Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Timothy Donaghue

EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Donaghue
No indication of notability. This article was previously PROD for being un-sourced. A citation has been added but it is so obscure I can't find any information on the title, or even the publisher. — Ningauble 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. ~ Ningauble 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I firmly vote to preserve its existence. Member's of this utility are appreciated for their obscure notability. The work is a self-published piece that is notable through word-of-mouth among many people in a large metropolitan area. It has been the topic of many book clubs and conversations around a major city - particularly by extremely notable neo-luddhists such as Peter Lamborn Wilson himself. Your vote and nomination have been considered, but I firmly believe this entry to be totally valid and worthwhile. Not to mention how it is going to vastly expand soon. I vote to KEEP.
 * Delete Self-published works are not inherently notable, and unless there's some evidence presented that it is notable in "a large metropolitan area," it should be deleted. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hackneyed. BD2412 T 04:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Self-published works ARE inherently notable.

>> unless there's some evidence presented that it is notable in "a large metropolitan area," it should be deleted.

No. Unless there's some evidence presented that it is "not" notable in "a large metropolitan area," it should be protected. Feel free to present evidence EVula.

>> Hackneyed.

That's your opinion. Just because something I say has been said many times before, that does not necessarily mean it isn't significant.

Consider the youth. To them it's brand new. And in many cases with people reading my work, it is!

Again I vote to KEEP. Go try to bother someone else.


 * See the Wikipedia guideline about notability of self published works, and about the appearance of a conflict of interest when using Wikimedia sites for self-promotion. Note also that Wikiquote is not a collection of your personal quotes. There are lots of sites for publishing your thoughts, but Wikiquote is not one of them. ~ Ningauble 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not how this works, 71.175.13.225. The burden of evidence isn't on the ones asking for deletion, it's on the ones calling for a page to be kept. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the only entries are unsourced and/or self published. Cirt (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - InvisibleSun 03:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; Ningauble and EVula have said it all. -Sketchmoose 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)