Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Eddie Segoura


 * 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. — MosheZadka 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Segoura
Not notable. ~ UDScott 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote closed: Result: delete (4 delete, one keep from originator with unclear reasoning, one keep from user determined to disrupt VfDs) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. This appears to be a Wikipedia user, and does not appear to be anyone notable. ~ UDScott 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with UDScott. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The WP user doesn't appear to have realized we have the same notability requirements for quote articles that WP does for encyclopedia articles, nor that VFD tags should not be removed before vote closure. I've posted notes about these 2 points to the talk pages of the 2 anon users either are Segoura or favor his article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I gave You folks to drop the page right then and there, clearly pointing out that it's not worth keeping up. But if the page must stay with deletion tags then will not vote delete for My own pages.  And yes, the previous anonymous IP was used by Me, though it is shared. -- EddieSegoura 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sysops must follow policy for VFD, just like any user. Once an article has been nominated, it must remain here for at least 2 weeks unless a specific case for speedy deletion is appropriate. We have no SD case for deleting an actual quote article from an unnotable person short of a libel precedent. HOWEVER, we do have a (possibly never used) clause — SD case #7 — that implies that editors (not just sysops) may move main-namespace articles that are appropriate as user pages into the user namespace, then delete the redirect after a few days. (It still refers to "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikiquote" — another indication that we need to put some effort into updating WQ:SD.) I will ask Eddie if this would satisfy him. I'm convinced he just wasn't aware of our "no-vanity article" policy and made a common mistake. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with such a rule, redirecting or moving (whichever one suits (talk) best) is okay with Me -- EddieSegoura 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Absolutely keep it! Although it is lexically, a small quote, it packs the "power of the pill" (not meant to construed in a derogatory manner mind you) 0waldo 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The above vote was registered in a block of edits as part of a concerted effort to disrupt the VfD process as part of his "continual commuted confusion" campaign. (See WQ:VFD.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete ~ Achilles † 16:24, 9 January 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.