Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/MediaWiki

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. BD2412 T 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki

The single quote on this page is more about the author himself than about the nominal subject of the article. In order to avoid wikiomphaloskepsis, it is best not to quote Wikimedia pages unless there are reliable independent sources that attest to the fame of the quote. — Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Vote closes: 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing this vote because the original quote, to which the nominating rationale applies, has been removed from the article,[1] mooting or prejudging the discussion. We are now dealing with a completely new and different article, about which I will comment later. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, that is most appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleaned up the page. Added three quotes from secondary sources. Moved quote in question by nominator to talk page. Added a free-use image. Will continue to reference page and add more quotes from secondary sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Update: Added a total of twenty (20) cited quotes from secondary sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• CommentDelete Cirt has done a good job; it is all beautifully sourced. However, I don't find any of the quotes particularly quotable, and some of them seem to be no more than an advert.--Collingwood (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the compliment, it's most appreciated. Hopefully at least a few of the twenty (20) sourced quotes I've added to the article page will be seen as satisfactory to avoid deletion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have thought long and hard about this. I am sorry, but though there were 20,000 beautifully sourced quotes, if they were of the standard of these I could not vote for retention.--Collingwood (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Collingwood's assessment that the current article (which is entirely new, and is not the article originally nominated) does not contain anything that is quotable. The quotes are all, and each, quite unremarkable observations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding remarks above, the citations given are not secondary sources of quotation and I am not aware of any secondary sources that quote these statements. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The link given is an essay written by Ningauble, who wrote the above comment. In fact, these are all secondary sources, and certainly out of the twenty (20) sourced quotes I went to a great deal of effort to research, surely at least a few of them should be seen as "quotable" so as to avoid deletion of the entire page? That would really be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think that argumentum ad misericordiam concerning the effort invested is really germane. Personalizing the issue in this manner may tend to distract from weighing the merits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would keep but trim. There are at least some quotes on the page which rise above the category of "unremarkable observations". For example:
  • A notable irony of Wikipedia's popularity is that the editing process of its supporting technology, MediaWiki, is complex to learn. Editing Wikipedia pages requires significant investment to learn MediaWiki's unique and powerful code structure.
    • Terry T. Kidd, Irene Chen (2009). Wired for Learning: An Educator's Guide to Web 2.0. Information Age Publishing, Inc.. p. 187. ISBN 1607520966. 
  • Cheers! BD2412 T 01:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, BD2412 (talk · contributions), for those comments and suggestions, and thanks also for your insight at the article's talk page. I've responded there. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the quote attributed to a book edited by Kidd and Chen is relatively less insubstantial than the others, I don't think it rises to the level of "quotability". There is indeed an irony in that many say MediaWiki markup is difficult to learn and nonetheless millions of people use it; but this is hardly an original observation and the quote offers little, if any, insight into the situation. The authors merely use this apparent complexity, among other reasons, to justify the selection of Wikispaces rather than MediaWiki for a couple classroom case studies. (The citation is also incomplete. The quoted paper, "Course Co-creation Vs. Course Management: Wikis as a potential alternative to traditional learning management systems", is by Michael L. W. Jones and David Gelb, not by the editors of the book.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as I do not see anything on the page that rises to the necessary levels of quoteworthiness to remain. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, after improvements made to the page (nice work). I'm still not completely convinced of the value of all the quotes here, but there are now enough good ones on the page to keep it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Request for more time Please allow me some more time to do additional research on this page. I will strive to find some other sourced quotes that are hopefully deemed as satisfactory. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • MediaWiki is relatively new and fairly obscure. It is possible that there just aren't any quotes about it that the community in general would consider to be quoteworthy. This is no reflection on the project; not everything is the subject of pithy quotations. BD2412 T 19:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • There's over 27,000 results in a search for "MediaWiki" on Google Books. Surely some of those quotes are "pithy" enough for inclusion on Wikiquote? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not really all that obscure. Leucosticte (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Update:

1. I've a significant number of sourced quotes to the talk page.
2. I added some new sourced quotes to the main article page.
3. In the process of doing additional research.

Hopefully this is satisfactory. If not, my research efforts still continue, -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The page is improving. Leucosticte (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Update: Some great additions by Leucosticte (talk · contributions), DIFF, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• COMMENT: It looks like at this point in time, there are an equal number of users expressing sentiment for Keep, as for other options. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can we please keep the discussion here, rather than on my talk page. Thanks.--Collingwood (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Update: Thank you very much to UDScott (talk · contributions), above, for changing to "Keep", DIFF, much appreciated for recognizing the quality improvement efforts made to the page, -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The actual quotes can be tweaked outside of this VfD, but I think it's a notable enough topic that we certainly aren't hurting by having it here, and it looks nothing like it did when the VfD started. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 13 November 2012 (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.