Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Ma Anand Sheela


 * 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: no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 17:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ma Anand Sheela
This article appears to be a WikiBiography constructed from quotations (and augmented with a lurid WikiTabloid "infobox") rather than a collection of statements exhibiting the qualities of Quotability. — Ningauble 19:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Additionally, although Wikiquote lies outside the jurisdiction of Arbcom's injunction against the article creator, I am highly dubious of the propriety of using Wikiquote to carry on the proscribed activity, particularly when the contributor is also undertaking to expunge quotes of an associated person from theme articles at the same time .  ~ Ningauble 19:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. BD2412 T 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — despite being created in what seems to be pretty much a spirit of an "attack page" by a person whose apparently malicious, deceitful and thoroughly knavish attitudes and actions I have come to have about as much contempt for as those of anyone I have encountered on the WIkimedia projects, including some of the most vile and obnoxious of deliberate vandals of which I am aware — I believe it should not be removed, although the info box imported from Wikipedia definitely should be removed as NOT appropriate to our articles for quotes. I have no great admiration for Sheela, and much contempt for the stupidity of many of her notorious activities but believe this has been created primarily as an attack page by a person with much hostility towards many ideas of others who do not conform or subordinate themselves to many of the particular social, unsocial or anti-social paths as this person endorses or promotes. I don't believe that I actually am in a minority in discerning that ANYONE who focuses or seems to focus exclusively upon the bad in humanity and other individuals is exhibiting an extremely unhealthy attitude, and though I myself have already suffered somewhat at being a target of such profoundly misdirected malice and callousness, I have always been quite confident I have been strong enough to withstand much of the worst my adversaries can do or attempt to do with relative ease — and have long been willing to put up with much nonsense and animosity until such times come, when more truths of matters can be safely and easily revealed and much more of the full character of both people and situations exposed for what they are. I am pleased to see that others have noted this page creator's rather extremely bigoted attitudes upon at least a few matters, but I truly hold no ill will towards someone I consider an extremely ignorant and confused and misguided individual — and forgiving errors and sins of the past which I believe this person has committed and prompted others to commit, I truly am willing to pardon some further despicable actions and behavior and even to tolerate this rather unpleasant habit of posting much about the vilest in humanity, and in some cases of which I am aware, of making even innocent and nobel activity seem vile and contemptible. However I am NOT forgetting or disregarding or pardoning this person's efforts to CENSOR and prevent the contributions of others, including myself — and will continue to actively combat those efforts at destroying and diminishing other people's proper rights. in summary, though I vote to retain this article, I truly believe that this person is the "official" who is the LEAST worthy of having any official status on this or ANY of the Wikimedia projects that I have ever encountered — and that statement is made with extensive awareness of many of the deplorable activities and deceptions engaged in by Poetlister and a few others. ~ Kalki 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Keep. Extremely notable individual, and noteworthy statements widely commented on in secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether there might be a distinction to be drawn between a "noteworthy" statement and a "quotable" statement. I tend to think of quotes (in terms of the goal of this project) as things someone might want to quote in a speech or book when discussing a particular subject, as a neat observation on that subject. BD2412 T 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really am inclined to view any "standardized" definition of many things as only provisionally useful, in very limited ways, and not all of them good ones, and thus find it quite detrimental to seek to establish any absolutely formulated responses based upon them. I have always found the more clever of the ill-willed people far more industrious in seeking and finding ways to bypass the aims of even well intentioned rules than the more casually attentive majority of people with basically fair inclinations are in upholding the spirit of them. Once any absolutist "rules" are made or accepted by enough people those with the most corrupted minds and corruptive intentions can generally misuse them in various ways to abuse people and their proper rights, and can usually rely upon the personally selfish interests, lack of interest, apathy or sheer laziness of others to support or sustain their efforts — without even bothering to examine much of the scope of the issues involved, let alone many of the significant details. I have many times witnessed such things occurring. I recognize that there are always some need for rules and agreements but also strongly believe that it is always best to leave many options open and not seek to constrain people too much — because those with the strongest  lusts to constrain, control and command other people will usually gravitate towards finding ways to do so far more than the well intentioned could have imagined. Voltairine de Cleyre declare states:
 * Anarchism says, Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that "freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license"; and they will define and define freedom out of existence. Let the guarantee of free speech be in every man's determination to use it, and we shall have no need of paper declarations. On the other hand, so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
 * I have long considered this one of the most profound statements ever expressed on the matter, and was somewhat familiar with it even at a very young age. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks


 * I think BD2412 has hit the nail on the head "in terms of the goal of this project". There is a very evident difference of opinion among longstanding contributors about what that goal really is:
 * Some contributors believe the project should focus on quotations that are famous in their own right and quotations that exhibit strong qualities of "quotability" consistent with the perspective that "viewed in the right light quotations are sparkling gems of wisdom in a handful of well-chosen words."
 * Other contributors believe that Wikiquote should also include quotations of an informative nature, that serve to document facts and opinions about some notable subject, including anything that could be a useful citation in a work about that subject.
 * My own view is of the first type. I believe that documentary information of the second type is more appropriate for projects such as Wikipedia or Wikinews, whether it be in the form of direct quotation or of gloss with bibliographic citation. This is not only because "sparkling gems" (and notably spectacular duds!) are what I like and why I joined the wiki; but also because attempting to "cover a topic" in an informative manner using just quotations, without any exposition, is a very peculiar approach that seldom does the subject justice. It is a rare documentarist who can pull off this kind of synthesis successfully. I do not believe collecting documentary facts in the form of quotations is an appropriate activity for this wiki. In a nutshell, I believe there is a world of difference between something that is useful to quote in the context of, e.g., a news article, and something that transcends context as a brilliant "quotable" quote. With respect to Kalki's position, it is not really a matter of censoring free speech because it very much comes down to what the goal of this project is. Kalki is a user who's contributions are quite focused on quotations of the first type, but whose policy regarding the contributions of others is broadly permissive of the second type. That is a reasonable position, but the supporting argument about censorship of free speech is off-base. We are not talking about restricting access to the free market of ideas, which is a much larger bazaar than our little project. It is entirely appropriate for an enterprise dedicated to a specific purpose to limit its activities to those that are appropriate for that purpose. Just because that purpose entails speech does not mean it must accommodate all speech. The question is not whether to censor "free speech", the question is really about the scope of this project's goal. If the goal is wholly undefined then, of course, anything goes. ~ Ningauble 21:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see anything that ought to be in a dictionary of quotations.--Collingwood 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion would mean that none of the entries are quotable. I think that's incorrect, since the quotes from the subject have all been quoted in independent sources. Many of them are pithy and evocative, as good quotations often are. Like any page, though, it can be improved. I think the issues raised here mostly concern the "Quotes about..." section, where the quotes are not pithy and seem more biographical, which is not the purpose of Wikiquote.  Will Beback   talk    21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the "quotes about" but, regarding the others, don't you think there is a difference between newsy bits and quotable quotes? ~ Ningauble 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The talk page of the quote page in question, Talk:Ma Anand Sheela, would be a great place to discuss addition or removal of individual and specific quotes from the "Quotes about" section of the page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)