Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Amy Pond

This is the clear preference, though in accordance with my own vote I hope an admin will transfer some of the quotes to another article.--Abramsky (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Amy Pond
This article violates the letter and the spirit of the guideline for Fictional characters and, as it stands, exceeds the Limits on quotations (more so when considered in combination with other articles on the franchise such as "Eleventh Doctor"). A proposal to merge this article into Doctor Who article(s) by episode was recently removed with the rationale that "The article has matured".[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Pond&diff=1737415] The proposal received little discussion at Talk:Doctor Who, where there was a call to vote on Fictional characters. A vote was subsequently held, and it was adopted as an official guideline with only one dissenter. I do not agree that the article has matured in terms of incorporating suitable content under the WQ:FC guideline. Rather, it has only grown to include more quotes from the program series than fit, under WQ:LOQ, in existing articles on the programs in which the character appears. — Ningauble (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. We should not have articles devoted to quoting fictional sidekicks. Tonto rides with The Lone Ranger. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Mdd This VfD seem to address multiple issues:
 * Concerning the violation of the spirit of the guideline for Fictional characters, this might be the exception to the rule. The particular guideline could also be outdated.
 * Concerning the possible violation of the Limits on quotations, if just this is the case, the article(s) could be trimmed down.
 * Concerning the closer of the merge proposals, which was made 3 years ago, in other Wiki's merge proposals are dealt with in a few weeks or months, and this seems like a good example to follow. Let us remove the extensive backlog here.
 * Concerning the particular closer, its only fair to admit that the article indeed matures (in the past three years).
 * All together I don't see any reason why this particular article should be deleted. If you are against all sub-articles, it only seems fair that you list them all together. -- Mdd (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding these several points:
 * I don't think the guideline is very dated: it was voted less than two years ago. A proposal to modify the guideline would always be in order on its talk page.
 * Yes, limits on quotations can be addressed by trimming; but one of the original motivations for the FC guideline is that it is highly impractical to maintain good trim when there are multiple pages with overlapping coverage of the same work. This is not the only motivation for the policy, about which I will post more in a separate comment below.
 * Thank you for working on the merger backlog, where many items have lingered for years. Please don't be discouraged if some of them give rise to disagreements.
 * I will say more in a separate comment below about what I mean by maturing into a theme article as contemplated by WQ:FC. I recognize that you feel the article has improved since it was tagged, but I think it is still unsatisfactory.
 * Regarding your closing remark, I am not sure whether nominating just this one that was contested is more or less fair than making a bulk nomination, but it is certainly fair to note that the outcome of this case may set precedent that directly impacts several other articles in the above linked franchise category. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This debate seems to come down to the question, whether or not the 2009 guideline on Fictional characters should be followed to the letter? Some observations:
 * This guideline is developed in 2009 by Cirt, BD2412, and Ningauble, and approved by three more participants in 2012
 * This guideline goes against the development on Wikipedia to create numerous lemma's on fictional characters, of which there are at least 5000+ articles, see here ...
 * ... and this guideline especially puts a stop on a possible similar further development of Wikiquote...
 * ... while this further development could be an interesting supplement for more lemma's on (for example) TV series which are becoming too long.
 * Now the Amy Pond lemma is part of a series 13 lemma's on fictional characters, and of a series 25 sub-articles of the Doctor Who television program, gathered in the Template:Doctor Who. In the past years dozens of people have contributed to these articles, all against the Fictional characters.


 * Now I am not saying the guideline is obsolete, I am wondering if it should be upgraded to a policy or abolished. In this particular matter i think it should be fair to inform more people involved, what is at stake here. Creating a bulk nomination might be a more fair way of doing so. -- Mdd (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep — I agree with Mdd that the policy guideline or its use or misuse needs to undergo far more maturing or elimination than this article does. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. In making this vote, I am not calling for anything more restrictive than we already have (the current guideline suffices I believe), but I just don't see the need for such a page. If there are good quotes to be listed for this (or other) character, why can't they be listed with the work from which this character comes? I also do not see the need to repeat quotes on multiple pages. I would simply turn this page into a redirect for the show. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that the guideline, even as drafted in the early stages of Wikiquote, had recognized exceptions, and I don't see a need for removing or forbidding such pages — and much detriment to it. They provide a means for fans of particular works of fiction in various media to more easily find notable quotes by characters within a work, or a wide range of works, in which episodes or even the media used might not be known, by seekers of certain quotes, or types of quotes. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC) + tweak


 * Delete. I think that it is very important to explain why this is a bad thing. To read the article, one would think that there was a person named Amy Pond who said all of the things that are reported on the page. In fact, there is an actress named Karen Gillan who said these things, but did not originate them; there are many screenwriters who in fact authored those things, but on the page, only a single one of these is identified, in connection with a single quote. To the extent that the page fails to indicate the actual authors of virtually all of the quotes, it is not at all "mature" by the standards of a compendium of quotations. Furthermore, as much as we might chafe against copyright laws, they do exist and they do apply to us. Having pages for the characters of a work that are separate from pages on the work itself substantially increases the danger or running afoul of those laws. BD2412 T 01:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly encourage fuller citation of authors of episodes of television shows, as well as air dates, but do not believe it an absolute imperative for all quotes of all such shows. To read the above assertions, one would think that there were a great many people so ignorant as to be inclined to easily mistake Amy Pond for a real person. A strong rebuke of such arguments comes simply by quoting the lead intro:
 * Amelia Jessica "Amy" Pond is a fictional character portrayed by Karen Gillan in the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who. At the start of Series 5, Amy becomes the primary traveling companion of the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor, later joined by her fiance Rory Williams, whom she marries at the close of Series 5.
 * IF anyone is so mentally incompetent as to come to such assumptions as are argued above, when the lead intro of the page clearly states the above summation of this character, they might be unintelligent enough to accept the above arguments as entirely realistic and valid, and even a strong reason for its removal, rather than nearly as much an unrealistic fantasy as the character herself. I also do not accept as genuinely realistic concerns that it "substantially increases the danger or running afoul of copyright laws" that a few more quotes might incidentally be added to some pages that might go beyond what I consider the somewhat overly restrictive guidelines and overly zealous impositions of these guideline suggestions AS IF they were actual legal MANDATES, as a very few people persistently tend to treat them, with very few exceptions, such as recently suggested at Talk:Casablanca (film) for the film Casablanca. As I indicated there, the zealous application of suggested guidelines towards the reduction of notable quotes from that movie and a few others has always appalled me. There it is noted that the 20 quotes exceed the 9 quotes suggested by the guidelines — so the PRETENSIONS that such guidelines as exist represent anything close to limits actually mandated by legitimate concerns about copyright are exposed as illusory. They are primarily indications of such preferences as have been indicated by a few people most inclined to IMPOSE their preferences on others, and are inclined to promote pretensions that such preferences ARE or SHOULD be mandated, for legal reasons. Practically, they do make good suggestions, but legally there is clearly MUCH more room for growth beyond them than they imply. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I agree with BD2412 that it is important to consider the why of it. By simply citing WQ:FC in my nomination without elaborating upon reasons for it, it was not my intention to say the reason is just because it is a guideline, but to keep the nomination succinct. I fully expected that discussion of underlying rationales would ensue. Kalki's observation that the subject is clearly identified as a fictional entity is literally true, but I think there is a subtler sense in which BD2412's point about the semblance of a person is actually quite significant. In contemplating why someone felt inspired to devote an article to this fictional element but not to, e.g., the Doctor's sonic screwdriver, I feel it may relate to this element having the semblance of a person – an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective that would not be appropriate for a theme article about a fictional element and that gives the semblance of quoting from a person. Quotes from a fictional work are better contextualized in an article on that work – a view once held by Kalki, which suggests it is not an entirely inconceivable one. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into the appropriate Doctor article.--Abramsky (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you fail to realize that some of the Doctor articles themselves could be endangered or even more easily eliminated by the precedent such a deletion as this, and a tacit acceptance of what I believe to be an improper policy could set. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't understand the need for this page. If good quotes can be found, those can be moved to the "Doctor Who" page.--Bramfab (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I continue to be appalled at the refrain of some that this should be deleted simply because they see no "need" for such a page, probably because they have little interest in the subject or the conveniences found in this and other such pages by those who do. There is much in the inclinations and capacities of others to restrict and constrain the options of others that I certainly see little or no need for, nor good use for, and yet actually recognize it can be proper for others to indicate, in whatever means they wish to — and for me to oppose by whatever means are just and proper, within a devotion to Liberty. In the general processes of life, and not only on this wiki, I actually DO see much need for the liberty of having others indicate whatever levels of callousness, stupidity, apathy and indifference towards the desires or conveniences of others they might be inclined to manifest — and within their limited ranges of interests or concerns for preferring restrictions on the activities and options of others that do not actually seem to benefit them and their own immediate interests and concerns, but I certainly do NOT and CANNOT agree with many such arguments or reasons as they are likely to propose as justifications of such restrictions. The layouts that have been developing and are still developing for all the Doctor Who related pages are such as fans of the series find convenient and useful.


 * This page begins with what I regard as the very presumptive and strongly biased and somewhat misleading assertion:
 * "This article violates the letter and the spirit of the guideline for Fictional characters and, as it stands, exceeds the Limits on quotations (more so when considered in combination with other articles on the franchise such as "Eleventh Doctor"). "


 * In response to this I must assert:


 * This proposal to remove this page does not violate, but certainly challenges, undermines and DENIGRATES the principles of providing options for variety of expositions with which wikis are founded, and permitting those most interested in subjects from contributing with minimal prior restriction. This "Fictional characters policy", as it stands is something I agree with Mdd to be obsolete, and assert to be in far more need of amendment and alteration than there is for the Amy Pond page to be eliminated, or ANY of the other pages for the various incarnations of the The Doctor or his companions in the widely popular and acclaimed series Doctor Who to be reduced or eliminated. As I have already pointed out the current "the limitations on quotations policy" as it stands is something I hold to be far more easily misused for suppression of ideas than something which actually realistically gauges or asserts legal or ethical imperatives.


 * There is much more I am considering whether to say or not, but I will state that I believe there are certainly MANY points that are being overlooked or severely distorted in the push to remove this and other pages. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

You state: "This page has not matured into a theme article with "noteworthy quotes and comments on the fictional character" from notable authors, scholars, fiction critics, etc." That might be the case, but it will certainly NOT have a ANY chance to do so, IF it is eliminated, and I certainly do NOT believe that such should be an absolute demand or expectation in regard to any or our pages on fictional characters or fictional works — though I, much more than many, tend to welcome quotations from such commentaries. In response to some of the observations you have made, implying that these would be desirable I will state that I am quite willing to go about collecting more quotes from various sources regarding the role of Amy Pond and other characters in the series, and within general society, in the months ahead. Doctor Who episodes and works have been around for over 50 years, and I do not believe it excessive at all to have pages for major fictional characters from it among our pages. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on dissecting fictional elements: We ordinarily have pages devoted to quotes from persons and works, and to quotes about themes; but this article is a horse of a different color. This page has not matured into a theme article with "noteworthy quotes and comments on the fictional character" from notable authors, scholars, fiction critics, etc. (Note that there are quotations about the programme at Doctor Who, which has not grown so large as to need subdivision into topic articles.) Nor is this a case of aggregating quotes from a body of distinct works that are better treated together than as separate titles. We already have articles covering all of the programme's series and episodes. Rather, this is a case of dissecting quotes from a work  based on items of interest within the work. It is not our business to dissect works, and I strongly feel that this sort of fragmentation of the work, which is a real thing, based on fictional elements, which are not, is very poor form for Wikiquote. I would be truly appalled if articles on my favorite literary works were hacked apart in like manner. This is why I feel WQ:FC is important. It is also poor form to introduce the article with a synopsis of fictional events and relationships. Wikiquote is not for expositions about a work, but for noteworthy quotations from it. This is not to say Doctor Who is not a substantial body of very fine work that can sustain all sorts of different treatments. There are plenty of fan websites, such as the Doctor Who Wiki, a.k.a. "Tardis Data Core", where dissection, analysis, and synthesis are the order of the day. Wikiquote is not one of them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also no doubt numerous sites that can indulge and even promote many tendencies to presume maturity or superiority by many forms and manner of rule-making to constrain or eliminate the options of others to provide diverse forms of contributions to human knowledge and amusement, but I will be a bit more moderate and less imperious than you in stating that I do not believe Wikiquote should be one of them. Despite the increasing numbers of growing cliques of people who have developed inclinations to indulge, develop and maintain such imperiously dictatorial tendencies among the Wikimedia wikis, including Wikiquote — such tendencies are not those that I believe genuinely mature and responsible people should ever welcome.


 * Keep, out-of-process nomination. We have many FC pages. The WQ:FC guideline is not a policy. Apparently, Ningauble isn't confident that he can convince the community to turn it into policy, so he is trying to subvert the process by submitting just this article for deletion, though he plans on using this to get all the other pages deleted too. Perhaps we shouldn't have FC pages, but that is a discussion to be had by the community at Village Pump, not here. A little more transparency would be nice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "out-of-process" in this sequence of events: I tagged the article for merger and initiated discussion on the main article talk page, some time later the merge proposal was [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Pond&diff=1737415 "closed"] by removing the template, and I then appealed the action here. Had the closer marked the merge discussion itself as closed and removed the merge tags in bulk, I might have considered appealing with a bulk nomination. I only appealed the action that was taken. This is an entirely appropriate use of the voting process to resolve disagreements. Nor has there been any lack of transparency. The merge proposal was widely advertised by Kalki and when, in the meanwhile, WQ:FC was being discussed and adopted it was not by any means a secret or hasty procedure. In my nominating statement I did not make any secret of the multiple articles proposed to be merged, I linked to the merge discussion which names them. Nor am I using subversive means to change the status or content of the WQ:FC guideline. As UDScott says above, this is "not calling for anything more restrictive than we already have". If you are concerned that I am acting in [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Amy_Pond&curid=156117&diff=1739179 bad faith] then you may wish to initiate a vote of confidence. If one is looking for subversive conduct lacking transparency in handling merge proposals for related articles, consider [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daleks&diff=1185789 this edit], one of many posted with a misleading edit summary using a sockpuppet account. That user has already been through a vote of confidence. If, on the other hand, you want to revise or repeal the WQ:FC guideline then by all means post a proposal at Wikiquote talk:Fictional characters and advertise it at the Village Pump, as was done when the guideline was initially adopted. Many FC pages have been merged or deleted and, as you say, many remain. I think most remain because it is rather tedious to clean them up and it is very tedious to have to entertain generalizations about freedom of expression and baseless accusations of misconduct. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I strongly disagree with it, I will state that I certainly believe that you are not guilty of any extreme misconduct in making the proposal and are probably sincere in most of your statements which imply belief that you are doing a service to the wiki in making many of your own observations and assessments — which I believe sometimes are themselves aimed at implying various forms of apparent misconduct or ill intentions of others. I believe some of DanielTom's accusations are somewhat ill-considered, as are some which you have sometimes endorsed or made.
 * I will also state that though I certainly objected to the merge proposal and considered ways to increase attention to it, and to lead other to reject it, I hardly consider any comments on most pages on this wiki for "procedural discussions" to be genuinely "wide advertisement" of ANYTHING, something I know that those most accustomed to the relative apathy and ignorance of most have long exploited to their short-term or long-term advantages, in creating some significant "policy statements" which I find profoundly objectionable, and in defiance and contempt of some of the most significant founding principles of the Wikimedia wikis, such as a promotion of liberty in editing, which are indeed sometimes apparently objected to by some in ways that imply them to be relatively "irrelevant" generalities which need not even be mentioned much. '''I certainly believe that they should be mentioned, often and vigorously, so as to provide regular contrasts and comparisons of various ranges of actions and aims.
 * I am quite aware that there are aspects of my own past and present behavior by which dimwits, dullards, and relatively innocent and uninformed or misinformed people of many sorts, motivated by diverse impulses, ranging from the extremely petty to the genuinely ethical, might attempt to imply or insist in the past or present I have been attempting to heavily disguise some of my actions, when any thorough examination or familiarity with past events will reveal that MANY aspects of such purported "attempts" were hardly disguised or hidden at all, to anyone with any familiarity with the OBVIOUS traceability of wiki edits. Anyone extensively knowledgeable of the actual circumstances involved would recognize them as not so much attempts to "hide" my involvements in some things, as rather vigorous and overt efforts to CONFRONT and DEFY what I considered UNJUST demands or expectations and to reveal unrecognized complexities and contradictions in the assumptions and assertions of others — a process which I have, as yet, rarely pursued with anything like the vigor and extensive complexities of involvement which I am capable of manifesting.
 * I consider any petty and paltry attempts to present many past incidents AS IF they were significant evidence or even proof of "malice" or ill-will on my part as rather pathetic, but beyond the simple stating of this fact, I have little inclination as to elaborate as to any of the reasons as to precisely why I believe this, at the present time. I know that it would be far more complicated to prove some of my assertions than it is presently worth my own or anyone else's time to extensively attend to, and prefer to move on to more immediate and growing concerns about current and future events and potentials. I believe that deletion of this or any of the other pages on the imaginative and popular series Doctor Who, and the characters which exist in it would be a very unfortunate, embarrassing, and ultimately overturned error of judgement. These pages also provide places for multi-media expositions of quotes of the characters, and some of the pages of Doctor Who characters I believe have already begun to be used in this way, though I have not actively been involved in adding such materials. I much prefer adding more such pages to increase the involvement and interest of fans of Doctor Who than to reduce such pages as to reduce opportunities for their interest and involvement. That about sums up a major point of my position. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)