Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Michael Hickenbottom


 * 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) 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hickenbottom
Most of the content was copied from this page, and I've blanked it as copyvio. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closed. Result: delete (six votes to delete, no dissent). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete out of curiosity, why don't we speedy delete copyvios? It would seem to me that we would want to get rid of it asap, before the copyright owner notices it. The fact that we've identified a violation and still takes a week to get rid of it can't look good to the outside world (or their attorneys). Koweja 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say the thought process has been this: (A) when we revise policy, we tend to review the current state of Wikipedia for guidelines and tips; (B) I was not prepared to analyze the latest WP processes surrounding copyvios when I prepared the major Speedy deletion policy revision (for fear of delaying a long-overdue update even more); (C) several others (like Aphaia) suggested a copyvio addition, but no one else wanted to delay approval of the new WQ:SD; and (D) we've been short on serious policy-change work since that last one. I suspect we will make this change in the near future, but it requires at least one experienced Wikiquotian to take charge and do due diligence to draft the changes, and the regular editing community to participate at least by approving the changes. The more thorough the draft analysis and recommendations, the more likely the rest will simply agree. Most policy changes here get bogged down in everyone asking for opinions and suggestions, but not getting many responses. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing obvious in original article (apparently a blow-by-blow account of some event) worth excerpting, even if it was realiably sourced. I'd say the usual "unless notability evidence provided and quotes sourced", but there seems to be little point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete' since copyvio
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 10:47, 9 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.