Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/FN Five-seven

FN Five-seven
Specific products such as this one that have not elicited quotes from highly notable people present too narrow a topic for entries generally, and raise too great a risk of the project being used to advertise nothing but testimonials by marginally notable people. In this case, all the quotes but one are from a single person making either blase pronouncements or technical descriptions; the one remaining quote is from a non-notable subject. — BD2412 T 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 18:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and discussion at Village Pump. ~ Ningauble 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is no different from AK-47, which is highly specific and only contains quotations from semi-notable individuals. Furthermore, the FN Five-seven article is only a stub at this point and it will be expanded at a later date. For example, there are several relevant (controversial) quotes about the pistol from notable individuals like Michael D. Barnes (Brady Campaign president). ROG5728 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Other arguments aside, I do not believe the comparison to the AK-47 article is a fair one. The difference is that the AK-47 (the .44 Magnum is another example) is a weapon that has been mentioned or cited in multiple works of fiction and is the subject of quotes from notable people. I believe the argument that was made at the Village Pump is that such specific examples of a product should not have a page unless they pass such a threshold and become a "household name" and are featured in other works or are specifically cited by several notable people. I agree with that argument. ~ UDScott 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The weapons in question (FN P90/Five-seveN) have also been mentioned in "multiple works of fiction," just like the AK-47 (the P90 is well-known for its appearances and mentions in the Stargate series, for example). Aside from that, the AK-47 article primarily consists of small blurbs from non-notable or semi-notable rap songs. It would be more than a bit laughable to suggest that those blurbs are notable but quotes by prominent gun author Massad Ayoob or the Brady Campaign president are not. ROG5728 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding AK-47, yes, other stuff exists and there are both similarities and differences, but we are discussing this particular page. The nominator's remark about the risk of narrow topics attracting unwanted quotes should be understood in the context of his observation that the quotes in this article are just such. Unlike Wikipedia, where it is customary to keep stubs that contain little more than the identification of a notable topic to be written about later, what matters at Wikiquote is not only the subject of the quotes, but the quality of the quotes themselves. ~ Ningauble 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the nominator's concerns (which you cited), the quotes in these articles do not in any way qualify as "advertising." Massad Ayoob is a well-known gun author; his statement that the Five-seveN "is one of the most controversial handguns of our time" is easily noteworthy; probably moreso than any of the quotes in the AK-47 article. The same goes for any of the Brady Campaign president's comments about the Five-seveN; for example, Barnes challenged NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre to "put on a bullet proof vest, and we'll fire the weapon at him, and see what happens," after which the NRA issued an article in response to his comments. All of this is noteworthy. ROG5728 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is "noteworthy" then it belongs in Wikipedia, not here. BD2412 T 23:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's noteworthy, and it's a quote, so there is no reason it doesn't belong here. ROG5728 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the problem. Noteworthy + "it's a quote" does not automatically = quoteworthy. The world's most esteemed Nobel-prize winning hydrochemist could state in a lecture, "A water molecule is composed of one oxygen atom bonded to two hydrogen atoms". Clearly a noteworthy fact, and, of course, a quote. However, we wouldn't put that in our page on water because it is mundane. Here we are speaking not only of mundane quotes, but on quotes about a extremely narrow topic, a single specific commercial product. Here is a good test of quoteworthiness for these quotes. Would it make sense to have them on a page about a more general subject, such as guns? BD2412 T 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is flawed. The quotes in this article, for the most part, are not remotely similar to the example quote you gave. Rather, they are mostly controversial opinions and/or reflections on the controversy surrounding the weapon. The topic is undeniably narrow and you find it to be dull; that is understood. However, that does not necessitate deleting the topic. The WQ:Q guideline you linked earlier with regards to "quoteworthiness" does not in any way dictate the exclusion of quotes on the basis that the topic is narrow or even mundane. ROG5728 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not really the mundaneness of the topic that is at issue, but of the quotes. Controversy over a subject indicates notability of the subject but, as I remarked in a previous discussion about another topic, "some of the greatest quotes of all time are disputatious, but most points in dispute are not quoteworthy." The example of LaPierre daring someone to stand behind their position at risk to life and limb is a very old rhetorical device. There is nothing quoteworthy about using a cliché. ~ Ningauble 17:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded yet again, and it contains several quotes that could not be characterized as being even slightly mundane. Rather, the quotes are mostly concise and expressive; pithy. I suggest you re-read the article. For one, Wayne LaPierre was the subject of the quote you mentioned; he was not the author, as you stated. ROG5728 02:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake. It's still a cliché. ~ Ningauble 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — though I have no great affection for many "specific product" quotes, and any abundance of them can be somewhat banal, I do not believe they shoudl be forbidden or rigorously restricted— and had noted the AK-47 parrallels myself. One might not have much enthusiasm for quotes about specific firearms, and yet can appreciate that some people do, and they should be permitted to present them. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 09:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC) The article DOES need a format cleanup though — and I might attend to this within a week or so if no one else does... ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 09:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Much of the discussion at Votes for deletion/FN P90 is concerned with FN Five-seven rather than FN P90. Both discussions might be reviewed together in order to assess the consensus on each article. ~ Ningauble 14:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I regret having allowed the pages to get tangled up this much. Still, I think a general agreement can be gleaned from looking over both of them. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)