Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Bigotry


 * 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.  Cbrown1023   talk   00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bigotry
Seems a full copy from this website. All quotes are in PD per se, but the order of those quotes are identical, so I assume it a mere copy from that webpage (Please note the page title is identical with that site, also the way to indicate authors [Only surname or title]). It reminds me French Wikiquote copyvio case and motivate to call for your review. --Aphaia 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. The same thing is applied to other submissions from the same user including Affectation, Anxiety, Associates, Bashfulness, Biography. Unless the website owner (David Mackey, dmackey@dhq.nu) is identical with the user who submitted those articles, I think we should not accept those contributions. The website itself gives us no information about their relation, and there is no info about license.


 * Vote closes: 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep., looks good. Id447 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the website gives us explicit permissions to reuse; I think however we could politely ask him a permission to reuse by email with suggestion he also may reuse our repository under GFDL, if the community think it a good idea. --Aphaia 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should have an article on this topic, even if those four quotes are excised - but really what we need is a bunch more quotes on the topic, and proper sourcing for those four. For a collection of quotes, which are not owned by anyone, copyright ceases to be an issue of our arrangement is different and we offer additional material both with respect to the cited quotes and in the form of additional quotes. I'll go hunt some up. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a few other quotes, sourced and expanded one of the originals, and moved the rest into an unsourced section for now. Will do more in short order. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a result of User:BD2412's work on the page. - InvisibleSun 08:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks fine now.--Poetlister 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that other quotes have been added. ~ UDScott 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Bigotry (that's an uncomfortable statement), now that BD2412 has substantially improved it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that the rest of these articles (and many more) are the work of occasional contributor User:DW, whom I suspect obtained these quotes from Louis Klopsch's Many Thoughts of Many Minds: A Treasury of Quotations from the Literature of Every Land and Every Land (1896), as digitized into PDF format by Google Book Search. (Please read my 31 March posts to User talk:DW for more information.) This is what initiated my village pump discussions on "Copying digitized public domain documents from Google Book Search". It's possible that DW got them from "The Wandering Mind's Quotations Collection" (the parent site of Aphaia's link in the nomination) instead, or that WMQC's creator also obtained them from Google Book Search. In any case, they appear to be the unattributed work of Klopsch. If Wikipedia insists we cite the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica when we use its material, even though it's out of copyright, it seems Wikiquote should expect editors to cite PD sources as well, even if we don't need to worry about permission to use the material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but not as much of an imperative as it is with Wikipedia, which is after all incorporating public domain works of original authorship. Here, the copied material is a collection of quotes, in which the original "author" (i.e. the person who collected the quotes) had no copyright in the first place, and which we can quickly supplement (and in many instances correct) to the point where the original author's work is unrecognizable! BD2412 T 16:12, 17 May 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.