Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/You're either with us, or against us


 * 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 after various merges. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're either with us, or against us
This page was transwiki's from Wikipedia earlier, but I don't think it's the style of page we want to have around here. As opposed to a collection of quotes from a person, or about a theme, it's quotes that resemble a different quote. &mdash;LrdChaos 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete after various merges (1 Delete; 2 Deletes after copy to quotees; 1 Keep accepting transfer to Logic). This is quite complicated, as User:^demon transwikied this and another article from Wikipedia without following any of the transwiki guidelines, and now we are left to do the job correctly. I will leave this article in place until I can do all the "paperwork", then delete it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything has now been copied into appropriate articles as listed below (including a Star Wars quote I'd failed to notice before), the transwiki logged on both WP and WQ, and the transwikied article deleted. This was the most complicated transwiki I've ever done! Thanks goodness most are much easier. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash;LrdChaos 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete after copying 3 of the 4 quotes to relevant articles (The Bible, George W. Bush). (If someone wants to create a stub article for Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, they're welcome to do so, but I feel certain we don't have the community interest in such an article, and the single quote isn't even sourced.) Writing an article on this topic is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope, either for Wikiquote or Wikipedia. In WP, quotes are used to illustrate a topic; they aren't topics themselves. In WQ, quotes are collected under a general topic, and variations are grouped into a single entry in a topic, not as a full-fledged article. Millions of people have used this concept, but it is absurdly impractical to collect all these instances, even just the ones we can find reliable sources for. What's important about the quotes themselves is the origin of the concept (traced back to the Bible in this article), and notable users because of the contexts (Bush and Daniels, for political purposes). If we're so inclined, we can create internal links from the latter-day instances back to the putative original to connect them, but we certainly don't want to encourage such ultra-specific theme articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with the above. This seems much too specific for a theme. ~ UDScott 20:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps rename to False dilemma logical fallacy - I agree it's rather absurdly specific, and yet I find it really, really interesting to be able to contrast the wide-ranging tenor of these quotes expressing the same idea. I can see how this kind of thing would be useful, and how pages like this could be indexed by categories for easy findability, and most importantly, how this would set Wikiquote apart from other quotation sources that focus on people or quotes featuring a specific word. BD2412 T 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, I note that this same content exists under the same name on Wikipedia, where numerous authors have contributed to bring it to this state (which is still a string of quotes). BD2412 T 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * BD2412's suggestion reminds me that we have a section on logical fallacies at Logic. Perhaps we could place one or more of these quotes under a "False dilemma" subheading in that section (in addition to the merge into the appopriate quotee articles). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a similar merge with respect to the Wikipedia article. BD2412 T 15:48, 14 May 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.