Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Raleigh Theodore Sakers

--Cato 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh Theodore Sakers
Why do we even have garbage like this? Nothing remotely resembling a notable quote. — BD2412 T 12:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a no consensus at present - extend for a week to 13:00, 9 Jan--Poetlister 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Logically, this ought to be a delete per nom. However, these are well-sourced, non-trivial quotes from somebody whose notability might be sustainable.  Thus while I'd like to see this deleted, it raises thorny questions.--Poetlister 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's exactly why I didn't vote either way. I'm been active this week but it's only been a week so I'm not too versed on Wikiquote's standards.  On the other hand from the Wikipedia page for this person it seems his notability stems from the fact that he's a transient in a half-way house who's random rants and ravings were used in a band's music.  The notability comes from where it was used and not necessarily the content of what was used. -- Greyed 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the community deems the content of this page to be within our mission, I'll go with it; but this, I think, is the sort of thing which we should have standards to exclude. BD2412 T 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my comment was heading for a question which was not formed. Let's boil down the discussion.  Is there any other case where the random ravings of an individual, taken out of context, and used in art, are considered notable outside their usage as, essentially, an instrument?  Are there cases of random ravings outside of art being considered notable enough to be quoted?  I mean while they are well cited the cites go back to the same single page which was set up to document what was said because, again, they showed up in art devoid of the context in which they were taken.  I can see having a link to that page from the Wikipedia page for this person, maybe even from Sublime's page, because it is in that usage that made it notable.  Devoid of that usage, would they be part of WQ wants to quote?  Or a better question, is the usage outside of context enough to make them notable?  Just as a random data point I note that neither Leonard Nemoy or Information Society have cites for Information Society's usage of Leonard Nemoy's voice in their 1988 use of the phrase "Pure Energy!" -- Greyed 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a million mentally ill people out there who rave just as much as this subject; his dumb luck was to have some of his raving recorded and spliced into an album. Maybe there's a synergy issue here - perhaps people of borderline notability should be held to a higher standard of pithiness to merit inclusion? If George Bush or Tom Cruise were to make a similarly rambling statement, that would more likely merit inclusion simply because of who it was coming from. Conversely, if Mr. Sakers were to say something truly profound, that might merit inclusion because of its profundity. BD2412 T 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I don't listen to sublime. However, this is a collection of quotes if there ever was any. The only detrimental factor is that the quotes are excessively dominated by cursing. Still, can't say it's enough reason just to delete it. So I'm staying neutral on this one and going with a weak keep. - Zarbon 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even the cursing that bothers me so much as the rambling. Someone pointed out in an earlier VfD that there are some very notable people (particularly inventors and such) that never said anything worth quoting. We really need to establish some kind of quotability guideline, otherwise we end up being a collection of whatever can be documented as having been said by someone who meets Wikipedia's low bar for notability (i.e., Mr. Sakers). BD2412 T 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from the question of notability, this article raises another problem for me: namely, exploitation. As seen in this interview account of how Sakers' words were recorded in the first place, it appears that someone (the friend of a brother of one of the band members) worked in a halfway house where Sakers was residing.  There is no indication that Sakers consented to be recorded for an album, even assuming that someone in his condition was capable of consent in any meaningful sense.  I feel totally uncomfortable with keeping here the words of a man who had no control over what he was saying and didn't know what was going to be done with what he had said. - InvisibleSun 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Morally, InvisibleSun has a fair point, though I think that we'd have to delete a few lines from Famous Last Words on that basis. Legally, though, I don't think the argument flies.--Yehudi 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting on the intellectual-property-lawyer hat for a moment, no, Wikiquote faces no legal peril over this. BD2412 T 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree that I wasn't making a legal point; but it wasn't legality that I was thinking of when I made it. - InvisibleSun 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The moral dilemma is less convincing to me than a legal dilemma would be. Plenty of people have been surreptitiously recorded saying things that have turned out to be "quotable". I would agree that the moral imperative against including secret recordings is substantially heightened when the person recorded was of no particular note at the time. BD2412 T 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: InvisibleSun's latest convinced me. While there may not be a legal problem here there certainly is a bit of moral ambiguity which I feel tips the scales away from notable. -- Greyed 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-notable person saying non-notable quotes. The world is full of people that make similar rambling rants. I don't see how including these here under this person's name is appropriate just because some group decided to exploit him for profit. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Without these quotes, he would not be notable. Yes, I believe it was unethical for Sublime to make him notable by exploiting his mental illness for profit. But the fact is, he's notable, and these quotes, however unpleasant, are a necessary part of that. Quadell 12:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is circular reasoning, right? He's notable because of the quotes therefore the quote should be kept because he is notable.  While I would agree that circular reasoning would be viable in the extremely rare case where what was said was exceptionally profound in spite of a lack of outside notability or circumstance.  I don't think that this is one of those cases. -- Greyed 23:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that we shouldn't be dictating what people (and quotes) are notable -- we should just reflect what society says is notable. Are phrases like "I'm lovin' it" exceptionally profound? Clearly no, but we keep it because the phrase has become notable for being exploited. It does appear that consensus is against me here, however. (BTW, it would only be circular if he were notable because of Wikiquote, not just because of his quotes. Minor point.) Quadell 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But are these quotes (independent of the person) something "society says is notable"? I think it takes more than the inclusion of his ramblings as filler on an album for the quotes to reach that level of notability. BD2412 T 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, I would find the lyrics on a certified-gold album to be notable. Quadell 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see this as something that needs to be kept just because it appears in a song. The subject is not notable and I don't believe he warrants having a page. ~ UDScott 15:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an obvious delete, and if anyone thinks that our policies suggest otherwise, let's amend our policies.--Cato 22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I am not impressed by the sources, which are all recordings on a fan site. I am not impressed by the subject, who does not seem notable in his own right but merely served as a human "found object" for Sublime and others. I am not impressed by the quotes, which are schizophrenic rants. I am saddened by the life, treatment, and condition of the late Mr. Sakers but do not believe that this page is a fitting memorial. I am especially saddened by the unfeeling and unethical commercial exploitation of Mr. Sakers, and do not believe that we should legitimize that exploitation with a page on Wikiquote. --Ubiquity 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_question.svg|25px]] Wait a minute, are these quotes on Sublime's album Robbin' the Hood? I was under the impression they were, but now I'm not sure. If they're on the album, then it's as notable as any lyrics to a gold album are. . . but perhaps the page should be merged with Sublime. If these quotes are not on the album, then I agree that they're not notable and should be deleted. Quadell 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of lyrics we don't include from any album, no matter how notable the album. If we included everything, we'd be violating copyrights (and besides, not every lyric on an album is worth quoting). The fact that this person's rantings may have made it onto an album does not make them worth quoting any more than any other snippet of text on the album. Even with albums, we only quote what is truly quotable. BD2412 T 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)