Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Charles Saxby (second nomination)

I have much sympathy with Daniel Tom's views and might have voted keep myself, but the consensus is clear.--Abramsky (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Charles Saxby
Procedural nomination: This article was prod but it had passed a previous vote for deletion, so our policy calls for it to be discussed. — Ningauble (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because this writer of pop culture genre fiction is not sufficiently notable. Previous discussion determined that he was indeed a published writer (cf. bibliography on article talk page) but, like many genre writers of the period, his work was apparently unremarked in his day and is now not even a footnote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside: It may be noted that Wikiquote has a lot of material on current pop culture genre works that will doubtless be forgotten just as completely and just as quickly. We are not very consistent in applying the test of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, some of his published works also appear on Google Books – were this not the case, I would vote differently, but as this appears to be a harmless page, there is no need to delete it. (I couldn't find much information about the author, though, other than this.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His works are also cataloged at the Library of Congress, but evidence of publication is not, in itself, evidence of notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, being published, and having your works listed on Google Books (or at the Library of Congress), is some evidence of notability. Charles Saxby is, as I pointed out in my previous comment, also mentioned in The Hollywood Novel: A Critical Guide to Over 1200 Works with Film-Related Themes or Characters, 1912 Through 1994 (p. 225). My own opinion is that we shouldn't be deleting these pages, unless the quotes are gibberish, or the author really is completely unknown (which is not the case here). The user who created the page for this author evidently also considered him notable. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected insofar as he does rate a footnote, given that someone has assiduously cataloged film-related characters or themes that have shown up in a variety of fiction genres. Listing at the Library of Congress shows that someone paid the fee to register a copyright, and nothing else. The listing at GoogleBooks indicates (in this case, but not for works submitted directly to Google) that the titles are cataloged by one of the libraries they scanned. That is at least independent of the author, but there is more to notability than that: Cf. WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NBOOK. Quoting from the latter: "We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature." I might add, whether anybody actually quotes it, other than websites that copied it from Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not just one footnote actually, his name is mentioned in literally hundreds of books. As to your last point, I'm not entirely sure, myself, that being quoted should be a prerequisite for warranting inclusion on Wikiquote – for example, I am presently rediscovering many "lost" Portuguese authors, writers of epics, and am creating pages for them on Portuguese Wikipedia (e.g., Francisco de Andrade, Manuel Mendes de Barbuda e Vasconcelos), though hardly anyone in the present century ever quotes them. Indeed, I will venture to say, that I must be one of the very few Portuguese alive today, who has read even a few pages of their works (through Internet Archives; real printed copies of these poems are exceedingly rare), and I do generally consider articles for such people to be of great relevance and importance, in preserving diverse contributions to literature, and not condemning them to obscurity—many "forgotten" authors were rediscovered in the Renaissance, and so I do not believe "not quoted" absolutely implies "not notable". (Wikipedia and its related projects could also help shape a Renaissance of sorts.) (Red link = opportunity!) Finally, one person did in fact quote this author—the creator of his page here on Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have waffled on this one - although my initial inclination was to delete it, the older argument pushed me back a bit towards keeping it. In the end, however I am just not sure that this writer is notable enough, nor is the work from which the lone quote is taken. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No major improvements since it last vote to keep it - Miszatomic (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above; don't think this page will improve if kept. -- Golden burg 111 21:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - essentially agree with comments by and, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)