Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Oregano


 * 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: merge into Herbs. BD2412 T 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oregano
This article was prod because "Single unremarkable quote by a non-notable person." The tag was removed the following explanation: "I disagree that the quote is unremarkable and that the author is non-notable." The quote is a variation of a familiar aphorism dating from at least the 18th century: "Variety is the spice of life." The only remarkable thing about this variant is its lameness in substituting something specific for "variety" and in calling an herb a spice. Perhaps this was intended to be funny, but the problem with stupid humor is that it is often more stupid than humorous. There are fourteen (14) hits for "Henry J. Tillman" at GoogleBooks:
 * The quote:
 * Who is Henry J. Tillman?:
 * Four (4) use the name as sample data in a programming example;
 * One (1) refers to a Cpl. Henry J. Tillman in a roster for L Company/15th Infantry Regiment in 1944, but does not mention any writing or public speaking by him;
 * The rest (9) contain unsourced attributions of various remarks to the otherwise unidentified person.

Only one book says anything about who the quoted Henry J. Tillman is: in [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22Henry+J.+Tillman%22+intitle%3A%22Pathological+Altruism%22 Pathological Altruism (2012), ed. Barbara Oakley et al., p. 426,] a contributor biography says "She agrees with the elusive orator Henry J. Tillman". Elusive indeed: Nobody knows who this guy is. The earliest mention of Henry J. Tillman at GoogleBooks is from 2002, as an example of a name in a programming guide. The earliest quotation attributed to Henry J. Tillman at GoogleBooks is from 2004. These books apparently got their material from the internet, where there was a Usenet poster who went by that name. See "Who is Henry J. Tillman?" at GEARbits, 2005. It appears that his postings did not survive the migration from Usenet to GoogleGroups, but I can't tell exactly when, or why, his posts were deleted. An alt.shenanigans FAQ from 1996 (scroll to §10, ¶1) is suggestive of the possibility that "Henry J. Tillman" was a prankster or an outright hoax. At best, he may have been some internet chatroom gadfly. A handful of unsourced attributions in print do not indicate he was a notable one.— Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is Henry J. Tillman really?:
 * Vote closes: 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom, without prejudice to creation of an article with actual quotable quotes about this or any other herbs and spices. However, I do harbor prejudice against creating articles with the appearance of making a point about a minority view from a discussion about quotespammer Kedar Joshi. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isolated quotes about flowers, and such, should be added to our Flowers article, particularly when the the subject itself is so limited (I looked in five different dictionary of quotations, and couldn't find any quotes about Oregano.) I would support a merge myself, but I too have my doubts about the author's notability (although the quote itself has over 450 000 google hits). The larger issue here relates to Wikiquote's editorial policies, which are not entirely clear, and should be discussed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DanielTom, to what are you referring when you reference a larger issue related to editorial policies? ~ UDScott (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Ningauble was right when he said that this article was created to "[make] a point about a minority view". There is no question that RogDel is a very capable editor, though, and I'm afraid we might put him off if we just delete his articles without first addressing the central issue, i.e., what kind of quotes are considered acceptable/notable enough for WQ. For example, I believe that quotes with over 100 000 Google hits are, in general, notable enough. The problem with this quote in particular is that we don't even know who its author is (when did he write it?, is "Henry J. Tillman" a pen name?, etc.), but I do think that we will eventually have to discuss or at least clarify our "editorial policies", otherwise these issues will keep coming up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To make a point about a minority view? Not really. I’m only convinced that he is notable enough for WQ and was only helping to make WQ "comprehensive". Many thanks indeed for the compliment! ~ RogDel (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don’t have to know who the author of a quote really is in order to include it in WQ. Reliable source/s indicate that it is "Henry J. Tillman"; whether it is a real name or a pen name is of secondary importance and may at some time in future be found out through further research. And if the output of that research contradicts the existing information in WQ, such as Henry J. Tillman was in fact say Voltaire, then we are free to amend it. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Websites with random quotes, with no sources whatsoever, cite that quote and attribute it to "Henry J. Tillman". Then someone copies that and publishes it in a book, again without citing any source. I suppose we could then say that quote was attributed to "Henry J. Tillman" in book so-and-so, but I do not see how that really counts as a "reliable source". Essentially, if we accept that, we could also cite quotes here without any sources with the note "attributed to person-so-and-so in GoodReads" (just skip a step). I'm afraid Wikiquote has higher standards. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any other source, reliable or more reliable, which suggests that Henry J. Tillman (real name or pen name) is in fact not the author of that quote? If there is no such source as of yet and if sources that are normally considered reliable on WP indicate Henry J. Tillman as the author, I don’t understand why we cannot include it in WQ, especially when, WQ being electronic, can much easily be amended in future in light of possible further research. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is basically a huge difference between citing an OUP book, for example, as a non-primary source and GoodReads. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the fact that an OUP publication can make mistakes does not mean we are free to cite any random sources, such as GoodReads. OUP is considered a reliable source because it seems very unlikely to make mistakes. (Note 8 may be consulted for details.) ~ RogDel (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes a quote a quote is that it is quoted. A compilation of sentences claimed to be quotes is of no use unless those sentences are in turn the subject of quotation by others. If a notable person like Barack Obama or George W. Bush or Ban Ki-moon gave a speech, and said in the course of that speech, "as Henry J. Tillman once said, 'oregano is the spice of life'", then we would have a reason to report the quote and note the absence of proof as to its claimed attribution. Also, we have a page on herbs, and any free-floating individual quotes on herbs being herbs should go there rather than to flowers. Despite the image on the page, the quote itself does not appear to implicate oregano being a flower. BD2412 T 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: A research paper (published in a highly reliable source) beginning with the line "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein can be said to have cited Albert Einstein as a source of a quote. This remarkably differs from an article merely mentioning a fact such as "Albert Einstein said yesterday that he was not feeling well". In the former example, it is evident that the author of the research paper is citing a statement by Albert Einstein as a quotation, that they are treating the statement as a quotation (that they are considering Albert Einstein quotable or quoteworthy: worthy of being quoted); while in the latter example such treatment does not seem to exist. In order for the quotation to be notable, it is essential that the source that cites it is reliable, not that the source, or the author of the source, is notable. (Ref. Note 1) ~ RogDel (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If The Hindu were a highly reliable source, there would be no reason why the quote would not be objectively notable in itself; see the way it is cited. ~ RogDel (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters whether The Hindu is a reliable source, if the author of the article - in this case "RAJIV.M" - is equally as non-notable as the purported original author of the quote. If our standards of notability or quotability revolve around the reliability of the publisher, then anyone who succeeds in getting a "letter to the editor" published in a major newspaper, or even anyone who gets a space-filling lifestyle piece published, could put quotation marks around some thought, make up an author's name, and thereby manufacture a quote that would be allowed to enter our collection. BD2412 T 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Is that article a letter to the editor? Really? If it is, then by all means, it is specifically not a reliable source. 2. Suppose a person or an idea has significant coverage in an article published in a highly reliable journal (e.g. Nature (journal)), whose (the article’s) author is a non-notable academic, doesn’t that make that person or the idea notable? It does. Notability basically rests upon independence and reliability of source/s, not on notability. In other words, the sources do not have to be notable; they have to be independent and reliable. That’s it. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt, notability of source/s (e.g. a journal article and/or its author/s) is a plus point towards establishing notability of the subject they cover, but it is never a necessity. The necessity is independence and reliability only. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A handful of unsourced attributions in print do indicate he was a notable one for WQ, if not for WP. ~ RogDel (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe points 4 & 5 in 6 Important Points about Notability on Wikiquote are pretty logical and are a key to determining notability on WQ. Sadly, it seems, WQ notability has not been well researched and well understood; there seem to have been numerous misbeliefs, such as one has to be notable on WP to be notable on WQ, a quote has to be cited in multiple (notable) sources to be notable, etc. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Flowers or Herbs theme page, if it makes sense to presume that the subject (i.e. Oregano) won't have many quotes and therefore a standalone article is not a good idea, why, because it ain't economical? ~ RogDel (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I have great respect for RogDel, but I doubt that his personal page on notability should be the standard we use.--Abramsky (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any logical reasons why it shouldn't be used as the standard? ~ RogDel (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be, if and it is made a proposed policy, then debated and accepted by the community.--Abramsky (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is essentially this; it looks pretty simple and logical to me: (1) Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that it can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. (2) Wikipedia requires "multiple sources" so that it can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. Points 1 & 2 imply that "significant coverage" and "multiple sources" are not vital to the concept of notability. They are required for things other than notability, things which normally do not matter on Wikiquote (See Note 2 & Note 3 for details). Therefore, if a quote is cited as a quotation in a published secondary source which is highly reliable and independent (or in a published tertiary source which is at least moderately reliable) there is no reason why it cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote. Similarly, if a person is cited (or noted) as a source (or an author) of quotation/s there is no reason why s/he cannot be presumed to be notable on Wikiquote and why Wikiquote may not have a page on them. In other words, if a quote is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable (i.e. a source which can reasonably be relied upon), it can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed). If a person is noticed by a (published) source which is independent and reliable as a source (or author) of quote/s, the person can be presumed to be notable (deserving to be noticed) as a source (or author) of quote/s. However, the source is required to have a sufficient degree of reliability to be considered truly reliable for practical purposes. (Since theoretically nothing can be considered truly reliable. See Note 8 for details.) ~ RogDel (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As previously mentioned by DanielTom, whatever quotes there are about oregano can be in the flowers theme page. --Spannerjam (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, adding it to the Herbs page would be more appropriate, as BD mentioned above. :) DanielTom (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a conundrum in finding a way to deal with the new and evolving digital world. On the internet one may find the thoughtful words of notable people, and also the schoolyard chatter and back fence gossip of just about everybody. When we have previously declined to accept jokes and catchphrases that users testified were picked up and repeated "on the street" or "in the schoolyard", is it only because these are not verifiable sources, or is it also because they are, in some sense, not noteworthy? When it is possible, thanks to the internet, to verify that some things are repeated among some people, practically any people, how are we to determine which ones belong in a compendium of quotations? Does it matter? I was struck by the wisdom of this analogy from a prominent internetologist:
 * Comment: The closure date on this discussion has passed, but I'll chime in anyway. I'd favor "merge with Herbs" slightly over "delete" for now, if only so we can document some research on a surprisingly popular attributed quote without decent sourcing. I'd consider The Hinu a reliable source in general, but I wouldn't consider The New York Times an adequate source for a quote if it just throws it out there without any context; that's the kind of "quoting" that easily leads to misquotes and multiple source claims. Ningauble's extensive research points out an interesting dilemma: poorly sourced info from unidentifible people can nevertheless be wildly popular in these days of global social networking. I'm enough of a source fiend and old codger to want to delete anything that seems spread more by this electronic "word of mouth" than easily accessible documentation, but I acknowlege the need to consider how we might adapt for a very different world. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (I wouldn't sweat the close date. Extended discussion and late closing has become quite normal here.)
 * "The members of the Invisible College did not live to see the full flowering of the scientific method, and we will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant, and global (both in the sense of 'comes from everyone' and 'goes everywhere.') We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won't matter much, but the norms we set will. Given what we have today, the Internet could easily become Invisible High School, with a modicum of educational material in an ocean of narcissism and social obsessions. We could, however, also use it as an Invisible College, the communicative backbone of real intellectual and civic change."
 * —Clay Shirky, "The Shock of Inclusion", in The Edge Annual Question—2010: How Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?, January 2010
 * Wikimedia projects play a prominent role in this normative process. It is my preference, and hope, that Wikiquote be part of the Invisible College rather than the Invisible High School. This requires being somewhat discriminating, but this old codger (a card-carrying member of the AARP) is acutely aware that it is not exactly obvious how best to do so. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS — Re. documenting research of the provenance of this quote: Although I offer my findings and speculations for discussion here, I do not think they are suitable for use in an article. I have employed unreliable sources to synthesize conjectures in a manner that would be inappropriate in the biography of a living person. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)