Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Josette Sheeran


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: keep. BD2412 T 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Josette Sheeran
Speedy deleted as single-source spam, which was contested. Restored for proper deletion discussion. My inclination is that the subject is merely an agency functionary, and is therefore not quotably notable. — BD2412 T 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

-- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. BD2412 T 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing vote for deletion per improvements to page. This is not, however, an endorsement of restoring quotes sourced only to the website of the organization for which this person works. BD2412 T 00:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will expand my comment just a bit by noting that all but one of the quotes on this page are sourced to the website of the program for which this person works. BD2412 T 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added three quotes, two from other web sites and one from a published book. It may be that these same quotes can be found somewhere on the UN web site, but even in that case we have reliable third parties who have quoted Josette Sheeran so we need not rely on that untrustworthy organisation, the UN.--Collingwood 12:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why I have withdrawn my vote to delete. Sorry, I put the withdrawal comment on top of the much earlier criticism of sourcing, which was true at the time I made it, but is no longer. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam added by single-purpose-account with obvious conflict of interest. -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — and I believe that an Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and a future co-chair of the World Economic Forum is quite notable enough for an article here, as well as the one she has at Wikipedia. Any paucity in the material can gradually be alleviated, and considering the existing quotes of official addresses or announcements of a major UN functionary merely "spam" is something I consider not merely ludicrous but contemptible. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the whole entire page was created by a likely representative of the organization in order to spam links back to the organization's website, and 100% of those spam links appear to still remain on the page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a person is notable for Wikipedia purposes doesn't make automatically make them quotably notable. Someone may hold a very important position, but not be known for their quotes. In this case, a quick Google Books search indicates that the subject is at least mentioned in a number of books, although this does not inherently mean that she is quotable either. I did find one instance where this subject was quoted in a quotability context:
 * A silent tsunami which knows no borders is sweeping the world.
 * Regarding world hunger; reported in Graeme Taylor, Evolution's Edge: The Coming Collapse and Transformation of Our World (2008), p. 46.
 * Fill up the page with quotes from sources other than the subject's own agency webpages and I'll consider changing my vote. BD2412 T 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The author is notable and the quotes non-trivial. Further, they are all referenced to a respectable web site.  The idea that linking to the web site of a United Nations agency is spam seems not to be a valid meaning of "spam".--Collingwood 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added the quote found by BD2412 and one from a UK Government web site, obviously independent of the UN.--Collingwood 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep following the addition of a number of sourced quotes. ~ UDScott 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Removed spam links to organization www.wfp.org diff. The page now has four (4) sources other than in its initial format, which was almost 100% spam links to that organization. I also removed some spam links from the External links subsection, which was becoming bloated. There was even a link to "Twitter". -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support the removal of these materials, and would have gotten around to doing the same thing in fairly short order. We should not open ourselves up to becoming a repository of materials that any organization wants to showcase. Quotes sourced only to the internal webpages of an organization should not be included here. Furthermore, we should definitely not be linking to Twitter accounts. They can provide no useful information about what quotable things the subject has said, because they only reflect the subject's own comments, not the evaluation of these comments by disinterested third parties. BD2412 T 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, as most are well aware, I reject the deletion of material merely because it is not widely quoted elsewhere and not necessarily found in secondary sources, and if material is deleted that doesn't violate some clearly established rules it should be a matter of consensus operations. I believe that there are MANY quotes by MANY people taken out of context, and widely quoted which additional material permits placing into better context, and many notable statements of notable people which editors should not be required to find in some secondary sources, if one finds them significant. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * @BD2412: Check it out, Kalki has gone ahead and reverted, adding back all the spam links, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Check it out — Cirt is trying to instigate hostility to me here (surprise surprise!) I restored the material because other editors HAD expressed approval of it — and had NOT yet seen BD2412's agreement with Cirt on this particular matter. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've removed the spam links a 2nd time diff, however I will not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Kalki will respect that two (2) users find the spam links inappropriate, and will not revert the spam links back unto the page, again. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully people who are not asinine conniving CENSORS of evidence of GRACE and WORTH in HUMANITY will be of sufficient number that a genuine consensus can be reached to RETAIN this valuable and appropriate body of material from a TRULY responsible leader of human beings. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kalki, Wikiquote is not intended to be an arbiter of what is good and wholesome in the world. We are a compendium of quotes, that's all. We report notable, quotable comments, and perhaps debunk misattributions where they are found, but we are not on a mission to showcase stuff that was said that no one else has deemed notable enough to be quoted. BD2412 T 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that though at least a couple long term editors promote such views such restrictions as you present AS IF they were official POLICY have NEVER received consensus community approval, and I for one would vigorously oppose establishment of such guidelines as mandates. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Comment I support the retention of these quotes until we have had a full discussion about whether a UN website is a proper source for quotations. I cannot fathom how links to a UN web site can constitute spam.  Is it because it is a self-published source?  Do people know that all of Lewis Carroll's major works were self-published?  If Wikiquote had existed in his lifetime, would we say that we could not source a quote to his books because they were self-published?--Collingwood 21:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a primary source.
 * 2) The quotes were all added by a single-purpose-account.
 * 3) The page was created with 100% links back to the parent organization.
 * 4) Thus, the page served to add tons of spam links to promote the organization's website.
 * 5) That is inappropriate use of this project.
 * Comment Certainly it's a primary source. So is a novel, a play, a collection of poems by one author or a non-fiction book.  Do you propose removing most of the quotes from articles such as William Shakespeare?  I believe that linking to the web site of a UN organisation is not spam, and see no consensus here to the contrary.  Can we please wait until this VfD is concluded and then have a discussion elsewhere on the general issue.  Incidentally, I see that Ningauble says "The principal citation should be the primary source whenever it can be found ... When quotability is debatable, a supplementary citation to a notable secondary or tertiary source may be included as evidence."  Is there any issue here of quotability?--Collingwood 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we know whether something is "quotable" if no one else has quoted it? I suspect we would have little difficulty finding any of our Shakespeare quotes having been repeated by another person. Let me propose the contrasting situation. A person of borderline notability has a blog or a twitter feed, and creates their own page here containing random sentences from these types of sources. Are we bound to keep that because the primary source has been cited? BD2412 T 22:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with this comment by BD2412. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, no doubt most of the Shakespeare quotes have been quoted by someone. But it would take a lot of work to prove that in some cases.  Anyway, do we want a policy that quotes can only be added if there is proof that they have been cited by an independent reliable source?  Would we require that the independent source gives a precise reference, hence excluding Brainyquote and similar sites?  I think that such a policy would wreck this site.--Collingwood 12:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out some rather ridiculous absurdities to these comments, as a person who ACCEPTS and REJOICES in MANY forms of BEAUTIFUL and FAIR and genuinely REVELATORY absurdities — and rejects many forms of foul or misleading absurdities: ANY thing is to some extent "QUOTABLE" — MANY things NOT considered quotes by MANY people are considered quotes by SOME — especially the most intelligent and profound of the poets and philosophers who address the disciplines of Semiotics and Pragmatism, and NO quotations is considered PERFECT — there is NEVER ABSOLUTE IDENTITY between ANY 2 instants of time or Regions of Eternity or other designatible continuums of Reality. ALL people CONSTANTLY engage in various forms of interpretation and assessment which can be considered fair and agreeable to many — or obtuse and dull — or clever but mischevioius or even malicious. I have regularly objected to attempts by people to constrain and limit what editors can do here based on extremely presumptive definitions and what I consider to be very shallow perceptions of MANY circumstances. I do NOT feel ANY of us should EVER bound to accept ANY things absolutely without good REASON, and the willingness to face contentions and disputes on occassions. THOSE who seek to establish "perfect definitions" and "perfect formulations" and "perfect RULES" are people I have LONG considered SEVERELY deluded — but I recognize the mania for seeking such things are very common. The MOST I believe we can ever actually ACHIEVE by efforts are FAIR and HONEST and CONSIDERATE ASSESSMENTS. ~ This is just a glimpse of some of my perspectives on things, so that some people might beging to actually UNDERSTAND some of my rhetoric and rationales a bit better. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I would like to point out that not so long ago I actually put aside any personal animosities and supported the RETENTION of the page Cirt created on Ma Anand Sheela at Votes for deletion/Ma Anand Sheela, despite what I consider his or her obvious hostilities to the subject of the article, which was apparent on what he or she chose to present to others. As I have regularly stressed I do believe people SHOULD have very wide freedoms to choose material for pages — and others have the right to dispute the appropriateness or fairness of anything, and to attempt to correct any unfair imbalances with other material — but ALL attempts to put absolute formula or rules on what people can or cannot add to legitimately worthy subject pages is something I tend to abhor. ~ <font style= "color:white;background:silver">♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks