Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Hungarians in world literature


 * 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. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungarians in world literature
This article has a stated goal of "cit[ing] as many references to hungarians (sic) in world literature as possible." I don't think it's the sort of thing we're trying to do at Wikiquote, which is to have pages that are from a specific person/work or relate to a particular theme. I don't believe that simply amassing any and all references to Hungarians is a particuarly worthwhile theme to be pursuing here, as it seems to lack any focus. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (8 deletes; 1 keep). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tyrenius 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep —Minusf 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. i fail to see how this effort is unfocused. i also hope that you agree that a lot of themes around here are of questionable worth for millions of people, because — surprisingly — worthwile is a very subjective metric... i would like to see an official statement from the wikiquote pages that this theme is not one of those we're trying to do at Wikiquote please. —Minusf 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki projects evolve out of consensus. This VfD is one of the forums where that happens. Make constructive arguments for your idea and your may get people on your side, or perhaps something else could evolve out of the discussion. Tyrenius 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * how can i get people on my side if someone marks the page for deletion the same day? nobody has even seen it. all that happens is that a couple of admins don't like it and vote for deleting it. still no one presented me a wikiquote page saying this is not acceptable for wikiquote.  don't bother people − i got the message, i've cleared the page, go ahead delete it. thanks for the warm welcome to wiki and sorry i wandered into your playground. −Minusf 10:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Tyrenius suggested above, we expect to hear constructive arguments that challenge the status quo and help us build consensus, which changes over time as the editors change. The place to make those arguments is here, and the time is now. Minusf, based on your user page (and its use of WP templates that don't exist on WQ yet), I deduce that you are a Wikipedian, apparently under another name. I would hope that experience with our much larger sister project would encourage you to work with us to consider this question, rather than simply leave in disgust. But it's your call. Personally, I was hoping for some debate before weighing in myself, as I can see some possibilities here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (actually i am registered on wikipedia, i wanted to start this project there, but doing my homework i realized it's not the place for it. but my name is the same on wikipedia, i am not sure what do you mean by apparently under another name.) exactly what status quo should i challenge?  the page is 2 days old... how can someone mark a page for deletion asking me to defend it's right for existence, if almost nobody, and certainly no hungarian had the chance to read it/contribute to it/think about it if it's a stupid idea? am i expected to find people who might find this a good idea in less than a week's time or what?  or is it me vs the admins and their taste? the voting at this stage is a joke. the page tries to be collection of quotations grouped by a particular property.  i don't see anything wrong with this on wikiquote. contrarywise, and perhaps it's just my gigantic ego,  i find it an original idea, something that stands out. if the blurb on the page is not enough, i really don't see what more sound and constructive arguments could i present. i am not good at tautology, sorry. —Minusf 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a very big (and important) difference between the type of quote that your page would collect compared to a "normal" theme page. In particular, your page has the stated goal of "cit[ing] as many references to hungarians (sic) in world literature as possible." Our theme pages are emphatically not places where we seek to collect any quotes that reference a particular theme; the quotes have to be specifically about the theme and not just mention it or vaguely or indirectly hint at it. The couple of quotes you started with aren't about Hungarians in any general sense; they are quotes that simply mention or refer to a particular Hungarian. The page also lacks any clear standard for what should and should not be included; the "as many references…as possible" bit, says to me that you're looking for any and all cases where any Hungarian was mentioned in a book. This is far too broad; you would almost certainly have more success with a more focused page for Hungary (which quotes about the country and possibly about Hungarians) or even a Hungarians page in which the quotes are about Hungarians in general. You might find it more difficult to locate suitable quotes, but the result would be a much better theme article that has a clear threshold for inclusion (a quote about the nation or the people; for example, "I like Hungary" wouldn't make the cut but a quote from an author writing about, let's say, how the Hungarian people are among the most industrious people he's ever known, would). —LrdChaos (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok then, i want to change the name of the page to References to hungarians in world literature. --Minusf 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It still wouldn't fit with what Wikiquote is. Wikiquote is not about listing everything, whether it be every quote or every reference. It seems like you want the page to a comprehensive listing of any and all references to Hungarians in literature, and that's not really Wikiquote material. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * and i still don't see why apart from your stating so. --Minusf 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Minusf, I took some trouble to elaborate on LrdChaos's point in my "delete" post below (a day before you made the post immediately above). Please read this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeff Q, I've had a couple of pages brought to the VfD page, but if you take the time to explain what you're doing, and why you think it would be a good addition to the site, then most people here are open to other thoughts or ideas, and will hear you out. But, again, you have to be willing to take the time to explain/express your side. This is a very interactive site, it's not one where the Powers That Be say "we don't like this", then vote amongst themselves about how they're right. It's also not simply a matter of policy. While there are policies to consider, if your page is put here, it's for discussion about whether or not it will be taken down, not just for a firing squad. Please don't give up, Minusf, I'd really like to see you come back and make this a great page. --Angel 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. First let me apologize to Minusf about my failure to spot his Wikipedia username, which is indeed the same. (I must somehow have misspelled it when I checked.) For the article, I think LrdChaos's above comment beginning with "I think there's a very big (and important) difference" concisely addresses the problem here. Most Wikiquote quotes are brief statements of memorable ideas, whereas the three quotes (from two people) currently cited are not brief and not especially memorable on their own. (This doesn't impune their importance, only their pithiness.) There are some quotes we have here that are used to backup Wikipedia material as a kind of convenient reference "cache" for quotes whose sources may not be easy to dig up otherwise (although they must still be properly cited). This is a fairly new and uncommon use, and may be addressed more fully — or eliminated — in the future, as the community sees fit. However, as there is no apparent Wikipedia article making points that are quoted here, this doesn't seem to apply. Pithy quotes from notable Hungarians can be quoted in individual articles and collected with a category like Category:Hungarians. Quotes about Hungary itself could arguably make a useful theme article on Hungary. But none of this quite seems to fit the intent described by Minusf. Anything along those lines would seem not to require a page-sized article, but an encyclopedia-sized book set. And if one doesn't think this would be true for Hungarians in an English-language quote compendium, the parallel for Americans or British (ignoring the nomenclature issues for the moment) or Australians or (East) Indians should demonstrate that this is not a reasonably containable article scheme for Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete --Aphaia 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Cbrown1023 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 03:50, 29 January 2007 (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.