Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Elliot Rodger

Miszatomic (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger
This is not the place for covering current events; and it is not within Wikiquote's mission to memorialize the ravings of a deranged person who is only famous for one shockingly pathetic event, and not for the quotability of his words. — Ningauble (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote closes: 20:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Universalss (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote's mission states:

Quotations are at once mundane and sublime. Whatever the philosophical stance, country, race, or religion of their origin; whether they be serious or whimsical; whether their creators are famous or notorious, controversial or celebrated, quotations are the essence of wisdom refined to a handful of well-chosen words. They may inspire us to seek an understanding of their creators, to consider our own lives, to laugh, or merely to admire their mastery of language. However we use them, quotations summarize the collective insights of society
 * I believe the quotations of the deranged man support Wikiquote's mission, and I've bolded the relevant parts. Specifically, Elliot Rodger is a part of a deeper cultural pathology. For the first time we have access to the killer's direct quotations and insights into his own condition. This page is not memorializing his ravings, but asking us to understand their creator, and try to gain insight on our society rather than sweep it under the rug, or repeat the talking point arguments about mental health and gun control. — Universalss (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the previous poster. Elliot Rodger's 141 page story 'My Twisted World - The Story of Elliot Rodger', and the selected quotes from it and from his final video, shed a valuable light into the disturbed mind of a profoundly lonely young male growing up in contemporary USA. It sheds a valuable light on the bullying that still goes on unchecked in US schools; on the lack in the USA of parental responsibility for their children; on the shallow values of an intensely materialistic culture; of a vicious hierarchy where climbing the greasy pole of popularity is absurdly over valued; of the resulting retreat of a lonely, suffering and damaged soul into an online fantasy world provided by role playing, who then becomes bent on revenge against the human race.101.162.226.77 14:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, this loser may have killed enough people to be made famous by the US media, but that doesn't make his misguided, shallow, narcissistic views worthy of inclusion in a decent compendium of quotations. Wikiquote should join those girls who very wisely rejected him, and not help glorify an entitled psychopath with delusions of grandeur, who thought he was God; at least I don't want the next spoiled, sexually frustrated nutcase, no matter how lonely or jealous he might be, to think that simply murdering innocent people will get him a page here. Also per nom. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Notable for encyclopedic purposes, but not quotable for quote-compendium purposes. Weak because future researchers in psychopathy might be interested in verifying the content of quotes attributed to this person, but I see no market for these quotes other than in morbifity. BD2412 T 01:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the Wikipedia policies of BLP1E and BIO1E should be a useful guide. This guy has only one major event in life, and he isn't alive to publish any other works. Interest in this guy will drop as soon as he is not in headlines. Journalists can report on the parts they think are illuminating, but I don't think it's the job of Wikiquote maintain this into perpetuity. Aronzak (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — I believe that I actually share many strong sentiments of disgust with those who would prefer that this article did not exist, and can wish that no reasons had ever existed for it to even be created. I certainly do NOT want such an article, and would not have created one, nor wish to actively promote or publicize ANY comments that might be construed as praise or excuses for such insanity and stupidity as exhibited by such people as do needless harm to the lives and liberties and potentials of others, for whatever reasons their sick deluded minds might find to justify their tendencies, but IF ANY others do, for any legitimate or dubious reasons, no matter how small or somewhat or severely deluded a minority they might be, I do NOT and CANNOT object to it existing, and do consider the rights of people to create such an article more important than my own desires that such articles not be created, and their creation not promoted. I have long had an increasingly common tendency to NOT wish to promote the names or fame of such profoundly stupid idiots as insanely seek fame, notoriety, or perverse pleasures by acts of violence and oppression, but I also do not wish to exclude documentation and commentary of their various forms of irrational expectations, demands, and inclinations. I believe that my first and last and most enduring impulses are towards promotion of the freedom of life to grow in various ways — and though such deeply deluded thoughts as those of a profoundly insane person are always dangerous to present, I believe that attempting to absolutely forbid them or exclude them from being presented in an educational resource is even more dangerous, in the long run. I personally certainly much prefer to be focusing on and promoting the awareness and appreciation of various saints and heroes who liberate and save the lives of others to such cowards and villains as actively oppress and destroy the lives of others, but I know that such tastes and tendencies CANNOT properly be mandated and actually preserved, AS SUCH. I thus assert a sorrowful vote to keep this, though I hope that whoever does give it any pronounced attention will balance much of the profound stupidity it indicates, by providing commentaries which stress the reality of such facts. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ … Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 07:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ***Keep*** as earlier user said "try to gain insight on our society rather than sweep it under the rug, or repeat the talking point arguments about mental health and gun control." 74.201.7.112 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Elliot Rodger's thoughts and feelings are a sordid reflection of thousands of young men in today's society. There are millions of gamers, losers, frustrated virgins, etc.--and it only takes a few hours' worth of browsing the Internet to see that Elliot Rodger is not alone in his sentiments toward women, society, sex, and the place of young men in today's world. It's silly to toss this aside and pretend that he's a lone psycho, or even worse to pretend that he's alone in his feelings. 50.165.31.105 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are obviously wrong. How many "young men" would ever write something like this:
 * "I am not part of the human race. Humanity has rejected me. The females of the human species have never wanted to mate with me, so how could I possibly consider myself part of humanity? Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger... Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent... Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species. It is my purpose to punish them all. I will purify the world of everything that is wrong with it. On the Day of Retribution, I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved."
 * If this guy's mental illness (sorry, feminists) was so common, we would expect mass shootings like this to be prevalent, and he wouldn't even have made the news. ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Elliot Rodger is highly notable and these quotes have certainly "received extensive coverage" in recent times, which according to WQ:Q counters the fact that these quotes were made in the past ten years. Habstinat (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:BD2412, as well as WQ:Q The quotes chosen from the Twisted World manifesto are arbitrary, much more so than the one's cited in 2014 Isla Vista killings
 * Is the quote itself particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant? Some are poignant
 * Is the author of the quote notable? Notable only for the event
 * Is the quote itself independently well known? Not yet
 * Is the quote original to the author to whom it is being attributed? Don't know
 * Is the subject of the quote a notable subject? No
 * Is it about a broad theme of the human experience such as Love, Justice, or Loneliness? Most definitely. This is by far the most relevant reason for keeping some subset of quotes.  But it's still a  Delete 68.165.77.50 04:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree that without the one event with which this person is associated, he would certainly not warrant a page based on a lack of notability, I do also feel that these quotes are worth keeping. Just as we have pages for Charles Manson and Ted Bundy (although admittedly, both are more well known than this individual), I believe we should allow for the inclusion of pages for such people, regardless of how deplorable their acts. In the end, to me it's really not about the worth of their words, but rather the precedent of excluding pages just because they concern what most term as "madmen." In my opinion, the event with which this person is related is notable and therefore the page should remain. I don't like what he did - and I don't like much of what he says on the page - but this should not be the reason for removing his page. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: If the nominator wants to make his arguments based on whether or not the person is notable enough to record quotes of that person, then that is acceptable, we can have a constructive argument on this matter. However, it seems that the nomination is largely reliant on an ad hominem-based argument, that the ravings of a "pathetic" and "deranged person" is grounds for deletion. I'm getting the vibes that these arguments are based more on personal feelings, based on the wording provided by the nominator. --  李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)