text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Abortion

 * 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: no consensus. — Jeffq 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

 * NOTE: THIS IS NOT A VOTE IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE. This is an attempt to assess the will of the community. If you have no user, feel free to comment (especially if you have new information which has not been presented here), but any recommendation in bold you make will be struck out to help the closing admin count recommendations correctly. If you make a recommendation with a newly created user, especially one with few or no edits, it will not be struck out but might be discounted by the closing admin, per his or her discretion. There is absolutely no need to vote multiple times, and in fact, such practice is frowned upon. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Please sign all your comments with ~ . Please put new comments in new bullets or subbullets. Please do not modify bullets posted by others, with the exception of striking out anon votes. If any remark is not in a proper bullet, you can move it to bulleted form, and then you must add a subbullet documenting your action, and preferably also comment on the identity of the poster if the original is unsigned. Thank you for your co-operation. Mis-signatures and other such modifications will be reverted to keep the vote authentic and coherent. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What could be a useful, balanced article on the topic is repeatedly and consistently made into an anti-abortion crusade. We have made many different efforts to get balance, but they are inevitably sabotaged by the sheer amount of time that anti-abortion supporters have devoted to turning the pro-choice section into anti-abortion advocacy by overwhelming it with the worst possible quotes from pro-choicers. One anonymous user has clearly demonstrated through her talk-page postings that she believes there is really only one side, and no amount of effort from the sysop staff has been able to stem her mission to ensure this article promotes her opinion. As I believe I suggested before, if we can't have true balance or neutrality on this subject, we should simply delete the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: My knee-jerk reaction is to extend the discussion by one week to December 8. I feel that this article had enough prominent contributors and is on an important enough subject that a decision should not be taken lightly. Currently I don't believe we have any clear policy on who is allowed to extend votes, but in general the consensus tended to be "any sysop". If there are no objections soon, I will extend it. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Extended to December 8, as per my intention stated above. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the extension to my original deadline. I had pretty much expected both the fervent arguments and the extension to accomodate them anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep) (3 Deletes; 4 Keeps; 1 Keep struck for no proper signature; 1 Keep discounted because of improper signature followed by confusing attempts to verify and standardize; all anonymous, unsigned, and policy-violating multiple votes discounted). WELL. This may have been the sloppiest votes I've ever seen on Wikiquote. Between the irritation of the sysops at the POV editing, the cries against censorship, the illegal and occasionally indecipherable votes from anonymous editors, and the deck-stacking through freeping, I'd say I (perhaps needlessly) proved how hard it is for Wikiquote to address this subject calmly and rationally. In the end, however, there is no consensus to delete the article, and probably would have been a clear Keep consensus had more supporters voted properly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not possible to achieve NPOV in this article when the only frequent contributors are avowed anti-abortionists who consistently sabotage the inadequate attempts of pro-choicers and sysops to restore balance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I understand that this page has become a nightmare to maintain, and yet I feel a bit uncomfortable about simply deleting it when there are some valid quotes to be found on the subject. Can we protect it instead? I know this raises other concerns -- namely that it limits the addition of new quotes (unless someone asked an admin to add it and admins would have a say over whether a quote that someone wants to add is valid), and an admin's personal bias could intrude. But again, I'm reluctant to just delete the page. I would like to hear some more discussion before rendering a vote. UDScott 21:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : The article is a horrible mess, and is no doubt one of the single biggest "headache" articles we have here... and probably will long remain such. I think this leads most of us to simply avoid it, so much as we are able to, but I am against deleting it or protecting it permanently merely for those reasons. It is an issue about which many statements are made... and they should be given place for expression, even if one particular editor seems fixated on mis-characterizing all manner of statements in ways that will most support and promote her particular views. I am removing it from "featured article" status on the Main Page though... something I have wanted to do very early on, even before it became much of a problem, but felt uncomfortable doing merely because of my own preferences not to draw to much attention to the subject. I think most of us can agree the article itself is one of the worst, most POV-intensive, and most frustrating that we have and shouldn't be on the main page. ~ Kalki 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and keep unprotected) - this is a slippery slope, in the direction of censorship. You want to delete Guns too? It's filled with quotes by people who haven't yet heard the news that the gov has nuclear weapons, and thus their guns won't protect them in case the gov becomes tyrannical. Also, my understanding is that some of the quotes there are taken straight from NRA magazines, and thus might be fraudulent - need someone who cares about this issue (and isn't lazy) to check it out. The wiki process is what people make of it. You, as an admin, have no obligation to protect a page against (what you consider to be) POV sabotage. If all the people who wish to contribute are anti-abortion, then you can assume that all the people on earth are anti-abortion. If other people start to contribute, and complain to admins about anti-abortion vandals (e.g. vandals who delete quotes, or don't accept majority vote), only then you should make the effort and help, by banning vandals perhaps. If neither you nor anyone else wish to make the effort and remove the "sabotage" from the page, then you should leave it as it is, and wait for people who do wish to invest their time in this page to do so. iddo999 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jeff, perhaps try to see a positive side too: if the sabotage is so horrible, then keeping it as it is would probably increase the probability that other people who come across this page and have different views on abortions would start editing it, and then perhaps also edit other wikiquote pages. So don't try too hard to guard pages against POV sabotage, unless it's a page that you personally care about right now. Let the wiki process fulfill itself, with perhaps the positive side-effect of gaining new wikiquote editors. iddo999 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The comments of the others echo many of my feelings about whether or not it is approrpiate to remove a page simply because it is controversial and is subject to a lot of heavy maintenance to keep it viable and neutral (as much as possible). I remain uncomfortable with the idea of deleting a page when there are numerous valid quotes associated with a topic - it smacks too much of censorship to me. As painful as this page can be to us all, I think it should remain. UDScott 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah? This page is painful for all of us? I have no idea what you and Kalki are talking about. How can it be painful if I've never even bothered to look at it? iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with a message summarising the reason, and protect it. I've thought a lot on this issue. The page, as it is right now, is pure crap as far as I'm concerned. I do not see it as becoming non-crap without significant work, but I am not prepared to do the work myself. Here is my suggestion: blank all the page, keeping only something like "This page is now protected since no version was of sufficiently high quality. If you are interested in helping, please feel free to work on a prototype of this page in your userspace, and make a note of it in the talk page. On your prototype, you are free to insist on only editing it yourself or you can allow others to edit it. If some prototype achieves wide consensus in the talk, please alert the Admin team so they can instate the consensus version and unprotect the page." Any thoughts? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The solution is not to censor accurate quotes, but rather to edit out any inaccuracies and edit in quotes that satisfy your own view of balance. Not sure how a quote page is supposed to be balanced, though.  As long as the quotes are accurate and pertinent, they ought to be on the page.   Quotes generally have a POV.  Abortion is controversial, so POV of the actual quotes will be strong in many cases.  Presenting those POVs to readers is the goal of a quote page for a controversial topic - to see what views people have on that controversy.  What is the actual problem? Are any quotes inaccurate? Have quotes from others with different POVs been deleted? Have people not been permitted to add quotes with oter POVs? Or are the quotes that people find objectionable simply ones that expose the weakness of one POV and highlight the strength of another?  Again, the solution is to add quotes that represent a POV you think is under-represented. I use the page as a source for abortion quotes because the quotes listed are amazing. I cannot believe that abortion providers and feminists have said some of the things they have said - but I have verified each and every one of them, and they all come from reliable sources. What is the underlying basis for the disappointment some of you have with the page as it currently exists? I don't see any history of trying to work the problems out, or of being specific as to why most of the quotes are objectionable.  If a quote is in the wrong section, move it to the right one.  If a quote is not accurate, explain why you believe so, ask for input, and then consider removing it. Censoring the page by deleting or blanking it is simply a heavy-handed extremist tactic.  Mr. Grace 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with the page is that the only people who have time to edit it think that a quote which starts with "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" should start the pro-choice section, and when people object, they cry out "then edit it to be better". However, the content should not be decided by who has more energy to invest in edit wars. This is why I feel forcing everyone to come to a consensus, and I'm pretty sure that enough will object to any "compromise" which isn't really, will finally get the edit-warriors to come to their senses. If you are interested, you could help in making the page not be crappy...that is likely to save it from deletion, even if you have to actually find quotes which do not support your POV. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The content should be decided by those who wish to edit that page. If you're not one of them, then just leave it alone and wait for other people to improve it. If there're vandals who e.g. don't accept majority vote of the people who edit on that page, then we can ban them. If you don't like the content, don't wish to edit it, and still want to delete what others do there, then it's censorship. iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that quote listed first? The protocol for a "theme" page (such as the abortion page) appears to be very simple.  Following it would address your concern. Mr. Grace 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete:
 * Let's consider that these disputes and sabatoges we're discussing here and on the Abortion article talk page have been ongoing since at least  July .
 * I'll repeat the [Talk:Abortion#NPOV_and_accuracy|objections] I made on the talk page for the article:
 * Some, . . . have spammed th[e] article as well as th[e] talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A [Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#Abortion|thorough complaint] about this was filed.
 * Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take . . . the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
 * Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
 * "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
 * The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. . . . were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
 * Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
 * One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
 * Some of these biased editors . . . have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to [certain user]'s versions, and administrators deemed [certain user]'s versions biased and questionable.

 * And a further [Talk:Abortion#Troll_problem.3F|objection] I made later:
 * Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved. His explaination on the edits page was ("no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised. Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags. Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.

 * And an [Talk:Abortion#Neutrality_of_quote_sources|observation] from Jeff Q, who put this better than can I:
 * I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article. Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting. This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion. I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a "pro-abortion" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called. That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.

 * In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters. . ..
 * Maxine Waters' idiotic statment was quoted by several reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wash Times and National Review  - and Tucker Carlson even debated James Carville about the statement on CNN and Carville defended Waters, but did not deny she said it) - with your statement above you have proven yourself to be  either a terrible researcher or to be very hasty in rushing to judgment - and perhaps to have an extreme bias against anyone with views that differ from your own (such as a website that espouses views that you think should not be voiced, or exposes certain views to be shallow.  The fact that any mention of Waters' participation in the rally (where she made the idiotic statement) has been scrubbed from nearly all old media reports of the event (and even edited out of the CSPAN coverage) demonstrates the extreme bias of most "reliable" media outlets. Imagine if a conservative congressman had said something as dumb as the extreme liberal Waters did - it would be on CNN every 5 minutes for 2 weeks. Instead the mainstream media has largely hidden Waters' incoherence or stupidity from its readers and viewers to protect her and the pro-abortion facade. Mr. Grace 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's quoted in the WSJ news section, then it's reliable. But if it was quoted by the yoyos in the WSJ op-ed section, then it's useless. WashTimes is less reliable, they even fabricate quotes by people that they like when it suits them, such as Tom Delay . Carlson and Carville are also obviously useless. It's supposed to have been shown on TV? Why don't you seek for a video footage then? There're plenty of anti-abortion people with video recorders... For example, the conspiracy theories crowd managed to get the Fox News live broadcast on 9/11 where their correspondent who went on air after the 2nd plane hit the WTC said that it's a cargo plane that doesn't have windows. iddo999 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this ends, as you have now pointed to an obscure blog website (that claims a certain quote is bogus) as your reliable source to note that some websties are not reliable. Ardent apologist (Carville) for all things liberal admitted that Maxine Waters made the idiotic statment. Several highly-respected media outlets also reported her rant. Not sure what your standard of proof is - seems like liberal blogs and liberal newspapers (NYT, for example) are good sources, but conservative ones are not reliable. That is a standard that is thoroughly unacceptable. Mr. Grace 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The "obscure blog" links to the WashTimes article, and mentions what the Repub senator said on CNN, so it's as credible as the senator is. If you meant that the blog fabricated the senator's words, and you're too lazy to even check this out, then here - but then you're probably way too lazy to seek for video footage that you claim that the big brother at C-SPAN removed into the memory hole... Getting such footage is a lot easier than 9/11 footage, because the rally was known in advance. To repeat, the WSJ news section is very reliable, much more than the NYT I'd say, but again, info from the WSJ op-ed section is useless. Do you know how that quote appeared in the WSJ? Anyway, I suggest that for now you should be graceful and remove that quote into the talk page, pending a proof. iddo999 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When former White House advisor (Carville) discusses Maxine's rant (and in doing so admits the rant occurred) you find it meaningless, but when a senator fails to elaborate on why he thinks a quote was false you find it definitive as to whether the statement was made. Your standard of proof is slippery at best - and certainly biased toward getting your way. Maxine's rant was widely published in 4 well-respected publications with no retractions and therefore it is most definitely "sourced" - its not going away. The only lazy user here is the one who has claimed that the page is filled with bogus quotes, offered no proof, and then demanded the page be deleted. Mr. Grace 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "senator fails to elaborate"? The senator said that the WashTimes fabricated the quote. What else is there to elaborate on? You want the senator to elaborate on the motives behind the decision to fabricates quotes? I just used this example to show that the WashTimes is less reliable than e.g. the WSJ. I'll assume that the point was taken. What Carville used to say on the Crossfire circus was meaningless in general, and certainly meaningless with regard to the sourcing of quotes in particular, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that. Why don't you answer my question about how the quote appeared in the WSJ? I urge you again to be graceful and remove that quote until there's a proof for it. iddo999 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As Jeff Q also put it on the same page (again, better than can I) about one abuser (sic), which I believe can accurately others editors:
 * She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . she cannot be permitted to subvert it [the article/Wiki standards] in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff.

 * Let's consider the anti-choice side's insistence on continuing to do those things, and insistence on keeping the article that way or reverting it back to that way
 * Conclusion: I think the only permanent remedy would be to would to permanently protect the article, and I'm not sure if Wikiquote's administrators are willing to permanently deny us nonadministrators any editing of an article. Unless the administrators can agree to do that, then the article is like a severly medically risked patient's fetus w/ 100% chance of quick terminal illness outside the womb: sadly, it has no hope, and the best thing to do would probably be to mercifully abort it. Dr. K 06:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes, all this does sound very bad... However, I consider your solution to be even worse. In general, the solution for removing quotes from dubious sources is to stop being lazy (i.e. use nothing but google?) and try to research the issue. However, it can be quite hard to prove a negative, so if the only sources appear to be fraudulent (as indeed in your examples above), then I think that it would be a good idea to remove them (into the talk page, perhaps), pending a reliable source. The solution to POV comments next to a quote is simply to remove them, because other than info that's really relevant to a particular quote, everything else should go to wikipedia - we should seek to editorialize as little as possible. If the anti-abortion crowd refuses to follow such guidelines, then you should report it to admins who will revert what they do there and perhaps ban them. But first, there should be an effort by editors of that page to create a good version - if you just leave the page to the anti-abortion crowd to do what they want there, then we can leave them alone until other people would come and try to improve it. iddo999 10:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of my first times using this site. It is amazing, and has been extremely helpful to me in preparing a case study on Abortion for a Medical Law & Ethics class. I was really disturbed to see that it was being considered for deletion. I believe in free speech, and that we, the public, have the right to be informed. Therefore, I equate deleting a page such as this, with an incredible amount of useful information, to "book burning." Simply because the totality of content seems weighted towards one side of an issue, is NO REASON to DELETE IT! I am NOT making this statement based on personal bias. If something is out of balance - then BALANCE IT! Put the simple facts of this question in to almost any analogy: If preparing a meal, and some parts are done before others, do you throw it ALL out? If you plant a garden, and one crop grows faster, and more abundantly than another - do you plow under the whole plot, and tell yourself "I'll try for more EQUAL growth next year..."??? Of course not! From my perspective, as new to this site, this argument seems rooted in issues other than the benefit/accuracy of the information presented. Yes, the bulk of information presented represents one position over the other ... but that doesn't make all that is there inaccurate or with out value. PLEASE, consider it a work-in-progress, and don't "burn the book" to teach someone a lesson! KellyD
 * Moved to standard format by me, including striking out the vote because it came from an anon (as per our policy that anon votes are ineligible) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * KellyD, why do you lecture us about how you think that other people should improve the page, instead of offering to do it yourself? iddo999 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what KellyD is sayingis that: 1) the page is accurate and therefore should not be censored, and 2) additional accurate quotes should be added by those who do not like the current (and accurate) content of the page, and 3) the responsibility to add aditional accurate quotes belongs to those who find the current accurate content disturbing enough to do the work.Mr. Grace 06:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand you, this is a misstatement of a crucial policy: writing for the enemy. The responsibility to keep NPOV and balance belongs not "to thos who find the current content disturbing", but to everyone. I realize it might be hard to add quotations which actually refute your point of view, but it is crucial for the proper functioning of the wiki. Please see my suggestion above, tantamount to deleting the page, for a way to force the various POV warriors here to seek consensus. Please note that intentional violations of NPOV are disruptive to wikiquote, which is the reason Jeff suggested the deletion, to reduce disruption. The more I hear the arguments against that decision, the more I believe he is right, since not one argument appeared relevant. Perhaps when wikiquote grows to have 20 regular editors (commited to NPOV) and 6 active administrators, we can deal with the disruption brought about by such a page. As it stands, I believe that this page draws more heat than light. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. Whats with the censorshiip? Aslan
 * originally posted 2 December 2005 (UTC) (comment originally added by Mr. Grace, moved to subbullet by me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is this user's only edit (done as two edits: one to add the vote, one to sign it) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Following "votes" are all by the same anon: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks ok to me
 * Keep I think it is an excellent page
 * Keep Sure, why not?
 * Keep Dont abort the abortion page!!!!
 * Keep Babies arent that cute.
 * Keep Keep it.
 * Keep I have thought long and hard on this and I say keep.
 * Keep Keeping it is a good idea.
 * Keep Keep good. Delete bad.
 * Keep I agree with many others...keep!
 * Following vote is by another anon ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP--DO NOT CHANGE A THING. You are part of an open forum that debates ideas. People DO COME HERE to get informed. DON'T HINDER THAT.
 * Short note: Wikiquote is NOT an open forum which debates ideas, it is an encyclopedia of quotations. Just in case anyone thought it is. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon 'vote' in a separate section moved here by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep" It's not the fault of us "neanderthal womyn oppressors" if some of the pro-choice comments look REALLY bad. If you are going to censor it now because advocates like Margaret Sanger (a racist supporter of Eugenics and Nazism) and Pete Singer (an unqualified homicidal maniac urging 'postnatal abortion' up to the age of 2) don't represent your side in the best light, you betray your bias and put the whole WIKI institution at risk as an objective resource.  It's bad enough that no High School or College would (ok, should) accept Wiki as a suitable bibliography.  We've got Nicolae Ceaucescu (a Communist dictator who ended up at the right end of the firing squad he used to terrorize the population) on the Pro-life side.  Not exactly the kind of candidate we want but, why not?  It's in the interest of fairness, isn't it? BTW, I've got a quote for you: "Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision. 3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts." Norma McCorvey's, Jane Roe of "Roe v. Wade", Affidavit to the US District Court of New Jersey. PS: For claiming to be unbiased, there are a lot of "anti-choicers" and "anti-abortion" epithet thrown around.  Should I call you guys then, "pro-death"?  It's only fair if you choose to denigrate us at every turn.
 * Keep
 * "13:46, 7 December 2005 Jwindle (adding signature of poster Jwindle who did not sign, anon below merged his comment with Jwindle's)" (this is a comment by Mr. Grace, moved to std. format by me ~MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

 * The fight becomes controversial only after your fighter hits the canvas after receiving a Mike Tyson uppercut. Work and train 'em harder? Beef up your arguments? Or quit and recognize the Championship is not within your grasp? Sorry for the sports analogy. But what this is mostly about is, "If I can't win I'm going to take my ball and go home!"
 * Unsigned comment, moved to std. form by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would recommend to whoever closes this vote to discount any and all voters with less than 50 edits excepting the VfD page itself, Abort and Talk:Abortion. I don't suppose it will change the result of this vote (as it is going so far), but I think it would make a nice precedent, similary to how I closed the Tarmy vote, which would make at least one good thing come out of this VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is certainly no way to expand the number of active users on Wikiquote. And please do try to be more courteous when making this section look how you want it to.Mr. Grace 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Being "active" only on one vote and POV-warring on one page is not my idea of "active". If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to make useful edits on a bunch of pages unrelated to abortion: we have a large number of pages which could use expansion (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, which I started), accuracy checks (Sherlock Holmes) or format improvements (Morton Feldman). Since the goal of VfD is to assess the will of the community, we need to have some definition of community. I truly hope, but sadly, I do not expect, that you will decide to join the community by improving wikiquote. Perhaps this will give you an idea of why the regular editors are overworked enough that they do not have time to respond to ultimatums on Talk:Abortion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pro-abortion rights users are perfectly free to add their quotes as well. There is no reason such an article need be censored.  It's open to all.  --Jakes19 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This was the user's first edit, less than five minutes after being created. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)\
 * I spend most of my time on Wikipedia as Jakes18. I intended on creating an account here, but never got to it until a few days ago, when I saw this garbage was going on and felt it necessary.  Does the Abortion article portray abortion rights supporters in a negative fashion?  I think that's what most would come out with.  Does it matter?  No.  They are true quotes.  To delete them would be more or less censoring true statements you are not comfortable with.  If pro-abortion rights Wikiquotians are unimpressed with the page, they are perfectly free to edit it themselves.  Should we delete "Bushisms" because it sheds a negative light on GW, and that may annoy his supporters?  No.  --Jakes19 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The expiration date of this vote has passed - our busy sysops have not had the chance to tally the vote. Looks like there is no consensus to sensor the abortion page. Please do not vandalize this comment by deleting it. I am simply making a reasonable and relevant note in this section regarding this vote. Mr. Grace 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The large puppet contingent was due to a Freep: I scanned this section and didn't see anyone enter this information, apologies if this was known. Just thought you might like to know. KillerChihuahua 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Katherine Whitehorn

VFD keep notice
~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Katherine Whitehorn


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/had Komorowski

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thad Komorowski
Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete not notable enough. UDScott 13:42, 21 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Category:Marines

 * 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: move to Category:United States Marines. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Marines
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)
 * Delete little used category. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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).
 * I went through and grabed the crossovers from Category:Military leaders. There are now 4 links. --Chalko 10:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: I've moved the comments to std. comment format to make discussion easier. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Is there a general discussion page on the desired scope of a category?--Chalko 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Move to Category:United States Marines is a reasonable solution--Chalko 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Move to Category:United States Marines under Category:Occupations UDScott 23:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, I read Occupation as Occupation of Iraq.  Agree Marine is a Occupation (Job)--Chalko 20:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/SydLexia.com

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

SydLexia.com

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, 2 keeps - one from originator (who has a handful of the VfDed article and vote edits, and one from a user whose only edit was the vote, both keeps discounted as users with too few edits) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : Seems to be little more than a rather crude vanity page, and a bit spammy as well. ~ Achilles † 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity (web sites are almost never notable) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A group of site fans got together and compiled some of our favorite quotes from this site, which I have posted. After checking the Vanity rules and the What Wikiquote is Not pages, I have found that this particular WQ page falls under neither category. Therefore I am voting to keep, and furthermore propose that this vote is erroneous. Valdronius 06:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In general, fan compilations are fine: as long as the original is notable. You have not commented on the notability of the site itself. I strongly suggest giving some evidence regarding such notability, or else it is unlikely the page will be kept. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking through the giudelines for what constitutes notability, but as there is quite a bit of text, I can't seem to find it. So please allow me to ad lib. SydLexia.com is a review site of pop culture from 1980-1995. Topics discussed include Television, Movies, Video Games, Music, and Toys. It has garnered a fair bit of popularity on the web, and its current alexa rating is sitting somewhere near 65,000. Not too shabby IMO. Basically, its a funny site, and a great read for anyone who spent any time growing up in the aforementioned time period. So, if there's anything else that would help contribute to its notability, I'll be more than happy to bloviate some more. Valdronius 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your questions and helpfulness. The general guideline is "if we don't have a WQ policy, we use WP policy if applicable". The relevant wikipedia (draft!) policy is at w:Wikipedia:Websites, which would be helpful (sorry for not making it more obvious earlier!). Also, please note that even if a web site is notable, comments of random forum members are still not notable: you would do well to edit the quotation page to have URLs marking each quotation for both verifiability and to be sure who the quotation is attributed to. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks again for your patience with this particualr WQ newbie.
 * Comment: I've looked at the site's about page. If this article is kept at all, it should be a quote page for "Syd Lexia", the (pseudo-?)nym of the site's writer. However, I do think that not sufficient evidence has been produced for the person's notability: a site with Alexa rank of 65K is far from the guidelines presented in the draft mentioned above (it talks about 10K). Being funny and a great read is not relevant to notability: being published or otherwise "famous" is. Has the site (or the man behind it) been cited in any academic reviews of culture? Any newspapers? Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : Seems to be within the guidelines. Since WP all but begs users to create companion WQ entries for accepted articles, I don't see a problem regardless of notability. ~ FloydDoorz (Talk) 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, probably, that w:User:Floyddoorz is the only editor in the page's history, with the exception of an application of an experimental deletion procedure and its reversion by an admin: see wp history. Usually a wikipedia article implies enough notability: however, this stub article has only one editor and has not been nominated for AfD, and so there is no relevant notability discussion. Also, as of now, the user above has no edits except for his vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page doesn't appear to be a collection of anyone notable, but rather a string of quotes from a perhaps notable site. Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough to be included here. UDScott 12:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've created an AFD entry for the corresponding Wikipedia article in order to solicit opinions on its notability from the vastly larger audience there. Though we don't have to follow their ultimate decision, I think this will help inform our debate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP decided to delete this article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fascinating issue... The w:Wikipedia:Websites page is interesting, and its talk page links - I didn't know the bash.org website mentioned there, it's great... Anyway, I'm not too sure about the argument that "Whether or not the site is popular, the presented quotes are not from anyone notable enough", because the same would also apply to Slashdot.org. Or perhaps we want to delete the slashdot.org wq page too? Note that there's a difference between a page that should be deleted on principle, and a page that needs a major rewrite because it's a mess. And as to whether this SydLexia website itself is notable enough, I guess it depends on whether we want to use the same guidelines as wikipedia, or stricter ones, or kinder ones... iddo999 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I pretty much hate the slashdot page. It is pure crap :( ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use slashdot as a precedent for a page that is notable enough, suitable for wikipedia, but unsuitable for wikiquote? Or alternatively, require that the wq slashdot page contain only quotes by notable people? Or keep using the de facto option, meaning that if the subject itself is notable enough, then quotes by unnotable people related to it are ok? A lot of the info in the Slashdot subculture page may be of debatable importance, but if people seem to be interested in it, then fine... iddo999 15:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the very concept of "precedent" is wrong here. Slashdot was never up for VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike SydLexia.com, which is debatable, Slashdot.com is obviously WP-worthy, because it's an extremely well-known website that has received considerable attention from the mainstream press. I don't think we have any clear rules about website quote articles, but Slashdot.org is a perfect example of why we need them. Unnotable people shouldn't be able to get around the notability policy just because they know how to post to a well-known site that'll accept anyone's commentary. By that rule, any "interesting" thing we post on Wikiquote should be fair game for a "Wikiquote" quote article. Come to think of it, maybe I'll start it and add my oh-so-clever personal quotes from my user page. (I hope everyone realizes I'm just kidding.) I repeat what I've said elsewhere, "interesting" is not a sufficient qualification for Wikiquote inclusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The general question, related not only to a wikiquote websites policy, is whether the author of a quote must always be notable himself, or whether we may include quotes where the quote itself is defined as notable under some criteria, even though it's agreed that its author isn't notable. If the author must always be notable (except for quotes in user pages), then e.g. slashdot.org is beyond repair in it's current form, and probably should be deleted too. iddo999 21:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Naz Baker

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Naz Baker
Not notable. UDScott 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, a handful of ineligible anons wanting to keep) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable UDScott 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, involves quotes relevant to a remarkable individual, however collection of quotes is still being updated. 70.242.130.248 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, quotes pertaining to wonderful person- still being created. 68.188.83.61 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, all information is factual and quotes that are relevant to an excellent specimen of the human race70.130.145.211
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: struck out all anon votes as per policy, added tag to article. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability has nothing whatsoever to do with the admirable traits of a person. Adolf Hitler is unquestionably notable enough for an article. Unfortunately, the vast majority of high school teachers are not, however witty and respected they may be. For these local fans of this "Naztastic" teacher (which I deduce from the St. Louis IP addresses), might I suggest creating your own school wiki? It would be a fascinating project, and might give you a feel for the challenges of establishing and maintaining inclusion and exclusion guidelines. You can download your own copy of the free MediaWiki software at the MediaWiki site ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 28 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Thomas Lorimer Morton

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Lorimer Morton
No quotes, no established notability (and no wp article) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotations added and evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Moshe. Not listed in Thomas Morton dab page, either. Likely vanity, given [$$http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geniusmemoryman/pi-sequence8.html$$ 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)
 * NOTE: Above AOL URL rendered as text-only to avoid problem with Wikimedia spam filter. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Moshe and Jeff. Not notable. UDScott 12:49, 28 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Portal:Portal

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Portal
More portal leftovers I forgot to VfD ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent, for deleting the templates there are two deletes with no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to add Template:Portals and Template:Main portals to the vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete UDScott 13:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. jni 16:10, 29 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Richard L Kempe

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard L Kempe
While the quotes listed are good, I can't find any information about this person on the Net. I therefore question his notability (let alone his existence). UDScott 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, one comment dissenting, one comment implying delete, no obvious dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability is found. UDScott 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott - some kind of comment on the person should be on his page. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I do exist and have added a short description of myself. Also see www.taxcraft.com. I'm not a well known person and I hope reputation is not a decisive requirement here. Richard L Kempe 10:19 12-5-05
 * It is a decisive requirement here, but you're encouraged to create a new user account, and add a selection of your quotes in your new userpage - and also help improve other wikiquote pages. iddo999 15:34, 5 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Chris Elliott

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris Elliott
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)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete unless quotes are given. --Aphaia 11:04, 16 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Dexter Holland

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dexter Holland
No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotes added UDScott 20:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with Moshe & UDScott. --Aphaia 11:06, 16 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Turophile

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Turophile
No quotes, no notability established. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotations added and evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with Moshe UDScott 20:15, 5 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Cuzco

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuzco
No quotes. UDScott 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be a nonsense page, with no quotes UDScott 21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and this seems like a good time to remind everyone we still need to improve our SD criteria ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:25, 6 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Shuvo Bakar

 * 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: delete. ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shuvo Bakar
Quotationless vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Delete (2 delete, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided, quotations added and flowery prose trimmed to bare introduction ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with MosheZadka. UDScott 13:15, 12 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Lachlan

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lachlan

 * Vote closed: Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : "Lachlan Newcombe" does not appear to be anyone notable enough for an article here. ~ Achilles † 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability or actual quotes are provided. UDScott 13:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean "notability and actual quotes" :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I mean and -- my mistake :-) UDScott 15:25, 12 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Mabvuto Munthali

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mabvuto Munthali
Vanity ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Delete (3 deletes, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 09:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with Moshe. ~ UDScott 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with the two fellows, doubting what kind of notability evidence can be added. --Aphaia 11:09, 16 December 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.


text:
User talk:69.107.11.122

Raimond Verwei
An editor using this IP address recently recreated an article for "Raimond Verwei" that had been duly voted for deleted per Wikiquote policy. The recreated article was speedy-deleted, also per policy. Repeated attempts to recreate articles that have been deleted will result in this address being blocked from editing. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.107.11.122


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Raimond Verwei

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Raimond Verwei
Not notable, and I'm skeptical of listed quotes. ~ UDScott 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Delete (2 deletes, no dissent) ~ UDScott 14:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. ~ UDScott 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:12, 13 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Thad Komorowski

 * 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: delete. — MosheZadka 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thad Komorowski
Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: delete (3 delete, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete not notable enough. UDScott 13:42, 21 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Aleksis Kivi

 * 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. — MosheZadka 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Aleksis Kivi
No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: keep (3 keeps, no dissent, one struck out delete) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now, thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the page, adding some quotes. UDScott 14:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep since it has been expanded. Kivi is a well known Finnish author. jni 16:05, 29 November 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Denis Leary

 * 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. — MosheZadka 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Denis Leary
No quotes. UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Keep (3 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless quotes are added. UDScott 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now that quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep now that there are quotations. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 206.145.29.246 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strike out anon vote UDScott 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 68.111.190.180 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quotes have been added and there will be more. 206.145.29.246 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved to std. fmt by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now. --Aphaia 11:07, 16 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Spaced

 * 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. — MosheZadka 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spaced
No quotes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Keep (4 keep, no dissent) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotes added. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless quotes are added. UDScott 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now. UDScott 13:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep 206.145.29.246 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strike out anon vote ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Various quotes now added, organised by series and episode, more to come. Tehjess 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now. --Aphaia 11:10, 16 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Tookie Williams

 * 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. — UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tookie Williams
No quotes. ~ UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result: Keep (3 keeps, no dissent)
 * Delete, although this person is notable, there aren't any quotes (and I couldn't find any online). Unless quotes are added, it should be deleted. ~ UDScott 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now, with addition of quotes. ~ UDScott 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep added a quotation from the wikipedia article ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * google tookie williams quotes he must have some.169.244.143.115 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved comment to std. format ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think now (posthumous) it's even more important to keep this document!
 * Struck out anon vote. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of quotes now. --Thorpe 12:53, 22 December 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.


text:
Talk:Die Hard With a Vengeance

VFD keep notice
This article was moved to Die Hard: With a Vengeance after a vote for its deletion. See its archived VfD entry for details. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Die Hard With a Vengeance


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Amirali Zohrenejad

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amirali Zohrenejad
Not notable. ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed: Result:Delete (2 deletes, no dissent)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 22:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suggest handling Amir Zohrenejad in the same way. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur with Moshe and also suggest the same for Reshma Nichani and Nima Mojgani as well. ~ UDScott 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Leeroy Jenkins

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Leeroy Jenkins
Not notable, and no quotes. ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed Result: Delete (3 delete, no dissents)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability and quotes are provided. ~ UDScott 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:47, 29 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Mavani Vinay

 * 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: Delete. — UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mavani Vinay
Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Vote closed. Result: Delete (3 deletes, no dissent)
 * Delete, unless evidence of notability is produced. ~ UDScott 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These people aren't in history and should not be in an online encyclopedia
 * Moved anon comment to std. format. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with UDScott. No WP or Google presence; likely vanity page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:50, 29 December 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.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Die Hard With a Vengeance

 * 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: move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Die Hard With a Vengeance
I created it, but made a mistake in the title. There is actually already a page for the film.

 * Vote closed. Result: move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance (2 Moves; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: where is the page that is allegedly there? Some more information should be given. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, this is the first time I've tried to edit, and it actually is a link to Wikipedia. I did notice that I have the title incorrect though.  Again, I'm new, so I apologize if I'm doing something the wrong way.~ Flutie 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's ok, it's a wiki. When we notice you doing something wrong, we just fix it :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance, which matches both the WP article and the IMDb title listing. Unless the community disagrees for some reason, we should treat this as a simple per-policy article title change when this vote is closed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Concur with Jeff. ~ UDScott 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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


text:
Raja Ravi Varma

Raja Ravi Varma (29 April 1848 – 2 October 1906) from the princely state of Travancore (presently in Kerala). He was widely acclaimed following his winning an award for an exhibition of his paintings at Vienna in 1873. Though his style of painting was described as too showy and sentimental, his paintings are widely popular in India. A large number of his lovely paintings are in the Laxmi Vilas Palace of Vadodara. He has been hailed as one of the “greatest painters in the history of Indian art. His paintings achieved recognition for his depiction of scenes from the epics of the Mahabharata and Ramayana.

Quotes

 * Who knows if these very pictures, now painted for maharajas, will not find their way to the museums one day.
 * Quoted in

 * ...the importance of recovering the customs and the institutions of the past thus inaugurating the archaeological approach to  art
 * Varma spoke on the occasion of the exhibition of his painting of the Sabine Woman who were supposed to have inspired him.

Quotes about Varma

 * She quoted HamsDamyanti. According to her it is this painting that Ravi Varma reached the pinnacle of his art in depicting Maharashtra people}Maharashtrian Beauty. Ravi Varma’s talent lay in the mixing of colours and the effect he got when he painted drapery, jewelry and royal clothes. Uma mentions two other paintings of Rani Lakshmibai and princess Tarabai- both of which show Ravi Varma’s remarkable talent in portraiture. She also made a special reference to the painting of Krishna and mother displayed in Mysore Palace. Uma Varma believes Ravi Varma’s unique talent lay in the fact that no one has yet been able to make an exact replica of hi paintings. She has seen many European Masters copied perfectly but both Uma varma and her daughter Radhika say that they are yet to see painting, which could be an exact  copy of Ravi Varma’s paintings.
 * Statement by his wife Uma Varma on his best painting talent as told to Ranjit Desai in his novel on Raja Ravi Varma

 * The more I saw, the more I admired the Master's genius — his uncanny ability, through the magic of his brush to depict mood, emotion and atmosphere and to encapsulate the whole story in the selected scene. I felt even then that a state of the art folio on his works needed to be brought out. Only, I never imagined that it was I who would eventually be doing it.
 * Parasram Mangharam, author of Raja Ravi Varma, The Painter Prince, in the Deccan Herald (26 October 2003)

 * Ravi Varma is not only among India's greatest artists, but also a great patriot. His depiction of the beauty of the Indian woman is unequalled in Indian art....When the art gallery of Mysore was under renovation, I got an opportunity to photograph them and my joy knew no bounds! Over the years I got to see many a fine-print reproductions of Ravi Varma's paintings and have tried to photograph the expression of his subjects.

 * He has become an Indian Kilroy. No matter where you look - whether in a book on the history of Indian art or one on advertising and printing in India or even something like popular taste and the making of the Indian national ethos - Raja Ravi Varma is there.

 * This painting [By Varma] takes the view of the 18th century politics …looking at [it] one immediately thinks of the whole …of the great warrior. So he must be congratulated
 * Remark by Tilak on Ravi Varma’s painting of Shivaji  at the Shivaji Festivals held in Maharashtra..

title: Raja Ravi Varma


text:
User talk:207.81.212.106

When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of Wikiquote incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses being blocked from editing. ~ Kalki 09:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:207.81.212.106


text:
Mary Pickford

Gladys Marie Smith (April 8, 1892 – May 29, 1979), known professionally as Mary Pickford, was a Canadian-born film star and co-founder of United Artists, known as "America's Sweetheart" and "the girl with the curls."

Quotes

 * I was forced to live far beyond my years when just a child, now I have reversed the order and I intend to remain young indefinitely.
 * "How Mary Pickford Stays Young", Reader's Digest, Vol. 5 (1926); condensed from an interview in Everybody's Magazine (28 May 1926)

 * [Talking pictures are] like putting lip rouge on the Venus de Milo.
 * Associated Press, "Mary Pickford Sees Talkies as Lipstick on Milo", Los Angeles Times, 18 March 1934, p. 1. Cf. "Los Angeles Times", 20 March 1934, p. A4: "Talking pictures are like lip rouge on the Venus de Milo."
 * Variant: Adding sound to movies would be like putting lipstick on the Venus de Milo.
 * Widely attributed in this form (e.g., A. Scott Berg, Goldwyn: A Biography (1989), Ch. 11) and described as having been said in the 1920s, but the 18 March 1934 AP story quotes it as said that day.

 * The refined simplicity should develop out of the complex. [...] It would have been more logical if silent pictures had grown out of the talkie instead of the other way around.
 * Attributed (1934) in Eileen Whitfield, Pickford: The Woman Who Made Hollywood (1997), p. 269–270

 * You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.
 * "Why Not Try God?", Chapter 6 (newspaper serial), appeared in St. Petersburg Times, 25 January 1936, sect. 2, p. 3

 * Make them laugh, make them cry, and back to laughter. What do people go to the theater for? An emotional exercise. And no preachment.
 * Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By ... (1968), p. 134

 * I am no longer in pictures for money. I am in them because I love them. I am not in vain. I do not care about giving a smashing personal performance. My one ambition is to create fine entertainment.
 * Herbert Howe, "Mary Pickford's Favorite Stars and Films". Photoplay, January 1924, p. 28-29. (Photoplay Publishing Company).

title: Mary Pickford