Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Robert Dobbs

~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Dobbs
We have a page for J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, who is a fictional creation of the Church of the SubGenius. The subject of the Robert Dobbs article, however, is a person claiming to be Dobbs. As seen in this archived Wikipedia deletion page and in a deletion review which upheld the deletion, this claimant is unnotable in his own right and is regarded as a fraud by SubGenius members (including Ivan Stang, who took part in the deletion discussion). Aside from all this drawn-out Wikipedia debate is the fact that Dobbs' works, as named and quoted in the article, yield a Google search of unimpressively few results. The WP links in the article are nonexistent. - InvisibleSun 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and change the redirect of Bob Dobbs to the J. R. "Bob" Dobbs article. - InvisibleSun 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete This WikiQuote article is about Robert Dobbs, not J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. No references are made to the Church of the SubGenius or J. R. "Bob" Dobbs.  100 years from now Mr. Robert Dobbs' ideas/work on media ecology, Marshall McLuhan, James Joyce/Finnegans Wake etc. will be more notable than the Church of the SubGenius.  Yes I agree, change the redirect of Bob Dobbs to the J. R. "Bob" Dobbs WikiQuote page.  But do not delete the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article. --Nomes s 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What constitutes "unimpressively few results" on Google and why exactly does this matter?--Nomes s 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote requires its subjects to have some notability for inclusion, much as Wikipedia does. One basic test is to see if Internet search engines, the world's largest indexing system for websites, the world's largest document collection, have any mention of the subject. "Impressively few results" from a Google search means that searching for distinct keywords that might reveal something about the specific subject indicates that they have virtually presence on the Internet. This is not a final answer to the question, of course, but it puts the burden on the article supporters to provide some tangible evidence that their subject is real and is known outside a very small group. Theoretically, there are notable subjects that have little or no Web presence. But in practice, this is rarely if ever the case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining what Google is. But again what constitutes "unimpressively few results"?  50 hits?  1000 hits?  50,000 hits?  And these are "unimpressive" compared to what?  Google searches millions ("bil-li-ons and bil-li-ons?") of pages.  Perhaps the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article is the first to list quotes from a "notable subject" that has little presence on the Web?--Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you were offended by my wording, Nomes s, but it was intended to reflect the idea that there is no larger publicly available index on the planet from which we can hope to identify current and recently past interest in a subject than Google, and InvisibleSun's statement suggests that the specific Robert Dobbs under discussion is not showing up signficantly on this radar. A more specific description of "umimpressively few results", especially given the difficulty in identifying relevant hits for an extremely common name, might have been helpful, but given the preponderance of negative information in this dicussion, I see no need to ask InvisibleSun to elucidate. It's your job to convince the community that this article is worth saving, and WikiLawyering is probably not an effective route to accomplish this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. However I look forward to being around in 100 years to be seen to be wrong -- Herby  talk thyme 07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As do I Herby. As do I.--Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, currently. --Aphaia 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per how the nomination is going, with everything explained. Brendan Filone 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fsame as the reasons above--McNoddy 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for being an unremarkable subject. ~ UDScott 00:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just to be sure we don't have to deal with this subject again, let me point out that, of the sources claimed by the article:
 * The given ISBN of Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs (1992) cannot be found in Amazon.com, Amazon.ca (very odd for a Canadian work), the U.S. Library of Congress, or Fetchbook.info. A Google search suggests that the only clients of publisher "Perfect Pitch Editions" are Bob Dean (aka "Bob Dobbs") and Dr. Carolyn Dean. Hmmm.
 * I am not a book publisher and I do not assign ISBN numbers. The ISBN number listed on the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article is what is listed on the book, the ACTUAL, physical object itself.  The book indeed does EXIST.  You can find a copy right now at AbeBooks. --Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. AbeBooks is a good source for hard-to-find books; I should have thought to check it. Please note, however, that Wikimedians also tend to treat real but extremely obscure books skeptically, as many of them are published by vanity presses, with which anyone can get published, regardless of market interest, lowering the credibility of the source. Thus my comment on the suspiciously selective client base of Perfect Pitch. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bob's Media Ecology, the supposed CD source for "Memo to Prince Charles: June 4, 1987", does not appear to be part of the catalog of D.O.V. Entertainment, which bills itself as "Real Music for the Street". It does appear in its own page at Posi-tone.com, "an independent multi-media company" with the lowest Alexa ranking I've ever seen (>9.1 million).
 * This CD does in fact ACTUALLY EXIST as well. Again I am not a record company and I do not manage DOVentertainment Inc.'s catalog.  But I own a copy of the CD and the information listed on the article is what is presented on the CD.  The CD is also listed on DisCogs.com. --Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a wonderful CD (complete with legitimate UPC) from The Colorifics, a Canadian folk/pop/rock group. It appears rather easier to find independent sources for it than for this CD, but that doesn't necessarily justify a quote or encyclopedia article on the band, much as I may feel they deserve it. Again, this is only one element of the evidence, and the CD's obscurity does not support a notability case for the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Paranoia: The Conspiracy & Paranormal Reader is an obscure website (Alexa rank ~2.1 million), not a professionally published periodical. Add to this the subject matter and an interviewer named "Joan d'Arc", and one is not encouraged to treat this as a wiki-reliable source.
 * I could go on, but it would surely be overkill. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Paranioa magazine IS IN FACT a "professionally published periodical." It has been in print since 1992 and is up to number 44.  Paranoia magazine is published 3 times a year (April, August, December) and is sold at Borders Books, Barnes & Noble, B. Dalton, Books-A-Million, Hastings and other fine books and magazine stores in the U.S. and Canada.  Back issues are available on the Paranoia magazine website. How exactly does the pen name "Joan d'Arc" constitute being unreliable?  Joan d'Arc is the editor and founder of Paranoia magazine.  She is the author of Space Travelers and the Genesis of the Human Form and Phenomenal World and she is the editor of the books The New Conspiracy Reader, Paranoid Women Collect Their Thoughts and The Conspiracy Reader.  More information available at the Paranoia magazine website.  Jeff Q...please do go on...  --Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have an ISSN number for this magazine? I dismissed it because I couldn't find it in the Library of Congress. An ISSN might help confirm your statements. (It's more practical than suggesting editors go to bookstores to look for the mag, which I've never noticed at the stores you mention.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No need to repeat thngs said above.--Cato 21:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If a article is not notable enough to have a wikipedia article then it is not notable enough to have a Wikiquote article.--James La gloria è a dio 12:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned about the WikiPedia article about Bob Dobbs that was deleted. I personally thought it was poorly written and unorganized.  That article should have been re-written from a neutral point of view, BUT NOT DELETED.  But the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article is not the WikiPedia article about Bob Dobbs that was deleted.  The source material is out there if a user is INTERESTED and if they take the time to do research they will be able to confirm the QUOTES listed in the article.  I am not making these quotes up; I am merely recording them on WikiQuote as they are found.  Also the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article is actually self-aware of what its purpose is; the article itself contains a comment and requests that users refrain from making any references to the Church of the SubGenius or J.R. "Bob" Dobbs because the article itself knows that this is not what it is about.  It seems everyone that has objected to the Robert Dobbs WikiQuote article is just not interested in the individual that has made the quotes that are listed on the page.  And since the individual that has made the quotes that are listed on the page is not "popular enough" this is grounds to delete.  Please confirm my reading of this process.--Nomes s 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a popularity contest per se, but there is a threshhold of notability, for two reasons. The first is that Wikiquote is not a place to collect the quotes of everyone in the world, lest it turn into a kind of "MySpace for Quotations". This is part of the overall goal of Wikimedia — solid information about selected subjects provided by anyone, but not about everyone. The second reason is practical: to ensure we have solid information, we require reliable sources, which are typically publications (print, audiovisual, or web) that have clearly identified responsible parties and editorial reputations. Without these, we can't differentiate between fact, rumor, and self-promotion. The problem with the sources for this article is that (A) most of them seem to be at least very hard to find, suggesting the lack of notability of the subject, and (B) the few that can be checked don't seem to meet Wikimedia qualifications for reliability and editorial reputation. Anyone can create or otherwise post material on a website these days; we need reliable secondary or tertiary sources to help us distinguish between truly notable subjects and attempts to promote obscure subjects. Even if the information turns out to be accurate, that doesn't guarantee it will be considered reliable or notable enough for inclusion. Sir James Paul may be overstating the case a bit, but the deletion of a Wikipedia article is usually a very bad sign for Wikiquote inclusion, and based on the discussion above, the participating Wikiquotians appear to agree with the Wikipedians on this subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Having just created this username so as to participate in this discussion, I am not yet qualified to vote in a Wikiquote RFD.  I just want to point out the fact that only here, in this soon-to-be-deleted Wikiquote page, is the subject in question referred to as "Robert Dobbs."  In all of his other writings (in which he does nothing but talk about his Munchausen-like, grandiose "accomplishments") he refers to himself as "Bob Dobbs."  This has been an attempt to capitalize on the name of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, because Dean has not been notable enough to get any attention for himself when using his real name.  Thank you for your time. --Modemac 09:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)