Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jonathan Mitchell

Jonathan Mitchell
Subject is not notable for Wikiquote. The presence of an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant. This article can not stand by itself as the quotes (even though they pass WQ:NQUOTE) do not confer notability for the person. There are more notable people in the Autism sphere than him quoted rightly on the Autism article (eg Jim Sinclair and Temple Grandin) that do not have articles here. Likewise there are more notable controversial people in the sphere than him that I added quotes from to the Autism article (Jenny McCarthy and Robert F Kennedy Junior) that also don't have articles here. This article is in violation of the Wikipedia rule re undue weight which I assume is applicable here on Wikiquote. I have already added the three quotes to the Autism article and that is where they should be retained for balance. This article is now a double entry as a result and it should be deleted if not redirected to the Autism article as I felt was appropriate. The article was created from a biased base to try and promote Mitchell as a reliable resource on Autism above the others. That is clearly not the case. (Note that I do not claim that this is a vanity article as it isn't and I suggest that if that IP comes back and votes for that reason it should be deleted if appropriate) — TLPG (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional - the article creator has added more quotes which I will be adding to the Autism article. The addition makes no difference to the fact that Mitchell is not more notable than the others I named. TLPG (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Vote closes: 00:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would a person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and having multiple quotes that pass WQ:NQUOTE not be notable for Wikiquote? BD2412 T 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because others don't have pages on here and yet are more notable (as I said with Sinclair and Grandin - and Ne'eman also qualifies as do McCarthy and Kennedy) TLPG (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to meet the criteria for inclusion to me - the lack of pages for other figures quoted on the Autism page is certainly not a reason to delete this page (if one feels strongly about it, create these pages). ~ UDScott (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The lack of such strength indicates exactly what I said in the deletion explanation - undue weight TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many sources with notable quotes. If other quotation pages for different advocates are lacking, they can be created. Ylevental (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note - this is the article's creator and he fails to explain how the subject is more notable than the other people. TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Hater that needs to be exposed and this is ideal with sources. Excellent article. Keep it. Only edit from this IP.
 * Hardly a valid vote in my honest opinion! Which WQ policy does this claim come from?? Should this vote be deleted? I think it should be but that's up to an admin. ? TLPG (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a template for unsigned posts. In this case, it wouldn't matter if it was, as the poster is an IP, and this is their only edit. We don't delete votes, but the closing admin will likely give it no weight. BD2412 T 03:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. TLPG (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep That articles on equally notable subjects don't exist is not a valid rationale for deletion; it's a rationale for creation.  G M G  talk  11:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet it hasn't been created. Ask yourself why even though the others are arguably more notable. Therein lies the fail in your point. TLPG (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have had an article on Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr. since 2005. BD2412 T 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not valid really. What about Sinclair, Grandin or Ne'eman? All well know in the Autism sphere even more so than Mitchell. TLPG (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because no one has created them yet. The English Wikipedia has about six million articles. The English Wikiquote has about 33 thousand.  G M G  talk  11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop ducking the point. They haven't been created. Ask yourself why? TLPG (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there are probably several million articles for notable subjects on the English Wikipedia and Wikiquote that have not yet been created, many millions more on other language projects. If you are concerned that these articles do not yet exist, then create them. No one is stopping you. In fact, there are certainly several people willing to help you do so. These are not projects printed on paper or bound in books, and we have virtually no length restrictions. The main restriction we do have is articles that editors have been bothered to write, and we don't delete articles editors have been bothered to write on notable subjects because no one has yet been bothered to write articles on other equally notable subjects. We instead, hope and encourage other editors to write the articles we are missing.  G M G  talk  00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still ducking the point. The articles haven't been created. Why? I'll give you the correct answer. Because they don't give enough quotes to make an article. The creator of the article in question here is biased and trying to promote Mitchell as a reliable source on Autism when he isn't. That's undue weight. You do have a restriction obviously. Why create an article when the article fails guidelines. This one does therefore so do the others and the others already don't have articles. Getting it yet? TLPG (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TLPG, your assessment here is completely incorrect. GMG is correctly stating the facts, not ducking the point. You need to reign in your tendency to make accusations like this, or you will end up being blocked. BD2412 T 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep, nomination withdrawn-- Okay fine. Have your bias. This guy is not a notable quoter but you lot are too lax with your recognition of it. Obviously I have no choice but to create articles to counter this promotional effort by User:Ylevental, just when I do not have the time to and they aren't notable enough anyway otherwise they would have articles here already. If the articles I create are nominated for deletion my point will have been proven. Thanks for nothing. TLPG (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)