Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2014 September

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

The result was: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC).

Category:Users

This is not a useful category. Compare List of users and List of userpages. — Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 16:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Kept after major improvement. Please separately specify if any specific historical versions should be hidden from the public as copyvios.--Jusjih (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC).

Robot Chicken

This page has been tagged {{copyvio}} since January (with a couple reverts in the meanwhile). Contributors to the article have been unwilling to exercise restraint. Note that the episodes are only 11-12 minutes long, so these transcripts are not proportionate to fair use of works under copyright. — Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, without prejudice to starting from scratch after it is slashed and burned and lain fallow (but with extreme prejudice against treating things like "[mumbles rhythmatically, but incoherently]" and "[breathing]" as quotations, or treating things like "Dammit, dammit, dammit!" and "Heh heh...douche" as quoteworthy). ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep — though the page has excessive quotes of low quality I do NOT agree with the strategy of deleting extensively worked upon pages because many of the casual visitors who have worked upon them have not all adhered to such expectations or standards as we might desire. Though it might exceed the numerical guidelines preferred by some, which I believe should be ONLY guidelines and NOT mandates, I doubt that it is so excessive even in what has been its poor and unpolished state to be anything approaching an infringement of copyright. I cannot claim I would be very willing to work on it, but as in such cases of the past, I would prefer to do so rather than consenting to DELETE the extensive works of others out of laziness or lazy-mindedness in attending to the growth and maintenance of this wiki, and providing opportunities of anyone interested in quotes of any subject to contribute. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and comments by Ningauble. I would rather start again with such a page (preserving the history of what has been done as a starting point - if there are users that wish to undertake this, the quotes can be moved to the show's talk page, as was done with the many proverbs pages) with an appropriate set of memorable quotes that are also of a more reasonable number. And to address comments shown above, blaming a desire to start from scratch or the lack of attention such a page has received purely on laziness is unfair and frankly, strikes me as a lazy label to affix to this issue. There are only so many hours in the day that users can devote to this site, and I for one already have a lengthy list of work to perform here. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep after Kalki's improvements to the page - thanks for the work. A comment: I am actually quite happy that this page has been rescued. I have done such rescuing myself over the years, but found myself unable to do so at this time. This is a page that had languished for quite some time in a state that was really not acceptable and there did not seem to be any hope of it being trimmed until this discussion was initiated. Sometimes it is only under threat of removal that needed improvements are made. I would certainly prefer that this be the action of last resort, but it is necessary sometimes in order to spur action. Again, thank you for your efforts in this case, Kalki.

My comments above were merely meant to express frustration on my part when I see such discussions labeled in a knee-jerk fashion as laziness on the part of those of us that work tirelessly on the project. I for one do not ever feel that I have exhibited laziness in working here, but rather a need to prioritize my activities here. For the most part, I feel that my prioritization efforts are successful and that most of what I do here is for the benefit of the project. And I do not ever intentionally set out to limit or destroy the work of others, unless there appears to be a good reason for it or a benefit to be gained for the project. I believed this to be one of those cases. If "real-world" concerns, as well as my own list of work to be done here had allowed it, I would have undertaken this task in your stead. But in the end, as I said, I am happy with the results, even if it meant irritating you and taking you away from other doubtless valuable contributions you could make. Thanks again. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am now tagging the page "inuse" — I will also attend with some resigned ANGER to this task because of what I find to be NAUSEATING indifference and efforts to EXCLUDE and DESTROY the work of others, rather than permit it be eventually improved upon by people actually highly INTERESTED in the subject — which I am NOT. I confess that I am VERY inclined to assess such behavior as mentally and morally lazy, insipidly and stupidly destructive, and generally discouraging to involvement of those who have often been provided examples of HOW extensively demanding A FEW have typically been, AGAINST the general acceptance of some who would prefer to WORK and PRODUCE significant material rather than spending and WASTING much time judging and condemning and eliminating the work of others. I am NOW posting a work tag on the presently damnable thing, and though I have MANY other things I would MUCH prefer to attend to, and some which I MUST, I expect I can have this sufficiently improved within the next day, without any need for immediate deletion, and destruction of the previous efforts of others, upon which I am working, to the extent I have the time and opportunity.

I hope that others have the mental and moral strength to pardon occasional honest shows of irritation at what I genuinely am inclined to perceive as the mental or moral laziness or disregard of others for principles of tolerance which permit growth of awareness and appreciation of MANY diverse forms of thought, with MINIMAL intervention of those with more important or urgent things to do than curry to every asinine complaint about the state of others work — the deficiencies or flaws of which are actually necessary for the growth of capacities for genuine harmony, and effective opposition to mere monolithic monotony, and then have the gall to be highly offended at criticisms of their own actions or attitudes. I am quite OPEN to criticisms about myself or those I give any support to, and to contentions about best means of various types of progress, but am quite prone to object vigorously to absolutist exclusions and destructions of EXTENSIVE efforts, no matter how poor, if they are clearly within the scope of legal requirements and project aims, and thus redeemable with a little bit of effort, such as I have expended numerous times over the years on pages others would simply DELETE. I hope that some might actually have sense enough to eventually see that I am attending to more vitally important needs even in such apparently rambling or "random" assertions as I make for various reasons, in statements such as these, but like many other things, I know many things which can be helpful in great or little ways often take a bit more time and effort than many are inclined to make — OR even permit others to make. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

I have worked on this to the extent I could in the last couple of days, and the last edition prior to the "scary" copyvio declaration was quite extensive. I am only about halfway done at trimming it down extensively and fixing what formatting errors I can in the remainder of it at this point, but hope to be finished tomorrow. Just a very short time ago, I broke off from working on it to make a selection for QOTD, and must now be leaving, but expect to be back at work on it within a few hours. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have finally completed a MAJOR edit which restored MUCH of the material which MANY others had contributed, and trimmed MUCH of it to bring it more in line with the expectations and demands of others, and formatting much of it to comply with formatting standards. I have much more I am inclined to note, but have MANY other things to attend to, and in the present state of the page, after extensive work, there should be NOT even PRETENSIONS made for a valid reason for its deletion. I am QUITE PISSED OFF enough at having needed to spend so much time on this rather extensive page of inane humor, which is generally NOT to my own tastes, because of what I perceive as NEEDLESS call for its deletion, that if the even MORE inane asininity of others produces a deletion of this page — I do NOT intend to very soon be quiet or complacent about it. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

Template:InfoboxCast

Note: this nomination includes the auxiliary Template:R, used only in this template.

This template is not useful here because Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. (Cf. Votes for deletion/Template:Infobox and its second nomination.) — Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 18:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Kept, withdrawn by nominator. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC).

Ganapathy Sachchidananda Swamiji

The only quote to be found on this page is cited to what seems to be a random website, and is nowhere to be found in print. — BD2412 T 01:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, as nom. BD2412 T 01:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn per improvements made, good job! BD2412 T 20:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep · The quote that had existed, though the citation link was poorly formatted, did link to a site officially associated with this person. I have now added better sourced and dated material to the page, so it should now be acceptable. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep due to recent changes. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Keep following amendments.--Abramsky (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fausto Cercignani

Quotations in this article are from an unreliable source:  these are just somebody's self-published collections of unsourced attributions. Note also citations to these vanity press ebooks wallpapered on numerous theme pages, which should also be removed. — Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of a reliably sourced article on the noted philologist and sometime poet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep · Following links and citations which were at the Wikipedia article, I have now sourced the material which had been from secondary sources without citation, to "self translation" exercises of Cercignani posted at the the University of Milan, with a link to that online source on the page. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, now that Kalki has made improvements. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, now that Kalki has given us good reasons to do so. ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Bernardbonvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: Thanks to Kalki for identifying what appears to be the primary source. I still have a couple issues with this:
  1. The present article reproduces half of the "Adagio" and the entire (100%) collection of "Quotes", far in excess of what is contemplated at Wikiquote:Limits on quotations.
  2. The source is a personal userpage hosted on an academic website. It is customary for academic institutions to host personal pages for their faculty, but most are hardly more notable than their student's FaceBook pages. I see no indication that the good professor's "Examples" page is notable enough to be included in the author page, much less to be scattered in some ninety (90) theme pages. (Past experience with this type of source being wallpapered on theme articles has been problematic.[1])

Even though Kalki's research moots criticism of the previously cited source, I am not inclined to change my vote to delete the page because Wikiquote is not a mirror for user pages from other websites. I am also still inclined to strip the wallpaper from theme articles, unless any of the professor's aphorizations are shown to be independently quoted in noteworthy sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Thanks to Kalki for his improvements and for identifying the primary source, which I consider to contain notable work, certainly notable enough to be included in a Wikiquote page. But perhaps the "Adagio" lines should be removed. ~ Karlhillmann (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Karlhillmann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Can you provide certain evidence of that notability? E.g. is the userpage quoted or otherwise noted in any reliable sources? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Many thanks to Kalki! I agree with Karlhillmann and I must disagree with Ningauble: Cercignani's userpage cannot be considered a sort of Facebook page! ~ Pierre Abbé (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Pierre Abbé (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  I am not sure what other sort of thing it is like. Was it an assigned reading for one of his courses? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  The question seems to be sarcastic or at best rhetorical, but I will treat it as simple one. The material published by Cercignani on his userpage is offered to the general public, to translators, and especially to scholars who investigate the discipline known as "self-translation". The fact that the page is hosted by an academic institution without any indication with regard to copyright implies that its contents are freely available to the general public. ~ Pierre Abbé (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  No sarcasm was intended by this rhetoric. I would draw a distinction between personal userpages and other publications of his that the university indexes in its public-facing search engine.   I don't know the particulars of Italian law, but where I live posting on the internet does not implicitly waive copyright. Just because access is freely available does not mean it is free to adapt and republish. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Now that I've read Ningauble's comments, I'd like to confirm my vote to keep the page. My reasons:
  1. I strongly believe in the principles of the Wikimedia Foundation and I never forget that "Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works".
  2. Cercignani is undoutedly a notable person and his aphorisms are clearly original irrespective of the value we attribute in general to personal userpages hosted on academic websites or, for that matter, to a self-published ebook. By the way, the work in question (edited by Brian Morris) is freely offered to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Should we always prefer those who sell knowledge and creative works? ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question regarding licensure of ebooks by Brian Morris: are these derivative works (which I have not viewed because I do not have, or want, an account at Lulu) published with the express permission of professor Cercignani to adapt the userpage in question, which does not itself contain a general release? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding licensure of ebooks by Brian Morris: Replying on Sep 22 to my email of Sep 21, Brian Morris confirmed that his "ebooks containing quotations from writings by Fausto Cercignani are derivative works published with the express permission of Professor Cercignani to adapt his userpage posted at the University of Milan (users.unimi.it/austheod/adagio3l.pdf)". Brian Morris "will add the information on the copyright page of the latest edition". ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikiquote does not generally second-guess Wikipedia about subject notability. So the subject may be considered notable, and thus the page is allowed. (It's possible that the WP page would not survive AfD, but that has not been tested. It is what I'd call a fan page, and these are often inadequately sourced. The real question would be if it can be sourced adequately to remain hosted on Wikipedia. This is not normally a matter to be determined here.) To use or not use specific quotations is not a VfD/administrative decision, and is handled through the normal editorial process. There was no attempt to improve this page in its history, no discussion on the Talk page. I saw this VfD mentioned on meta.[2]. The three users mentioned there, and tagged here as SPAs, are not experienced users and should be handled with care and kindness. But they are not new users, they are apparently fans of Cercignani. They may need support in understanding what the Wikipedia article needs. --Abd (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Arguments above are largely focused on the content of the page, and largely on the notability of quotes. Wikiquote:Notability (an essay) is clear that generally if there is a Wikipedia article on a person, the person is notable enough to have a page here. Wikiquote:Quotability, a guideline, confirms that. The guideline points out that quotability can be difficult to determine, but quotability of individual quotes is not determined here. This is only a request for deletion of the page. If there is a single quotable quote, by Wikiquote standards, the page should stand if the author is notable. As matters stand today, there are quotes on the page and there is a Wikipedia article, so the assumption would be that the page should stay, and that is the only decision made here. However, if the Wikipedia article is deleted for non-notability, and if all the quotes are removed and that sticks, by consensus, then deletion would become appropriate and, if that situation is stable, the page would easily be deleted.

To those who have worked on w:Fausto Cercignani, that page looks vulnerable to deletion there. It will take work to find reliable sources for that article, and what is not reliably sourced should be removed, and if there is much that is not reliably sourced, it can make the page more deletable, whereas, as a short article with a few sourced facts, it might otherwise stand. The style of that article is not encyclopedic (i.e., what Wikipedians expect). Fans of topics, Single Purpose Accounts, often have no clue what is appropriate and what is not, it is not about "truth," and primary sources don't work (such as the author's own statements about himself), and a list of publications does not establish notability. Secondary reliable sources do. Good luck, I suggest trying to find help on Wikipedia. I am banned there, so I can't help you directly, but anyone can email me, I can anticipate what the objections may be to that article, and can point to possible solutions. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding ABD's offer to help those who have worked on w:Fausto Cercignani: Many thanks for your kindness and readiness to help! How can I email you? ~ Karlhillmann (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This applies for any user who has email enabled: if you are viewing my User or User talk page, and if you have email enabled yourself, which I think you do, click on Email this user in the Tools menu. --Abd (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of the author is not in dispute here: the article was nominated "without prejudice" to the topic. However, it does not appear that userpage exercises are what he is noted for. Suitability of specific quotations or sources most certainly is a VfD decision when they comprise the entire content of a page. Removing unsuitable content, if it is found to be such, to leave a "stub" with no quotations is not an option at Wikiquote.   The Wikipedia article could definitely stand some improvement. Interested contributors might ask for advice at the Wikipedia:Teahouse about encyclopedic style and other issues. (It is a bit of a distraction to bring it up here.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Ningauble's statement "it does not appear that userpage exercises are what he (F. Cercignani) is noted for": F. Cercignani is certainly notable as a creative writer and his userpage examples contain his own aphorisms, not mere exercises. ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bernard, these are not matters to be argued here, and notability is not established because an editor says so. I will explain some details on your talk page. --Abd (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)