Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Neurotically Yours


 * 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) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours
No quotes. &mdash;LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 2 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC)
 * Vote extended 1 week, to 9 August 2006, 14:00 (UTC), to give time for recent request. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSED. Result: delete (4 deletes; 1 keep; 2 undecided, both leaning toward delete; no sources provided to confirm validity of quotes). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless valid quotes are added. &mdash;LrdChaos 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided. Quotes have been added, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as to their validity, but I am concerned about the notability issue that Jeffq raised. The Wikipedia page had been nominated for deletion in May, but the vote was closed early as a "bad-faith nomination"; the issue of notability was not addressed. There are a fair number of Google hits (118,000), which puts it at about 1/4 of that for The Order of the Stick and about 1/2 of Little Gamers (two other webcomics with pages here, though they aren't Flash-based), but there's no definitive line as to how many results 'are enough.' The status of the Wikipedia page, as well as the quotes that exist on the page here, don't exactly instill confidence that it is notable; in particular, the edit history for the WP page seems to indicate that there are a number of various anons and the same few registered members who primarily edit the page. While this is not particularly unusual (people often assume some level of "ownership" of articles, no matter what the policy is), the page still looks and reads like more of a fan page than an encyclopedia entry. All in all, through the convoluted processes of my mind, my feeling is that this isn't really notable enough to merit inclusion here or on Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure. &mdash;LrdChaos 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless valid quotes are added. ~ UDScott 14:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 03:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Concur with LrdChaos amd UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided for now. The quotes Skotavus has added strike me as rather inane (except for the somewhat amusing "Jesus was cool" quote), which isn't by itself a compelling reason to axe an article. But since I've never heard of this work before, since it falls into a grey area of notability, and since it hasn't yet been reviewed on Wikipedia (see my comment under Koweja's vote), I'm not willing to support it yet, either. (I'm not up to a WP AfD at the moment.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even if acceptable quotes are found, is NY considered notable enough to be here? - Koweja 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. We have rejected some online webcomics (essentially what this is) before on the basis of insufficient notability. Neurotically Yours has a modest (but non-trivial) multiuser edit history, but seems to be weak on sources at the moment. It might be a good idea to nominate it for deletion to force a review of its notability there, especially as it would be decided within 5 days of nomination, possibly giving us time to benefit from the results. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete! At least let me have some time to put quotes up, people! ;Skotavus
 * Considerable experience at Wikiquote has shown that quote articles created without quotes often (usually?) remain that way for long periods of time, apparently abandoned by their creators. (There may be several reasons for this, but the end result is the same.) Frequently, this problem is resolved by calling attention to it here with a nomination for deletion, which also serves as a "use it or lose it" announcement. It's a bit brusque, but it can get results more readily than simple waiting. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: With 1 day left to go on this nomination, we have a problem. Quotes have been added to the article, but no source is provided, and my quick scan of the Neurotically Yours website shows no obvious way to get these quotes except for wading through all the original material. Therefore, it's hard to say whether these are valid quotes, making LrdChaos and UDScott's position unclear. That leaves what could be considered a lack of consensus, even though only 1 user is definitively supporting the article at the moment. I would ask two things: that Skotavus add to the article specific source information for the quotes (e.g., named "episodes", flash clips, etc., complete with specific URLs for each to allow readers to verify them); and (B) that LrdChaos and UDScott consider whether they believe the quotes are "valid", with or without further evidence. (UDScott is otherwise occupied at the moment, so this may be problematic.) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a life. &mdash;Skotavus 2:08, 6 August 2006 (AEST) If you absolutely feel the need to remove my page, regardless of the fact that it appears I am the only one that edits it and don't spend all my time on the Web looking for things that are wrong on a site that spends plenty of server space on other such inane articles as big-bust actresses, then by all means go ahead.
 * On the assumption that the mis-signature above was an honest mistake (and not a vandal trying to put words in Skotavus's mouth, as occasionally happens) . . . Skotavus, I'm sorry you seem be taking this personally. It isn't. Wikis are an aggregation of material added, deleted, and edited, by a huge population. Each person decides how much and what kind of the many kinds of work they can and will do. Within that population, there are some who choose to spend their time examining existing material for its adherence to the policies of the project. When someone nominates an article for potentially reaching beyond those policies, these folks will do the work they've volunteered for. There will always be articles that don't meet the guidelines, and it may take a while for folks to get around to addressing any particular subject, big bust or no. &#9786; We can only address them as a community when they are brought to our attention. In the case of Neurotically Yours, as I've said above, this is not an obvious decision (else I'd have closed it on the 2nd), and further work toward sourcing and/or adding material may — or may not — change the minds of participants. (It's very common for people to change their votes when suggestions are followed, but it's very uncommon for editors to follow them, which is one reason why many nominated articles are deleted.) Regardless of what happens here, I hope that you will consider the larger picture of the project and not get too attached to any one article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 6 August 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.