Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Percy Jackson & the Olympians


 * 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: Kept. BD2412 T 14:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Percy Jackson & the Olympians
I tried to trim this page down to just the quotable quotes earlier today, but gave up, because none of these quotes are any good. I've read this series, and there are good quotes in it. This is just a poor representation of the text. Plus, they're all unsourced. — Nick1372 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 00:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no value in anything on this page. BD2412 T 19:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking vote per improvements to page. BD2412 T 14:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per BD2412. "Wake me up later." ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep · In hopes of preserving some of the potentially helpful work of those who seek to add to the project, and countering the disposition of those who seek to rigorously control or constrict it in such ways as I believe are contrary to the spirit of a truly healthy wiki-project and to vitality in general, I can agree the provided quotes are as yet trivial, but to anyone who is for any reasons interested in these works, which do have Wikipedia articles, a quotes page here could provide a quick way to determine whether or not they merit any further attention, or that this page does, according to their inclinations — rather than rely upon nothing but the vacuities of information arising amidst the inclinations of those quick to exclude or condemn much that is of little interest to themselves. This or something much like it might become a rather standard statement when I take any action to preserve what otherwise might be eliminated. I do expect to be able to be far more active here in coming weeks and months than I have been in recent ones. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)+ tweaks
 * The argument, that this provides a way to determine whether one might be interested in the work, would be relevant at a site like WikiBookReview; but it is not really germane to Wikiquote's purpose. If the article at Wikipedia is not sufficiently informative about the nature of the books then that is where the vacuum needs to be filled, at Wikipedia. The very proposition, that this is actually useful information about the books, is contradicted by the nominator's testimony, having actually read the subject works, that it is a poor representation of the text. Therefore, the argument is not only irrelevant, it appears to be based on a false premise. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep after recent additions ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, yes, it's good now. There's no longer a reason to delete. Nick1372 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2013 (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.