Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/The Homework Diary Company Ltd


 * 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) 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Homework Diary Company Ltd
1) There is no point in creating a page to reproduce this product's collection of diary quotes. 2) Copyvio issue. The company does not own the quotes; but this use of extensive quotes from one of their products, all placed together under the company's name, is the problem. 3) Also of note: a great many of this page's quotes, all unsourced, have been posted by the creator of this article to their respective pages (including the creation of a lot of stubs). - InvisibleSun 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (five votes to delete, one vote to "modify"). —LrdChaos (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to InvisibleSun's first point, I would like to point out that there are several pages on this site where quotes concerning one specific issue (e.g. Christianity) or which appear in one specific place (e.g. The Bible) have been created. If these pages are of value, I do not see why The Homework Diary Company Ltd isn't.
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 04:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify - When I created this article, my intention was to bring new quotes to the Wikiquote site. I do not feel that there is a problem in putting all these quotes under one heading.

In answer to InvisibleSun's second point, I would like to point out that I have made no claim that The Homework Company Ltd owns the quotes, and the names of the people who they do belong to appear beside the quotes.

Concerning the third point that has been raised, I do not dispute that many of these quotes are unsourced. But I have made an appeal on at the reference desk for sources.

If you do not want to rule out deletion completely, at least put it on hiatus so that the page can be modified. If people are willing to help find sources for these quotes, then I'm sure that this page can be improved.

Also, a lot of the stubs that I have created with these quotes are also candidates for deletion (because they are unsourced), and so if this page is deleted then many of these quotes will be lost. I for one would not wish for this to happen.

If you still feel that this page is not valuable, then I have one more suggestion; as many of these quotes are unsourced, it could be turned into a project page, and kept up only until all the quotes had been sourced and all the people responsible for the quotes had these quotes on their page. -- R160K 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will address each of R160K's counterpoints:
 * Why Christianity and not The Homework Diary Company Ltd? Quotes in Christianity are explicitly about Christianity. Quotes that are only tangentially related to their subject should be removed. If there were legitimate, sourced quotes about The Homework Diary Company Ltd (hereafter abbreviated THDCL), one could make an argument for such an article, but that is not what this article is. These quotes are merely contained in this derivative work. A more accurate analogy would be a Wikiquote article on Bartlett's Famous Quotations, which will probably never exist (see next point). If a source has enough quotes to justify an article, it may be useful, but we want original sources, not derivative works.
 * Quotes belong to the quotees, not to THDCL. Copyright isn't about who "owns" the quotes (if there is even a legal meaning to "owning quotes); it's about who owns the works in which they are quoted. If the quotes extracted from THDCL are a substantial subset ("substantial" being deliberately vague), citing them can be a copyright violation. If they are an insubstantial subset (from the viewpoint of the commerical enterprise that could lose money by having their material provided for free), they may escape this problem, but that doesn't eliminate the need to follow Wikiquote inclusion guidelines in the previous point.
 * Deleting THDCL and stub articles will lose quotes before they're sourced. The best solution to this under current Wikiquote practice is to post each quote not already included on WQ to Reference desk, where people can investigate sources as they have time. (They can all be listed in your single existing RD topic, R160K. I recommend, however, that you not include existing quotes, but focus on the ones being questioned. Note that there is no guarantee that others will do this work. Wikiquote is a totally voluntary effort, and we have very few editors willing to do the hard work of sourcing quotes, in or out of WQ:RD.) But sourcing — the identification of reliable publications containing the quotes — is not the primary issue in the stub articles' deletion nominations. The problem there is that the people who are quoted are not identified as "notable"; i.e., well-known in the world at large or well-represented in non-vanity publications. (A simple way to look at WQ notability is, is this person worthy of a Wikipedia article?) If we can't even tell who the person is, they are by definition unnotable. That's why we often explicitly ask for notability evidence. As one may surmise, gathering notability evidence and sourcing quotes are often complementary efforts that may be combined.
 * To summarize: We don't want articles on derivative works because they are less compelling sources than the originals and are much more likely to incur copyright suits. Many of the quotes listed in the THDCL article are already included in appropriate Wikiquote articles, and some may even be in appropriate theme articles. Quotes not already on Wikiquote may be added, but their quotees must be specifically identified and notable, and the sources should be provided. I hope this provides a better view for what's happening with your articles, R160K. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have e-mailed the managing director of The Homework Diary Company Ltd and have asked him to inform me of his sources. -- R160K 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:41, 9 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.