Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Chad Lewis Marshall


 * 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: . Deleted. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad Lewis Marshall
A senior position in a bank ought to have more than two google hits. The Wikipedia link is to Marshall not to the biography. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closes: 19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know whether or not this is a hoax, but I would vote to delete anyway, on grounds of not being notable. ~ UDScott 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Citing the Brad Simanek rule. Bsimanek 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Brad, while I can understand that you are perhaps frustated that your page was deleted, it isn't helping anything for you to keep citing a non-existent "Brad Simanek" rule in these discussions. And if you keep doing so, could you at least explain what your "rule" is and why it applies to each particular case in which you mention it? —LrdChaos (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Brad Simanek rule" of which I speak is one where the subject is a) not deemed WP-cited or sufficiently "Google-supported", b) not published, or, if so, not in wide enough circulation to be deemed worthy, and/or c) doesn't have a following/penetration beyond a base deemed too small to be considered representing "noteworthiness." It also might enable meritable discussion or a page/subject despite being said page perhaps started by the quoted person him/herself, as mine was (and was discounted because of that). Considering the ensuing discussion of my page's deletion merited archiving, I felt it (the discussion) suggested lessons for applying to future situations/circumstances. I also said at the time that I would be actively monitoring this page to make sure said standards remained consistent. It also is intended to burnish my involvement with WQ/WP such that my votes aren't simply dismissed as "not worth counting" as some "votes" cast here are so derided. BTW, I'm not bitter, as I fully understand why my page was not deemed worthy for WikiQuote; I just want to make sure similar pages are judged by the same standards, with rules/applications not cherry-picked. Bsimanek 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears the only one who recognizes this as a rule is Brad Simanek himself. I vote all comments surrounding this "rule" be deleted on the same grounds as the original quote.  Naming a "rule" after yourself falls in the same category as trying to use wikiquote to quote yourself.
 * Fine, then: Delete based on grounds of non-notability, single-quote, 2 unique Google hits (one defunct), no WP article. Bsimanek 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's a published author, so at least vaguely notable. I cleaned up the page, removed the spurious link to "w:Marshall". Assuming good faith, I'm guessing the main problem is a newbie editor who doesn't understand what "sourced" means and why we link to WP. --Ubiquity 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not in the Library of Congress or British Library catalogues. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's published and the quote is poignant. There's room in Wikiquote for people just starting their careers, so to speak.  I vote keep.
 * Keep. Looks as if he works for Bank of America as a Vice President and has been a speaker for Microsoft Technet webcasts and the TechMentor Conferences.  Assuming in good faith as Ubiquity, this was probably something someone heard him say and posted it.  His email and phone are listed in the reference.  Perhaps we should call him up and ask him if he said it?
 * Wikiquote does not collect quotes just because someone claims someone said them, because we have no reasonable way to verify this. The golden rule of sourcing is that there must be one or more publications from reliable sources that can be verified by editors without resorting to phone calls, emails, and personal testimony, none of which are considered reliable sources by Wikimedia standards. If such a reliable source can't be found, it is very likely that person does not meet the general notability guidelines, either. And just because a person has achieved some measure of financial or social prominence does not guarantee them an article in Wikimedia. I have two high-school friends who became VPs of a major U.S. bank (not BoA, but on its level) and a major cable network, and the latter has even been quoted in papers with national distribution, but that doesn't mean they necessarily should have quote articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The shortage of Google hits doesn't square with the impressive description of Mr. Marshall at the head of the article, and I can't believe the Bank of America have undercover vice-presidents.  If the quotation had been either sourced or memorable I might have given it the benefit of the doubt, but not as it is. Antiquary 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 22:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No WP article, either. The publisher link Ubiquity cites is for Realtime Publishers. Their website says: "Realtimepublishers.com is the worldwide leader in corporate-sponsored e-publishing." In other words, they do on-demand company printing; i.e., a corporate-world vanity press, the likes of which I've made use of myself in my other life as an IT professional. Such material is inherently impractical to use as a source, as it is not collected by libraries or sold through retail outlets, and therefore cannot establish notability through ordinary distribution. If this person's statements somehow made it into the general IT world (e.g., non-vanity authors quoted him in their works), that might be another story. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:49, 20 November 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.