Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matthew Sanchez

Article has, miraculously, been improved (and the edit war has died down, which was the only reason I hadn't already withdrawn the VfD. Excellent work, Cirt! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez
Constant source of edit-warring between editors (including the subject of the article himself, under the username of User:Bluemarine). Last time it was taken to VfD, some of the chief supporters were sockpuppets. Quite frankly, the page isn't worth the trouble we have with it; none of the quotes are that great, and it just seems like yet another platform for harping by an editor that (in my opinion) is trying to game the system a bit. — EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - despite the problems generated by the adversarial relations of the two primary editors of the page it can be kept at reasonable levels of quality and worth, if formatted in a standard chronological fashion for the quotes or specific works, rather than the current "subject" headings for sections . Despite it being an article created by the subject, the person has sufficient notability as a public figure and journalist for some article on his expressions to me merited here. ~ Kalki 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more than willing to withdraw the VfD if it can be improved; I just have little faith in that happening, and I'm rather disgusted with both editors in question. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - In line with this above comment by, I have gone ahead and cleaned up this page . In the future, we should stick to a pure chronological format, instead of a thematic topical format, and arrange quotes in descending chronological order, with most recent at the top. Also, we should stick to quotes from secondary sources, by authors that are not the subject of this page himself but rather other authors. In addition, it would be best for the individual that is the subject of this page to avoid editing the page itself directly. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard on chronology here has always been one with the earliest quotes on the page first, not the most recent, and I believe that standard should be retained, and not reversed. ~ Kalki 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it . Better? Cirt (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have mixed feelings, for the subject does meet the threshold of notability.
 * Wikiquote has very limited administrative resources for refereeing highly contentious articles, and I am not aware of any that involved more persistently insistent acrimony. There are other contentious topics of unquestionable importance due to having much broader interest, yet I am hesitant to force triage on that basis except as a last resort.
 * I have no wish to penalize the subject for having drawn fire from detractors. In suggesting deletion as an easy way out, I thought we could save ourselves a lot of bother in following board guidance on taking human dignity into account if the article creator were willing to forego whatever fame and influence our little site confers. I don't think the omission would do great damage to Wikiquote's mission.
 * Alternatively, if the article is kept the subject needs to recognize the inadmissibility of giving the appearance of self-promotion and the impossibility of being impartial in selecting and judging the quotability of one's own words.
 * I would welcome a statement from the article creator in this discussion before I think further about resorting triage. ~ Ningauble 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I didn't ask for this article, but if it's going to be here it mind as well be accurate.Bluemarine 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course you didn't ask for the article, you actually created it back on 7 May 2007. I do believe there should be an article here, and not one primarily created to either promote your agenda or defame your perspectives, but to simply present some of the most noted or notable your statements. This has hardly as yet been achieved, with you and your primary adversaries intent on making each other seem extremely ridiculous and succeeding in providing each other with plenty of ammunition to do so. I do not expect this to become a problem-free article any time soon, but I do hope the levels of contention will eventually be reduced, and some acceptable ranges of conditions achieved. ~ Kalki 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eventually may be a very long time indeed. I am not encouraged by Bluemarine's disingenuous demurrer above, by his declining to address or acknowledge the issue of conflict of interest, or by his engaging in a revert war while this discussion is ongoing. If this article is kept, I expect it to be a nuisance for administrators and an embarrassment to Wikiquote for the indefinite future. ~ Ningauble 15:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but fully protect from Matt - Bluemarine aka Matt Sanchez has shown a stunning incapability to report neutrally and accurately, he is a textbook example of why there are COI templates and guidelines. As long as there is an entry here he will work tirelessly and through any method to raise his stature to mythic levels having no basis in reality. He has disrupted every project he has worked on and is simply unable to be involved with reporting on himself. If his unfortunate rise to fame must be documented it should be accurate and with full knowledge he will keep chipping away at all the "gay stuff" including his own quotes about being an escort. Even the 'pedia article has degraded despite his ban from the site. Whatever is done fully protect the article and force consensus as Matt seems incapable of editing anywhere, wish it wasn't true but history has shown him to be his own worst enemy time and again. 71.139.0.54 08:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the interventions of Kalki and Cirt, but impose semiprotections of increasing duration every time there is an edit war. If no one comes out a winner in these skirmishes, they will eventually lose interest and take their tediousness elsewhere. - InvisibleSun 23:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)