Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Saudi Arabia


 * 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
This page currently consists of a single quote that basically represents the opinion of a single member of the US Congress. It definitely throws the page's POV far away from neutral. —LrdChaos (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed: Result: keep. The result of the debate is keep but there are some legitimate concerns about the POV of the page and a degree of rewriting would be welcomed by the community to include a wider range of quotes and a rounder treatment of the subject. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a bad-faith nomination.--Inesculent 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form, unless more sourced quotes are added. Even if it stays, I would remove the table at the top of the page about religious police. ~ UDScott 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per UDScott and nom. Will {{sup|{talk)}} 01:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clean up, expand. There must be tons of relevant quotes out there. BD2412 T 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In its present state, the article looks OK for a stub. I'd like to see some additional quotes. And I agree, the box is bad, especially in light of the already heavy POV. --Ubiquity 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article, delete the box. I'll try and search for more sourced quotes as soon as possible. Phaed r i e l  - 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I do not agree so-called "bad-faith nomination" by Inesculent while more quotes can be added to better comply with the WQ:NPOV.--Jusjih 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but delete the box (a "see also" for Religious police is quite sufficient and less distracting), and scrupulously remove unoriginal or inane quotes. The Berkley quote is exactly the kind of pointless politician's position that I'm arguing makes for unmemorable and unnecessary Wikiquote content. (Can you imagine Bartlett's Famous Quotations listing political position statements like this?) There certainly should be many sourceable quotes to present a broad view of the many aspects of Saudi Arabia (good and ill), so this should be treated as a content dispute. (See Votes for deletion archive/Mel Gibson for a precedent in keeping initially POV articles with an intent to fix.) And not that I need to defend LrdChaos, but I'm sure this wasn't a bad-faith nomination. Bad-faith nominations almost always come from relatively new users whose edits demonstrate a desire to promote a single POV on a subject, whereas LrdChaos has established considerable experience in neutral work on a wide variety of articles. Please do not assume bad faith just because an editor calls the neutrality of an article into question, even if the means to do so is through VfD. We often do VfD nominations to get the Wikiquote community to quickly fix obviously reparable articles, as I'm sure will be done with this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've removed the same "countries that have religious police" box from Religious police and replaced it by listing the countries in an appropriate "See also" subheading, as a manner of demonstrating the approach. (The box still exists in other articles.) I'm a little concerned about how this might eventually play out (how and where do we define what constitutes "religious police"?), but clearly such groups exist and are being reported on, so there is logic to doing this where it's documented. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm more wary of POV in the creation of people articles, especially about contemporaries, than in theme pages. A "topical" page may be created with a very definite point of view; but if the topic is one of great interest and potential, should we delete it on the grounds that it didn't start out as NPOV?  I would say, based on the articles we've seen here at Wikiquote, that it's rare for a new topic page to represent a wide range of opinion.  However much we may wish this to be otherwise, it isn't a realistic expectation.  It's one thing to make guidelines about what people do here, but another to imagine that we can do all that much about why people come here in the first place. NPOV is usually a community effort over time.  Someone will come along and add a virtual truckload of quotes pushing one view; someone else will be goaded to try to counterbalance; a third person, seeing all this mess, will try to trim it, etc.  NPOV is, at best, a result here; it isn't all that often a beginning. - InvisibleSun 04:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in its present form as a completely unbalanced attack article that does not reflect well on WQ. Without prejudice to recreation of a more representative selection of quotes. Change to keep if more quotes are added to give a broader view. Tyrenius 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in principle Nothing wrong with it if amplified by a wider range of quotes.--Poetlister 17:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems valid. - Modernist 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I removed the Religious police box as there seems to be agreement that this is not the best way to present this information and (at least in this pages's present form) adds to the NPOV issues. I think in priciple this subject is notable and many NPOV quotes can be found. If it remains a source of entirely highly negative quotes and seems to misrepresent the subject then we can re-visit the issue. FloNight 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it looks very unbalanced at present, but it must be possible to find more quotes, and if people can't then it's a fair representation of the position.--Cato 00:04, 5 August 2007 (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.