Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Rutgers University


 * 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) 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University
The full words to one of the school's songs, and empty sections for other songs, are not what Wikiquote is for. &mdash;LrdChaos 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote closed. Result: delete (4 deletes; 1 keep). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the song is replaced by valid, sourced quotes. &mdash;LrdChaos 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Concur with LrdChaos. Entire songs that are not copyrighted, like "On the Banks of the Old Raritan", may be useful additions at Wikisource. (I would start by creating 1 article per song, adding them to s:Category:Song lyrics, and including them in the s:Wikisource:Song lyrics list. If there are enough songs to justify it, an article or category for "Rutgers University songs" may be useful. Also, any songwriters of these who have multiple songs may earn their own index article. But first be sure they're either public domain or released under GNU Free Documentation or Creative Commons licenses. Wikisource is adamant about this.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with LrdChaos. ~ UDScott 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE considering the lyrics for these songs are all previous to 1945, there are no considerations for copyright. The youngest song was written in the 1930s.  Therefore, public domain. Further this is not just going to be a set of song lyrics, and will include over time other quotes regarding Rutgers.  Other universities have their own wikisource pages (and I may add unsourced), there is no reasonable justification to delete this page. LrdChaos is a little too quick to put up a Vote for Delete, since he put up a VfD on 9 August, and the page was only begun on 9 August.  I guess he doesn't seem to understand the idea of a "work in progress." Talk about jumping the gun. I think LrdChaos and the rest of you need to re-read Wikiquote and reconsider your votes. &mdash;70.126.123.153 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The above is mine, ExplorerCDT, and stupid me forgot to log in. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone could be described as "jumping the gun," it would be someone who posts an article as a work-in-progress and expects us to assume it will eventually be completed. We've learned from our experience on Wikiquote that most incomplete articles will remain unfinished.  Someone will do a little work on a page and then just leave it; that's been the norm.  We have no choice but to figure that what we see is all we'll get.  Hence the need to post Vote for Deletion tags as soon as this kind of article appears.  If we didn't do this, these articles would get lost in the shuffle and we'd end up with a lot of inadequate pages.  Instead of lecturing Wikiquote administrators and assuming that they don't know how Wikiquote works, you need to see that what we're asking for is far from unreasonable.  While you're constructing an article, use Notepad or the like to work on the page at your own convenience; and when you're finished, post the results. Why complicate matters, for yourself and for us, with half-done work?  Why not just wait until you've finished the task?  It's the simplest and most straightforward thing to do. - InvisibleSun 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's try to back down on the rhetoric, folks. I believe the editor has good intent, but just doesn't understand some of the issues and the usually detrimental effect of posting notices to VfD participants talk pages en masse (true on WP as well as WQ). I can assure them that, as InvisibleSun states, we have plenty of experience with articles that die on the vine. We also have some good experience with articles that are fixed once they've been nominated for deletion. Articles about notable subjects, as Rutgers clearly is, are not stigmatized by a VfD; all we're looking for is content fixes. To this end, I've posted one of my verbose essays on their talk page on how to solve the basic problem here. If ExplorerCDT doesn't fall asleep halfway through reading it &#9786;, I'm hoping they'll make use of this information, rather than unpersuasive arguments (like unsubstantiated public-domain claims), to allow us to keep this one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 02:44, 16 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.