I'm not going to enforce this, obviously, but my preference is that we don't bring conflicts to the mailing list as quickly as this one was brought.
1) Arno has, in spite of the newly noted consensus on the Talk page, re-added the quote. This proves that I was justified in my concerns, and that it was good to get quick opinions on the matter, for which the mailing list is optimal.
2) There is a policy question pertinent to this case, namely, whether anonymous, unverifiable quotes are OK in articles if they are attached for "sentimental" reasons. I think we have now concluded that they are not, which is good. It would help if the criterion of verifiability was adopted as a Litmus test for the inclusion of particular statements in Wikipedia.
3) Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be a "complete and accurate" encyclopedia. Regarding accuracy, it seems of utmost importance to me that any unverifiable or ideosyncratic information is treated with some amount of urgency, lest its presence be forgotten in the course of the page's history, especially when dealing with articles like this one which are not likely to be edited much.
4) Lastly, I fail to see how this case is any less proper than, say, the recent discussion of DW's rudeness. In fact, because of 1), 2) and 3), it seems to me that it is more proper and relevant to the purpose of this list. Thus, unless there are objections to the reasoning above, I will continue to use wikien-l in cases where it applies.
Regards,
Erik