Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Chick Island

--Abramsky (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Chick Island
This article was prod because "None of the quotes about this very narrow topic display any of the qualities of Quotability." The tag was removed with various explanations at User talk:Allixpeeke and at Talk:Chick Island. — Ningauble (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom because Wikiquote is a collection of notable quotations, not an encyclopedic collection of general information – even in the form of quotations from sources for the information. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Abstain for the following reasons:
 * [NOTE: These reasons are similar to reasons I've posted before, but reworded and slightly expanded.]
 * If the problem with the article is that the quotes aren't quotable enough, then the solution shouldn't be to delete the article, but to find quotes that are even more quotable. Thus, I added a {  {Quotability}  } notice in place of the original deletion notice, which should help direct editors to help improve the article.
 * I believe the quotability standard should be that a page should contain the most quotable quotes that exist about its topic. I also believe that these are the most quotable quotes about this Chick Island that one can find.    That being said, if I am wrong, if there are quotes out there about Chick Island that are more quotable than the quotes already contained in the page, then the solution is to add them to the page, not to delete the page altogether.
 * Another principle that I hold is that, if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which this one is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote.  No one, including the person who nominated this page for deletion, has argued against this principle.    Not even the person who nominated this page for deletion has argued that Chick Island is not a notable topic.  (Or, if she or he has, she or he has not expressed this feeling to me.)  The person who nominated this page for deletion has said that the the issue isn't regarding the notability of the topic, but rather the quotability of the quotes.    Since the disagreement on what to do with this page focuses entirely around the topic of quotability and not around the topic of notability, I believe our objective, as Wikiquote editors, can be stated thusly: "to find the most quotable quotes about this inherently-notable topic."  In other words, if these aren't the most quotable quotes that exist about this inherently-notable topic, the solution is to find these more-quotable quotes and add them to the page, not to delete the inherently-notable topic altogether.    As an inclusionist (as well as an eventualist), I would find it dismaying to see this article deleted instead of being improved.
 * I agree with the inclusionist phrase that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," and I believe that that standard can and must be extended to Wikiquote, being restated as "Wikiquote is not a paper anthology of quotes." According to inclusionists, "Since Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does."  Deleting this page might make sense if we were creating a physical book of quotes on the topic of islands—but we aren't.  Keeping this page in existence in a physical book might use of valuable space and make it harder to find the topics for which one is actually looking; but the same is not true here.  (A) This page uses up almost no space.  (B) This page isn't making it the least bit harder for readers to find other topics; it's not like a person has to turn to this page before turning to the topic for which she or he is looking.  Indeed, keeping this page has zero negative repercussions.  By contrast, deleting this page has does have a negative repercussion: those who are looking for quotes about this topic will be unable to find them on Wikiquote, and will have to search for them elsewhere.
 * The motto of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians "is Conservata veritate, which translates to, ' with truth preserved.'  This motto reflects a desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result."  Deleting this page would result in a loss of knowledge.  The solution isn't to get rid of the knowledge of these quotes, but to find even better quotes in order to make the page even better.  (Contrariwise, if one wishes to argue that this page can't get any better, then that's not a reason for deleting the page, but rather for keeping it.)
 * The Wikimedia page for Inclusionism contains a number of other arguments against deletion, some of which I shall post here with some minor edits to clarify the relevancy to Wikiquote:
 * "Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia [and other Wikiprojects, such as Wikiquote]: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia."
 * "It's easy to criticize and delete, whereas it's much more difficult to do research and [add quotes]. 'Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.' — Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International."
 * "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to [Wikiquote] looking for [quotes], and instead find that the relevant article that existed at one point has since then been deleted. This discourages both [Wikiquote] readership and authorship."
 * "Part of the reason people use [Wikiquote] is that it is a vibrant source [of quotes about] obscure knowledge, especially about obscure topics that aren't covered in a more traditional [anthologies of quotations]. Other methods of ensuring quality, such as labeling a page 'In Need of [more-quotable quotes]', are more than enough to correct problems."
 * "Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. Fun?"
 * "[Wikiquote] is used at free risk. There is no need to delete articles 'lacking of quality [quotes]'.  But there is always a chance to improve them."
 * "On the Internet, outside [Wikiquote], why do you think there are a lot of people complaining over deletions, but not a lot of people complaining over articles actually existing?"
 * "Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability can reduce the amount of valuable information on Wikipedia." [This one doesn't entirely apply since no one has argued that this topic isn't notable.]
 * "It's a strength that [Wikiquote] can cover as much knowledge [topics] as possible."
 * "Today's [quoters] are limited only by totally manmade notability guidelines. It's like rejecting the progress of technology, and still today travel across the Atlantic Ocean by sailing ship instead of motorship (or maybe aeroplane!)."
 * "One article added, another one deleted. It can't be easy for [Wikiquote] to expand!"
 * In summation, if this page needs to be improved, then improve it, don't delete it. And, if it's as good as it can get, then that's also an argument for keeping it, not deleting it. Below, Ningauble provides one argument against my position.  It reads as follows:"The most fundamental thing that can be said about Wikiquote's content is that it is a collection of notable quotations. Everything else in our policies, guidelines, and customs exists to support that purpose. Grouping related notable quotations together on a page by author or subject or other criteria is a matter of convenience. It is a Good Thing™ in many ways. Picking a heading to group notable quotations together that is itself a notable subject is just good sense. Creating a page to group some notable quotations together without having any notable quotations to put in the group is just not sensible. The content of the nominated page is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikiquote: the quotes not belong in any Wikiquote article."I find this argument convincing, and this I hereby rescind my previous position. allixpeeke (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Amendment in red.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Amendment in orange.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the statement about me in allixpeeke's point #3, that "no one, including the person who nominated this page for deletion, has argued against this principle": this is flatly false. I have been arguing for years that notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article – that Wikiquote articles must contain quotable quotes. I even addressed the point [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allixpeeke&diff=1976109 directly to you] when giving notice if this nomination. Nor am I the only one to assert notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article: it may even be found in the highly visible Quotability guideline. Denying the fact that others have expressed and supported a position that you oppose is not a valid or honest form of argument. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Response—(A) In number three, I said that you have not argued against the principle that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote. The point was that you were limiting your argument to the alleged non-quotability of the quotes provided, instead of broadening your argument to include the possible non-notability of the topic itself.  If you have ever argued that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are not ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote, I have never read it.  If you ever have said this, then my apologies for implying that you had not; I should have instead said that you never expressed this to me. (B) You write, "I have been arguing for years that notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article – that Wikiquote articles must contain quotable quotes." Exactly.  In no way does saying this indicate that you don't believe Chick Island meets the necessary condition of notability, only that it-meeting-that-condition is not sufficient.  Nor does saying this in any way indicate that you would disagree with the principle that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote.  The implication is that Chick Island is notable, but that you don't believe its notability is sufficient. (C) You write, "I even addressed the point directly to you when giving notice if this nomination." But, in said notice, you wrote, "but your premise that 'if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote' is not the whole story". When someone says that x is not the whole story, that implies that x is part of the story.  In other words, that implies "if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote" is part of the story.  You saying that that was part of the story confused me as to your beliefs.  If you don't believe that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote, then instead of saying "but your premise that 'if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote' is not the whole story" (emphasis added), wouldn't it have made more sense to say "but your premise that 'if the topic itself is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia (which it is), then it is notable enough to appear on Wikiquote' is wrong" (emphasis added)? As you can see, it was only reasonable for me to infer that you agreed with the principle, and that your only argument against Chick Island is that (as you put it here) "there must also be something memorably quotable in the article." (D) You write, "Nor am I the only one to assert notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article". I do not know why you are still talking about this.  Not once did I ever say that you don't assert notability is necessary but not sufficient.  All I ever said was that you never argued against the principle that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote, which has nothing to do with the point you're currently stressing. (E) You write, "Denying the fact that others have expressed and supported a position that you oppose is not a valid or honest form of argument." I agree, but, to be fair, I've never seen you argue that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are not ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote.  Had I ever seen you say, I would definitely not have written what I wrote. And, to be fair, I still have never seen you argue against the principle that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote.  The only indication I have seen that you ever argued against this principle is when you wrote, "this is flatly false."  Those four words, and only those four words, provide any indication that you somewhere, at some time, argued against this principle. In any event, because I now know that what I wrote in number three is false, I shall amend it.  I shall make my amendment in red so that readers can clearly discern what I am removing from my argument and what I am adding in its place.  Hopefully, this act helps mend any issues I may have accidentally caused by incorrectly asserting that you had not argued against that principle. Respectfully, allixpeeke (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote "enough to appear on Wikiquote", "enough to have articles on Wikiquote", and similar phrases. I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough . You are free to disagree with my position, but not to misrepresent it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (A) Up until now, I have seen you argue that two factors ((1) notability and (2) presence of quotable quotes) are required, in your opinion, for an article to exist on Wikiquote. I have also seen you argue against keeping Chick Island on the grounds that its quotes aren't very quotable, although I have not seen you argue against it on the grounds that it is not notable.  Therefore, I currently assume you are of the opinion that Chick Island satisfies your notability requirement but fails to satisfy your quotability requirement.  If this assumption is incorrect, please correct me, because I honestly do not intend to misrepresent your position. (B) Up until yesterday, when I read the words "this is flatly false," I had seen no indication that you disagreed with the principle that topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote.  Therefore, up until yesterday, I assumed you were of the opinion that the first factor ((1) notability) could be established, in your opinion, by the presence of a correlating Wikipedia article, but that meeting the notability requirement was not enough in order to have a page on Wikiquote, that the topic had to also conform with the second factor ((2) presence of quotable quotes). As of yesterday, I came to realise that this is not the case.  It still appears that you believe these same two factors ((1) notability and (2) presence of quotable quotes) are required, in your opinion, for a page to exist; but now it no longer seems that you believe the first factor is ipso facto satisfied by the presence of a correlating Wikipedia article.  Therefore, I currently assume you are of the opinion that although Chick Island fails to satisfy your quotability requirement, it does at least satisfies your notability requirement, but not simply because there is also correlating Wikipedia article. If this assumption is correct, I must admit to being curious as to what it is about the topic of Chick Island, besides the correlating Wikipedia article, that makes pass the first of the two requirements ((1) notability).  Contrariwise, if I am incorrect to assume this, please correct me, because I honestly do not intend to misrepresent your position. (C) Today, you write, "You wrote '  enough to appear on Wikiquote  ', '  enough to have articles on Wikiquote  ", and similar phrases." You're unintentionally taking my comment ever-so-slightly out of context.  In each instance where I've used the word "enough" (save for instances where I am quoting someone or something else), the word notable appears directly before it.  This is important because there are two separate factors to consider, (1) being notable enough to have a page (i.e., notability) and (2) being quotable enough to have a page (i.e., presence of quotable quotes).  This is important because, at no point have I ever said that you think the quotes contained in Chick Island are "quotable enough."  While I still assume you believe the topic of Chick Island is notable enough to have an page on Wikiquote, I readily admit (and have readily admitted from the get-go) that you don't believe the quotes contained in Chick Island are "quotable enough" to maintain said page. In other words, at no point have I ever said that you think that Chick Island satisfies your second factor ((2) presence of quotable quotes).  While I still assume that Chick Island satisfies your first factor ((1) notability), I readily admit (and have readily admitted from the get-go) that you don't believe it satisfies your second factor ((2) presence of quotable quotes). So, let's see what you wrote today, inserting the word "notable" into the statement in order to ensure that you are quoting me correctly.  You write, "You wrote '  notable enough to appear on Wikiquote  ', '  notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote  ', and similar phrases.  I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough ." Let's be very clear that, now, we're not talking about quotability at all.  Now, we're talking solely about notability.  Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying here:  "I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough for a topic to have a page on Wikipedia to establish whether it is notable enough to have a page on Wikiquote.  Even a topic is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it may still not be notable enough to have its own page on Wikiquote, even if said topic has quotable-enough quotes to have its own Wikiquote page.  There are subfactors needed to establish notability, and presence of a correlating Wikipedia page is not enough ."  (I hope this is a faithful paraphrase of what you are saying.  If it is not, please correct me, because I honestly do not intend to misrepresent your position.) If you have actually consistently taken this position, then my apologies, for I have never seen you take this position before (except when you wrote the four words, "this is flatly false").  I have seen you consistently take the position that two factors ((1) notability and (2) presence of quotable quotes) are required, in your opinion, for an article to exist on Wikiquote, but I've never seen you make any argument regarding the subfactors required to establish the first factor ((1) notability).  This leads me to my question: Question—What subfactors have you argued are required in order to establish notability.  (For example, if the presence of a correlating Wikipedia article is " not enough ," then your notability subfactors would be (1a) presence of a correlating Wikipedia article and (1b) something else.  What is that "something else"?) Answering this question will be very helpful to me.  It appears to me now that you believe the following is required in order to have a page on Wikiquote: (1a) presence of a correlating Wikipedia article, (1b) something else, and (2) presence of quotable quotes. (D) While I know I've said this already, it bears repeating that I hope you believe me that I have no desire to intentionally misrepresent your position on any topic.  If anything I've written here does not accurately reflect your position, please let me know so that I may correct myself.  I would honestly rather see Chick Island deleted than for you to believe that I ever misrepresented your position intentionally. Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to provide a lengthier response here, because there appears to be a great deal of confusion.
 * "Notable enough" –
 * The phrase "notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia " is a perfectly straightforward way to refer to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which says a topic is presumed to merit an article if the topic is notable (and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy). Wikipedia's purpose is to present encyclopedic information and, because notability indicates such information is available and well covered elsewhere, notability is enough to have an article on Wikipedia.
 * The phrase "notable enough to have an article on Wikiquote " might appear to assert the same thing about Wikiquote, that a topic is presumed to merit an article if the topic is notable. In context there is no ambiguity: it plainly asserts notability is enough to have an article on Wikiquote. Specifically:
 * Combining these statements in a parallel construction, repeating "topics that are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia are ipso facto notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote" over and over, is completely clear and unambiguous: you are claiming that a topic which is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense is presumed to merit an article at Wikiquote. There is no point arguing the semantics of half the parallel construction in isolation: this parallel is the core of your argument.
 * When you state that I have never argued against this principle, this is flatly false.
 * Argumentum e silentio – It is a logical fallacy to infer or assume that because I have not discussed whether or not the topic is notable then I must therefore believe Chick Island to be notable. The number of things I have not discussed is literally infinite, and there is little that can legitimately be inferred about them on that basis. It would be more accurate, based on the totality of my remarks above, to conclude that I believe if there is nothing quotable in the article, as stated in my nominating statement and !vote above, then nothing else matters. It is fundamental.
 * What is Wikiquote? –
 * The most fundamental thing that can be said about Wikiquote's content is that it is a collection of notable quotations. Everything else in our policies, guidelines, and customs exists to support that purpose. Grouping related notable quotations together on a page by author or subject or other criteria is a matter of convenience. It is a Good Thing™ in many ways. Picking a heading to group notable quotations together that is itself a notable subject is just good sense. Creating a page to group some notable quotations together without having any notable quotations to put in the group is just not sensible. The content of the nominated page is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikiquote: the quotes not belong in any Wikiquote article.
 * When you say "we're not talking about quotability at all", you are simply refusing to address the reason for deleting this article. If you believe deletion of this article is not about quotability at all then I think you misunderstand the fundamental purpose of Wikiquote. You can stop asking me whether I think Chick Island is notable, or what is required in order to establish its notability. It is a red herring, and I have specifically said it would not be sufficient to justify keeping these quotes.
 * I hope this clarifies my reading of what you have said and inferred about me, and illuminates my position on what is the fundamental issue in this case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Ningauble:
 * Response—You write, "There is no point arguing the semantics of half the parallel construction in isolation: this parallel is the core of your argument." This is false.  The core of my argument is that a given Wikiquote page should have the most interesting or "quotable" quotes that exist about that topic, and that when a page lacks the most interesting or "quotable" quotes about its topic, the appropriate response is to improve the page by adding to it more-quotable quotes, not to through out the baby with the bathwater by deleting the page altogether.  Applying this principle of Chick Island, I say that I believe the quotes contained on that page are the most quotable quotes that exist online about Chick Island and, therefore, no need exists to change the page; but I add that if one disagrees with this view, and believes there are better or more quotable quotes about the subject of Chick Island, then that person can edit Chick Island to add said quotes, which I believe is far more practical than deleting the page altogether, since I do not believe Wikiquote is improved by not having a page about Chick Island. The core of my argument never had anything to do with notability.  Indeed, I only briefly brought up the subject of notability in the first place, with the entirety of what I had to say on the matter appearing in the first couple sentences of section three of my original argument for keep.  And, the only reason I brought up this aside at all was to preëmptively counter any argument that might be brought up by someone suggesting the page ought to be deleted due to lack of notability—which in fact did happen six minutes later when UDScott wrote, "Delete, due to a lack of notability or quotability of the quotes."
 * Response—You write, "It is a logical fallacy to infer or assume that because I have not discussed whether or not the topic is notable then I must therefore believe Chick Island to be notable." Normally, yes.  But, in this instance, I'm not assuming merely because of your silence on the issue, but because of the impact that silence has on the strength of your argument for deletion.  Currently, you have only expressed a single reason in favour of deletion, viz., quotability.  Thus, your argument for deletion is only fifty-percent as strong as, e.g., UDScott's argument for deletion.  Had you considered the topic of Chick Island to lack notability, you could have easily doubled the number of reasons for deletion by saying that, thereby strengthening your argument by exactly 100%.  (The only other explanation for choosing to remain silent on the topic of Chick Island's that I could think of was laziness, but considering that you had taken the time and effort to list Chick Island here on Votes for Deletion as well as the time and effort to offer your view that the quotes contained on that page were not sufficiently quotable, and considering that it would take virtually no extra effort to also not the question of notability, I had to rule laziness out as utterly implausible.) All that said, although I freely admit to you to being under the assumption that you do regard Chick Island to be notable enough (as a topic) to potentially have a page on Wikiquote (pending sufficiently-quotable quotes), no where in my keep argument above did I ever say you agree with my criteria for establishing notability nor with my view that Chick Island is a notable-enough topic to merit having some sort of page on Wikiquote.  All I said in the original second sentence of part three of my keep argument was that you had posed no argument against my notability principle (as stated in the first sentence of part three my keep argument—which, at the time, I'd thought to be true.  And, all I said in the edited version of the second sentence of part three of my keep argument is that you had (to my knowledge) posed no argument against the view that Chick Island is a notable topic—which, as far as I am aware, is true.  This ultimately leaves readers left free to infer whatever they believe is the most rational explanation for said silence, or nothing at all.  My personal assumption that that you do regard Chick Island to be notable enough to include on Wikiquote (pending sufficiently-quotable quotes) is at no point stated as fact anywhere, nor was this assumption even mentioned in my official keep argument above.  (Further, where this assumption has been mentioned in subsequent discussions, I have taken pains to make it clear that it is still just an assumption, and that you have not officially verified one way or another.  At the risk of beating a dead horse, it's important to me that I am not misrepresenting your views.)
 * Response  I —You write, "When you say "we're not talking about quotability at all", you are simply refusing to address the reason for deleting this article. If you believe deletion of this article is not about quotability at all then I think you misunderstand the fundamental purpose of Wikiquote." You are taking what I said out of context and misrepresenting my position entirely.  For sake of fairness, I shall assume you are doing this by accident, rather than intentionally. Let's be completely clear here.  (A) My core argument all along has been about the topic of quotability, which I address in sections one, two, and three of my keep argument, not the topic of notability, which I only briefly bring up in section three of my keep argument in order to stave off any potential objections to the topic's notability.  In fact, the only reason the topic of notability has continued to be discussed is because you brought it back up—twice (once on 24 July 2015 and again on 25 July 2015). I am not "refusing to address the reason for deleting this article" (i.e., the topic of quotability).  Under normal circumstances, I would say that that statement is a bald-faced lie—but, somehow, it doesn't seem appropriate here.  After all, to say that a person has lied is to say that that person has intentionally deceived.  But, it is so obvious to anyone who reads this page that I am not "refusing to address [the topic of quotability]" that there is no way that you're actually trying to trick someone into thinking that I actually am refusing to address that topic.  No, you're obviously not "lying" (i.e., intentionally trying to deceive), and I can be sure of this because no liar in history has ever offered a more-easily refutable claim.  The only possible explanation is that you have misread me.  You actually do (somehow) think that I am refusing to address the topic of quotability—even though the topic of quotability has been at the core of my argument since the get-go.  All I can do is encourage you to re-read my keep argument, and ignore the whole notability non sequitur that you have kept us segued upon since the 24th of July. (B) Nowhere did I say that I "believe deletion of this article is not about quotability."  Don't let's be silly now. (C) In order to back up your claim that I am "refusing to address the reason for deleting this article" and your insinuation that I "believe deletion of this article is not about quotability," you quote me as saying, "we're not talking about quotability at all," thus taking my words completely out of context. Here is my whole sentence: "Let's be very clear that, now, we're not talking about quotability at all." The word "now" is important, because it makes it clear that we had previously been  talking about the roll both notability and quotability play in establishing whether or not a given page is appropriate for Wikiquote.  The "now" in that sentence means that you had changed the subject, that we were "now" talking about that factors required to substantiate notability specifically (regardless of quotability). And that's true: you really had changed the subject to the point where we were (regretfully) no longer talking about quotability at all.  Allow me to quote the paragraph that had appeared directly before that sentence in order to elucidate this fact:"So, let's see what you wrote today, inserting the word 'notable' into the statement in order to ensure that you are quoting me correctly. You write, 'You wrote '  notable enough to appear on Wikiquote  ', '  notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote  ', and similar phrases.  I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough .'"To make this even clearer, when I, prior to that, had mentioned topics being notable enough to appear on Wikiquote, I was separating the concepts of notability and quotability in exactly the same way you were, taking into account full recognition that you believe that, even if a topic is "notable enough" to appear on Wikiquote, that doesn't mean it should appear on Wikipedia, that something more than notability is required, specifically quotability. At the risk of overclarification, when you said "You wrote '  notable enough to appear on Wikiquote  ', '  notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote  ', and similar phrases.  I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough ," this does not and cannot mean "notability is necessary but not sufficient to have a Wikiquote page" since (C1) it had already been repeatedly established by both me and you that you felt that way and (C2) you were quoting something I had written about the establishment of notability, not something I had written about the establishment of whether a page should exist on Wikiquote (the latter of which you will assuredly agree is a broader subject, involving both notability and quotability).  Thus, when you said "You wrote '  notable enough to appear on Wikiquote  ', '  notable enough to have articles on Wikiquote  ', and similar phrases.  I have consistently taken the position that it is not enough ," the only way to interpret that is, "the presence of a correlating Wikipedia article is necessary but not sufficient to establish notability specifically ."  (If you wish to say you did not intend to mean that, I will believe you; but, because you were quoting me on notability, this is the only thing those words could mean, regardless of your intentions.) Since your comment was about the criteria required to establish notability specifically (as opposed to the broader question of whether or not a topic should have its own page on Wikiquote), I was completely correct in saying, "now, we're not talking about quotability at all." So, because I make a correct statement about how you had shifted the discussion away from notability+quotability vis-à-vis having-a-Wikiquote-page to having-a-Wikipedia-page vis-à-vis notability specifically, you accuse me of "refusing to address the reason for deleting this article" and insinuating that I "believe deletion of this article is not about quotability"? (D) Technically, at that point, not only had you shifted the discussion away from quotability, but you had also thereby shifted the discussion away from "the reason for deleting the article."  When you said that you've "consistently taken the position" that correlating Wikipedia articles are " not enough to establish notability specifically, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the page should be deleted.  It's a complete non sequitur, and the only reason I began discussing this non sequitur with you is because you said you've consistently taken that position regarding prerequisites to establish notability, even though I'd not seen you once comment on what those prerequisites were.  But, suffice it to say, I did not see how this related to the question of whether Chick Island should be deleted. (E) You write, "You can stop asking me whether I think Chick Island is notable, or what is required in order to establish its notability." Again, the only reason I was asking you what subfactors are required in order to establish the notability of a given article was because you said you'd "consistently" taken a position on the issue, and I wanted to know what it was that you had been "consistently" saying, since, regardless of how "consistent" you've been, you've never divulged it to me.  One would think that if you'd "consistently" taken a specific position, you'd be able to actually tell me what that position was.  If you're fine with ceasing telling me that you've taken a consistent position on what subfactors are required in order to establish notability, I'm more than happy to cease asking you to tell me what that consistent position is. (F) You write, "It is a red herring". Finally!  You admit it! I was going to wait for you to tell me what subfactors you believe are required in order to establish notability before I say, "Okay, now I know what it is you say you've consistently maintained.  Now, how does this in any way relate to the topic at hand?  It seems rather irrelevant in that it in no way aids your case that this page should be deleted.  Nor does your position (regardless of how consistent you've been on it) rebut any of the points I made above regarding the principle that pages should have the most-quotable quotes that exist about its subject or counter my position that the quotes contained on the Chick Island page are the most quotable quotes one can find about the topic.  How is any of this relevant?" But, now, I don't have to, because you've made the point for me.  You've admitted that what you wrote on 25 July 2015 is a red herring, and now we can continue to the real topic of interest here: quotability. (G) You go on to say, "I have specifically said it would not be sufficient to justify keeping these quotes." Wait, you've specifically said that your provision to me of your list of prerequisites needed in order to establish notability "would not be sufficient to justify keeping these quotes"?  When and where have you "specifically" said this? And, quite frankly, why in the world would you specifically say this?  It's not like there's anybody on the planet who actually thinks that your provision to me of your list of prerequisites needed in order to establish notability would have any bearing on whether or not we should keep this page when, especially considering that I personally said in my very first post on this entire votes page, "The person who nominated this page for deletion has said that the the issue isn't regarding the notability of the topic, but rather the quotability of the quotes." So, when, where, and why did you "specifically" say this? Response  II  —You write,"The most fundamental thing that can be said about Wikiquote's content is that it is a collection of notable quotations. Everything else in our policies, guidelines, and customs exists to support that purpose. Grouping related notable quotations together on a page by author or subject or other criteria is a matter of convenience. It is a Good Thing™ in many ways. Picking a heading to group notable quotations together that is itself a notable subject is just good sense. Creating a page to group some notable quotations together without having any notable quotations to put in the group is just not sensible. The content of the nominated page is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikiquote: the quotes not belong in any Wikiquote article."This is the first thing you've written since I submitted my argument on 22 July 2015 that in any way remotely attempts to rebut my actual arguments regarding my philosophy regarding quotability, and I have to say, your argument is convincing.  I hereby rescind my previous keep argument.
 * allixpeeke (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that we have been talking past each other, each not apprehending the intent behind the other's words. Perhaps it was unwise to have made it personal by "including the person who nominated this page", and unwise of me to have responded to what I thought was being asserted about me. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, due to a lack of notability or quotability of the quotes. We are not here to collect every word uttered about every subject, but rather to collect notable quotes on notable subjects. It is more the aim of an encyclopedia (like WP) to be all inclusive of all topics. But WQ has always been more narrowly focused. And to address one of the comments written above, I do not believe that when a page is nominated for deletion that it is the responsibility of the nominator to fix problems on that page. It should not be the responsibility of someone who identifies that there is a lack of notable quotes on a page to then go out and find any notable quotes. And just because a page is deleted is no reason why someone couldn't recreate it should they find notable quotes. I find that we have too many such pages that really fail the notability standards we should embrace (e.g. many of the pages in Category:Chemistry, where there are quotes taken from textbooks without a shred of quotability) that should probably also be deleted. I also want to say that just because a topic has a page on WP is not reason enough to have a page here - it is more a minimum requirement, not the only requirement. The standards for inclusion in an encyclopedia are much lower than those for inclusion in a collection of notable quotes such as ours. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * UDScott's last point is important. Allixpeeke, I feel you are trying too hard to make Wikiquote mirror Wikipedia. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)