Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/T.S. Boldy


 * 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 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

T.S. Boldy
How do I doubt thee? Let me count the ways:

1) "A late 18th and early 19th century writer," which would make his dates 17??-182?, not 18??-192?. 2) The lack of search results involving name, titles, quotes. 3) The poet's initials.  T.S.  Who does that put that me in mind of?  Oh, yes... 4) The phony Wikipedia link, which does not inspire confidence. 5) The various misspellings. Ditto.

I shall but love thee better after deletion. - InvisibleSun 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (five explicit votes to delete, one implicit vote to delete, no dissent). &mdash;LrdChaos 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Mispellings and date errors due to the page being a work in progress -- this is really something you should pay attention to, if the page has only been up for five minutes, chances are someone is still working on it. However, after looking for citable (i.e. recently published or internet listed) information, I realized I may well be pretty much the only person that's ever seen any of this stuff, thus falling under the "new research" rule of most wikis. So, on principle, I concur. Go ahead and delete it.
 * Note: The creator of the T.S. Boldly/Boldy page has deleted its previous contents. - InvisibleSun 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete--PlanetEric 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with this new witty nomination from InvisibleSun. (I'm still chuckling over Bob.) I hope PlanetEric isn't taking this the wrong way. He (?) seems to be accepting good-naturedly the need for notability on these Wikimedia projects. (It's not really "new research", which applies more to people adding original essays and opinions to encyclopedia articles.) But we do need to find reliable sources, even for quotes. I myself am curious where he is reading this author, if neither print nor web searches reveal any such sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If an author is obscure enough that not a single reference can be found, it's a good bet they're not notable enough to be included. I'd welcome any evidence to the contrary, keeping in mind that merely having been published does not make a person notable. &mdash;LrdChaos 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 13:09, 9 July 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.