Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson

BD2412 T 17:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Henson
This article was prod because "No sourced quotes". The tag was removed without curing the defect, which brings it here. — Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, sourced quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above points unless reliable sources are found. --Rubbish computer (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article seems to be improved with cited sources during the discussion terms, I'm not familiar with their reliability though. Are you guys now welcome to review the current revision and if appropriate, change your vote. --Aphaia (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you to for the sourcing work which greatly improved referencing on the page. There are now zero unsourced quotes. I've also added a sourced About section.  and  may wish to revisit, please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep—To be fair, I never felt completely at ease with the page even after my improvements. All I did was try to find sources online for the quotes that were already on the page, and there were a few I simply could not find (those have since been removed from the page by 98.30.92.244). Of the remaining quotes, five of them I found in an interview cited in a book by someone else named Joel Eisenberg.  (The first of those five has, in the book that cites the interview, an ellipsis in place of some of the words that appear on the Wikiquote page, leaving me unsure whether the last three words of the first of those five quotes are actually in the original quote.  But, looking over the page again, that is probably the least interesting quote on the page, so it might be just as well to eliminate it.) Of the other two quotes, which appear to at least come from an original source, the author listed is "Jim Henson, The Muppets, and Friends"—a tad disconcerting when one wishes to be sure that the quotes are specifically from Jim Henson and not instead from a line from a Muppet penned by someone other than Henson himself or, even more vaguely, some "friend."  Luckily, the first quote on the page, which is the best quote, methinks, on the page, does come absolutely from Henson:  This page makes it clear that the quote comes from "Jim," referring obviously to Henson himself (for, if the quote were to come from some Jim other than the one whose name appears on the cover, they would obviously specify that it were a different Jim through inclusion of the other Jim's surname). Unfortunately, the second quote on the page is not nearly as unambiguous.  The book only shows some of its pages through Google Books.  Still, even with that limitation, it's often possible to ascertain whether or not a given quote appears within a book with limited viewing on Google Books.  If you type in "life's like a movie, write your own ending keep believing" (using the quote marks) in the middle-left search bar here, it shows you that there is a page with those words somewhere in the book.  But, if you search for the last two words in the quote ("keep pretending" using quote marks), it says no results found in this book.  (Indeed, it claims that the only use of the word pretending that appears in the book is coincidentally on this page.)  Now, that could be because the last two words of the quote (as it currently appears on Wikiquote) are not in the book, or because, when they scanned the book, it may have scanned the word pretending (in that particular instance) as something like "pre+encling" (or whatever), since sometimes scanners make little mistakes like that.  (Case in point, a few years back, I scanned Ezra Heywood's "Cupid's Yokes" from a book in the library into a .pdf document with the aim of thereafter also creating out of it an .html document and a .txt document.  But, when I copied the text from the .pdf, I could see plenty of little scan errors.  The title, which should have read CUPID’S YOKES: OR. The Binding Forces of Conjugal Life. An Essay to Consider some Moral and Physiological Phases of LOVE AND MARRIAGE, Wherein is Asserted the Natural Right and Necessity of SEXUAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, instead read as "CUPID'S YOKES: Oil. The Binding Forces of Conjugal Life. An Euay eo Con-Mer 80me Moral and PhysiowuV:al Phases of n.VE ANn ~1ARRL"~GE, Wherein is ABserted the .Natural Right and Neceuity of SEXUAL SELF-GOVERNI!!.ENT".  Thus, it was quite a painstaking exercise to convert those twenty-three pages so that they would read in .html and .txt as they ought to.  Suffice it to say, I have seen instances where Google Books displays the same tell-tale signs, so it's not inconceivable that the same could've happened It's Not Easy Being Green: And Other Things to Consider.  In fact, all it would take is a little smudge on that particular page, over those two words, and those two words could have been rendered utterly unreadable by the scanner.)  But, even if we proceed with assuming that the two words are in the book, and that we simply can't see them because of scanning issues combined with the policy that leads Google to only show us some of the pages of this book, there's the other issue of whether or not the words are original to Henson, which I cannot determine.  From what I've been able to determine using different sources (YouTube and this book), it does appear that "keep pretending" is part of the original quote.  The problem is that the quote is in the film The Muppet Movie, which in turn was written by Jack Burns and Jerry Juhl, not Henson.  Further, it's in a song that was supposedly written by Paul Williams and Kenneth Ascher (The Muppet Movie (soundtrack)).  While it's possible that Henson did come up with those particular words, which were thereafter incorporated into the song by Williams and Ascher, I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is surely the case. So, as you can see, with good reason, I never felt completely at ease with that page, even with my miniscule improvements.  But, now that Cirt has added an about-section, the page is much better.  Thanks to Cirt's additions, I am going ahead and voting keep, but I am also going to remove the The Muppet Movie quote from the page, given its ambiguity, as well as remove the words that are ellipsised-out from the interview.  My thanks to Cirt for improving the page.  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements that have been made. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to revisit, here, ., perhaps you could have another look at this deletion discussion? -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Instead of responding, here, to the request by, above, the Deletion Nominator has ignored this discussion page. Instead, the Deletion Nominator has chosen to "prune" most of the hard research by myself and -- by page-blanking most of the entire page -- during an ongoing deletion debate. Seems like a good way to try to get the page deleted. That is, by not allowing This disallows our community to see all the research that went into the page by  -- during the ongoing deletion discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody blanked the page; and I did not prune the article "to try to get the page deleted", but to try to make its content more worthy of keeping. Inflammatory rhetoric and impugning motives are not constructive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not constructive to remove whole swathes of sourced quotes during an ongoing deletion debate. I didn't say anything about your intent. But it would be a good way to go about trying to get a page deleted, IFF that was someone's intent. If not, they could let the quotes stand during the deletion debate, and discuss. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Two points about this: (1) Use of odious hypotheticals in a paragraph that is entirely about my edit is transparently accusing me. You have attempted this sort of evasion before[//en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/022#Improper_mischaracterization_by_Ningauble_of_another_user.27s_comment] to no avail, so please stop. (2) The notion that the article should not be improved by selective trimming until after the deletion discussion has concluded makes no sense. You are well aware it is permissible and encouraged to try to improve an article during discussion at VfD, as you yourself have done, and you should be aware that removing an excess of weak material is sometimes just what is needed to improve an article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. This was most certainly NOT "selective trimming". It was wholesale removal of almost all the research performed by both, and myself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Allixpeeke [//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Henson&diff=2027609 did not object] to my removal of some of the content he added, so you can let it go. I invite you to follow his example of reconsidering the quotability of remarks, and to stop trying to make it personal: it's not the research effort that matters, its the resulting article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think both matter. The research effort certainly matters. The resulting article certainly matters. I'd hope it reflects the research of our Wikiquote community of editors, myself and, included. -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarifications for those who are reading this page: (1) I did not add any content to the page.  All I did was add sources to unsourced content already present.  (2) I see nothing inherently objectionable about removing content from a page up for deletion.  Such action is only objectionable insofar as it is aimed at disruption or at rendering a page unsuitable for keeping.  It does not appear that Ningauble had any nefarious agenda.  (3) As I said on the Jim Henson talk page, although I didn't much mind the pruning Ningauble did to the Quotes section, I do find her/his edit to the About section problematic.  The Quotes section did not have much memorable or interesting to it, while all of the About quotes that Cirt had added were definitely interesting and quotable.  Thus, I can be said to believe that, although Ningauble's edit was made in Good Faith, it was nevertheless still too strict vis-à-vis the About section.  (4) Since this edit does not appear to be designed to impact (for better or for worse) the question of whether or not the page should be deleted, and since this edit likewise does not appear to inadvertently impact (for better or for worse) the keepability or deletability of the page, it seems to me that this is not exactly the place for this discussion.  Since the edit does impact the quality of the page qua page, it is perfectly proper to discuss the merits of the edit on the page's talk page.  Cirt, Ningauble, and I have all commented on said talk page, and made some reasonable points, but there is no need to discuss that matter here.  I am only making this comment here now because my name has been brought up by both aforementioned editors, and I want other readers to be clear on my perspective.  And, now that said clarification has been issued, I shan't discuss this particular edit here any further.  Regards, allixpeeke (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You stated above: "Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article on this notable person with actual, sourced quotes." Thanks to research by and myself, the page on this notable person now has actual, sourced quotes. Perhaps you could strikeout your comment, above? -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I would definitely strike my vote if I were in Ningauble's shoes, it's not particularly urgent that she/he do so; after all, 75% of us have voted Keep, and—since this is a page about a notable person containing sourced, quotable quotes—no one else who comes here to vote is going to vote Delete. Invariable, some administrator will close this "debate," and invariable the result will be Keep.  Ningauble-striking-or-not-striking-her/his-vote will have no ultimate impact.  Yours, allixpeeke (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've done more research on the page. I've added sourced quotes from a 1986 interview by the Associated Press. And from a 1987 interview by the Associated Press. I've added quotes from a 1989 interview by The Boston Globe, taken months before his death. I've added a sourced quote from The New York Times. Please see this version of the quotes page to view the amount of research that I have put in to the page, so far. And then please evaluate based upon that version if we should disappear this page from the website of Wikiquote or whether or not this version of the page has value for our readers and should be retained as such. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE to closing administrator: Please see this version of the page for even more research and sourced quotes. I've done a great amount of research on this page by this point in time. Hopefully this will be enough effort and research and addition of sourced quotes to the page from multiple different sources over a several-year-time-span to save the page from being disappeared off Wikiquote. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this request is necessary. The administrators qua debate-closers don't need to look at the page's content at all; they just need to see that 75% of us have voted Keep.  As for administers qua voters, they (like non-administrative voters) will look at the page, and since the reason initially suggested for deleting the page (viz., lack of sources) has been resolved, they will almost surely vote Keep.  Really, there's no real debate at this point.  Even the nominator, although she/he has not altered her/his vote, has ceased offering any arguments in favour of deletion.  I don't know why nobody has yet closed the "debate," but it's not like any of us is going to be surprised by the result, which invariably will be Keep.  So, there seems nothing really about which to fret.   : )    Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for bringing some clarity to the discussion. I agree with everything you've stated, above. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree with Allixpeeke, but I haven't been aware of 75% rule here on the English Wikiquote. As far as I understanding our VfD policy (see above) doesn't mention any quantitative measures on vote counting explicitly. Or now we have such in somewhere else? A question from an admin lately back from vacances. --Aphaia (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't saying that there is a 75% rule. I said "75%" simply because three-of-the-four votes were Keep and one-of-the-four votes were Delete.  My point was that since 75% is well above 50%, the Jim Henson page was at no risk of being deleted.  (There would have to be a minimum of three users coming in at the last minute and voting Delete for some crazy reason (e.g., saying Henson wasn't "notable" enough) for the page to be deleted, which is extremely unlikely.)  And, of course, now that you have also voted Keep, the page is even safer, having now reached 80%.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep now. Thank you for improvement, Cirt and Allixpeeke. --Aphaia (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great improvements. Jim Henson has always been my hero, so thank you all. -- Mdd (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and, for visiting here and your kind words about the Quality improvement efforts to the page by myself and by . Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)