Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Never


 * 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Never
Contains a single uninteresting quote with no source and dubious attribution. (The Slovenian version of this page looks much more interesting, though -- maybe someone would like to save this one too.) — Ubiquity 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed: Result: Keep as improved. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I've started to improve it and it can be improved further.--Poetlister 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now, while I'd love to remove the last unsourced and dubious one .... :) --Aphaia 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Obviously, you're entitled to delete any unsourced quote, but surely we have no policy that unsourced quotes are banned! Poetlister 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Poetlister - Modernist 05:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't want to belittle the excellent work of Poetlister and others. However, this raises an important point that maybe we should air on WQ:VP.  Given almost any common word in the English language, we could find several quotes by very notable authors that include that word.  Do we really need the thousands of articles that could be created in that way?--Cato 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, perhaps not: even the Poetlister version contains not-never-thingy: similar but not the same ... "nevermore". Perhaps it wouldn't be the direction to create an article for each word, so we'd love to have guideline. But also I agree here is not the right place to dig it up furthermore ... --Aphaia 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Yes, but so far the context is poetry, I think the contextual quality will be an important determining factor as to whether certain words merit quotes and an article or not. Modernist 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Cato, if we go this route then we would end up with a multiplicity of entries on common adjectives. I suggest we move these to the entry on Eternity, a more concrete concept which encompasses "never" and "forever" and any other words that denote continuity against any passage of time. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the Nevermore quote, but if there is a consensus to remove it, OK. Poetlister 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Truth be told - I like the Nevermore quote also. Modernist 03:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. And I think it would be far better rational to have it on this article than to have a separated entry for "nevermore" only. --Aphaia 21:39, 22 November 2007 (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.