Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ernest Seyd


 * 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: Transwikied to Wikipedia and deleted.. BD2412 T 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Seyd
This is an essay about a matter of controversy. Though the essay employs quotations, they do not have the qualities of quotability. Wikipedia does not have an article about Seyd, and he is not mentioned in the article about the "Crime of 1873". — Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is a would-be encyclopedia article thinly disguised as a quotes page. BD2412 T 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and BD2412. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I think a Wikipedia article could probably be justified, but that does not mean that he is quotable.--Collingwood (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While the nature of the quote is different from almost every other quote on Wikiquote, it is nevertheless quoted by people to this day. Google registers thousands of hits for this quote. The quotability guidelines say that "a quote that continues to be reported or repeated after over one-hundred years have passed will be presumed to be quotable." This quote is 120 years old. The fact that Wikipedia's article on the Coinage Act does not mention Seyd is only a reflection on how bad the article is. His actual role and the accusations against him are well known to historians who specialize in this era. I do plan to imporove that page, but there are many bigger problems with it than just the lack of Seyd, and I haven't had time to do it, yet. If I had been the one to add the quote, I probably wouldn't have put it by itself on an Ernest Seyd page, but that's where I found it. The page had been there for years before I started researching historically controversial quotes, and I just edited the page rather than moving the quote. And the quotability guidelines do say that, "A famous quote that is generally accepted as originating from an otherwise little-known person may justify the existence of an article on that person." One valuable function of Wikiquote is as a resource to find out if somebody actually said something that he is quoted as saying. If for no other reason, this is why the page should be kept. I have debunked the quote as best as I know how. This question was thoroughly researched 120 years ago, but there is no other reference on the web to the refutation of the allegations. All the other web pages take the allegations as given. And so the refutation is 800 words long and has footnotes. But some things deserve more than one sentence and really need footnotes. As a bonus, Wikiquote now has an interesting tale, one told nowhere else on the web. Here is a case where an alleged quote was at the very center of a controversy and the subject of Congressional hearings. How many quotes are there that you can say that about? The debunking of the quotation could be shortened, of course, but Wikiquote would be poorer for that. There is no good reason that every entry on Wikiquote has to be the same format. Take a look at a good, paper dictionary. Note that most entries are of the same format, but mixed in are illustrations, tables, and appendices. These different items enhance the dictionary, providing variety as well as giving the most appropriate presentation for each word. Staid textbooks often have "boxes" or sidebars for items of special interest. All these variations provide extra value for a work. KHirsch (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the research that went into this: folks who have been around a while will recognize KHirsch as one of our stronger researchers, who has made many valuable contributions to Wikiquote. However...
 * The fame of the quote is not as great as it might appear. Google's initial estimate of hits is sometimes often wrong by orders of magnitude. In this case, scrolling through the results shows that there are only 86 actual hits. (about 230 hits including the unfiltered the "similar" results, which are mostly related pages from the same sites, or mirror sites with duplicate content.) Rather than being a famous quotation, it appears to be an anecdote of interest to a relatively small number of specialists and conspiracy theorists – a footnote.
 * Apart from its putative notoriety, the main quote itself lacks any other attributes of quotability. Rather, it is just a detail in a historical incident. The most significant thing about the alleged confession, bribery, is not even mentioned in the quoted attribution.
 * Regarding expanding Wikiquote's scope to accommodate interesting tales, I don't think so. The inclusion of some incidental material unrelated to quotation, such as illustrations, is one thing; but devoting whole articles to exposition about historical or other topics ought not be justified by the association of quotations with the subject.
 * This is not to say that the research is worthless: it would be very beneficial to incorporate the information into Wikipedia. In this postmodern world of floating currencies, many or most people have no conception of the momentous power struggles that occurred over backing currencies. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the foregoing, I have tagged the page to be moved to Wikipedia. BD2412 T 13:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, Wikipedia ought to indicate why the Coinage Act of 1873 was branded a "crime". ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)