Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redgrave speech

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Move to Wikiquote or Wikisource. RickK 00:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Come on - the article has been up for all of 2 minutes, and marked VfD. It should go through Cleanup, or perhaps Peer review first, since it is the event that is being described, not just a simple source or quote from a single person.  Rather than immediately choose to delete, use editorial solutions first. -- Netoholic @ 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that not one of the options was "delete". It was "move".  RickK 05:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is "Votes for deletion", not anything else. You waste our time listing items which are better handled through other processes. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Verbatim text for speeches go to Wikisource (after they've been verified as public domain or GFDL.) Articles about speeches go here.  That was verbatim text combined with unencyclopedic commentary; the relevant information is in Paddy Chayefsky already.  The choice seems simple enough to my inexperienced eyes: transwiki to both Wikiquote and Wikisource .  --Ardonik.talk 01:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote; in light of recent improvements, keeping looks like a better option than transwiki. --Ardonik.talk 23:00, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikisource and delete: A description of the event would go in the Academy Awards for that year.  It is not known so well outside of that context to be sought.  The Janet Little Feather acceptance is more famous.  Geogre 02:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Remedy
 * Just to show how easy it is to fix an article you know nothing about nor have any interest in, I've remedied this by making it the start of the 50th Academy Awards page. Really, a little work goes a long way - simply voting for deletion is a cop out. As an example, I refer you all to the original version of the Gettysburg Address, or how about Michael Moore's famous Oscar speech. Noone here can predict exactly how valuable, interesting, or complete an article can become simply from it's first version. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not a remedy. The item is still source text that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That's what Wikisource and Wikiquote are. I have re-added the vfd header as you have gone outside of VfD protocol by deleting the header. You don't need to contact an article's author before listing on VfD--many articles listed here are one-shots by anons, and for regular users, created articles are always on watchlists, so there's no problem joining the debate. There is nothing wrong with transwikifying an article, Netoholic--it's not as if the content of the article disappears, never to be seen again. But you're opposed to a transwiki/delete? You seem to want this speech, verbatim, on the Wikipedia? How come? --Ardonik.talk 08:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to a policy page which requires that all speech text be Transwiki'd. Certainly, this information should be copied to Wikiquote, but to say it should be removed is presumptive.-- Netoholic @ 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with RickK.  I know you hate the system, but the fact remains that the system is there and it does work.  Please do not subvert it in protest.  I will also note that Wikisource and Wikiquote are a part of that system, and one of the reasons they exist is to keep the Wikipedia free of articles like this.  Why do you insist that the article should stay in this project?  --Ardonik.talk 05:49, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is a very early page (VfD'd 2 minutes after creation - literally), contains more than simply quoted text, and has potential. Are we so lazy that we can't keep this article and improve it over some time? -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If a page seems out of place in the Wikipedia (I'm not talking about bad stubs with potential, but articles that don't appear to belong here) and it can't be speedied, then it should be liisted on VfD. Many articles never see a full day of life before being listed here.  Does that come as a surprise to you?  --Ardonik.talk 07:34, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, the discussion belongs on the article's talk page first. Did someone contact the author of this before requesting deletion, in case they can improve it? -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you deleted my second paragraph. It was a statement of my opinion, and was emphatically not meant as a personal attack, although you construed it as such.  I would never willingly change your words, however much I did not like them; please show me the same courtesy from now on.  (For interested parties, here's the diff.)


 * Delete. Should be listed on the copyvio page. Radio and TV transcripts are copyrighted - this text belongs to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Davodd 07:18, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Transcripts of entire shows yes. If anyone owned a copyright on the speech (but a small part of the show), it would be Vanessa Redgrave.  Note that there are numerous exceptions to copyright (like any speech by any government official as part of their duties), but my brain shut off before I could determine where impromptu Academy speeches fit in.  The Steve  07:58, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Change to no vote. Upon further research, quoting is enumerated in fair use.  Davodd 17:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Netoholic has convinced me The Steve  07:26, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * So we should then close down Wikisource and Wikiquote? RickK 07:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, I completely disagree with pasting in any material from this into the Academy Awards. Instead, a person...other than the author...could, if he or she wished, go to the Academy Awards page for that year and make a note of the protest speech.  Reproducing it is absurd.  Even were that to have been done, though, this article would be deleted.  Netoholic would see our servers fill up with redirects, edit wars over redirects, and duplicate material after busybodies have "merged" by their own lights.  Wikisource exists for exactly this kind of thing, and the presence of descriptive words around the quote is not a disqualifier. Geogre 12:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Putting in text from the speech is far from "absurd". The import of the speech hinges on exactly what was said, and Redgrave's inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the kind of thing that's easily misreported. If a speech is short enough, including it might well be good idea. My vote on this particular speech is below. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As a solution to Redgrave speech it was absurd. I do not regard it as a solution to simply copy over the speech.  In the context of the 50th Academy Awards, there were a lot of things going on, and this controversial speech, and its response, was the most memorable.  I don't think that slapping the entirety of it anywhere inside Wikipedia is appropriate.  As I said way back, I think the whole text should be on Wikisource.  There can be a soft redirect inside the Academy Awards article to it for those who want the full text, if it's not copyvio, but I object to Netoholic's "everything is a redirect and nothing is ever deleted except speedy delete candidates" actions.  Geogre 18:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The copyvio problem needs to be sorted out if it is to be Transwikied. If no copyvio problem, the speech should be transwikied as original source. The proposed article on 50th Academy Awards would need to be seriously cleaned up - including the full text of the speech isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Average Earthman 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Redgrave speech as a redirect to 50th Academy Awards, particularly since that article has now been expanded beyond the one incident, but I would question incorporating the entire speech in that article. It certainly shouldn't be the first item on the page - news and recap could be kept to a brief description, and the text of the speech is suited to be in Wikisource or Wikiquotes, with a reference to that speech from Wikipedia. Average Earthman 16:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * First research whether the speech text is a copyvio. If it's OK, then keep 50th Academy Awards and put it on the cleanup list. Otherwise delete 50th Academy Awards and recreate as a redirect to Paddy Chayefsky (where the topic is covered without the speech text). Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Btw I've restored the vfd header on 50th Academy Awards which was struck out by User:Netoholic. Netoholic, I don't know WTF you're up to, but you should be aware that you're pissing people off. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I redid 50th Academy Awards in compliance with WikiProject Academy Awards, in which Redgrave/Chayefsky and/or the substance or full-text of their (relatively short) speeches is appropriate, and in which the speeches are placed in the appropriate context. The Redgrave speech is a big deal in Oscar history. jengod 19:53, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks very much. I think the article is a great start and well within standards now. I'm removing the VFD notice, since its just silly to consider this new article for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article has improved, but I am still going to restore the notice, Netoholic. At this point, it is clear to me that you are trying to pre-empt the community, either because of your dislike of VfD or for some other reason.  I'd ask you to stop if I thought you might listen.  --Ardonik.talk 22:50, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! - This was a genuine incident. -- Crevaner 21:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So what? Does that mean we should publish somebody's quotes on any genuine incident?  RickK 00:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic deleted the VfD header again, and I have restored it yet again. RickK 00:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * If an article is improved, and especially if it has been moved to a new article name and expanded, removal of the notice seems reasonable. Please point me to a policy page which explicitly says it's not. -- Netoholic @ 00:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * [Netoholic] stop removing VfD notices. Neither you nor I are above established procedure.  --Ardonik.talk 01:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had to removea number of off-topic comments (per Refactoring) and personal attacks from this page. Please keep the discussion here only about the article in question, and make use of user Talk pages to discuss disputes about editor actions. -- Netoholic @ 16:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I really think you shouldn't have done that. Irrespective of the merits of removing them or otherwise, if they are aimed at you personally, removing them yourself is likely to antagonise. Average Earthman 16:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nor should you have deleted my comments, either. If you believe you are under personal attack, put that in a relevant RfC and stop trying to prevent VfD voters from seeing what is being said, especially as these comments go a long way toward establishing the validity of your votes.  If you are acting in bad faith, it can be illustrated by a paranoid reverting of VfD votes, an unwillingness to listen to the jury of peers in the votes, and editing of the VfD page.  All of these things you have done or are doing.  If you believe votes here are personal attacks upon you and do not wish to pursue an RfC, then ask a sympathetic administrator, or even fellow voter, to do the removal, with a link to the diff.  Geogre 16:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD referendum on Redgrave speech, now at 50th Academy Awards:
 * Keep. jengod 18:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously 50th Academy Awards has potential, and the speech portion should now be a discussion on Talk:50th Academy Awards. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote or Wikisource has yet to be addressed. Just moving the information to a new page and adding more information doesn't change the core issue.  RickK 18:31, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the new page, but transwiki the quotes. BTW, this vfd page is ridiculously convoluted... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:43, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's because Netoholic keeps rewriting it to match his view of the world. RickK 20:10, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * We have to transwiki the source matter. I have not wavered in this: I support the new article and jengod's good offices, but having this big, disruptive speech messes up the encyclopedic quality of the article.  I support reporting on the speech and its reaction, but not a wholesale paste.  For that matter, why, after all, are we pasting the speech in, except to justify Netoholic's desire that it be a merge?  Is that worth making this Academy Awards article look different from the others, and different from other Wikipedia articles?  Transwiki the source, and the article can be kept.  Geogre 20:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I object to your characterizations of my intent, and I request that both you and RickK restrict your comments to the article at hand.
 * Quoted text is very frequently part of our articles, since it give relevance and context to the event. At best, these should be copied to Wikiquote, but not wholly deleted.  In any case, this discussion is completely out of scope and belongs on the Talk:50th Academy Awards page. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Minor nitpick: I think it's perfectly relevant. Let's work things out while we're all here.  For the record, although I changed my vote from delete to keep and I'm not going to change it again, I think Geogre's suggestion is a good one.  --Ardonik.talk 02:50, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep the page and the speech. It's short enough that it doesn't really matter. Why summarize when you can present the whole picture? Gamaliel [[Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.