) blanked the page.  — LrdChaos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent; no info provided).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 21:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with above.  ~ UDScott 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable unless it can be proved otherwise.  -- Robert 03:00, 18 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Gwen from Tempe: — Jeffq 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Gwen from Tempe [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless notability can be established.  — LrdChaos 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No WP article, no Alexa rating for the cited website, 6 unique Google hits, all but one of which are from flickr.com (i.e., personal stuff).  Clear vanity page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - InvisibleSun 15:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Health, Hospital, Patient: — MosheZadka 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Health , Hospital , Patient [ edit ] These articles were all created by 212.254.97.144 , the person who added 20+ Gerhard Kocher quotes (see VFDA entry ) to Favorites long ago and then farmed them out to other articles based on the topics assigned to them in Favorites.  ( 81.62.64.163 and 83.76.75.245 [quite possibly the same person] claim, with some circumstantial evidence, that 212 is Kocher himself.)  The sole contents of all three articles are Kocher quotes, so by voting to remove Kocher, we effectively decided to make all three empty articles.  (I've left their contents intact for now for review.) ""Health"" and ""Patient"" had been tagged for merger with Medicine , but this should now be irrelevant.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and in my opinion, such articles should be speedy deleted if we follow the letter of policy (remove all quotes by GK, then no quotes -> speedy delete candidate).  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] As for Hospital, speedy delete following Moshe's method.  -- Aphaia 07:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for Health because of its history. -- Aphaia 07:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The history of ""Health"", after ignoring structure edits and two irrelevant links that were subsequently deleted, is just like ""Hospital"" and ""Patient"" — nothing but Gerhard Kocher quotes added or tweaked by 212.254.*.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:53, 29 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
redirect,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  His Holiness the Dalai Lama: — Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] His Holiness the Dalai Lama [ edit ] Originally His Holiness the Dalai Lama Dalai Lama Now both are (double) redirects to Tenzin Gyatso to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (and that is why I found them).  -- Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC) Vote closed.  Results: His Holiness the Dalai Lama - deleted.  (3 deletes, no disssent).  Dalai Lama - turn to redirect to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama .  (2 redirects, 1 delete, no vote to keep).  Aphaia 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Turn to disambiguation(s) because there were apparently his precedences ...  I don't think it is a good idea we have such redirect with title, like ""Pope"", ""British Queen"" and so on. -- Aphaia 4 July 2005 09:15 (UTC) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC) Two different fates for two different redirects: Delete ""His Holiness the Dalai Lama"". It does not following English Wikipedia title practices, as is currently demonstrated by its absence there. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect ""Dalai Lama"" to current Tenzin Gyatso article, whichever that is. (I don't agree with the current suffix, as it seems to violate the WP MoS principle of avoiding honorifics and positions in article titles unless needed for disambiguation, but WP is currently ignoring it for Tenzin Gyatso, so I won't raise a fuss right now.) Unless and until we have quotes from another incarnation of the Dalai Lama, we don't really need ""Dalai Lama"" to be a disambiguation article. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] As for Dalai Lama, concur Jeff. Keep it as redirect to Tenzin Gyatso .-- Aphaia 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Its Tough: — Jeffq 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Its Tough [ edit ] Non-notable person (only one search result).  I also have no idea how it relates to the title, so if the page is kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate title.  — LrdChaos 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless some more information is provided related to context and the notability of the person.  ~ UDScott 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless subject or person (""Fergus Dye of Tchelery"") properly identified and evidence of notability provided.  This seems very unlikely, as the only Google presence of ""Fergus Dye"" is from a Yahoo! Group (i.e., discussion board) called ""my-bareabck-videos"", and Tchelery appears to be in New South Wales, which syncs with the anon creator's Australian IP address.  In other words, it adds up to a vanity page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 06:41, 20 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Jack Pownall: — Jeffq 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jack Pownall [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a transparent hoax, whose sole quote is stolen from Albert Einstein .  It was created by 195.224.207.61 , who also created Geoffrey Markham , making that article even more suspect.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 15 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  James Chin: — Jeffq 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] James Chin [ edit ] Probable vanity page.  Only contribution from anynmous user and provided link goes to similar but different quote.  Rmhermen 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; 1 Keep).  — Jeff Q (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only place this shows up in Google (besides on a website with a copy of our page, including the VfD notice) is on the web board cited in the Wikiquote entry.  The ability to post something witty on a web board does not make one notable.  — Jeff Q (talk) 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Strongly suspecting a vanity page. -- Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep . James Chin is an important part of many lives. He inspires people to reach out and be cool and funny. If it were not for James Chin, I would have commited suicide long ago. If you delete him, what's to say I won't contemplate it again? Or at least consider doing it over a Macintosh App-- aha, see!  I could have died if not for his wisdom!  - Steelix 13:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) User has no edits except this vote.  Rmhermen 15:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) I find this presumably lighthearted attempt at emotional blackmail in incredibly poor taste.  — Jeff Q (talk) 18:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .   I believe this is another case of a Beloved Forum Personality.   According to his user profile , he has 2,700+ posts to the referenced forum, with the majority in the Banter & Brawl section.   Perhaps a Colorful Characters page, where a few sayings from the village jesters of the world could be preserved? -- Eustace Tilley 03:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  I don't see any notability to this person.  MosheZadka 08:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Jeremy Rodgers: — Jeffq 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Jeremy Rodgers [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is produced.  ~ UDScott 19:08, 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.  I've also created a {{vanity-warn|Article}} template to help regular VfD reviewers post a polite and informative message on these article creators' talk pages to encourage them to review our policies and either save the quotes on their user pages or provide notablity evidenc.  I posted a version of this message on this editor's talk page .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:34, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Joakim noah: — Jeffq 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Joakim noah [ edit ] While there is a notable person with this name (an NBA player), but this page doesn't appear to relate to him.  There's no intro to explain it, but the nature of the quotes appear to be unrelated to the NBA player.  The same anon user (68.101.66.175) has also created two other pages which I've tagged for speedy deletion.  — LrdChaos 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  — LrdChaos 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with LrdChaos.  While there is a person who is currently notable of this name (not quite yet in the NBA - he just won the NCAA national championship with Florida), but these quotes are most likely not his.  ~ UDScott 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided to tie these (or any) quotes to a notable subject.  (In the unlikely event that this happens, the article would need to be moved to Joakim Noah .) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:51, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  John M. Anglin: — MosheZadka 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] John M. Anglin [ edit ] No intro, no wp article, google points to wq and mirrorsm, and lists someone of that name as a secretary in some company (""Farmer Brothers Co. Torrance""), apparently having gotten a scholarship too.  None of this makes this person notable, I believe.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: deleted (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  — Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Jon Canter: — MosheZadka 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jon Canter [ edit ] No intro, google results do not point to someone obvious, and the quote seems taken from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence provided of originality.  Jon Canter and Douglas Adams were both writers of the Cambridge Footlights Revue in 1974, in which Canter acted as well.  [47] It seems likely that Adams reused this line, perhaps only spoken by Canter in a role, in Hitchhiker's Guide four years later.  However, without evidence that Canter actually wrote it, one must strongly suspect that it originated with Adams.  Who is claiming Canter wrote it?  I found nothing other than the usual-suspect websites making undocumented assertions, and a reference to an older version of the Wikiquote page.  (I couldn't easily find which version, because its anon editors almost never use the edit summary like they're supposed to.)  Anyone can claim originality; let's see the proof.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:05, 29 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Jon Schaffer: .  — Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Jon Schaffer [ edit ] No quotes.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: Deleted.  (2 deletes, no dissent).  -- Aphaia 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotes added.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with MosheZadka.  This article was obviously created from the people template, but the creator merely saved the blank page, then added a single line.  (This is a downside of the template scheme, which is nonetheless a good system.)  I've removed the misleading template material to show the real substance of the article (or lack thereof).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Juergen Heine: .  — Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Juergen Heine [ edit ] No wp article, the CEO of a (probably) one-man company without any google-juice, only link I can find written by him is a request in german , from Martin's response probably for a half-baked idea to rewrite the debmirror software.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: deleted.  (3 deletes, no dissent).  -- Aphaia 20:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless compelling reason given for why this particular CEO should be considered notable (as opposed to the tens of millions of small business owners and shell-corporation officers around the world).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability not established.  jni 09:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Kaosu Rah: — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Kaosu Rah [ edit ] Search yields bulletin board postings without notability.   - InvisibleSun 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (eight votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A search turns up various profiles at forums and such, with nothing to suggest that this person, or the ""Kaosu Buntai"" group, is notable.  — LrdChaos 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Koweja 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Laputian proverbs: — Jeffq 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Laputian proverbs [ edit ] Includes only 1 unreferenced quote in an unknown and unexplained language, without ""translation"".  Possibly a reference to the Laputians of Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, but I couldn't find it in the relevant text (Part III, Chapters I-IV).  — Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Already said.  -- Aphaia 12:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I also tried to verify this, but couldn't find anything.  jni 05:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn't belong in en.wikiquote without a translation.  Sams 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Leeroy Jenkins: — UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Leeroy Jenkins [ edit ] Not notable, and no quotes.  ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissents) Delete unless evidence of notability and quotes are provided.  ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:47, 29 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Mark R. Watson: — Jeffq 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Mark R. Watson [ edit ] Non-notable vanity page.  — LrdChaos 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Self-admitted vanity page.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:28, 19 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Matt Whiteman: — Jeffq 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Matt Whiteman [ edit ] The page is two nearly-identical quotes by a non-notable Internet radio co-host.  The quotes themselves don't really contribute anything to the site; I can't imagine anyone who would come here looking for quotes from this person and be rewarded by having read two quotes merely saying that two things ""are fun."" — LrdChaos 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (1 Delete, implicit delete).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've done a little cleanup and WP linking to aid review of this article.  Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this person, but it does have one for w:Orange Lounge Radio .  If it weren't for the recently added ""duck"" quote, which at least seems potentially memorable, I'd say delete this article.  That one quote makes me stop to consider moving the article to Orange Lounge Radio , if we think the program might eventually have additional interesting quotes.  I'll hold off a specific vote until I see how things go.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No improvement to this article, no response to concerns.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:13, 16 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Matt Wisniewski: — MosheZadka 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Matt Wisniewski [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless the poster would like to move it to his user page (as a registered user, of course).  -- Aphaia 10:22, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Methuselah Jones: — MosheZadka 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Methuselah Jones [ edit ] Google result with his name was:  1) Wikiquote  2) another quote site,  3) archive of alt.geek, one of alt newsgroup category.  Plausibly vanity.  Aphaia 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless notability is proved.  -- Aphaia 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:31, 17 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Might Makes Right: — LrdChaos 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Might Makes Right [ edit ] A page for a phrase.  This could have been (and indeed, with some effort, could be turned into) a page about the philosophy that ""might makes right"", but as it stands, it's just a short list of a couple of places where the phrase, or one very much like it, was used.  — LrdChaos 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (seven votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 14:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless, as LrdChaos suggest, some effort is undertaken to turn this into a page of quotes related to the philosophy captured in its title.  ~ UDScott 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't want to encourage any ""theme"" so specific, lest we be inundated by essays on such topics.  (Single-quote essay incidents have been growing in the past few months.)  A more general topic like Power might be a more appropriate home for related quotes.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Agree with Jeff.  121a0012 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Robert 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and copy quote to Power - Koweja 04:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 23:11, 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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Motivational: — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Motivational [ edit ] I think this is a bad idea akin to the recently deleted ""Favorites"" Rmhermen 16:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Delete (2 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agreed with Rmhermen.  -- Aphaia 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete . ""Motivational"" is subjective. -- RPickman 23:18, 11 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Nat Mongioi: — Jeff Q (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Nat Mongioi [ edit ] No quotes.  This page was blanked by its creator shortly after its creation, and recently was tagged by another anon for speedy deletion, for which it does not qualify.  — LrdChaos 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this bio stub, likely a permanently quoteless article about someone without even a WP article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 01:38, 24 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  New Providence High School: — MosheZadka 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] New Providence High School [ edit ] Seems to be quotes from an unnotable HS.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delele .  I would say rather, ""quotes from unnotable folks at a high school"".  There is a New Providence High School article on WP (apparently created by the same network IPs that contributed our article, likely from the school's own network), but that doesn't make its students and teachers notable.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Ong Lee Shyh: — MosheZadka 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC) Ong Lee Shyh [ edit ] No wp article, no intro, google hits are numerous and all point to the same quote.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC) Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent, not adding to Computer ) Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC) Delete - His or her name can't be found even in the USENET archive (on google).  But this quote sounds a bit witty, so merge to Computer as anonymous quote. -- Aphaia 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  And I wish people would stop suggesting that unnotable but interesting quotes, even when attributed to specific people, should get tossed into Anonymous as if it's a garbage can for wit (which is exactly what Computer is right now).  Serious quote compendiums require that quotes by ""Anonymous"" be well-known, not just witty, and they don't accept sourced quotes unless the person is proven notable.  Jeff Q (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Though your opinion is different from me, but it is still suggestive.  I found two possibly helpful ideas on your opinion: how do you think we being to draft two guidelines: Wikiquote:Guideline for anonymous quotes and Wikiquote:Guideline on notability ?  -- Aphaia 00:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] I think these are good ideas, but I don't see how we'll be able to get them going properly when we're still having trouble: working on: Help:Transwiki , Blocking policy , Category schemes , Deletion policy updating: FAQ , Guide to layout , Policies and guidelines , Speedy deletions , Templates lagging on: Manual of style , Reference desk , Requested entries , Shortcuts , Spellings , Utilities , What Wikiquote is not just getting started on: QotD/Quote proposals , Vote , Voting trying to manage: Vandalism in progress , Village pump , Votes for deletion and dealing with other pages that I'm not even tracking.  And that doesn't even include all the red links to other policy pages that we don't have yet, or the informally-borrowed Wikipedia practices that are rather complicated and not-quite-relevant to Wikiquote.  Nor does it include all the time we spend arguing with one-issue editors with plenty of time to burn.  We've got enough work for 20-30 very active editors, and we don't have half that number working these issues.  I feel that these policy drafts we create wind up being one person's ideas tweaked by thoughts from 1-5 other people, which makes me extremely uncomfortable contemplating new drafts.  — Jeff Q (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Pangea: — LrdChaos 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Pangea [ edit ] Appears to be an infantile prank; bogus info, and bogus quotes from a non-existent work; no sign of it or its ""directors"" or ""writers"" through Google searches.  ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 deletes, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ Harry Tuttle 07:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with Harry Tuttle.  ~ UDScott 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Pangea is just an inocent article and should not be deleted.  Pangea was a high school project and some of the kids decided to make a Wikiquote article on it for fun.  It should not be deleted because they don't know the proper format for an article.  Just tell them to redo it a bit and then, if it's still not in the correct format, schedule it for deletion.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.106.28 ( talk • contribs ) 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Self-admitted unnotable film.  WP link is to the ancient continent, not a film.  WWW link is to a technology firm, not a film.  Completely unsourced.  May be a hoax.  Created by 72.68.106.28 ( talk · contributions ), who's been previously warned about adding nonsense to WQ.  I don't mind helping users (especially registered users) getting started with Wikiquote and wikis in general, but this user shows no interest even in looking at existing articles to see how pages are edited, and they seem to intentionally break the template wiki (and HTML) code to mangle their articles.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as per Harry Tuttle and Jeffq.  — LrdChaos 14:27, 25 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Peter Kraft: — Jeffq 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Peter Kraft [ edit ] Non-notable schoolteacher; it also appears that much of the page is just student's recollections of quotes, and nearly all of the edits (those from IP 66.10.167.1) are from a computer at the school.  — LrdChaos 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes from regular contributors; 2 Keeps from anons, one of whom tried to delete this entry, both of whose sole contributions were to this article, its VFD entry, and other VFD-nominated vanity articles).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] ATTENTION!  If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikiquote editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikiquote, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.  You are not barred from participating in the discussion , or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines .  However, ballot stuffing is pointless.  There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote .  Please review Wikiquote:Deletion policy for more information.  Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.   Happy editing!  Delete .  — LrdChaos 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with LrdChaos.  ~ UDScott 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided and quotes sourced, which is certain to be impossible for wiki-unnotable teachers.  (To the admiring students of Mr. Kraft: It's not a judgment on the person's worthiness, just a reflection of the subject notability and sourcing requirements of Wikimedia Foundation projects.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Do Not Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.10.135 ( talk • contribs ) 01:08, 10 May 2006  (UTC) Do Not Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.10.167.1 ( talk • contribs ) 13:19, 11 May 2006  (UTC) Note : A user from the same IP (66.10.167.1) earlier deleted this entry using a misleading edit summary.  — LrdChaos 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  InvisibleSun 05:02, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Pravin mansukhai: — MosheZadka 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Pravin mansukhai [ edit ] Non-notable, bad wp link, miscapitalized.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability is found.  UDScott 14:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Moshe and UDScott.  Likely vanity page, though I suspect more from ignorance of WQ purpose (i.e., failing to notice the new Main Page intro).  No WP presence; Google suggests this person is a technical sales rep for an inkjet supply company (although I lack sufficient knowledge of common Indian (?) names for any confidence in this hypothesis).  Also, a second instance in several days of someone incompletely updating an inputbox-driven people template (leaving ""w:NAME"" in the link field).  I will make changes to the templates to reduce this problem shortly.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:38, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Richard French: — Jeffq 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Richard French [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  I have also deleted the redirect as mentioned below.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  I can't find much on this person online, including searching for the two works that are cited on the page.  ~ UDScott 21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I think I have discovered who this is — a fictitious person invented by an anonymous user for the Wikipedia article on Fifehead Neville , a real village in Dorset , according to the article's edit history .  It's telling that another apparently ficitious person, James French, was added to the same article earlier [56] by another anon, and someone (probably one of two ""French"" anons) registered as w:User:Jamesf .  After an apparent conflict over which fiction to go with, a third anon IP (the same that created our ""Richard French"" article) restored the ""James French"" myth, then a new registered user cleaned out the drivel.  Add to the Wikipedia saga the nonsense in our article about the derivation of ""that's a Frenchie"" (a well-known mild derogatory term for a French person, not a saying by this mythical creature) and the other silly phrases, and you've got a fairly obvious hoax.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] When we delete this, we should also remember to delete the Richard french redirect.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:55, 3 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Rishi tandon: — MosheZadka 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Rishi tandon [ edit ] Not notable.  Deleted on wikipedia .  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UDScott 16:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Likely vanity.  Google seems to turn up nothing but ordinary folks.  The old WP article is apparently as inane as the current WQ article (although with better spelling/grammar).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:23, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Robert J. Petry: ~ Kalki 19:09, 11 March 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Robert J. Petry [ edit ] Appears to be personal vanity page.  Only Google hits were [58] Rmhermen 14:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) Deleted ~ Kalki The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Roofi Shaikh - 2004: ~ Kalki 19:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Roofi Shaikh - 2004 [ edit ] I indicated on this article's Roofi Shaikh - 2004 talk page that the article pages at Wikiquote, like those at the Wikipedia, are intended for people and works which have already attained some degree of public prominence.  A Google search for ""Roofi Shaikh"" yeilded 20 results, none of them indicating that this person is notable enough for an article page.  I thus am putting this on the list here.  WE NEED to make a more prominent assertion of the differences between the two types of pages, and clearly state the policy against ""vanity pages"" for those who are not yet sufficiently prominent to clearly merit an article.  ~ Achilles 13:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Deleted ~ Kalki 19:16, 11 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: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Samuel Lee Smith and Sam Smith: — Robert 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Samuel Lee Smith and Sam Smith [ edit ] No quotes.  — LrdChaos 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (5 deletes, no dissent).  -- Robert 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — LrdChaos 15:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  — No quote, and it appears of only local interest Jawesq 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  I added Sam Smith to LrdChaos's nomination of Samuel Lee Smith because they were both created by the same anonymous user and appear to be about the same person.  (I have no idea why they made one an intro-less quote article and the other a quoteless intro article.)  I think they should be considered together, as it's at least possible that one solid article could be made from them.  Currently, there is no WP article for ""Samuel Lee Smith"", ""Samuel L. Smith"", or ""Sam L. Smith"", and ""Sam Smith"" redirects to w:Samuel Smith , which does not include anyone as described in our current ""Samuel Lee Smith"" article.  The Faith Christian Church link provided in SLS is just its main page; it doesn't include any info on ""Pastor Sam"".  It took some digging, but I found an article on the Center (that mentions Smith) at SouthCoastToday.com, the online face of The Standard Times , a New Bedford, Massachusetts newspaper.  I found no source for the sole quote in SS.  All in all, it sounds like a relative unnotable, however fond of him his parishioners may have been.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both articles.  - InvisibleSun 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both.  ~ UDScott 18:32, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Satchel Cohen: — LrdChaos 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Satchel Cohen [ edit ] It appears this is a hoax (see its AFD nomination on Wikipedia ).  User:Netsnipe requested that the page be speedy-deleted, but Wikipedia's patent nonsense page specifically says that hoaxes are not considered patent nonsense, and this are not speedy-deletable.  — LrdChaos 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (five votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a hoax.  — LrdChaos 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Hoaxes are classed as vandalism, and vandalism may be speedily deleted.  JzG 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not strike my sig.   The above was a comment for information from a WP admin, not a vote.  All the Wikipedia articles have now been rmeoved as ""simple vandalism"" (speedy G3).  JzG 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] The above two posts were made by 62.73.137.190 ( talk · contributions ).  (We have no way of knowing whether you are the identified WP user, but your point about commenting is taken.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] JzG was the admin on wikipedia who speedied the articles and blocked the sockpuppets.  I think here we can use common sense and assume good faith that it is the same person and he is being helpful and informative.  Tyrenius 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I hesitate generally to combine anon sig with a certain registered user on another project, so I'd like to think it anon's comment as usual: it could be hardly proven and the identification is not the matter of ""assume good faith"".  Note that I don't say if it is impostoring or not; we will take his or her comment based on assuming good faith, but it isn't relevant principally who said that.  So I prefer to stroke ""faked sigs"" rather keep them, since I convince we shouldn't encourage anon editors to comment in such a manner.  However I can accept a compromise to put a remark like JeffQ made.  As for the latter part of his second comment, I can't simply understand why he should input it.   VfD is not a place to change policy at all and there is no reason a EN WP policy should instantly be appliable to other projects.  I appreciate your information though, but feel the autonomy of our project threaten and ignored.  Even on good faith, it could be still very annoyable.  -- Aphaia 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hoax background on wikipedia NB Tyrenius is not the hoaxer! -- Tyrenius 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (first edit on wikiquote) [ reply ] Not sure of the procedure here, but I thought I'd mention all the other articles in this batch have been speedy deleted on wikipedia via a creative interpretation of ""blatant vandalism"".  Tyrenius 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If even Wikipedia is having to interpret its rules loosely to SD a hoax, we, with our 2-year-older limited rules, are pretty much stuck with a VfD, I think.  Google search currently shows only 4 hits for ""Satchel Cohen"", the first two of which are WP (now defunct) and WQ (soon to be so).  I don't think this merits a blanking to avoid propagating the hoax during the VfD.  In fact, watching Google hits in the next two weeks might make for an interesting case study in how quickly Wikiquote gets mirrored to other quote websites.  (For reference, the other two currently are at HomestayFinder and Pessac Panthêres (French) . ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Whether or not he is a hoax, he lacks notability.   - InvisibleSun 12:15, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Sebastian Kwiatkowski: — LrdChaos 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Sebastian Kwiatkowski [ edit ] Likely a vanity page for an apparently non-notable person.  Google doesn't return any pages that indicate notability.  Koweja 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Vanity page for a non-notable person.  No relevant Google results and no Wikipedia page.  — LrdChaos 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless creator SebastianZON ( talk · contributions ) wants this moved to his user page.  I've posted a {{ vanity-warn }} to suggest this.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:00, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Shabbir Moiz Ali Hazari: — Jeffq 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Shabbir Moiz Ali Hazari [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ UDScott 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (4 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per UDScott.  — LrdChaos 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per UDScott.  -- Robert 02:29, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Sheng Long: — Jeffq 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sheng Long [ edit ] No quotes, just discussion probably belonging in wikipedia.  MosheZadka 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: Deleted (4 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 15:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete MosheZadka 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Aphaia 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sams 20:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  We do not create a whole Wikiquote page for a single quote, which is all this is or ever will be.  The quote is already recorded in Street Fighter .  Interested parties may want to transfer the discussion of this obscure controversy to wikipedia:Street Fighter .  — Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Shkodër: ~ Kalki Shkodër [ edit ] Shkodër - Some German(?) words, just three of them.  - user:zanimum (nomination timestamp 16:36, 21 November 2003 (UTC), added by Jeff Q (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Delete.  Angela 04:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC) These might be Albanian, and a motto or something… but if no one can provide a translation for them in the next month or so, I will delete them.  — Kalki 20:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I did manage to do a translation of these with an Albanian English translation site: ""kohë është flori"" means roughly : ""Time is gold"" or ""Time is golden"" — they thus might be compared to the English proverb ""Time is Money"" or a more general assertion ""Time is precious"" and ""Time is valuable.""  Shkodër is a city in Albania, and by the formatting used on the Albanian proverbs page, this might indicate where the proverb is presumed to have originated, or be generally used.  I will probably delete this page eventually as superfluous but see no special hurry in doing so.  I will try to find someone who understands Albanian to confirm or reject my assessment, and help in proper placement of the phrase.  — Kalki 23:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) You're right.  It roughly translates to Time is money.  Dori 23:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) This was deleted The proverb that was there is now on the Albanian proverbs page.  ~ 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Shouji Gato and Full Metal Panic!: — LrdChaos 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Shouji Gato and Full Metal Panic!  [ edit ] No quotes.   (If an article with quotes is made, consider merging the author and the work.) - InvisibleSun 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (four votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the manga unless quotes added; delete the author unless it's shown that his article could ever be more than just a copy of the manga article.  I favor the manga over the man in this case for two reasons.  First, we currently seem to be collecting a broad base of comics articles, but not comics authors.  Second, while wikipedia:Full Metal Panic! is substantial, wikipedia:Shouji Gatou (note the correct spelling, different from our article) is little more than a list article which strongly suggests that Full Metal Panic! is his sole notable work (however many forms it takes).  I have also left a message for our overenthusiastic manga article creator, Animeluver ( talk · contributions ), asking them to please hold off creating articles until they actually have quotes for them.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with Jeff.  ~ UDScott 13:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Gato Shoji is not a comic author, but novelist (so-called ""light novel"" in Japanese) for young adult.  It is true Full Metal Panic!  (in progress, over 10 volumns now?) is his sole notable work.  I don't know however how his works are known in English speaking world.  -- Aphaia 05:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not familiar with FMP!  , but I sense a Japanese version of the ""comic book vs. graphic novel"" argument here.  In English, the word ""novel"" (as a noun) is usually reserved for books that are almost all text, at most only incidentally illustrated.  ""Comic books"" are stories told primarily through illustration.  (Confusingly, they are not books, but magazines, and frequently have little or nothing to do with ""comedy"" — an unfortunate demonstration of language drift.)  The term ""graphic novel"", which does serve as a more descriptive term, seems mostly an attempt by the comic book industry to gain more respect for comic book collections printed in book form; they are still told primarily through illustration.  Our FMP! article refers to the series as ""manga"", which the WP article defines briefly as ""comics and print cartoons"".  WP's FMP! article , in my quick reading, doesn't make clear whether the book part of the series is mostly text or mostly illustration.  All this, of course, is irrelevant to the keep-or-delete debate, but I'd like to know which side of this divide Gatou's work falls on.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both , as neither page has any quotes.  — LrdChaos 14:32, 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
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Song of Songs: — Jeffq 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Song of Songs [ edit ] This is nothing more than a page for someone's comments on a text.   - InvisibleSun 14:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (5 deletes, incl. 1 implicit; 1 redirect).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - While it is a very notable literary work, there is already an article with quotes from the Bible, so make into a redirect to The Bible .  Koweja 15:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless someone turns the page into quotes about the book and not just someone's synopsis of it.  — LrdChaos 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with LrdChaos.  I'd rather not establish a precedent for creating a spate of redirects for Biblical books to The Bible , especially since there may be other notable works that use those titles.  If we delete this article and someone enters ""song of songs"" in the Search box, it should list The Bible among its discoveries.  If someone were to make a concerted effort to create separate articles for the individual books, we might need to revisit the issue, but until then, I'd prefer to leave these titles open for other things.  Either way, commentary is definitely not the province of WQ, and original research and opinion doesn't even belong in Wikipedia.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 19:18, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Thad Komorowski: — MosheZadka 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Thad Komorowski [ edit ] Not notable.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No WP article.  Google suggests Komorowski is one of the millions of folks who know how to put together a solid website and like to post reviews on media websites.  Admirable traits, but not sufficient evidence of notability.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable enough.  UDScott 13:42, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  The Clapper: — Jeffq 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The Clapper [ edit ] One quote without any kind of attribution or source information.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Results: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  Moved quote to Advertising slogans#Household and copied into w:The Clapper after removing its Wikiquote ""collection"" link.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless actual quotes added and page made into proper theme page.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete after moving sole quote to Advertising slogans , which is why we have that article.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:54, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Thomas Lorimer Morton: — MosheZadka 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Thomas Lorimer Morton [ edit ] No quotes, no established notability (and no wp article) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless quotations added and evidence of notability provided.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Moshe.  Not listed in w:Thomas Morton dab page, either.  Likely vanity, given [ h t t p : / / h o m e t o w n .  a o l .  c o .  u k / g e n i u s m e m o r y m a n / p i − s e q u e n c e 8.  h t m l {\displaystyle http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geniusmemoryman/pi-sequence8.html} this ""geniusmemoryman"" AOL homepage].  And I seriously doubt there's something called the ""Golden Mile Stupid Street"".  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: Above AOL URL rendered as text-only to avoid problem with Wikimedia spam filter.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with Moshe and Jeff.  Not notable.  UDScott 12:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  T.S. Boldy: — LrdChaos 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] T.S. Boldy [ edit ] How do I doubt thee?   Let me count the ways:  1) ""A late 18th and early 19th century writer,"" which would make his dates 17?? -182? , not 18?? -192? .  2) The lack of search results involving name, titles, quotes.  3) The poet's initials.    T.S.  Who does that put that me in mind of?   Oh, yes...  4) The phony Wikipedia link, which does not inspire confidence.  5) The various misspellings.   Ditto.  I shall but love thee better after deletion.  - InvisibleSun 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Mispellings and date errors due to the page being a work in progress -- this is really something you should pay attention to, if the page has only been up for five minutes, chances are someone is still working on it.  However, after looking for citable (i.e. recently published or internet listed) information, I realized I may well be pretty much the only person that's ever seen any of this stuff, thus falling under the ""new research"" rule of most wikis.  So, on principle, I concur.  Go ahead and delete it.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanetEric ( talk • contribs ) 21:19, 4 July 2006  (UTC) Note: The creator of the T.S. Boldly/Boldy page has deleted its previous contents.   - InvisibleSun 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- PlanetEric 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with this new witty nomination from InvisibleSun.  (I'm still chuckling over Bob .)  I hope PlanetEric isn't taking this the wrong way.  He (?) seems to be accepting good-naturedly the need for notability on these Wikimedia projects.  (It's not really ""new research"", which applies more to people adding original essays and opinions to encyclopedia articles.)  But we do need to find reliable sources , even for quotes.  I myself am curious where he is reading this author, if neither print nor web searches reveal any such sources.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If an author is obscure enough that not a single reference can be found, it's a good bet they're not notable enough to be included.  I'd welcome any evidence to the contrary, keeping in mind that merely having been published does not make a person notable.  — LrdChaos 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 13:09, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Waleed Tuffaha: — MosheZadka 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Waleed Tuffaha [ edit ] No intro, no wp, 1 google result from a ""name database"".  Quotes look like vanity.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless evidence of notability provided.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Aphaia 19:55, 12 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  West Side Story (Musical): — LrdChaos 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] West Side Story (Musical) [ edit ] This is a full-text copy of an entire script, as the creator admits in the intro paragraph.  As WSS was first produced well after 1923, it is almost certainly a copyright violation to list its entire content on any Wikimedia Foundation project.  Even if it is somehow in the public domain, it would belong on Wikisource.  (And merely being posted on a website like aellea Classic Movie Scripts is not evidence of PD.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed.  Result: delete (four votes to delete, no dissent).  — LrdChaos 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless proof of public-domain status provided.  If so, transwiki to Wikisource.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   According to the Copyright Office database, it was first registered in 1957, with updates and new arrangements for another three or more years after that, so the copyright term still has many, many years to run.  121a0012 04:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  - InvisibleSun 11:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless someone wants to undertake the fun task of parsing some memorable quotes from the script.  In any case, if the public-domain status is verified, this should be transwikied to Wikisource.  ~ UDScott 12:48, 16 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Zach Parker: — Jeffq 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Zach Parker [ edit ] A search on this name yields many results, including a baseball player; but the quotes themselves yield no results.   Delete unless more info provided.   16:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC) InvisibleSun Vote closed.  Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent; person not identified).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , unless evidence of notability is provided.  ~ UDScott 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Concur with UDScott.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless the quotes can be reliably attributed to a notable person.  — LrdChaos 14:02, 24 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  정신분석과 지그문트 프로이트: — Jeffq 12:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] 정신분석과 지그문트 프로이트 [ edit ] Besides inapropriate name (in Korean), probably the whole copy of a certain webpage (see the last line of this page), hence strongly doubting as copyright infringemen.  -- Aphaia 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote closed. Result: Deleted (4 Deletes, 1 implicit Delete; no dissent). — Jeff Q (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete speedily. -- Eustace Tilley 11:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) The original is here , the author explicitly reserves all rights, so I replaced the text with a properly cited link.  -- Eustace Tilley 11:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment: currently Wikiquote policy doesn't include copyvio as a speedy deletion candidates, if I recall correctly. -- Aphaia 12:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Similar fuzzy-logic problems use a point system.   This page earns speedy delete points for a title which displays as all question marks an anonymous contributor no comments by the contributor at the time of creation no Wiki formatting no link to the external source no reference to the author no credit to the author no evidence that the lengthy work has ever been performed violation of the observation of rights the author posted on her page That is enough merit a speedy exit, in my opinion. -- Eustace Tilley 13:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is different if those articles could be speedy deletion candidate and if our policy says so currently. If you want to contitue the discussion on this point, please don't do it here but on WQ:VP . -- Aphaia 15:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  I can't see any utility for keeping this.  jni 12:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  We need to formulate a copyright violation policy as well.  Rmhermen 13:43, 18 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Category:1960 births: — Jaxl 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:1960 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Category:Films in the People's Republic of China: — MosheZadka 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Films in the People's Republic of China [ edit ] Nothing in it, and not seeing it as a useful subcategory.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Based on its original inclusion of a tag for Category:Films in China , this category appears to be an attempt to differentiate PRC films from perhaps Taiwanese films; i.e., drawing a distinction between the popular concept of ""China"" and the multiple political entities that claim that name.  I will annoyingly remind everyone that I had predicted this kind of contention over collections by geography or nationality.  Get used to it; it'll only get worse.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] More reason to delete: It appears that this category is part of a initial effort by 142.166.198.170 and Gavinnauss (certainly the same person, given their brief edit histories) to categorize films both by setting and by ""language"" (presumably language spoken in the official release, not any after-market dubbing).  This effort seems to have been inspired by only a single article, Kill Bill .  The nine categories created under Films by setting and Films by language all ultimately point solely to KB , and this category under VfD was included as part of that flurry of categorizing activity.  I seriously doubt that we have the community motivation to establish these two additional forms of film categorization at this time, just because one article (itself in unanswered need of cleanup) can benefit from the unusual inclusion of several of these categories.  If we do vote to delete, we should also delete every one of these singleton categories.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 31 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Category:Natives of Cornwall: — Jeffq 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Natives of Cornwall [ edit ] This rather narrowly-defined category does not appear to be of much use.  There is currently only one page in it and I can't imagine that we'd have too many others that would hail from this specific county in England.  ~ UDScott 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed .  Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent).  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ UDScott 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete especially since this seems destined to raise the issue of ""is Cornwall indepedent"".  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:09, 18 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Category:People from Canada: — Jeffq 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Category:People from Canada [ edit ] Already exists at Category:Canadians .  Delete .  Benn M 17:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent).  — Jeff Q (talk) 20:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 10:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete .  -- Aphaia 21:15, 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Portal:Law: — MosheZadka 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Portal:Law [ edit ] Bunch of red links.  While portals can be useful, I would appreciate some discussion as to how to best affect them, or at least some out-of-the-way experiments (user or wikiquote namespaces) before implemented.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote closed : Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless anonymous user registers and convinces the community what use such pages would be.  We don't have the adminstrative bandwidth for novel subprojects from unregistered users.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Now.  Though portal is a basically good idea, portals with maintenance is horrible and shabby, so community approval is necessary to keep it, or a portal can't survive its own community, even very small.  -- Aphaia 04:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, note that on Wikiquote, as opposed to Wikipedia, The ""Portal:"" is not a namespace.  It's a good thing, probably: it means we don't have portals right now officially.  Anyone who wants to start portals should probably start them at Wikiquote:Portals subpages until they get wide acceptance.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative: — Jeffq 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Talk:Frenetic Five/Alternative [ edit ] This experimental alternative page for Frenetic Five was nominated for speedy deletion because ""main page already has that format"", which I infer to mean that the tested format was transferred to the main article after it was agreed upon.  However, it does not meet SD criteria.  It is not a ""test page"" in the Wikipedia/Wikiquote sense of an inappropriate sandbox; it was apparently a community attempt to develop a consensus to change the format, and as such, should be handled by VfD when its purpose is done.  ( Personal subpages may be speedy-deleted, but not article subpages. Also, it's inappropriate to use the Talk: namespace for a full-blown test of an article; it should be a subpage of the article , and its talk page used to discuss the experiment. But that's another issue.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Wikiquote:Out of the Past: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikiquote:Out of the Past [ edit ] Leftover redirect after moving a proper article to Out of the Past in the main article space.  Not sure if we have a case for speedy deletion.  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED: Result delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and as discussed elsewhere , we probably need to amend the SD policy (or possibly, rewrite it) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete redirect after moving could be a speedy deletion candidate specially in case the former name was apparently wrong or didn't follow naming convention.  -- Aphaia 08:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
no_consensus,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Image:DJcubeV3.jpg: NO SIGNATURE Image:DJcubeV3.jpg [ edit ] Hard to image any use for this unused image.  Rmhermen 02:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Delete .  A personal logo for someone who has no other contributions nor userpage.  Has been unused since last October.  jni 12:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Same as Jni.  -- Aphaia 14:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete .  Jeff Q (talk) 22:40, 19 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Image:Hippocrates.jpg: — Jeffq 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:Hippocrates.jpg [ edit ] Unused image, and Commons has the equivalent (PD).  -- Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] VOTE CLOSED. Result: deleted (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . -- Aphaia 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete useless duplication of Commons.  ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",4
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###Input:  Image:MAHARAJI WIKIPEDIA.jpg: — Jeffq 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Image:MAHARAJI WIKIPEDIA.jpg [ edit ] Another unused image.  A different version is used in the article.  Rmhermen 22:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) VOTE CLOSED.  Result: Deleted (1 Delete, 1 arguably implicit delete; 1 Keep; resolvable copyright questions muddling the issue).  I will try to contact the copyright owner to see if the license for either or both images can be extended to Wikimedia Commons (and therefore to Wikiquote), at which point we may consider further action.  — Jeff Q (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  -- Aphaia 17:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep . This image is more appropriate than the one currently used in Prem Rawat . — Jeff Q (talk) 10:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment : Its description on Wikipedia sais, the permission of this image is explicit to Wikipedia. I hope we can ask the copyright holder to expand their permission to the entire Wikimedia project, but currently we have no explicit permission in my humble opinion. -- Aphaia 19:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comment : The other picture, Image:T ym2.jpg , has the same restricted license from Wikipedia.  I don't believe we are legally permitted to keep either of these images without obtaining explicit permission.  However, I don't feel I can properly close this vote.  There are two evenly divided explicit votes (although one can arguably infer a ""delete"" from Rmhermen's original posting), which would imply no consensus, but since that has the same effect as my ""keep"" vote, I feel it might be controversial.  I propose we close this vote as inconclusive, immediately request explicit permission for the use of one or both of these photos, and then revote for deletion whichever image we don't have permission for, or that we think we don't need.  — Jeff Q (talk) 06:15, 29 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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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: [merge, keep, no_consensus, redirect, delete] : ###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