Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Norm Schryer

We seem to be leaning toward keep anyway. By the way, my apologies to Lookatthis for merely duplicating his discovery of the AT&T Research page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Norm Schryer
Seems non-notable. No Wikipedia article (although the article had said there was). One unsourced quote. — Cato 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a small biography for Norm Schryer at http://www.research.att.com/viewCategory.cfm?id=18 --Lookatthis 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's certainly notable as a scientist, but the one unsourced remark doesn't seem worth keeping, and if you toss it, what's left? I've known several brilliant scientists that you wouldn't be able to get a decent set of quotations from. --Ubiquity 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the quote can be sourced and/or other sourced quotes can be added. ~ UDScott 17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable; I've sourced the quote and added another. Poetlister 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--Lookatthis 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I give in Supergirl saves another article.--Cato 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Supergirl - thanks, I like it. Poetlister 23:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Supergirl. - Modernist 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep. But in this instance, I think that it would be more user friendly to locate on another entry with similar quotes. This in no way discounts the notability of the subject or the pithiness of the quote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No contesting notability; does this suffice as a valid article?--Yehudi 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is another borderline case. No indication that this person has any more than one reliably-sourced quote. (The other is from a sourceless quote website; citing it is just propagating rumors.) We've already had at least one situation where the only known quote and source is from a computer book, suggesting that this person's sole published notability is that they were a clever friend of a published author. (In the case I'm thinking — I can't recall the name at the moment — we decided to add it to a theme article, since the source was reliable and the quote was quoteworthy, but didn't think it merited an article, since we could find no further reliable information about the person, indicating non-notability.) There is not (and apparently never was) a WP article. Google provides about 2800 hits (better than obscure but hardly famous), and most of the first several pages of hits were sourceless quote propagations and mentions of tech conference talks (which I've done, too, but doesn't make me famous). I managed to source the statement of who he is with an undated AT&T Labs page that provides some info. (Without properly dated info, it's hard to tell if he still heads the AT&T department. This is a good reason to demand thorough sources. Even if so, corporate department heads don't typically meet notability guidelines without better evidence.) Summary: one quote, indirectly reliably sourced; moderately known computer scientist with no apparent publications. I was tempted to vote "weak delete", as I'm concerned about a Pandora's box of borderline cases. But with the subject arguably notable and the quote truly clever, I'm reluctant to oppose Supergirl. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)