Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2009 March

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. - InvisibleSun 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Article was PROD for reason "No sourced quotes." Tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 22:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not particularly useful, anyway. BD2412 T 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 01:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RyanCross (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The quotes are not sourced by episode. 2) The series Yes, Prime Minister redirects here, which suggests that the quotes are from both series. - InvisibleSun 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to YKWSG's excellent work on this page. Yes, Prime Minister should be made a separate article. Some of the episodes will have to be trimmed for a two-quote per half-hour maximum. - InvisibleSun 23:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much appreciated, but it should be noted that the YM and YPM articles have been merged once already...YKWSG 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per UDScott (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – given time, I can re-source all quotations by episode, and separate the series. YKWSG 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RyanCross (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since they appear to be sourced now, but split Yes, Prime Minister quotes into a separate article. -Sketchmoose 06:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim/split. Now that sources have been indicated there is no need to delete. ~ Ningauble 13:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ningauble (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks well organized now.--Jusjih 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks better now. — RyanCross (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. BD2412 T 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyvio. The quotes are unsourced by episode. - InvisibleSun 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. - InvisibleSun 03:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is also doubtful that, in the test of time, these selections will be considered memorable. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per UDScott (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. TheAE talk 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 18:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Even if the latest unsourced quotes are again removed, what remains is still not truly sourced (other then three quotes about Axl Rose). Without any properly sourced quotes by Axl, the page should be deleted. — UDScott 12:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unless properly sourced quotes by Axl are provided. ~ UDScott 12:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Some of the quotes are associated with a performance venue and date, but such attributions are not verifiable unless a publication is cited. ~ Ningauble 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This page is an unnecessary redirect to Template:Tl. Wikipedia has this redirect to accommodate the mistake of typing t1 for tl, so I assume the redirect was set up while copying other templates from Wikipedia that had this mistake. The mistake has been corrected. — Ningauble 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tis comes close to housekeeping. BD2412 T 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This template was copied from Wikipedia, where it is used to visibly tag the protection status of templates. It has not been customary at Wikiquote to tag protected templates and the only templates that were tagged were not actually protected. This leads me to assume the template, its master template, and their associated documentation subpages were set up by mistake while copying other templates from Wikipedia. This VfD includes the following pages:

• Template:Pp-template
• Template:Pp-template/doc
• Template:Pp-meta
• Template:Pp-meta/doc

— Ningauble 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Go ahead and feel free to speedy delete these, as I had created them. No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This template was copied from Wikipedia, where it is used to tag pages to be excluded from bot assisted purging processes. Since there is no analogous process at Wikiquote, I assume the template was set up by mistake while copying other templates from Wikipedia. — Ningauble 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Cirt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Redirect and delete. Nobody wanted to close this in a while, so I just did it myself. Though, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the updating. Could someone do that? And message me if you think I did something wrong, as this was a pretty confusing VfD. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an unnecessary duplicate of Template:Documentation. At Wikipedia this is just a redirect, so I assume the template was set up by mistake while copying other templates from Wikipedia. This VfD includes the associated documentation subpage Template:Template documentation/doc. — Ningauble 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Cirt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, rename existing page Template:Documentation to the WP-compatible Template:Template documentation, keep the related Template:Documentation/docname, and update all transcluding templates (about 2 dozen), for three reasons:

  1. The "Template:Template documentation" nomenclature makes sense, since the current {{documentation}} template is really only documentation for templates.[1]
  2. More importantly, many of our templates lack very useful features and flexibility that their corresponding WP templates have, making at least partial porting of these newer WP templates desirable. (See WQ:VP#Template:Cite book problems.) Anything in those WP templates that we don't have to change is helpful.
  3. Our template documentation is very inconsistent. Some (like {{cite book}}) use their talk pages for documentation, making it awkward to use those pages for their real purpose. Anything that standardizes critical templates like cite*, provides separate documentation easily created (automatically using "Template:Documentation/docname" to create a link on the template page), and then allows us to use talk pages to discuss working on templates, would be useful.

  Of course, updating our templates also requires updating their transcluding pages, which would be a monumental task for some templates. I think I'll put my money where my mouth is and use this project as an excuse to regain my WQ sea legs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: It should be noted that at Wikipedia w:Template:Template documentation is only a redirect and w:Template:Documentation is the actual template. At Wikipedia there are thousands of pages that use the short name and only a handful that use the long name.

  1. If you want to keep the longer name as a redirect, that is fine. I proposed deleting it because I strongly believe we should not have duplicate copies, for they would surely get out of synch and create problems in the future. Changing it to a redirect would also solve the problem.
  2. Our Template:Documentation is a functionally identical copy of Wikipedia's w:Template:Documentation. The only difference is that I removed the pp-template tag, added a usage note, and categorized it.

  Our template documentation is indeed inconsistent, where it is not missing altogether. It was my intention to use {{Documentation}} to improve the situation. I welcome your interest in contributing to that effort, because I will only be doing it intermittently and gradually. ~ Ningauble 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template, formerly used for tagging uploaded images, is obsolete. Per Wikiquote:Image use policy we only use Wikimedia Commons images, and the only pages using the template are lists of templates. — Ningauble 13:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 13:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 19:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only pages under this category are Template:Fairuse (concurrently nominated for deletion) and pages using it. If that template is not deleted then it should be moved to a maintenance category, and this category should be deleted either way. This nomination also includes the subcategories Category:Fair use images and Category:GFDL images. — Ningauble 14:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - InvisibleSun 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was PROD with reason "No sourced quotes. No quotes by the subject of the article." Tag was removed and more quotes added, along with some references at the bottom. However, there is no indication of where the individual quotes come from so the original reason still applies. Also, however remarkable the player is, the quotes about him are not particularly remarkable themselves for their eloquence or insight. — Ningauble 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This person is not really an appropriate subject for a "theme" page, which is what this amounts to. BD2412 T 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BD2412. - InvisibleSun 00:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and BD2412. -Sketchmoose 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any source backing up the lone attributed quote; even if I could, it's cliche and not worth an entry on the marginally notable person for this single bit of fluff. — BD2412 T 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 00:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TheAE talk 05:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Ningauble 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero sourced quotes. Some of them, if she never said them, are highly violation of BLP (I won't quote the things mentioned). TheAE talk 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequately sourced and pointedly pointless (or pointlessly pointed?). ~ Ningauble 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ningauble. -Sketchmoose 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. BD2412 T 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This article was PROD for reason "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed without curing the defect. The article was tagged for merger more than two years ago (There should not be articles that excerpt lines of fictional characters separate from the works in which they appear.) but, because the lines are unsourced, collating them into the main article is impractical. — Ningauble 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unsourced. TheAE talk 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per American Eagle (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 23:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No sourced quotes, no lead, no links, etc. {{prod}} was added to the article, but was removed. TheAE talk 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 04:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 12:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix if at all possible. Seriously - it's an Academy-Award nominated film. Anyone here seen it? BD2412 T 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a salting this discussion, it is weather this content should be allowed. You are free to work on it if you want. :) TheAE talk 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film , but surely someone can at least stub this. There's no question that we ought to have a page on this film, after all. BD2412 T 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. Presumably this is from the 1974 film or, perhaps more likely, the 2008 film, but I don't have enough information to stub it with confidence. ~ Ningauble 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article was deleted upon discovery that it was a hoax perpetrated by a dubious source back in June 2007. Thus the same should happen here. — Brokenwit 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 07:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing sourced. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Cirt. ~ UDScott 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Cirt. - InvisibleSun 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unidentifiable. ~ Ningauble 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unsourceable. -Sketchmoose 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, and something tells me a fourteenth century Persian poet didn't refer to something as being "ain't worth a dime". — BD2412 T 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. Without citations there is no telling whether such words as "ain't worth a dime" are attributable to translator liberties or are just made-up nonsense. ~ Ningauble 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ningauble. -Sketchmoose 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just garbage. — BD2412 T 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Ningauble 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the only thing memorable about those quotes is my pain at having read them. -Sketchmoose 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No quotes on the page by the actual subject of the page - only quotes about him. Do we want entries like this? — BD2412 T 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I would agree that we should not have pages with only "About" quotes. - InvisibleSun 02:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Fanity of fanities, saith the preacher [or something like that], fanity of fanities; all is fanity." ~ Ningauble 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RyanCross (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth quoting here - page appears to be a juvenile exercise in linking to vulgar terms. — BD2412 T 19:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RyanCross (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Ningauble 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Sketchmoose 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Entry has single quote by a professional golfer. The comment is not remarkable or newsworthy. — FloNight♥♥♥ 12:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; quote is mundane. Might as well quote a semi-notable as saying "I had eggs for breakfast". BD2412 T 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — RyanCross (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BD2412. ~ Ningauble 12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Entry about a self published author. Single quote is unsourced. — FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unsourced quote attributed to a living person. ~ Ningauble 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Entry about a living person; a well known actor and comedian. The entry was started in 2005 without a source for lines from comedy routine. Despite clean up tag, no sources added. — FloNight♥♥♥ 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete entry unless a reference is found in independent source for content by the end of Vfd. Entry can be re-created later if remarkable, sourced content is found. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~ UDScott 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Ningauble 12:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

An entry about a living person; a well known musician. The entry, started in July 2006, is completely unsourced despite a clean up tag added in 2006. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Since the entry has no sourced content, delete unless references for content is added by the end of the Vfd. The length of the content also raises concerns about a possible copyright violation. The entry can be re-created at a later time if remarkable sourced content is found. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fan trivia. - InvisibleSun 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and InvisibleSun. ~ Ningauble 12:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — RyanCross (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy entry about a living person; a chef, TV personality. Very poor sourcing of largely unremarkable quotes. This person might have said something noteworthy, but this entry does not make it evident. I suggest deletion unless the entry is clean up by adding pithy sourced quotes before the Afd closes. — FloNight♥♥♥ 18:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 00:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: about 5% of what's in here looks to be both worthy and potentially sourceable. The rest is just fancruft. 121a0012 02:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - InvisibleSun 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Inadequately sourced quotes from an internet show of dubious notability. This article was kept after a previous vote for deletion on grounds that the show was notable enough for Wikipedia, but Wikipedia later decided it was not. — Ningauble 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote closes: 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 15:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . No independent sources to show that these particular quotes are remarkable. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. TheAE talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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