Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Mark Foley


 * 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) 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley
This is a case very similar to that of the Mel Gibson page when it was nominated for deletion: the page is created with a single quote from a recent (or recently-revealed) wrongdoing, and while neither the notability of the subject or the authenticity of the quote are in question (it's been reported by several reliable sources), thus giving undue weight to the event and ignoring all the other parts of his 11 years as a Representative. Granted, the scandal is probably going to be what's best associated with them, but it certainly isn't the only thing he's done or was known for. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes; 2 keeps from one-time editors; no other dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is actually a harder case than Mel Gibson. An actor of Gibson's pre-scandal stature has tons of sourced material editors may want to quote. But the former Congressman, while undoubtedly notable, probably didn't evoke such pre-scandal quoting interest in the general population. (It seems to be an unfortunate reality of the world today that we find politician's salacious quotes far more interesting than their profound ones.) Furthermore, the sole current quote doesn't strike me necessarily as the excerpt from the infamous IM exchanges that would be the one to quote, and I admit a severe reluctance to read the entire thing to attempt to discover what might be the "best" quote. I'm concerned that no one is going to want to add well-sourced, non-scandal quotes to this article, but just in case, I've added some infrastructure to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 71.162.124.14 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 71.33.70.56 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The preceding two edits are these anons' only contributions. 121a0012 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with some reluctance. This article could be salvaged, but in the absence of a particularly motivated editor, it seems unlikely to happen.  121a0012 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with 121a0012. Even with a link to this article from Mark Foley (added 2 minutes after this article's creation), we got no other participation. Perhaps a second try, after some time has passed, will yield more useful results. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:26, 22 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.