Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Howard Safir

--Poetlister 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard Safir
Clearly notable. However, not a single quote (even unsourced) by the subject. Also, the quotes which are presented "About Howard" have a decidedly negative POV. If the subject had not been so notable, I would have speedied as an attack page. — Ubiquity 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an attack page OK.--Poetlister 15:55, 19 December 2007(UTC)
 * Delete unless an introduction is added and the page is made Neutral. If the page is just an attack page it should be Speedy Delete --Lookatthis 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC) --Lookatthis 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . ~ UDScott 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it has been improved, but it still needs a bit of cleanup and should be watched. ~ UDScott 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is it an "attack page"? The quotes about the subject, while clearly negative, have been properly sourced with verifiable references from an established publication, The New York Observer. Just because the quotes about the subject are unfavorable doesn't mean that it is an "attack page"! Any editor is free to add either positive quotes about the subject, or quotes by the subject himself. 24.168.46.226 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have fixed some of the problems with the page, and I now believe that the article should no longer be considered for deletion. Please review the recent changes which I made and tell me if they are satisfactory. If not, please tell me what else needs to be done to bring the page up to Wikiquote standards. Thank you! 24.168.46.226 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. By our standards, this is an attack page since it created to present the person in a highly negative manner. In history, this person will be a small fish in a big pond so I'm not sure that it is justified to have an entry used to vilify them. Primarily, our entries are quotes made by the person instead of quotes about the person. IMO, an encyclopedia article seems a better place to place quotes about the person. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have spent the last hour or so adding more quotes to the page. There are now five quotes by Mr. Safir and five quotes about him. Of the ten quotes now on the page, only three of them can be considered negative or derogatory. Please re-read the page and tell me if I have done everything possible to ensure that the page is not deleted! Thank you for your time! 24.168.46.226 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Compliment I'm impressed by the work you put in to fixing the problems that we noted. I'm still a bit concerned about the entry (as I am about many of our entries about living people) but feel that it is good enough to stay per our usual standards. Hope you will keep watching the entry and help make sure that it remains as balanced as possible. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The editor of this article has made a serious, good-faith effort to improve it, and I think the result is an article that is appropriate to a controversial figure such as Safir. I'd like to withdraw the nomination. --Ubiquity 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep good-faith effort to improve, an introduction was added and the page was made more neutral --Lookatthis 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. - InvisibleSun 12:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep With improvements, it seems tolerable.--Cato 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment FloNight says "it is good enough to stay per our usual standards". Are we happy with our standards?--Yehudi 14:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of us are. But until we change the policy stated on our front page -- WQ is a "compendium of quotations from notable people and creative works in every language" (notice that according to this, the quotations themselves do not need to be notable, or even in English) -- I think we will have to be tolerant. The Safir page, on which the editor did a lot of work contrary to his initial desires in order to respond to my objections, now contains a number of verifiable quotes from a notable source. This puts it head and shoulders above some of our more marginal pages. I cannot in good faith go back to the editor and tell him we're going to delete it anyway because Safir's quotes aren't very quotable. --Ubiquity 15:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh - so saying that quotes are rubbish or not in English isn't grounds for deletion? On th elatter, we are supposed to be the English Wikiquote.--Yehudi 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that, Yehudi. I think bad quotes or non-english quotes (with no suitable translation) should be grounds. I am just saying that our welcome page doesn't stress this level of quality. It seems to invite any quotes from any notable person or any creative work. I think we ought to tighten that up. But until we do I think we need to be tolerant. Not too tolerant, but I believe that the Safir page more than meets our current standards. --Ubiquity 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)