Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Hearts and minds


 * 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) 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hearts and minds
Another page for a single quote, which has mostly historical information about its use.
 * Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes to delete, one vote to keep from anon with no contributions). —LrdChaos (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep see Hearts_and_minds, this wikiquote page is basically a service page for an enwiki disambiguation page and is useful for that purpose. There's not a good way to incorporate the quote into the disamb page (given the rigid format of those pages) and there's not a good other way to explain where the quote came from. 71.141.232.145 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately, we don't really have a place for single-quote articles, either. They inevitably wind up being essays on the quote. If there is sourced material about a phrase, it can make a reasonable Wikipedia article, but they're likely to reject it as well if it's merely the work of editors assembling quotes and making their own observations, which is original research. Here are three examples of this issue which started with or resulted in Wikipedia articles:
 * "You forgot Poland": WQ VfD discussion, WP article
 * "Might makes right": WQ VfD discussion, WP article
 * "You're either with us, or against us": WQ VfD discussion, WP article
 * As for inclusion here on Wikiquote, the best way to connect these quote instances within Wikiquote's current structure is to add each notable use to articles for the people who said it (assuming they're sufficiently notable and quotable to earn an article) or in an appropriate theme article (if the use is notable but perhaps only a one-time quote from someone), citing the original use, which should be in the Bible article, and possibly adding a link to the original quote there. (If someone wants to add an internal link like this but doesn't know how, I can describe the mechanism if they post a note to my talk page.) Anyone looking for uses can get a list of them by using the "Search" box. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 24 October 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.