Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Urban decay


 * 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: no consensus. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban decay
It's unclear to me how, if at all, these quotes relate to the theme of urban decay either generally, or to the specific case of New York City in the 1970s. The "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD" headline is from when then-President Gerald Ford said he'd veto a federal measure to bail out the city. Cosell's quote doesn't really seem to apply to the larger theme, and although Wikipedia does say "Historians of New York City frequently point to Cosell's remark as a sign of both the city and the borough's descent into anarchy during times of widespread vice," I don't believe that the quote can, even with some explanation, sufficiently and obviously represent urban decay (especially since the phrase, as originally used, applied to series of arsons in the '60s and '70s, which were but a symptom of the large urban decay in NYC). The quote from the BBC special (named for the quote), doesn't really apply to urban decay either. Again, it's highly specific to New York City, and also to the fire department coverage of certain areas of the city, and lacks any direct and obvious connection to urban decay (it might represent the city's view of the Bronx at that point in time, and the Bronx may have been in a state of urban decay, but I find this far too indirect). —LrdChaos (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closes. Result: no consensus. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to New York &mdash; possibly to a new section. --Ubiquity 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all of the quotes are about New York City. Futurebird 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. - I think it is clear that it needs to be expanded. But we should keep it, reductions in city funding were a direct cause of urban decay in north east cities. It works well with the wikipedia articles on this subject too.Mathteach 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of quotes to add that may not pertain to NYC. The page needs time to develop. This request came only a day after it was created giving those who are working on this project little or no time to flesh it out.Futurebird 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have expanded the content to inculde other cities. Futurebird 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with the changes, I still think the page should be deleted as the quotes don't really apply to the theme of "urban decay". The Keats quote appears to be more about urban/suburban sprawl, the anonymous poem is more about the sad state of public housing (which could be connected to urban decay but only very indirectly), I'm not sure what the Genet quote is about, but it's not urban decay, and the King quote applies much more to poverty or to repressed groups, which are the sort of thing you find in an "urban decay" environment, but again is only related extremely indirectly to the theme. —LrdChaos (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give it time to develop. If you think it could be improved by removing some items why not bring that up on the talk page? Talk:Urban decay Futurebird 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't (and don't) bring it up on the talk page because I don't think that any of the quotes really apply, and so they should all be removed, leaving the page empty. In that case, it's better suited to this VFD. If the page is kept, I'll mention my thoughts over there. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just found a GREAT quote that no one can dispute belonging on this I'm more tha willing to revise this page! I think it'd be a shame to delete it so quickly. It will grow and improve with time. Please give it a chance.Futurebird 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with LrdChaos - equating these quotes with symptoms of urban decay is a bit of a stretch. ~ UDScott 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article still isn't focused. - InvisibleSun 08:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral . I am in complete agreement with LrdChaos and UDScott about the lack of focus. More specifically, the concept lends itself to extreme broadening, but limiting quotes to those including the exact phrase seems too specific, making it hard to define the limits of this article. On the other hand, there should be something to collect quotes on this hot topic. Voting to delete removes a potentially useful article, but voting to keep encourages sloppy quote collection. (At least the quotes are mostly sourced.) I'm thinking we may have to tackle this as a content issue until we get a better feel for where it might go. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This article presents a serious problem for Wikiquote. Allowing theme articles that don't have very strictly defined limits opens a Pandora's box that we don't have the editing staff to handle. Currently, inclusion in this article requires editors to interpret quotes, when we usually stick to quotes that include the phrase to avoid this very kind of contentious interpretation. But I hate to delete useful, sourced quotes, and I'm concerned that the current alternatives haven't been sufficiently explored yet. I'm also afraid that I don't have the time I feel is necessary to ponder how to reasonably distribute all these quotes to other articles and/or how best to establish useful limits. I reluctantly conclude that this article should be given substantial time (at least a few months) to see if our current community can resolve these problems, rather than simply delete the material. But I would resist attempts to use this article as an excuse to broaden other articles or create similar ill-defined articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took the liberty of extending the deadline another week as the article seems to be under active development and it's worth giving it a bit more of a chance to be edited into a more useful state as per Jeffq. I did put a theme-cleanup on it as it needs some work to meet our formatting standards.  121a0012 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good intentions, but the subject needs to be thought through more carefully and more specific. At the moment it is vast. As pointed out above several of the quotes are inappropriate, forced or tangential. Focused subjects such as "19th century London slums" or "NYC inner city" (not a very good one but it gives the idea) would collect quotes that had greater relevance to each other, rather than encouraging a complete jumble from too big a remit. The title also assumes a position, and a more neutral one would allow different viewpoint to be set against each other. Tyrenius 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we could split it latter. As the collections grows this will become an issue. There are universals in all of these things though. Futurebird 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Urban decay is a focuses enough topic for a quote page. It is a pretty well researched area, has an connected article on wikipedia, the quotes are notable, etc. Koweja 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Difficult one. The subject is notable and many of the quotes are good material, but they don't quite match with the title. I would like to keep them and put them in New York City but it would not be appropriate to have a full merge and redirect because urban decay can happen in any city. Would it be appropriate, as with transwiki'd material, to add a note to Talk:New York City identifying the editors who wrote this page, then to delete it? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:20, 24 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.