Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Paul Vitale


 * 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: delete. BD2412 T 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Vitale
I am not a WikiQuote regular (I am mostly on the English Wikipedia), so forgive me if I am not following proper WikiQuote procedure, but: no way should this page exist. On the English Wikipedia, a person created a page for Paul Vitale. It will probably continue to exist because he got a few writeups in the papers, but the person is not actually notable (in my opinion). The same person -- basically a single-purpose account -- also created this page on WikiQuote. But the page should not exist because: Maybe he comes off better in person. Anyway, thank you for your consideration. — Herostratus 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The person is not notable (notice that the books from which the quotes are taken are published by his own company, for instance).
 * 2) It is a case of self-promotion (or promotion by an admirer), a cross-Wiki spam campaign.
 * 3) The quotes themselves are extremely vapid and useless. "You can't finish unless you begin". "The seed of potential is planted in each of us. The direction it grows and for how long is up to you." "Stop every now and then, rest long enough to get your bearings, and continue striving." Thank you Mr Vitale, where would humanity be without you. Most of the quotes are unsourced, and I'm not sure who is going to take the time to research quotes such as "Passion, resilience and the willingness to learn are common denominators that equal accomplishment".
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : I generally don't mind people speaking their minds, sincerely and honestly, whether for or against something, but unlike many people who I perceive to have very narrow minded and exclusionist tendencies, I much prefer to retain things rather than eliminate them, whenever they are not clearly proven to be doing more harm than good, or at very least, likely to do more harm than good. The trending towards greater exclusions based upon often very narrow considerations of a few people is one I have always tended to object to, in my promotion of maximal liberty and expression of such truths as can produce maximal awareness of true justice. To quote Mr. Vitale, who I am not overly impressed with myself, I would agree that "A consistent attitude, either positive or negative, results from a habit." I continue to promote  a genuinely good faith attitude towards people and humanity, despite myself and those I most cherish sometimes having been victims of the bad-faith tendencies and blatant hypocrisy of many people. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 13:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim down to those quotes that have actually been quoted by a third party in a book or article in print. If that leaves none, then delete. BD2412 T 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually object to such constraints being placed upon this or any other article or quotations — it is one of the ways that has been increasingly used to limit the activity and material available here. I assert that the activities which should always be most restrained are those of clear vandalism of the wiki, and of the making of rules that conveniently constrain or limit any sort of activity or edits that fall outside of one's own particular interests. These, if rigorously applied, would decimate the wiki and in some cases prevent even the expansion of commonly quoted passages for proper context, not normally cited — and to some degree we could then, at times, become merely parrots of the worst distortions that have been perpetrated by various factions of religious or political polemicists in their promotion of bigotries. I much prefer that a far broader range of views and quotations than are commonly citied be able to be presented, rather than insuring that those which are to some extent already commonly available simply be reinforced and protected by safeguards against further observations and clarifications, which might often be far more obscure. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article starts with a couple strikes against it: firstly, self-publication earns the author a rebuttable presumption of non-notability; and secondly, a contributor who self-identifies as an SEO marketing professional and creates multiple articles cross-wiki on a single author invites skepticism about conflict of interest. Both strikes can be overcome by a strong showing of notability. Not seeing such, I lean toward deletion. I have no objection to including less well known but particularly quotable statements from works that are notably quotable, but if no part of a work is so quoted then I must doubt that any part of it is quotable. ~ Ningauble 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notably quotable beyond the clientele of his motivational seminars. Continuing the two strikes above: Foul Ball – His author bio at Amazon claims one of his books was a best seller, but a GoogleNews search disconfirms the claim. (Perhaps it was the best seller in a narrow niche that receives no press coverage.) Strike Three – The top 50 Google hits for this person are his own promotional and social sites, indexers and profilers, Wikipedia, and trivial press releases. ~ Ningauble 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above discussion - I see nothing that would demonstrate the notability necessary to have a page. ~ UDScott 18:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above discussion. Sjones23 05:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)