Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Brent Musburger


 * 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. BD2412 T 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Brent Musburger
This article about a sportscaster was prod because "No sourced quotes." The tag was removed with a comment that "Quotes are sourced the broadcast of the named sporting event..." It should be noted that identifying the occasion of a remark is not the same as citing a durable publication where it can be looked up. A second concern with this article is quotability. The events described may have been remarkable, but the remarks themselves are unremarkable. The situation would be different if they were quoted in secondary sources showing that they are quotably famous quotes. (Compare Votes for deletion/Mike Lange, where such sources were cited.) — Ningauble 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * With regard to the first issue, that seems odd to me that something uttered clearly on national television, with tapes thereof in existence, would be considered unsourced. But if that's the case, then so be it.  But so that I have better understanding ... does that mean that the TV show quote pages (e.g. So You Think You Can Dance) are also not acceptable  You cannot look up those quotes in "durable publications" either; for those, you'd also need to watch the tape. (Note: I'm not defending the page with a "But THEY'RE doing it!!" defense.  If the answer is "those pages should be deleted also; we just haven't gotten around to it yet", then OK. No further argument here. I'm just asking if that is indeed the case, or if there actually is perhaps some significant difference between the two that I didn't recognize. My not knowing which it is is why I'm just commenting/questioning, but not actually voting either way.)


 * With regard to the second issue, I had every expectation that the list would probably lose most of its entries eventually because of this. In fact, I was going to work on culling it myself.  But since I didn't expect the whole page to be immediately deleted (I cannot imagine why the famous "Holy Buckeye" quote, for example, would be deemed not to meet quotability), I was just going to finish with the formatting first before getting to that.  If indeed it is correct to just delete the whole page right now on the basis of the first concern alone, though, then of course, it won't make sense to continue with what I was doing, so I won't bother. Mwelch 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to quotes from game broadcasts if there were some durably archived recording of the game that I could click over to. In this case, however, how do you know that what is on the page is actually what was said? BD2412 T 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mwelch, there's a difference between citing an episode of a TV series, which is the work in and of itself, and using an event as the basis of your citation of a broadcast about that event. When told that a certain quote is contained in an episode of So You Think You Can Dance, I know that if I obtain a copy of that episode, that is where I can find the quote.  With the article in question, I have no way of tracking the footage down.  Which video footage of Game 5 of the 1976 NBA Finals has that quote in it?  Any footage broadcast on any network?  Obviously not.  As-is, I have no way of tracking down those broadcasts.  So, yes, the quotes are uncited, and no, the quotes on the So You Think You Can Dance page are not uncited.   -Sketchmoose 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely fair point. But that issue is easily rectifiable by simply indicating the network. That's not at all difficult to do; I just hadn't thought of it. I'll add those, if that will make a difference. As for needing durable, clickable archived footage, again, as best I can tell, that doesn't seem to be a requirement on other pages of quotes that come from television broadcasts. Mwelch 23:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, I added to each of the NBA ones that it was from the CBS broadcast. Does that adequately address the concern about the basic ability of someone to track down the footage? Mwelch 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you been able to track down publicly available footage yourself? (On the rare occasions when I quoted from broadcasts myself, I linked to official transcripts and/or program archives.) ~ Ningauble 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking "publicly available" or "linkable" footage. Why would that be required? Is there a policy that says the source doesn't count if you can't click to it? If so, then, as I've noted, I was misled by the myriad of other quotes on other pages here that are in violation of that policy.  If the policy is that none of those are actually acceptable, then I would agree that these are not acceptable and would not dispute deleting this page. So again I ask: is that the policy? Mwelch 08:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Going off the policy of Wikipedia, since ours is still pretty vague and we tend to reference Wikipedia policies where ours are incomplete, the references don't need to be immediately verifiable. Paper publications and "subscription required" content are acceptable references for Wikipedia, and would not be "clickable".  The references do have to be traceable—reasonably findable by another person.  It seems to me that the name of a program and its date and channel of broadcast would be enough to track video down, but then again I don't know how available past broadcasts of sports programs are.  However, I think Ningauble was asking if you have seen this footage yourself, or are quoting someone/someplace which claims (legitimately or not) to be quoting a particular broadcast. (I could be wrong about that though; I don't want to put words in Ningauble's mouth er, keyboard.) -Sketchmoose 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My rhetorical question was intended as a response to Mwelch's immediately preceding question. Whether this information adequately addresses the requirement for verifiability is answered by whether or not one can, in fact, obtain or view it using this information. (The FCC, from its earliest days, has required broadcasters to maintain recordings for a certain time available for their inspection, but there is no requirement to make them available to the general public.) The fundamental policy is that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability". ~ Ningauble 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And my second point kind of contradicts Ningauble's second point in the nomination, but to me the issues seem confused (does someone else quoting it count as a reference, versus no one else quoting it making it unmemorable); since you say that you intend to go over it for a quotability check at a later point, I figured it's be best to sort out the references question and then go from there. (And I could have misinterpreted what Ningauble said anyway.) -Sketchmoose 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So there's uncertainty about what is even acceptable here on this point, I guess. All of the suppliers for major broadcasts of major sporting events accept footage requests and make them in some form, for non-commercial use, to institutions and so forth. How willing they are to work with individuals who cannot demonstrated that they are in some way backed by an institution can certainly vary, because they are understandably concerned about how motivated Joe Blow might be to really respect the commercial restrictions. If that's sufficient reason to declare it unverifiable, then OK, but then that really out to be explicitly mentioned in policy somewhere.  As I've noted, there are tons of things here that would be in violation, if that's really the policy. Mwelch 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Gar Heard call, I also added a secondary source link which mentions the quote. Again, if that makes a difference, I'll try to do same for the others. (Like I said, I was planning to a "quotability" vetting on each of them after I had finished with the formatting anyway.) Before I spend any time on that, though, I'll await feedback here on whether it even makes a difference, or if quoting a TV broadcast is just considered no good at all. Mwelch 00:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a step in the right direction, except it would be better to find a more independent source than an association promotional site. Their purpose appears to be to commemorate "Great Moments" rather than brilliant quotes. Note also that the full quote as given does not appear in the cited source. ~ Ningauble 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the title of the page is "Classic NBA Quotes: Great Moments". That seems reasonably unambiguous to me in that its purpose is to commemorate the quotes associated with said great moments. And as for independence, perhaps that's another area in which I've been misled by other content here. There are any number of quotes on the site sourced by nothing other than the subject's autobiography, just about the least independent source one can get. You're right about the quote here exceeding what excerpted there, of course, though. I didn't notice that; I'll change it. Mwelch 08:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding autobiographies: running commentary about a (putatively) notable event is not quite the same as quotes from a literary work that independent sources consider notable. This is not the worst source for a quote in this respect but, to keep the article, I would like to see more independent sources, such as mainstream news media, for some of the quotes in order to demonstrate quoteworthiness. (Again, see the discussion at Votes for deletion/Mike Lange, where it was media coverage that made the difference.) ~ Ningauble 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but if things are going to go from "some editors would like to see mainstream news media-type sources to establish quotability" to "the absence of such sources listed is sufficient grounds to actually delete the page", then I'd suggest that that's also something that ought to be codified in WQ:Q. As currently written, the policy is far less strict and far more open to subjective judgment.  While I do understand your criticism here, I don't see how it is a (current) policy-based  reason to delete.  In any event, some of the quotes certainly have such mentions.  I've personally seen mainstream news media mention of "Holy Buckeye" and that "You are looking LIVE ..." is his signature line.  If that is indeed to be considered the policy here, I'll be happy to add such things, though I'm not going to spend time on doing right now, since the page may just be deleted for other reasons anyway.  If the page is kept, and if indeed those sources are deemed necessary, I'll work on putting them in.  Mwelch 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced one quote on the page, searched for others to no avail. On closer reading, none of the quotes on the page are anything more than typical sports-calling banter of the type which can be heard from a decent announcer calling any exciting game, on any day, in any sport. Delete. BD2412 T 01:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sjones23 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Either keep the page  (with the expectation that individual quotes on it will be further vetted and will require detailed broadcast identification) or clarify codified policy with regard to the current objections about video footage perhaps being only attainable by institutions and quotes not being considered "quotable" without pointing to their mention in mainstream publishing organizations. Mwelch 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of books on the sports covered by this person - please tell me you can find a handful of these quotes repeated in such sources. I'm confident that a serious search will turn up some results. BD2412 T 19:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very possibly, though again, requiring them to come from a published book in order to be kept would be a standard unmentioned in documented policy and to which other quotes on the site have not been held. As I said, if the page is kept, I will happy to put some time in on it, as I was doing prior to it being nominated for deletion. But so long as what I do remains under threat of just being deleted anyway, I'm disinclined to continue. (I've been waiting because I've been under the impression that a decision, one way or the other, is imminent, given that the top says the vote was supposed to be closed on the 10th.) Mwelch 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)