Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Y.J. Leung


 * 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) 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Y.J. Leung
This is another university professor who is apparently being quoted from unsourceable classroom comments by a devoted student. He has no Wikipedia article that I found, and his cited name brings up half as many Google hits as mine does — rather remarkably unknown (on the Web at least) for a professor. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (four votes to delete, no registered dissent). —LrdChaos (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless evidence of notability provided and sourced quotes added. If so, the POV commentary would still have to go. Wikiquote is not a fan website. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I created this page. I have fairly carefully read over the Policies and guidelines, and I did not anticipate this sort of reception.  It seems to me that there is some sort of unspoken consensus here.  Either put it in the official policy in bold, clear, terms what sorts of people are acceptable to add to this wiki, or stop harassing newcomers who are trying to legitimately contribute.  I have no problem with your comments and policy, if that's the way you want to run things around here, that's fine.  But make it explicit; it's not so pleasant to have your page suggested for deletion, by surprise, a day after it was created.  My hope was that a handful of other people (whom I have sent the page to) would contribute as well, so it's not like this page is going to go unread or anything.  Cazort 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the nominator for this discussion, I apologize for this inauspicious start to a new editor's Wikiquote experience. Please allow me to very briefly summarize the problem here. As Policies and guidelines says, we tend to follow the practices of Wikipedia where relevant, and two key ones that are a problem with professor articles are (A) notability (read the 1st paragraph of w:WP:NOTE and the discussed guidelines at w:Wikipedia:Notability (academics)) and WQ:CITE, which is based on the needs for reliability and verifiability, which experience here has shown are rarely possible for articles in which admiring students are quoting their professors from classroom discussions. (I deduced "admiring" from the non-neutral "About" section in the article, and "classroom discussions" from the type of quotes cited.) It's simply not possible to include all the experience of all the kinds of article problems in a single policy page. On Wikipedia, this runs to literally thousands of pages, and even the link lists are huge. Wikiquote has about a dozen frequent editors and half that many regularly working maintenance, so it's a challenge to be anything but quick and succinct in dealing with problem articles. Therefore, we may expect too often (out of expediency) that our editors are familiar with Wikipedia, where many learn about Mediawiki practices before coming here. That said, we certainly don't want to lose folks just because their initial enthusiasm for a subject ran afoul of policies and practices that conscientious newcomers can't easily and quickly get a sense for. I would like to discuss this with you on your talk page, Cazort, to get your input on how we can improve how we handle these situations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have unfortunately stumbled over the sad state of Wikiquote's policy documentation. There are only a very few editors who have worked on the policy pages, so it's hard to build consensus for updates to them.  The result is that many of the policy pages are still rather sketchy if not outright stale, and community practice (particularly here in WQ:VFD) has a very "common law" feel about it.  In this particular case, What Wikiquote is spells one thing out fairly clearly: people quoted must be notable in the larger English-speaking world.  What it doesn't explain is our growing insistence on verifiabiliy; in general, unpublished statements—even by otherwise notable people—are not considered acceptable Wikiquote material.  (Our colleagues in the newly-reopened French Wikiquote have taken this one step further and require all quotations to have a complete source citation.)  The draft policy at WQ:SOURCE gives an idea of the direction we are heading.  121a0012 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 10:50, 9 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.