Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Samuel Youd


 * 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. because of newly added quotes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sam Youd
I have been unable to verify the existence of the quoted work. Even if such has been published somewhere, I very much doubt the quotability of this material. — Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not found that book either, but the author is notable and it was easy enough to find other quotes.--Collingwood (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is as yet unpublished, but the information comes from a reliable source. Philsp (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should definitely remove materials from unpublished manuscripts, except in the unusual circumstance of published excerpts that are themselves shown to have been widely quoted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment constitutes User:Philsp's only contribution to Wikiquote; no evidence suggests that this user understands the guidelines governing the inclusion of material here. BD2412 T 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've been doing research on this author (having recently read, and thinking highly of, many of his works). This quote (the 'Sams'), though it may seem just 'anecdote' to the layman, sheds unusual and relevant light on Sam Youd's complex relationship to his various 'names' (pseudonyms).--Elisabeth Cottier F (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The above comment constitutes User:Elisabeth Cottier F's only contribution to Wikiquote; no evidence suggests that this user understands the guidelines governing the inclusion of material here. BD2412 T 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may well be argued that the material is interesting, but it needs to be sourced to a publicly available document. However, even if that section is removed, I believe that the material I added justifies keeping the article.--Collingwood (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (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.