Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sean Sellers

&mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sean Sellers
None of the provided quotes are properly sourced, despite their being labeled as such. — UDScott 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless valid sourced quotes are provided. ~ UDScott 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, following the improvements made to the page. ~ UDScott 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : I took a few minutes to add a few sources, which I hold to be a far more worthwhile activity than simply putting it up for deletion, even if it remained unsourced. You might congratulate yourself on prompting action on this article, on which I would likely not have bothered spending much time, but really, is that all that great an accomplishment? I know we don't all have a great deal of time to devote to many of the sub-par articles here, but if one needs a little bit of work to fall into guidelines, and it might have some worth, do a little bit of work on it, don't simply send it to the "Delete" bin — it usually doesn't take all that much more time. That's my two bits. ~ Kull 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To address your comments above, my rationale in nominating the page here was that the fact that the provided quotes were unsourced had been noted over a month ago, with no action. Then today a user removed the tag, stating that providing a link to the subject's website was good enough - which is certainly not the case. I often try to correct pages when I have the time - I did not have that time today, but it's not always about time - I believe that (as with a child) if pages are simply fixed all the time for others, they will never learn the proper way to do things. I could have simply added a PROD tag for having no sources, but I brought it here so that it could receive a wider review (and I thought that someone like yourself might have the time to improve it before it was deleted). I appreciate your efforts to improve the page, and have changed my vote accordingly. ~ UDScott 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kull, don't take the VfD too seriously. On projects like Wikipedia, deletion is a fairly serious deal, but here, we're much more liberal about what can be deleted (and, alternatively, what isn't). Pages that end up on VfD have a much better chance of getting improved than simply letting them sit around or even prodded (as UDScott pointed out, it gets more eyes on the page). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to improvements by Kull. - InvisibleSun 22:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kull's improvements. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as revised. BD2412 T 05:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, article looks much better now, no reason to delete. &mdash; RyanCross (talk ) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)