Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Alexander Ovechkin

Alexander Ovechkin
Nothing sourced and nothing worth keeping. - InvisibleSun 04:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 04:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Cirt's efforts. - InvisibleSun 23:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unremarkable, unsourced and not needed quotes. – RyanCross (talk ) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, because of 's improvements. Good job. :-) – RyanCross (talk ) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per save. BD2412 T 08:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Did a bit of work and research on this one. I removed all of the unsourced quotes. I added a Sourced section, with six quotes, and also added an About section with six quotes. Added in some external links, and also a free-use image from Wikimedia Commons. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - strikes again! ~ UDScott 14:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a "speedy" keep - from my view, that implies that the nomination was faulty. BD2412 T 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the term speedy keep is meant to signify that improvements made to the page make it an obvious case to be kept, and there is really no longer a need for the full review period. It does not make any comment on the original nomination (the original condition of the page defintiely justified its nomination). We have used this before with success. ~ UDScott 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is the effect? If there are a bunch of speedy keep votes, are we to close the VfD summarily? BD2412 T 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what we did in the past - in such a situation where it is obvious that the page will be kept. If this approach is deemed not the way we want to do things, so be it, but I was just using the term as it had been used in the past. If we want to revert to letting the full voting period expire, I'm fine with that too. It was just a way to clear some of the clutter on this pag, when there are obvious keeps. ~ UDScott 14:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a snowball clause allowing us to close votes early when it's obvious how they'll turn out? My thinking on this is that even a "fixed" article (i.e. one for which the previously unsourced quotes have been sourced) does not automatically merit inclusion, if the subject is not particularly quotable and the quotes are not particularly strong. Not saying that about this one, per se, but I still wouldn't call it a "speedy" keep. BD2412 T 15:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems to of interest primarily for fans. I am not one, and don't quite see what is quotable about these remarks. Remarkable player to be sure, but are these remarkable remarks? ~ Ningauble 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Did a bit more research, and added an additional 15 quotes: 9 quotes to the Sourced section, and 6 more to the About section. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)