Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Chris Barnes

~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Barnes
This Chris Barnes is mainly interested in English football, specifically in Bristol Rovers, and so is perhaps unlikely to be any of the three men called Chris Barnes on WP, all of whom are Americans. It looks like a vanity page to me. Antiquary 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote extended; closes: 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article does not identify this person.  - InvisibleSun 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost certainly vanity. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Fys and others -- Herby talk thyme 11:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and above. ~ UDScott 13:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. --Aphaia 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no rule that we have to delete an article just because there's no corresponding WP page.--Poetlister 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On Google result a combination of "Chris Barnes" and "Bristol Rovers" gives only a few result. It suggests Chris Barnes is a writer very obscure. I cannot give away a suspicion if it is a hoax, not mere an article about an fame-challenging person. --Aphaia 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and above.--H*bad 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if still unsourced.--Jusjih 07:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This does not look like rubbish but I take the point about verifiability.--Cato 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless subject identified, notability evidence provided, and quotes sourced. Based on similar context lines from other VfD'd articles, I suspect this is a personal-quotes page, not something from anyone we could hope to source. I'd like to be proven wrong — I rather like the Churchillian allusion. But I couldn't find a single one of these quotes (even when spelled correctly) in Google, and I'm not willing to invest more effort in digging for an article with so little chance of surviving. I wish some editors would give us something specific to work with! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What does subject identified mean? That he has an article on Wikipedia?  Open any dictionary of quotations and you'll find someone you've never heard of; is it forbidden to copy those quotes onto WQ unless you can provide a biography?--Cato 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since verification and identification are the issues, I think it takes more time to get the better and well-thoughtful conclusion. Hence this vote is extended. --Aphaia 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Subject identified" means that we know something about this person other than the fact that he or she goes by the name "Chris Barnes". It's not just a matter of being "poodles to Wikipedia", in Poetlister's amusingly effective words elsewhere. We have not one iota of evidence that this is not a vanity article from some 12-year-old sports fan with a common name (or just using a pseudonym!). That's why we need to know these things. I'm quite distressed that we have intelligent and diligent editors who seem to believe that our threshhold for inclusion has dropped to the level of MySpace, where no one need provide any identification at all for the subjects of articles. We might as well repeal the prohibition against personal-quote articles, for how else could we determine this isn't one of them? Surely no one is foolishly basing their determination of independence just because the anonymous editor didn't choose first to create a username of "Chris Barnes" to make the vanity obvious? As far as opening a dictionary of quotations goes, I would remind folks that a professionally published book on quotations is a de jure reliable source, and solves our identification and sourcing problems, regardless of the existence of WP article. They have already done the editorial and research work for us. What we are doing here, in the absence of such a convenient source, is trying to demonstrate the same elementary editorial responsibility by making clear who we are quoting. There are many ways to investigate and confirm notability;. No WP article, like a low Google count, is only a suggestion of non-notability. It is not unreasonable for the community to insist on evidence when such easy checks fail to turn up useful information. Regular VfD participants should know that I often go to great lengths to research notabiility if I have the slighest evidence to go on. Please forgive me if I don't do this work for every article whose editors and supporters can't be troubled to help us chase down this rather important information, especially for names as ambiguous (and therefore research-defeating) as this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)