Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Charles W. Howard


 * 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 as improved - no prejudice against merging to Santa Claus, as discussed by some participants. BD2412 T 17:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Charles W. Howard
Contested Prod. I flagged it as unsourced but the author removed the notice, claiming that it was not a valid reason under the deletion policy.— Collingwood (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 08:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. --Collingwood (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw, now sources have been added.--Collingwood (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion policy lists a number of possible reasons for deletion: Inappropriate for Wikiquote; possible copyright infringement; redundant templats; undesirable image/redirect/category; belongs in sister project; candidate for speedy deletion.  None of these apply to this article.  In fact, the only item on that page that applies is "Can't verify information in article", which is specifically listed under "Problems that don't require deletion" (emphasis added).  Only if the quotations are truly "unverifiable" does the page suggest they may be deleted, and that's clearly not the case here.  In fact, I've found sources for both quotations, but your help pages are singularly unhelpful in figuring out the best way to add them to the article.  I'm working on that now.  LtPowers (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy states that "If quotes are truly unverifiable, they may be deleted." I was unable to verify them, so I placed a PROD notice, inviting the author and others to verify them.  Proposed deletion says that "If any user objects then the article may be taken to Votes for Deletion to be discussed", which is exactly what I did.  LtPowers removed the PROD notice without providing any sources.  If LtPowers has now added verifiable, reliable sources then of course the article should remain; had he done so before removing the notice, as I have just done elsewhere, there would have been no need for a VfD.  I hope that LtPowers now understands the issue, and will continue to contribute to WQ.--Collingwood (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My take on this: If it is difficult to verify a citation that is one thing; but if there is no citation that is another thing: "If it ain't cited, it ain't a quote."(You can quote me on that.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that LtPowers has added sources. Collingwood's actions were correct, however; unsourced quotes can be removed at any time, and if that leaves an article without any quotes, it's better to just prod the article. Wikiquote doesn't "hold a grudge" on deleted content like other projects often do. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because sources have been provided. (The source for the second quote is weak: it is an un-cited attribution on the website of an obscure organization.) Because Howard is notable in a very narrow field, it might be better to merge this into the Santa Claus article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd actually lean towards Merging, now that you mention it; it does seem like a perfect quote for that page, when there's not much chance that we'll have many quotes from Charles on his own page. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those quotes were added by LtPowers to the Santa Claus article; Ningauble removed them as unsourced.--Collingwood (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Santa Claus per above discussion.--Collingwood (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, as discussed above. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)