Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Alan O. Ebenstein

Alan O. Ebenstein
Questionable notability without Wikipedia article. — Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment : This political scientist and writer has authored and co-authored a series of article and books, which are cited in 250+ works (according to Google Scholar), and is used as reference in about 20 Wikipedia articles. This person seems notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking this into consideration, I created the Wikipedia lemma on to connect the dots. After doing so and starting to comment here, I only then noticed, that Alan Ebenstein is quoted in almost 40 lemma's here on Wikiquote as well... and this is not necessarily a good thing. It raises some concerns of its own: The thing is, that Ebenstein is writing, what in Wikipedia is called "secondary sources". And the way there is quoted from the (secondary) sources is questionable, for example in the situation like this. One would expect either a quote from Hayek on prediction, or a quote by Ebenstein on Hayek, but not a quote on how according to Ebenstein Hayek interpretes prediction. But this not the issue here. I think there is sufficient reason for a Wikiquote lemma on Alan O. Ebenstein. -- Mdd (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not necessarily a good thing. Writing biographies, surveys, and summaries of prominent and quotable thinkers does not necessarily make one a prominent and quotable thinker. This is just textbook material. Such texts are certainly valuable resources for students and scholars, who may be expected to cite them, but this is not what I would expect to find in a compendium of notable quotations. (I myself have added a few quotations from textbooks – texts written by seminal figures expressing novel ideas or perspectives, not surveys and summaries that discuss and quote them. I am frustrated that when the pertinence of whether something is a seminal work is not apparent to other contributors, attempting to point out why a textbook is seminal may be taken as mere puffery[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_Lie_with_Statistics&diff=1854247] or irrelevancy[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Knuth&diff=1855514]. I think it is highly pertinent to distinguishing between the noteworthy and the mundane.) Is this not the issue here? The issue has been framed as one of Notability, in the sense used at Wikipedia, but Wikiquote should consider also the issue of Quotability. Remarks about remarkable people and ideas are sometimes remarkably quoteworthy themselves, but not necessarily so. These, I think, are not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a now an appropriately referenced Wikipedia article showing notability. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that the notability has been established (and a WP page created). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who quotes this stuff? ("Hayek’s idea was that...", "Hayek’s thought did not emerge in a vacuum...", "This was the basic question that Hayek sought to answer...", "Hayek thought that...", "Hayek did not always absorb...", "Hayek did not believe...", "Hayek noted the association...", "It is likely that Hayek was influenced...", "Hayek never really departed from...", "Hayek emphasized the importance...", & etc. – not random or cherry-picked, these are from the first ten quotes in the article.) Questions of notability notwithstanding, these pedagogical (not to say pedantic) and biographical ("During his last years, he had periods of more and less lucidity") observations do not appear to have the requisite Quotability to be included in a compendium of notable quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can answer your first question. User:Y-S.Ko has added quotes by Alan O. Ebenstein in about 47 Wikiquote lemma's (see here). I have been unable to determine if there have been others beside User:Y-S.Ko. -- Mdd (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously Wikiquote does, or we would not be discussing it. I meant to ask who else, but it was really a rhetorical question. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep · Though I doubt that there is ever likely going to be a huge demand for Alan O. Ebenstein quotes, I tend to favor inclusion and broad ranges of appeal, especially in regard to scholars on various subjects, rather than exclusions and narrow criteria of acceptance here. Such tends to be far more discouraging to interest or activities than broad inclusion does, I believe. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) + tweak
 * Comment: (1) When I created this page, I thought that Alan O. Ebenstein is notable enough to be included on Wikiquote, even though he was not in Wikipedia. When I created Eisuke Sakakibara, who does not have Wikipedia article, I thought 'Is he really notable?' However, even though Wikipedia is really great enclycopedia, Wikipedia is not perfect. There are some notable figures who is not included in Wikipeida. However, is this a problem, when creating Wikiquote page? (2) Originally, these quotations is in Friedrich Hayek page. When it reaches 285,947 bytes, I thought this is too big size. Therefore, I moved quotes in Friedrich Hayek into various page. Alan O. Ebenstein article is therefore created. Therefore, It is natural that there are a lot of quotations about Hayek. Ningauble said quotations are too concentrated in Hayek. I don't think it is a problem. I think it is independent page-Friedrich Hayek-increased size-version of Friedrich Nietzsche, or Alan Ebenstein-Friedrich Hayek version of Gilles Deleuze. In the Gilles Deleuze article, you can see "One of the principal motifs of Nietzsche’s work is that...", "This is Nietzsche’s twofold struggle...", "Nietzsche’s break with Schopenhauer...". Are these quotations problematic? I don't think so. (3) "During his last years, he had periods of more and less lucidity..." is really biographical. However, I included this, becuase of the feeling like: 'O, this "the greatest political philosopher of liberty during the twentieth century" goes weak..., and dead', I think this feeling is like phrase such as 人生無常 or 生者必滅, (I use Chinese phrase, because I am not accustomed to English expression.) Of course, feeling is subjective, not objective. I think it is quotable because of this feeling. However, it is possible that only I feel like that... Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say the quotations are too concentrated in Hayek. The objection is that they merely survey and summarize Hayek's thought. What analysis may be found here is just ordinary and unremarkable academic overview, and is not the sort of thing that would ever be found in something like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. On your last point: numerous authors have penned quotably wise and poignant words about declining intellect among the elderly, but this is just a matter of fact observation of a commonplace occurrence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Undoubtedly a notable person with non-trivial quotes. I believe that the "Bartlett" criterion is too rigorous and would lead to a large proportion of this site being deleted.--Abramsky (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding any debate about of how trivial they may be, I strongly disagree with any implication that "non-trivial" equates to "Quotability".
 * I am not convinced that these quotes are even "non-trivial". Take the first item for example: it begins with a trivial cliché (boldfaced as if it were a remarkably memorable statement) and, forget Bartlett's, I find no evidence that anybody other than Wikiquote actually quotes this. It goes on to say "part of the goal here, particularly in the early chapters, is to trace the intellectual background of his work". Simply stating what the book is about is quintessentially trivial.
 * Is this a collection of notable quotes, or is it a book review? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that there is to much bolding of quotes and bits of quotes around here. Maybe we can have a rule that only really highly notable quotes, or well-known extracts from longer quotes, can be bolded.--Abramsky (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable individual, albeit some quotes are boring in scholarly way. But that can be resolved by editing, so no need for deletion. jni (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)