Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott (2nd nomination)


 * 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: no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 16:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Derek Abbott
History of socking and promo spam over at en.wikipedia, from w:WP:SPA sock accounts that show up and are then blocked with purpose of promotional spam. Article is poor quality, tagged as cleanup for a duration of three years. Quotes are unmemorable, from single-source mostly aside from subject's own bio profile. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom, above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Move the two leading quotes to Education and then delete the page. I see those first two quotes as being fairly memorable, but the rest not so much. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this rational suggestion by, above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Previous discussion may be found at Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — I believe that the reasons for preserving this article mentioned in  Votes for deletion/Derek Abbott and the decision to KEEP still apply. I too can find the two quotes mentioned memorable enough to warrant entry on the education page, but I find there is NO reason to eliminate a page by a person who DOES have a long-standing page on Wikipedia despite the apparent hostility of some people to that fact who wish to suppress it's consideration by simply implying that the most notable and noteworthy fact to be considered are their inclinations to simply summarize the person as merely someone they wish to characterize to be associated with a "history of socking and promo spam". The two quotes noted as most memorable in previous comments even by the nominator are precisely the two that were specifically removed by him with the comment "non-notable, not noteworthy" prior to attempting to have this page removed by simply improperly applying a prod notice, which was removed by myself, as I spent a bit of time addressing a few pages on memorable people which recently have had their continued existence attacked by prod notices which overwhelm the capacities of the very few people here who seem more concerned with preserving many of the efforts of others to add constructively rather than eradicating them in various ways. I am sure I cannot convey all my concerns with present situations at this time, and do not intend to try to do so, but I do wish to more extensively address many of them in the near future. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Keep I agree that some clean-up is needed, and I shall see to it if the article is kept. However, there certainly are quotes worth keeping and the subject is notable.  Whether there has been socking at WP is of course irrelevant here.--Collingwood (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only at WP, but also quite extensively here at WQ. It doesn't have a lot of relevance except to the extent that it indicates this stuff is quoted by someone with a personal interest. In such cases it is reasonable to wonder whether it is quoted by anyone else at all, or is entirely a case of narcissism or infatuation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with moving the first two quotes from a Facebook-like faculty profile to the Education article, unless there is some evidence that these very commonplace remarks are actually quoted in noteworthy secondary sources. (On a technical note, the closing statement in the prior VfD errs in saying the other quotes are "republished". It was a primary source interview, and I am not aware of any secondary source that repeats these quotes.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

At this time, with three votes for deletion and two to keep, I do not believe that a consensus exists for deletion of this page. However, I am inclined to extend the period of this discussion to obtain a more complete view of the community. BD2412 T 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be closed on 2 November. We're now 12 days past that.  How long do you think it should be open?--Collingwood (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see a clear consensus develop one way or the other. If no one else wants to comment, I'll close it now as kept for lack of consensus to delete. BD2412 T 19:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you won't get a consensus. The AfD on WP was closed as a non-consensus despite overwhelming evidence that he is notable.--Collingwood (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)