Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Smosh


 * 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: no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 13:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Smosh
This article about Smosh was prod because "No sourced quotes. Poor quality quotes." The tag was removed but specific sourcing has not been provided, and the quotes lack any semblance of quotability. — Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 20:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep per Tomé's edits. The quotes don't strike me as particularly noteworthy (and I generally prefer multi-line quotes to single-line ones), but I'm also unfamiliar with the subject matter. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless proper sourcing and better quality quotes are provided. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep after the improvements, but the page still needs some work. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. UDScott said what I would have about 20 minutes before I could. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete "No sourced quotes. Poor quality quotes." I agree.--Collingwood (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: the Smosh page is basically just a copy/paste of Smosh Quotes. I think that its problem is not so much lack of notability as it is lack of sourcing and poor layout (the editor didn't even bother deleting "Share Publish")... ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Keep (see my last edit); I hope that those who voted before me will reconsider their votes, and not delete the page (the quotes are now sourced). Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — The improvements to the page by Daniel Tomé seem sufficient to retain it for further development. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although sourcing has been provided, the bulk of this material (brought to you by the same contributor as Farts) lacks quotability because whatever significance or poignancy might have been based on visual or narrative context (if any) is lost. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may beg to differ, again, I believe the quotes that appear in the article Smosh, as it is now, do stand on their own as jokes even without the "visual context", and they are quotable, in my opinion. I have just removed some of the more silly quotes which that editor you've mentioned added (I suppose it would be a good idea to semi-protect the page, if it turns out that "Smosh" does merit an article of its own and is not deleted). P.S. @Ningauble: thanks for your comment "brought to you by the same contributor as Farts", it did make me laugh... ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)