Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Macedonia (region)


 * 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. However, there is consensus that the article needs trimming. BD2412 T 03:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (region)
This page seems way too large for such a narrow topic - and most of the quotes do not seem to be very pithy or memorable, but rather read like an encyclopedic entry trying to explore the history of the people from this region. — UDScott 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote closes: 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * VOTE IS CLOSED ACCORDING TO THE CONCLUSSION MOST PEOPLE VOTED TO KEEP THIS PAGE (5 votes KEEP against 2 DELETE) The other votes do not count since they were posted after 8 April. 


 * Delete, unless severely trimmed to truly memorable and pithy quotes. ~ UDScott 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I certainly find the narrow focus and rather obviously obsessive POVs in this article rather irritating also, but find the narrow focus and rather obviously obsessive tendencies to delete things which are merely irritating on the project far MORE irritating. I tend to believe that articles should be kept for the most part, unless they are truly in some way plainly HARMFUL to the project. ~ Achilles † 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim to about 1/4 of its current size. Sourced quotes, some of which are in fact quoteworthy. BD2412 T 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is. Rich, well sourced and definitely harmless page. If considered POV, any contributor is free to add the opposite view to keep it neutral. Macedonian 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but trim about at least a third of the page. There are just way too many insignificant quotes. Local hero 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless trimming begun before close of VfD. The page reads like a thesis article, with tendentious bolding of phrases to make points. An article about a nation or region is a theme article; it should include notable quotes on the topic rather than quotes driving home a particular view. I believe it does harm, in the long run, if we encourage editors to create theme pages which promote their theories. - InvisibleSun 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it exactly as it is. Yes it is large. Rich. Why "trim" it? Is it hair? Which quotes from there are insignificant? For whom? Who is the judge? When a reader goes to that page, he/she expects to find something. The page got so big because people wanted to find stuff when they went to that page. There are analytic sections. Nothing messy. Any reader can easily browse sections or search and find what he was looking for. Is there a limit, that says the page should be deleted if exceeding 145KB? --CuteHappyBrute 03:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless pared back to just the small fraction of quotes that are notably quoteworthy. Wikiquote is not an appendix to Wikipedia for extended bibliographic reference materials, nor for documenting details that do not fit an encyclopedic summary style. I believe it does harm if we encourage editors to use Wikiquote for documentary purposes unrelated to its mission, particularly for documenting disputes. Some of the greatest quotes of all time are disputatious, but most points in dispute are not quoteworthy. ~ Ningauble 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously think we should add your last line to WQ:Q. BD2412 T 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes these quotes may not be notable for you, but neither is "Okonkwo's wives, and perhaps other women as well, might have noticed that the second egwugwu had the springy walk of Okonkwo." for me. "It may be a very difficult and very subjective determination to say that one quote is "quotable" while another is not". --CuteHappyBrute 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While there are some subjective assessments involved in the "quality" of a quote, "notability" is not a matter of personal perspective. It means the world at large has taken note. At Wikipedia, this relates to whether a topic is noteworthy, but at Wikiquote it relates to whether the author and the form of expression are quoteworthy. The comparison you cite is from the most widely read book in modern African literature—an objective indication of notability. ~ Ningauble 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think few people have taken note of Macedonia the region? I think it is a fact that more people are interested in Macedonia of Alexander, of ancient Greece, Byzantine empire, Ottoman empire and the Balkan wars than what Ngwoko did to Okonkwo. That is, from the continent I am from. African philosophy yes, very quotable and notable. But I don't think plain parts of literature (that i have seen here) was the first thing Wikiquote wanted to cover. The article we talk about has clean, sourced quotes. From mainly important people. Ancient and modern Historians, linguists, archaeologists. Talking about an issue that interests many many people as you have witnessed. Where is the hole? That you are afraid of wikiquote being a part of a "dispute"? or that it is too big? I think it is big. but not too big. because it isn't like some few important quotes are drowned between many insignificant: Either you find the whole page significant, or you find it insignificant. And many people find it much more significant than the average wikiquote page. --CuteHappyBrute 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's too big because some of the quotes are just plain mundane. BD2412 T 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When will the vote close? It supposed to be 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)... Macedonian 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC


 * Keep, this page has a big historical value and should not be entirely be deleted. Trim it if it needs to by deleting the most unnessecary quotes but do not delete the entire page --79.166.43.188 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.