Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Birthplace of Gautama Buddha

--Abramsky (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace of Gautama Buddha
This page reads more like an encyclopedic entry - the only quotes that appear are merely dry descriptions from history and not memorable quotes. — UDScott (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 21:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It is not Wikiquote's purpose to collect mundane comments claiming factual assertions. That is very much the task of an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment :  There is a peculiar situation here, that the initial article was (partly) copy/pasted from the Wikipedia entry w:Birthplace of Gautama Buddha, which is shaped more or less like a Wikiquote page. I do think that quotes about the Birthplace of Buddha could be considered a notable topic, especially if they origin from notable scientists. At the moment the two are too much a like. -- Mdd (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In response the article is rearranged completely (see here) into Wikiquote format. It now shows that there are quotes of (at least) two notable scholars present. -- Mdd (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Gautama's Birthplace is a controversial topic. The Wiki-page was created to provide extensive quotes, yet does not fit into the Wiki-format. Using Wiki-quotes was an 'experiment', but apparently doesn't work either. Maybe I should try extensive notes. Friendly regards, 83.83.22.78 05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced your experiment doesn't work, or just need some more work. As to the Wikipedia article, a basic question is whether or not the dispute about the birthplace of Gautama Buddha is a theme in scientific literature. If not then the theme in Wikipedia should be considered original research (and probably will be deleted sooner or later). In Wikiquote it is important, that the thematic subject is part of quotes, which are quoted in other sources. In my opinion every thematic article should at least have one or more lines, which are quoted by other scientists. In this matter, those quotes should consist of the phrase (close to) "Birthplace of Gautama Buddha" and/or "Buddha's Birthplace". A quick search at Google books and Google Scholar reveals, that there seem to be enough books and articles, that use that phrase. -- Mdd (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The creator of the Wikipedia article states on its talk page that it was created as "an 'appendix', not an 'independent' article." Regardless of whether so much detail is needed at Wikipedia, Wikiquote is not an appendix to Wikipedia, and ought not be treated as an overflow bin for reference materials that do not fit an encyclopedic summary style. It is not Wikiquote's purpose to document facts and opinions about some notable subject, but to collect quotations that are famous in their own right or that that exhibit strong qualities of "quotability" consistent with the perspective that "viewed in the right light quotations are sparkling gems of wisdom in a handful of well-chosen words." Regarding contention or "controversy" among various authorities, I stand by what I said about another article: "Some of the greatest quotes of all time are disputatious, but most points in dispute are not quoteworthy." ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I stand by my above saying that "quotes about the Birthplace of Buddha (or any other thematic topic) could be considered a notable topic, especially if they origin from notable scientists..." especially if they are cited or referred to in other scientific sources. Now in response to Ningauble's arguments, the creator of the article's clearly states here that his intention is to "provide extensive quotes". In my opinion this is the factual situation of what Wikiquote is about. Much of what Wikiquote is offering can be considered an appendix to Wikipedia... or in other words it can be considered an appendix to the subject at hand and what has been written about it in notable sources. Wikiquote is about a lot more than just about "Some of the greatest quotes of all time". -- Mdd (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not twist my words. I did not say Wikiquote should be "just about 'Some of the greatest quotes of all time'." I said its purpose is "to collect quotations that are famous in their own right or that that exhibit strong qualities of 'quotability'." The point of my closing remark was that controversy about the subject has no bearing, one way or the other, on whether a given quotation about the subject exhibits any quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are avoiding the obvious here, that the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, and the theme "Birthplace of Gautama Buddha" or "Buddha's Birthplace" is topic of significant scientific coverage. I am sorry that you also are not responding to the arguments, I am presenting here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring your argument. Far from it, I was responding with a counter argument in good faith. In particular, I was elaborating on why the points by UDScott and BD2412 above override the assumption that notability of the subject, or diversity of opinions about it, makes dry statements of fact or opinion inherently quoteworthy. It seems that you just have a different idea of what "quotability" means. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree with UDScott, that this lemma should be more then "merely dry descriptions from history and not memorable quotes". I also agree with BD2412 that "it is not Wikiquote's purpose to collect mundane comments claiming factual assertions." And I agree about most of the WQ:Q, and that (most) of the quotes included should meet these guideline.
 * As to the interpretation of these guidelines, I think the second quote by Peter Harvey and the quote by Hans Wolfgang Schumann are already more then dry descriptions. There is an indication of some significant coverage in scientific literature, and there are other sources that could be considered here. For example, if I am not mistaken Herman Hesse's Siddhartha makes some literal suggestions about the birthplace. And there should be more literal sources.
 * I am just saying, that I think this is a subject, which could work here under the specific conditions stipulated here. I think we should give the creator and others a change to work on it. If it doesn't work, let's just nominate the article again next year. -- Mdd (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, essentially per, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say I keep my doubts, especially about who is prepared to improve this lemma. Or at least give it a try. -- Mdd (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - or transwiki to Wikiversity - if these quotations are considered useful for research purposes to someone I guess they could belong there. --Aphorist (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)