Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Arthur Norman

This is a good example of a complicated VfD, so I'll give a detailed justification for my judgment. We had 7 deletes and 1 keep from regular editors, with 1 ambiguous position (Ubiquity nominated the article but also supported efforts to fix it and didn't revise his position after changes were made).

We also had 6 more keeps, 1 from an editor who made only 1 edit not related to this article, and the rest solely focusing on this article. (There were other edits made by anonymous editors who were probably these same people, but we can't know that, which is why it's important to edit while logged in.) These may be discounted based on the admonition against joining Wikiquote merely to support an article, a variation on w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

The supporters can be commended for their significant effort to fix the problems, but they failed to address the most damaging issue: independent, reliably-sourced publications demonstrating the subject has passed a notability threshold (suggested by w:Wikipedia:Notability (academics)).

I would suggest that, if they can assemble an article offline that addresses these issues and use this to recreate the article in the future, the community give it a second review instead of summarily deleting it as is permitted (Speedy deletions). But if the article is simply recreated in an attempt to rebuild it, WQ:SD applies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Norman
No sourced quotes. Sufficiently notable people should have quotes from reputable print sources or their web analogs. — Ubiquity 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - I would argue that this is not really all that notable a person, and I believe we have some precedent on deleting pages for professors. ~ UDScott 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I could olny find ONE sourced quote--Lookatthis 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Any Fellow of an Oxbridge College has at least some claim to notability and there is now a sourced quote.--Cato 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many of these quotes are fragmentary and/or lacking in context. They read like notes jotted down in a classroom and are probably not sourceable.  Who knows, for that matter, what Norman would think of having such remarks preserved here?  If this page is to be kept, only the sourced quote should stay. - InvisibleSun 02:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as I don't think this single quote in this instance is adequate for an entry and the rest of the quotes are unsourced. Of course this is no reflection on the overall importance of the person to their discipline. Over time it is possible that this person will have more exposure in the mainstream media and remarkable quote will be more available. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I must disagree with Cato. A Professor at Oxbridge (which for Americans means a Chairman of Department or the holde rof a special Chair) is almost certainly notable but a Fellow may well not be.--Poetlister 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per FloNight.--Yehudi 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Arthur is well known in Cambridge and his quotes give much pleasure to many people.--User:Seanjacksontc — posted at 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Sean Jackson.--User:Mark Charter — posted at 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - I support keeping this article - but assertions that "his quotes give much pleasure to many people" can't be taken into account unless supported by documentary evidence.--Cato 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What an interesting coincidence! Two registered users who have never made a single edit both decide to make their first edit on this vote for deletion, and within an hour of each other! --Ubiquity 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I assure you, we are different people. User:Seanjacksontc — posted at 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Writing half of the Norcroft C compiler strikes me as noteworthy. Trying to source more of the quotes would be better than deleting the page.Shadow 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shadow, I realize that, like your colleagues Sean and Mark, you have not edited any pages before, but if you have sources from published books for Arthur Norman's quotes, please supply them. It would definitely make a difference. On the other hand, Norman's key participation in a C compiler does not make him quoteworthy, any more than my key participation in a major database product makes me quoteworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ubiquity (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added a couple more quotes from one of his books User:Seanjacksontc
 * Please provide a full citation for the books: author, title, publisher, year of publication, ISBN. "Programming in Java" is pretty generic, and I could find no book by that title at amazon.co.uk, nor any book by Arthur Norman. If he is really a published author, it will probably make a difference; if these are just notes you are others have collected in his Java courses, it might not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ubiquity (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I for one would be sad to see these quotes go and so I vote for keeping them User:Dominicprior — posted at 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There was a Arthur Norman, apparently about this gentleman, but it was deleted over 3 years ago (back when WP discussions had much less participation than now). It would seem Norman has moved up a bit since then. I highly recommend that if we keep the article, we remove all the unsourced quotes as likely classroom quotes (as Ubiquity suggests above), which are unsourceable and therefore shouldn't be included no matter how witty they may seem. Articles about college instructors containing only unpublished classroom quotes (as this appears to have started) are a common pattern here. The supporters' comments thus far, following the admiring-students pattern of arguing more for popularity than pithiness and sourceability, strengthen this implication. Citing original, quoteworthy material with specific publication details indeed helps to make a case for keeping. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete to avoid awarding meatpuppetry. BD2412 T 07:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI for participants: WQ:VFD, despite its title, isn't a strict tally of votes. There is typically some rough weighting, determined by the closing admin:
 * Anon votes are frequently discounted.
 * Registered users who appear only to have registered to support a nominated page are usually given very little weight.
 * Any registered users who have made something more than only trivial contributions to the project, focusing on more than one article, are typically counted just like experienced editors.
 * (This is, I believe, the essence of what is still in draft stage at Voting.) On the other hand, all comments are welcome, unless they appear to be intended to disrupt the process. So far, our new Wikiquotians here fall into the second category and are not being disruptive, only understandably persistent, and are making some effort to add sourced quotes. I still see no specific source info like ISBNs and page numbers, especially for Programming in Java, an exact title I have yet to find in either Library of Congress or WorldCat. I'm beginning to wonder if it's not a professionally published book but a university coursebook. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit harsh in my assessment, but the problem with substantial numbers of brand new names popping up to speak for an entry is that there is no way we can verify that these are in fact separate people, and even if they are, there is no way that we can know if they have any understanding what Wikiquote is supposed to be about. I would propose to each of our guests in this thread, invest a few months into editing, sourcing, expanding, and adding content to this site, and you will surely develop a steadfast reputation that will carry weight in these discussions. In light of Jeff Q's observations, I am changing the rationale of my vote - delete unless independently sourced to some stable media that we can verify. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Arthur Norman is an outstanding CS educator and has had stron influence in the UK. Theses quotes incorporate a whole attitude to education that is sadly dying. User:jpff 11:29 9 Dec 2007 (GMT)
 * This may be true, but we need evidence to back it up.--Cato 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just added 3 more sourced quotes from LISP on the BBC microcomputer / Arthur Norman and Gillian Cattell. ISBN 0907876080 User:Seanjacksontc Seanjacksontc 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a description of the book in question. As a product manual, it's not exactly the sort of material we look for, but it's better than nothing. --Ubiquity 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it help if I moved the unsourced quotes to my own website and put a link to them on Wikiquote? User:Seanjacksontc Seanjacksontc 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Use the "External links" heading for links to other pages. I'm not saying it will decide the matter. But it would help. --Ubiquity 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we tend to discourage the additional of external links to sourceless quote websites, as they merely encourage people to add sourceless quotes to our articles. Personal website links, except for official websites of the subject itself, are really not proper material for any Wikimedia project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. After nearly a week, and substantial effort by fans of this instructor, nearly all the semi-sourced quotes we have are little more than matter-of-fact statements, not pithy turns of phrase deserving special notice in a quote collection. Even after being told several times, the contributors have failed to provide specific source details (ISBN, page numbers) that make it reasonable for editors to verify these quotes, even if they are deemed quoteworthy. And those details seem rather important, since it seems the works are fairly obscure (and in at least one case, not even properly and unambiguously identified). All this work with so little solid result reinforces my suspicion that this instructor has not yet reached an adequate level of notability that would get professional publications to quote him. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Poetlister and Jeffq. 1) not every fellow of Oxford/Cambridge is notable enough in my opinion. I don't think Charles Dodgeson (sorry if misspelled) notable enough as mathematician who was a follow at Oxford - without his novels he may have been forgotten. The notability required in Wikiquote is worldwide notability or at least in nationwide. Amiability in a small circle is not within our scope. 2) Supportive argument, regardless the fact it was given by alleged meatpuppets, didn't satisfy me. --Aphaia 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it may be true that just being an Oxbridge fellow isn't enough to make someone quotable, I think hardly anyone who's studied computer science in Cambridge would consider Arthur 'just another fellow'. That does leave the burden of proof. It's not hard to find other websites which carry Arthur's quotes: Amusing lecturer quotes, Quotes from Cambridge Lectures, Lecture quotes, ToothyWiki, ToothyWiki 2. The last of these, which claims to have been last edited in 2004, says of Arthur"Bah, he's just impossible not to quote..." Mjoldfield 08:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If one wants to work on Wikimedia projects, one simply must understand what is meant by "reliable sources". There are many venues on the Web these days that can be edited by anybody at anytime, and are magnets for rumo[u]r spreading, falsehoods, and general silliness. (Frankly, I suspect perhaps 10% of the entire Web has the informational uselessness of the average "reality" show.) The fastest way to undermine an argument supporting the published notability of a subject is to cite wikis. However odd it may seem to the wiki-inexperienced, Mediawiki projects do not treat wiki-based information as legitimate sources, not even their own. This is precisely because Mediawikians have to work hard to keep junk out of them. We do this by demanding cited, previously published material from established, non-vanity publishers. What brand-new editor Mjoldfield supplies us instead is this:
 * Quotes from Cambridge Lectures — from the personal website of "Alex Churchill, the world-renowned brain surgeon, high-flying assassin and master liar".
 * Quotes from Cambridge Lectures — from the student webpages of Joe Hurd of Cambridge University.
 * Lecture quotes — from a putative copy of the rec.humor.funny USENET group, this is a compliation and personal testimony from Martin Harvey, another self-described Cambridge University student. (Interestingly, Mjoldfield fails to note that it includes a mention of arthurnorman.org, an implied personal website of the subject, which this article's supporters could arguably include as an external link, as I said above. Except that appears not to be working, and seems now to be held by someone in China.)
 * Two links from ToothyWiki, "a forum for messages and editable information about toothycat.net content, as well as a large number of totally unrelated things, anything and everything else that comes to mind, and also nothing in particular".
 * In summary, this is nothing more than some students' pages, discussions, and wiki material. I sincerely hope that Cambridge University students are aware of what academia considers reliable sourcing for student papers and theses. Requirements for Wikimedia projects are not unlike these, for similar reasons. I urge our new editors to read our definitions of notability (including the Wikipedia guideline on academics) and reliable sources, so they may understand why these citations aren't useful to the project. The more non-reliable evidence they provide, the worse the case gets, as it strengthens the impression that only Norman's students — not anyone in the publishing world — find him quoteworthy. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)