Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Brett Favre

--Jusjih 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre
This is a Wikipedia article, not a Wikiquote one. There was a Prod, but it was removed on the false grounds that there were many quotes in it. — Cato 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - no quotes on the whole page! BD2412 T 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing vote to delete per Ubiquity's restoration, revisions and sourcing. Not sure the quotes that remain are particularly profound, but the speaker is highly notable in his field, so Keep. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation. Ordinarily, we wouldn't speedy this article because it has an introduction and is about a remarkable subject. We could just remove the irrelevant material and add sourced quotes. But Wikipedia's GFDL requires that its material be clearly identified and credited. Internally, that means copying the edit history of transwikied articles. Externally, that means providing a link to the original WP article. Neither was done here. I suggest that we summarily delete such copyvios, even though they're between Wikimedia projects, in order to discourage pointless, unlicensed copying of WP articles. (On the other hand, folks who demonstrate a desire to use the WP article as a starting point for a real quote article, but don't understand the issues involved, might be given an opportunity to fix the problem; e.g., by adding the edit history or at least providing a link to the original article on the talk page. But I'm not sure an editor who claims "Many Quotes" when removing a prod has earned that assumption of good faith.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote; see below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeffq. If this chap merits an article, do it from scratch. Poetlister 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Change to neutral per FloNight and others.--Poetlister 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeffq. I agree that content that is improperly brought between Projects needs to be promptly removed. If it is all or most of the article then deleting the article may be the best choice even if the entry is otherwise notable. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Striking my delete since the biggest issues have been fixed. Not going to vote to oppose the deletion though since I still view the quotes as unremarkable and not truly deserving an entry. So consider my opinion as neutral about whether the entry should stay or go. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. This article was created in March 2006. It was a small but decent article until 4.245.120.2 vandalized it on November 7 of this year by copying over the WP article. I reverted to the last correct version, please take a look before you delete. --Ubiquity 13:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not sourced and do not seem particularly remarkable so I still think the article should be deleted. If someone wants to look for well sourced remarkable quotes then we can keep it. While I do not aggressively look for entries about living people with unsourced quotes, I think when they come to our attention we need to either improve them or delete them. IMO, while it is never desirable to have unsourced quotes, for many reasons it is a problem to have entries with nothing but unsourced quotes by living people. They can be recreated once good quotes are found. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, I just want us to be deleting for the right reasons. I personally would leave this one alone, as it has been there for more than a year and is certainly no worse than hundreds of other sports entries that have been allowed to live. But I can certainly see your point as well. --Ubiquity (aka TheWaffler) 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I sourced the quotes (and restored the VFD tag that got lost when I initially reverted). --Ubiquity 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the article. ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that Ubiquity has sourced the quotes. (I also added a sourced "about" quote for good measure.) I'm not particularly impressed with any of these quotes' originality or pithiness (including the one I added), but when quotes are well sourced and at least arguably worthy, I fall back on my inclusionist roots and consider this an ordinary content issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the above activity improved the page. ~ UDScott 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well done to those who have improved the article. I am not convinced that the quotes are worth having, though.--Cato 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A notable person; it's down to judgment on whether the quotes are worth it. I'd tip for keep but only weakly.--Yehudi 12:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep while improved. I am closing this vote now.--Jusjih 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)