Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Adam Copeland


 * 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: delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam Copeland
YAPWA (yet another pro-wrestler article), with all the usual problems on inanity and (lack of) sourcing. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes to delete, two votes to keep). —LrdChaos (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are 72 articles in Category:WWE. Perhaps we should just do a full review of all of them, rather than this dribs-and-drabs approach.  121a0012 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we really have any good way to do a "full review" of them; typically, a VFD nomination is the only sort of review that most pages get, and I'm a little unwilling to advocate a mass nomination of so many pages that would each require independent review. The way I've been finding these articles is when I see one being edited through Special:Recentchanges. It usually ends up being a one- or two-at-a-time approach, but I think that it helps to keep VFD manageable, and it's not like the WWE articles are actively a problem. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I keep hoping the wrestling fans will take the hint and try to improve these articles before they're individually nominated. I don't know how realistic a hope this is, either from lack of editor participation or from lack of non-trivial, sourced material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It. Or at least merge it with Edge's article. 66.72.198.104 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)fhb3
 * KEEP IT. We're talking about quotes here. Quotes of an entertaining WWE wrestler. Which, if unsourced, most likely than not it means they said this during some promo they did on WWE television. Why are we worried about getting ten thousand sources because he said many things people felt like putting on here when many of these wrestling quotes may not even be anywhere else on the net, either by text or by audio/video evidence? For example, I can't go back and find a video of where Edge said the words: "I am the MVP of this show!" Yet I completely remember that those words coming out of his mouth when he made a tirade about how he and not RVD should be the WWE champion, about a week or so before he did become the champion a second time. This idea that every link should be sourced - as in, linked back to somewhere that can prove it - is asking for perfection. Now I know why there are no Dragon Ball Z Wikiquote articles despite that anime's hilarious and memorably quotable nature. You guys are being too tough on things. 63.215.29.185 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiquote, as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, is about verifiable quotes, not stuff that unidentifiable people (that's all us Wikiquotians, you and me included) claim to remember. I'm sure you do remember many things said by this and other wrestlers. But human memory is extremely fallible, and tons of edits to our own articles to correct incredibly inaccurate quotes from unreliable websites and other sources back up this assertion. It is possible to source quotes said in TV programs. We do it all the time with TV-show articles. If quotes in this article don't appear in any commercially released video, it's likely that the event wasn't notable enough to generate interest in its redistribution, and should be treated just as we would treat a book that no one buys or that is vanity-published. (Contrary to some opinions, we try hard not to be arbitrary. We try to figure out notabiity and verifiability standards that equate to the gold standard of book or periodical publication.) Even if these quotes are sourced, they don't necessarily qualify as interesting to a general audience. There is a minimal expectation of originality and pithiness. This means that someone saying "Sodas rule!" is of no use to Wikiquote unless we have a published source that suggests these words are a catchphrase, like Monty Python's "And now for something completely different" (for which there are such publications). Again, this is not unique to wrestler articles. Many TV-show articles here are littered with stuff that only means something to fans, and which would be removed en masse if we had enough regular editors committed to Wikimedia goals to perform this cleanup. Since we don't, we work on whatever someone decides to put before the community. At the moment, editors are interested in weeding out inane, unsourced wrestler articles. But at the same time, others are weeding out excessive and inane material from TV articles, copyright-violating transcriptions of songs and entire repertoires of comedians, vanity quotes in theme articles, suspect quotes in people articles, and many other items of dubious provenance. The goal is to have a well-documented set of quotations that would make Wikiquote be more useful than Bartlett's Famous Quotations, in the same way that Wikipedia has become for many more useful than Encyclopedia Britannica. (By the way, there is a Dragon Ball Z article, and has been for a while. However, there isn't much participation in the article, and what we do have is almost completely unsourced. Sooner or later someone will get around to either sorting it by episode and verifying it, or nominating it for deletion, too — which may get others to help do the sourcing work, we would hope.) In the end, the best way wrestling fans have of ensuring their favorite stars have articles is to list only well-known, original, generally interesting quotes, document where they come from (per Citing sources), and make sure they're accurate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless trimmed to pithy, original quotes and sourced. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2006 (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.