Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Mike Freese

Mike Freese
Formal reference to VfD because I removed the PROD. The PROD was because he was deemed non-notable at WP. However, these are non-trivial quotes, referenced to reliable sources clearly independent of the subject, which should be good enough for us. — Abramsky (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep--Abramsky (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment; we do not necessarily depend on Wikipedia as a barometer of quotable notability, and the case of an otherwise non-notable person who is quoted in notable sources is a likely example of a page that can exist here, although not there. No opinion on this particular subject, however. BD2412 T 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure I understand this nomination. If you disagree with the PROD, simply remove it. I would then expect such a VFD discussion only if someone else believes the page should be deleted. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think procedural nominations are ok any time a contributor feels it should be discussed, but placing an argument to keep in the nomination to delete is a little confusing. It might be clearer for the nominating statement to just note that deletion was proposed, and for the nominator's vote to give the argument for keeping. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the decision at Wikipedia that this person is not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedic biography. He is just someone who hung out at political rallies, and was remarked by a few journalists who covered uneventful political events by describing colorful characters in attendance. I support the principle that we can include famous quotes of a person who is not otherwise notable (usually in a theme article since the person is not a subject of much interest), but these are not widely repeated quotes – not during the campaign season when they were uttered, and certainly not in the test of time. This lacks both "Notability" and "Quotability". (Regarding the nominating satatement: I think the quotes are trivial actually, but that is not the issue. Some very famous quotes are trivial in their substance.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I brought this here because I wasn't 100% sure about removing the PROD. Now, on reflection, I am.  These quotes have been repeated in several places.  If they are quoted, surely we have an objective basis for saying that they are quotable.--Abramsky (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that any of these quotations had been repeated anywhere noteworthy after the initial "news" reports. Can you provide citations? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)