Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Harmon Leon

Harmon Leon
Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable. A Wikipedia article about him has been deleted. — Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I tend to agree with Orange Mike's assessment. However, he did publish 6 books, some of them published by notable publishers such as, -- Mdd (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The quotes were copied from some website, but both books appear in GoogleBooks, so I have replaced them with the original ones. The page has now been improved and is looking good. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not everyone who is published is considered notable. I have looked, but I don't find any evidence that he has produced a significant or well-known work, or met any other criteria for notability. (The Guardian gave the featured book only one paragraph, concluding that it is "amusing but lacking in analysis". Baltimore City Paper gave it the longest treatment I found, under a subtitle beginning "Humorist Forgets To Bring The Funny...") Unless there is some evidence that this dabbler in gonzo satire is widely or notably quoted, I don't think having published a few books (topping out at #1,524,959 on Amazon) is enough to show quotability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep One quote of his is notable according to The Guardian: ""Bush and Hitler - same shit, different asshole!" his hippy persona says memorably."--Abramsky (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a memorable quip, but it is not original to Leon's 2008 book:
 * It is described in an August 2006 forum comment as something seen on a poster. Barry Popik reports that the posters became popularized in 2004, and discusses other instances of the "same shit, different asshole" trope dating back to at least 1998.
 * Michelle Malkin (Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild (2005), p. 143) reports that Ozzy Osbourne opened a concert (date unspecified) with the song "War Pigs" featuring a video montage of Bush and Hitler with the caption "Same shit, different assholes". This may not have been the origin of the Bush-Hitler analogy, but certainly led to spreading it around: The Guardian (22 May 2005) notes that Osbourne's caption was particularly notorious among "right-thinkers" who undertook to boycott him.
 * My impression is that Leon likes to describe (or in this case, quote) interestingly weird things but doesn't really have anything interestingly original to say about them, which may explain why he has not (yet?) become notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I’m pretty sure that most of you here don’t know what notability is. I mean, honestly. It seems you haven’t taken pains to study and understand what notability truly is. First of all, just because a person is not notable on WP does not mean they are not notable on WQ. WP & WQ are about different things and thus may obviously have different notability standards; even different WPs have different notability standards. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the quote Abramsky mentioned is non-notable. (just as there is absolutely no reason to believe that 3 of the quotes, the ones mentioned as notable, are non-notable; and the same goes with the author of the quotes.) WQ is about quotes, not biographies of people. Unlike WP, notability on WQ would require neither “significant coverage” nor “coverage in multiple sources”. (Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that it can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. However, Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia covering biographies of people. Wikiquote is a collection of quotations. Also, Wikipedia requires "multiple sources" so that it can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. However, quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual.) In fact, Wikipedia should and does have the lowest standards of notability among all serious encyclopedias. (For two reasons: 1. It can financially afford to have the lowest standards of notability. 2. It is the premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia) Similarly, Wikiquote should have the lowest standards of notability among all serious compendia of quotations. Ignorance & prejudice appear to be quite strong here. Truly pathetic! ~ RogDel (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * &lt;edit conflict&gt; I noted above that there is reason to believe that the quote Abramsky mentioned is not Harmon Leon's. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort, but not the way you normally determine notability on WQ. Sorry, but it seems you need to do some thorough & fundamental research on that. I still might consider The American Dream (2008) notable on WQ, in view of the coverage it has in The Guardian. Cheers! ~ RogDel (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, considering that Baltimore City Paper too has had coverage on the book, I’d wonder why the book would should be deemed non-notable on WP. ~ RogDel (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing sways my opinion quite like being vaguely insulted. I'm practically scrambling to change me !vote. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @EVula, am I missing something. You already voted for delete. -- Mdd (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mdd, what you're missing, I think, is that EVula seems inclined to change his vote to Keep. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually what I believe you are both missing is the sarcasm in Evula's post. My understanding is that Evula is saying that thinly veiled insults do not cause a change of vote. My suggestion is to keep the insults to a minimum and continue with presenting evidence (this part of your argument is much more effective in convincing people of your case). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Irony is lost on the sarcastic: When someone uses sarcasm, either they are being deliberately insulting, in which case responding in kind gains nothing, or else they don't quite grasp the difference between irony and sarcasm, in which case they will not understand your point. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m wondering, however, what will determine the closure of this deletion discussion: strength of an argument or the opinion of the majority. Sadly, experience suggests me that the latter has often been wickedly influential. e.g. See how this one was closed, saying: ... Among more experienced editors, the vast majority support removal; vast majority!!! lol ~ RogDel (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you've brought it up, seven editors (Ningauble, Mdd, Cirt, Aphaia, UDScott, Macspaunday, and Jni) voted to remove all of those quotes, which is more editors than normally vote at all in deletion discussion. Of the votes to keep, only two were from actual editors on this site; the rest were from IP addresses which, as Macspaunday pointed out, twere suspiciously similar, coming from the same city in India. However, even if those IP addresses had represented five continents, each of them had no contributions to this project outside of that discussion. With respect to editors who have been around long enough to understand our mission, yes, seven to two is indeed a vast majority. There is no objective reading of consensus in that discussion which does not lead to removal of the quotes at issue. BD2412 T 21:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what RogDel was trying to say is that "numbers" shouldn't matter. The fact that there was a "vast majority" supporting the removal of the quotes should be irrelevant, according to him — what matters (or should matter) are the arguments. (I do not share this view myself mainly because not all editors have the time to engage in long technical debates about what a given policy may or may not mean.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BD2412, yes, you seem to have misunderstood me. It is not that I did not believe that seven to two is a vast majority. My point is that closure was not supposed to be based on the rule of majority, however vast the majority may be. It is arguments that are important, not who or how many people support them. And in that way, there was probably no consensus, and the quotes should not have been removed for the lack of consensus to remove; the way an article is supposed to be kept on WP (and I guess on WQ as well) if there is no consensus to delete it. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is why I’m against that practice of voting where votes are not supported by any relatively original argument/s. e.g. something like: Delete per nom, or Keep per RogDel, etc. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @RogDel, if "your arguments" would have impressed me or others, they could have changed their vote. So in the end the number of votes of the vast majority does count. Aiming for consensus is admirable, but not always possible. -- Mdd (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mdd, Not necessarily, because I think you’re not taking into account things such as lethargy, prejudice, stubbornness, ego, etc that are normally innate in human nature. If you do not agree with an argument you would counter-argu. You can’t just presume that since no one changed their arguments they were simply not impressed. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @DanielTom, Then maybe the editors should have been given more time to engage; why to rush for the closure? (Ningauble himself requested closure saying these two discussions have had ample time and participation to reach consensus, if any.) ~ RogDel (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant, they have better things to do with their time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What a terrible excuse that would be! ~ RogDel (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how there was a "rush for the closure" when the discussions were gathering dust. No one had added anything to them in over a month. BD2412 T 23:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reject the notion that every participant in the discussion must come up with a new reason to delete. If one person makes a dispositive argument, and many more agree with it than disagree, then the matter is disposed of. BD2412 T 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In a kind of a democracy, yes; but WQ (like WP) is, for very good reasons, is not supposed to be one. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And what I find really amusing is that a quote that appeared many times (3, precisely) in The Times of India (the source which normally seems to be considered a pretty reliable one on WP) is considered non-notable and removed. Roughly the same would be true about the other 2 quotes marked as notable (notable in themselves). ~ RogDel (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And isn’t it also amusing that just a couple of days before that, the result of the deletion discussion on Oregano turned out to be Merge (which resulted into keeping the quote by a person who would be roughly on equal footing with respect to notability as Kedar Joshi). And it is the same person who closed both discussions. ~ RogDel (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're shooting the messenger here. I close discussions in accordance with the consensus of the community. If that consensus is not to your liking, convince the community. BD2412 T 23:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You’re just doing it the wrong way, since majority is not supposed to rule the closures of deletion debates; and it seems you consult the opinion of the majority, as you did while closing the debate on the quotes by Kedar Joshi. And how do I convince the community? I rather get the impression that the community just does not want to be convinced, however good & strong the arguments may be. So far, I’ve presented so many arguments; there have been very little, if any, counter-arguments. To be honest, the community just does not seem to be interested in thoroughly researching the matter of WQ notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (This is getting off-topic.) RogDel, it's not as if the other side didn't present any arguments. I'm sure Ningauble was disappointed when the quote by "Henry J. Tillman" (whoever that is) wasn't deleted. Similarly, you are disappointed that the quotes by Kedar Joshi were deleted, but just because your "so many arguments" sound convincing to you, that doesn't necessarily mean they are convincing to the rest of the community. BD's task as a bureaucrat is to assess the community's consensus, which is not always easy, though I have yet to see a closing by him with which I disagree. (If you want to express your concerns re his closings, maybe ask at his talk page? This page is, after all, about Mr. Harmon Leon.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See, it could be that the community is not convinced by my arguments for some absurd & hollow reasons. If it cannot produce stronger counter-arguments, there could not be consensus. And what I’m most disappointed by is that somebody as responsible as BD2412 did not even bother to present any analysis of the arguments presented in the deletion discussion and simply closed the discussion based on how many people support keeping the quotes and how many people support removing them, and that, for very good & strong reasons, is not how it should be done. (Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule.) ~ RogDel (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way those quotes could be have been kept was if BD had ignored the votes of 7 established users & given undue weight to your rather repetitive arguments, which no one takes very seriously. Even I think your standards of notability are too low. And you said it yourself, you believe "Wikiquote should have the lowest standards of notability among all serious compendia of quotations." That is hardly a position other editors would want to hold. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet the same community votes to keep the quote by Henry J. Tillman: Oregano is the spice of life, which would be notable only by those lowest standards of notability. The shallowness & fallacy in the community’s thinking is evident! ~ RogDel (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No one takes my arguments very seriously: again what an excuse for not having any stronger counter-arguments! ~ RogDel (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the quotes presented here have any Google Books hit. This pseudo-philosopher comes public and says "I don't know if anyone since Plato has written philosophical dialogues." I'm not even sure what one would put in his intro ("person whose one or two quotes appear, floating, unsourced, in a few established journals"?). You argue that it is enough for a quote to appear in a single (one) "reliable" source for it to be included in a WQ article, even if the author has no credentials and no Wikipedia page. Hardly convincing. (Anyway, off-topic again.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest beginning a discussion at the Village Pump on this general notability question. BD2412 T 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @DanielTom, They have to have Google Books hit to be notable? Really?? Two of the quotes by your pseudo-philosopher are quoted in two different, highly reputable scientific journals by different authors. The quotes appear to have impressed highly reliable independent sources. Give me one good reason why they should be considered non-notable on WQ. Deletion discussion on Oregano but seems to suggest that quotes in even less reliable sources could be considered notable. And in the Village pump discussion you yourself considered some of his quotes notable, didn’t you? You even seem to have accused Ningauble of double standard there. And unfortunately it seems now it is your turn to be at the receiving end. ~ RogDel (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite are not "highly reliable" (for quotes, at any rate) because they don't do any actual sourcing: where and when was the quote written? It doesn't say. Additionally, a quote may be "notable", without the author being notable. Google hits (to my mind) are important to determine whether a specific quote, by a non-notable individual, is popular enough to warrant inclusion here. (Finally, you will note I didn't actually vote to keep the Oregano quote, as I too was concerned about the author's unknown identity & lack of notability.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That they don’t do any actual sourcing does not mean they are not highly reliable. They’re highly reliable because they can be presumed to be very unlikely to misattribute quotes. The New York Times, for example, may be considered a highly reliable source. If NYT tells you that a barely notable actress died this morning without actually showing you her corpse, would that affect its reliability? It won’t. NYT may be believed to be a highly reliable source because it can be believed that it has spoken falsehood a very few times, if at all. Google hits can hardly ever be taken into account because they do not necessarily involve reliable sources. It is reliable sources that are important on WP as well as on WQ. In case of Kedar Joshi, he was quoted with remarkable praise by a presumably independent & decent Spanish source; he was quoted a number of times in The Times of India’s Sacred Space column alongside highly notable individuals; an MD cited him in the very beginning of his research paper that was published in a reputable journal; two researchers quoted him alongside Confucius while beginning their paper which too was published in a respectable journal; a prominent newspaper in the Bahamas cited his quote in its Quote in Time section; a notable website too included one of his quotations. He seems to have been quoted in a minimum of 7 decently reliable sources. If Wikipedia can write biography of a person who has significant coverage on him in a couple of reliable sources, why on earth can’t Wikiquote include quotations of a person who is quoted in so many reliable sources? The fact and also the manner in which he has been quoted in quite a few reliable sources speaks strongly in favour of his quotability. WP may be about biographies, but WQ is about quotations; and someone like Kedar Joshi, for aforementioned reasons, appears clearly notable to me on Wikiquote. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to stop re-arguing the Kedar Joshi case in unrelated discussions. This is disruptive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: After consideration of both sides of the argument above (and despite the slip into a bit of contentious and less than civil discussion), I believe that despite the deletion of this person's page on WP, the book cited on the page has achieved the necessary amount of notability (and coverage by multiple media outlets) to warrant keeping this page. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the book has been noticed by a few reviewers, when those reviews range from merely dismissive (The Guardian) to scathing rebuke (Baltimore City Paper), this kind of notice does not create a presumption, in my mind, that it is a quote worthy work. On the contrary, when reliable sources indicate that a work lacks merit I am inclined to presume it is not something that belongs in a compendium of notable quotations. I do recognize that there is significant precedent for Wikiquote to include material that is reliably shown to be worthless (e.g. ,), but I cannot endorse the practice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to entertain the idea that if a work is objectively notable, quotations may be subjectively notable; instead of straightaway dismissing quotability just because the work does not seem to have received praise and respect. And what about the fact that a source as respectable as The Guardian feels like actually quoting him, however unreliable it may in that very particular case be. The sources do not give me the impression that he is not quoteworthy. On the contrary, they seem to suggest, however weak the suggestion may be, that he may in fact be quotable and notable for WQ purposes. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)