Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Bangface


 * 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. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bangface
I have two grounds: Bangface seems non-notable, and none of the quotes seems remotely worth while.
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)--Cato 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. You might have added lack of verifiability to the charge sheet as well. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Why are promotional slogans on banners notable? Dev920 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain I am the person who entered this page onto Wikiquote, I'm not entirely sure what "non notable" means, but should you want verification of all slogans you should go to bangface gallery and use the rave selector to pick a specific event. All slogans were taken from here. As for none of the quotes seeming remotely worthwhile, this is entirely subjective. While some of the slogans may seem to be obscure, profane or non-sensical, this is entirely down to a lack of familirity with the context in which they appear. In particular, the lifestyle affirmation statements might not mean much to those who do not follow that particular lifestyle, but hold a particular meaning to those who do. For example, HARDCORE UK RAVER, I'M A JUNGLIST, BREAKCORE DANCER and TERRORCORE GIVES ME WIDE ONS will hold particular meaning to those who appreciate, Hardcore, Jungle, Breakcore and Terrorcore.  Lastly I wish to address the challange to whether promotional slogans are notable. Firstly, I would submit that they are not "promotional" as they do not advertise the event in particular, and secondly, should that be rejected, it should be noted that there is an entire section devoted to advertising slogans here: Slogans. On both grounds, as well as the ones listed previously, I would submit that the banner slogans are notable and should remain. Astraboy 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

delete its like a huge advert --McNoddy 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless trimmed to a pithy subset and reliably sourced. Astraboy makes some interesting points. Allow me to address them individually:
 * Verification: We definitely want a means to verify quotes, but the cited webpage is neither independent of the event nor especially notable (Alexa rank > 2.3 million, more obscure than many personal websites we've disallowed in the past). This renders it unreliable by Wikimedia standards.
 * Notability: The subject appears to be arguably notable, but that doesn't automatically mean that we should expect pithy quotes about it. Proper notability evidence would include independent coverage of the event. I note that Wikipedia's article doesn't have any independent sources, either.
 * Worthwhile: Personally, I don't llke that term because it is obviously subjective. I prefer "pithy" — "having substance and point", "tersely cogent", "concise and full of meaning" (per Merriam-Webster Online and Wiktionary). In other words, it says something full of impact and meaning in very few words. I add the qualification of "original", because people are constantly reiterating ideas that have been said by others. In these regards, most of the current quotes have little meaning and are frequently unoriginal. To the expected argument that they mean something special to the participants, Wikiquote does not collect inside jokes and catchphrases for small groups of people. (2000 participants makes for a great party, but not necessarily a Wikiquote article.)
 * Banners and slogan: Wikiquote does not collect these, as a rule. We do indeed have an article on Advertising slogans, but it is a terrible example of a Wikiquote article. The only "quotes" there that are properly sourced are the two I added myself. (Three others claim sources, but none of them are effective.) It's also an excuse to add any ad anyone ever came up with. It should be mercilessly trimmed itself. But one bad article does not justify another.
 * Conflict of interest: Given the quoted slogan "WHERE'S ASTRABOY?", I am also concerned that the editor has a conflict of interest here, and may be trying to promote the event.
 * All of these factors leave me inclined to support deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Jeffq's response. ~ UDScott 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Wikiquote shouldn't be a place for pages that are meaningful only to initiated cliques. For each of our readers, there will always be many pages of no particular interest; no page, however, should be like a door barred to entry.  - InvisibleSun 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retain Jeff, thanks for answering my questions. Its worth stating that I am not trying to promote the event, I am a writer who's specialism is dance music events, but I have no particular affiliation with the event in question, proof of which can be seen in my work which can be viewed here Rave reviews. The "WHERES ASTRABOY?" slogan was actually showcased at an event that I was not at and was brought by a member of the public and not one of the organisers.

As well as that, I wish to address the accusation that the slogans are of no particular interest. I submit that ALL quotes are of no particular interest to those who are not interested in the subject matter. For exampleTop_Gear The Stigs entry is completely impenetrable to those who have not watched top gear after series 3, yet it is inlcuded. Quotes by there very nature need context and will lack meaning unless they do. With this in mind I will endeavour to reliably source every quote I have inlcuded. It may take a while, but it'll be worth it.

Its also worth noting that this is my first ever wikiquote and wikipedia entry and as such I freely admit that it needs tidying up a little. With that in mind, I would like an opportunity to reliably source and subcatagorise the entries I have made as I believe they are valid entries and should remain in line with what Jeffq said, I.E. ''' unless trimmed to a pithy subset and reliably sourced. ''' I'll do my best and hopefully it will be acceptable to you all. Astraboy
 * NOTE: above vote struck as duplicate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Astraboy, I'm afraid that, in Top Gear, you cite yet another good example of a bad Wikiquote article, of which there are many. If we had 10 or 20 times the regular editors we currently have, we'd no doubt find many of these articles trimmed and edited to standards or deleted, but we must work with the resources we have. Thank you in advance for your efforts. I'm not sure they'll save the article, but I'll be sure to check in later to see the results and figure if a compelling argument, based on those standards, can be made to keep it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Poetlister 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retain Jeff, I am still interested in saving the article by ammending it to acceptable standards, yet the articles I have cited dont seem to be acceptable to your standards. Would you be able to point me in the direction of an article of an acceptable standard so I can base any ammendments using it as a yardstick? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Astraboy
 * NOTE: above vote struck as duplicate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Astraboy, I have struck two of your three votes because each user is only permitted a single vote. I assume you mistakenly thought that continuing dialog required some kind of bold position when started, but this is not how it works. If you have additional comments, you should simply post them after the latest comments, as I am doing for yours. Use colons to indent your posts — one colon per indentation — to set them off from others' comments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to give you a suitable recommended article because, as far as I can recall, we have no other "event" articles. It's hard to imagine even globally famous events producing worthwhile quotes, as opposed to mere banners or slogans, but if they could, they would likely be sourceable in the mainstream press, or the trade press for an appropriate genre. To give you an idea of the difference between reliably sourced and "unsourced", consider Eric Shinseki. That article currently has 2 quotes sourced from major publications, one sourced from a Defense Department documentation website, and one from Senate testimony that is considered "unsourced" because, although it gives the venue and the date, it provides no published source for this information. A reliable source must be a specific document published by a professionally edited or otherwise well-respected publisher. (See w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more details.) In the case of an event like this, the logical sources would be well-known papers like The Times, entertainment-industry magazines, or the like. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Retain Please?! Bye bye Bangface Wikiquote FRAGOR FACIES NUNQUAM EMORIT
 * Struck 3rd duplicate of vote, after explicit statement not to make these duplicate votes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (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.