Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Houghton (historian)


 * 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   no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Norm Houghton (historian)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article currently has 9 references. #7, as far as I can see, does not mention the subject. The others are links to library catalogs or a 1-paragraph mention in a local newspaper. There is one book review in a society newsletter (not a peer-reviewed journal, BTW), which is used to source the claim that "His research has been acknowledged by the Australian Forest History Society". While the reviewer is positive about the book, I gingerly suggest that this is perhaps not the same thing as a whole society "acknowledging" someone's "research". It is mentioned that Houghton has published 30 books, but "Most of his works have been self-published" (in fact, the only thing he didn't publish himself seems to be a history of the Geelong Historical Records Centre -itself with unclear notability- with which he apparently is involved himself. There was mention of an award in the article, but that was not a notable award and in any case has been removed because apparently this was a different person with the same name (Norm Houghton (pioneer irrigator), also with unclear notability). In short, there is no evidence that I can find that this article passes WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found him in source #7 (which isn't searchable), on page 5 under the heading "Light railways". Not a lot there. In my view the best source is actually source #3, which is an interview with Houghton conducted by the National Library. In fact I was leaning keep until I investigated a little further and discovered that it's part of a 93-interview series focusing on forest history - a worthy undertaking, I'm sure, but being one of 93 people interviewed by the NLA about this is not quite the same as being one of, say, ten. It appears that Houghton is a worthy researcher in this area, but the other sources, as mentioned in the nomination, don't quite get him over the notability threshold. Frickeg (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Niche, personal interest historian of regional lumbering and lumber/industrial railroads. Negligible  coverage of him or his books in secondary sources.  Work in this sort of narrow-focus industrial history would e notable only if popular or scholarly sources widely  picked up on and discussed the work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added more information about his work and influences, and a number of additional references, including newspaper accounts noting his role in documenting forest history, which, given the importance of forestry in Victoria's history, and the dearth of other research in this area, should be seen as an important contribution.Garyvines (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Garyvines is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
 * I respect your additions here, which improve the article. I was hoping the newspaper references would amount to more, but I don't consider two articles in local papers to be "significant coverage" (opinion may differ). Frickeg (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree - there is no clear definition of what constitutes "Significant coverage" in Wikipedia. What I can find is that it "...addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."   The references to Houghton are not trivial, in that they are intended by their authors to demonstrate his important role in the research of forest history. The references are also in reliable secondary sources, even if some are local newspapers and no original research was necessary. Also the references by Evans and Davies, while I cannot determine if they are available on-line, provide a strong basis for the importance of the subject in this particular field.  In terms of the number of sources, the newspapers might count as one, the multiple books by the author himself as one, the Light Railways Research Society and Forest History Society articles combined as one and the credit for providing base data and methodology for assessing forest industry site significance as another one.  As their is implicitly stated that multiple' is not defined by any specific number of sources, I take these to surely constitutes multiple independent secondary sources.    Suggestions above that industrial history is a narrow focus and personal interest area, would seem to be a personal opinion and a probable personal bias.  Popularity as expressed in popular media and the internet should not be a criteria for notability, nor an argument for exclusion.  There is nothing that says notability cannot including subjects of local value ( here for example).   I note there is a fair bit of discussion on Wikipedia about this very thing - for example One hundred words.  One of the essays on the significant coverage topic compares the article Franklin Edgerton, which I take to suggest there is not a consensus on what significant coverage is, and that personal bias might be effecting deletion decisions.  I also suggest that there is a special bias from the Afd proponent here - as they have had an interest in a disproportionate amount of the articles that I have started or substantially contributed to.Garyvines (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frickeg that the added references do not establish notability. As for the example for using local newspapers as sources that you cite, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument (and note that there are also references in national newspapers there and national awards). The Edgerton article is not well sourced (but his citation counts at GScholar probably make him meet Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep RandyKitty seems to have it in for anything Garyvines wants to submit but I think there is some merit in the point being made in that I think a bit more work needs to be made to contextualise Houghton's work. But of course the field of Light Railways and Local History is not notably self reflexive so there are no ready made sources to refer to and of course the author has to avoid original research in Wikipedia. As someone who has a considerable respect for Houghton's research and the contribution he has made I feel that his work and contribution is notable but the difficulty is in demonstrating this within the guidelines. Is there some way of allowing Gvines and others to work further on the article to improve it and revisit the question in a few months? Iain Stuart (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment My motivations, whether your accusation is correct or not (it's not my fault that Garyvines seems to concentrate on bordeline notable subjects, so, yes, there are probably more AfDs to come), are irrelevant here. The rest of your !vote is an eloquent argument for non-notability. The notability problems of the article were noted back in May. Despite several months have passed since then, nobody has been able to come up with any acceptable sources. I don't see any reason to drag this out any longer. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You agree with Friceg, but his comment was before the last references were added. There are now 18 sources, including newspapers, academic and government publication, some very specific about the role of this author, but you seem to be taking an unnecessarily pedantic and hardline approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyvines (talk • contribs)
 * And my comment was made after those sources were added. After evaluating them, I maintain my pedantic and hardline position. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions Although my opinion has not been changed by the new sources, I did think it reasonable to add this to the history-related list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Putting aside the personal history between the nominator and author, a look at the sources suggests that to me that he passes WP:GNG. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Apart from the irrelevant personal innuendo, could you perhaps explain to us exactly how this meets GNG? "It's notable" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Warning The repeated insinuations about my "personal history" with the article creator are becoming a bit tiresome. Yes, I have nominated articles created by this same editor before. I have nominated dozens or probably even hundreds of articles for deletion, in a large variety of subjects, so there is no reason to suggest some kind of vendetta here. Even if there was one, please note that in an AfD, only policy-based arguments about the notability of the subject of the article are important. This kind of arguing is counterproductive. All I am concerned about here is notability. Any further aspersions about my integrity will be reported at WP:ANI. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could offer the suggestion of a voluntary mutual interaction ban WP:IBAN. Garyvines (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for that and this is not the place to discuss something like that anyway. Can we now please concentrate on the issue at hand? --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have had a look at the present references cited in the article (where i can) and although it is an interesting subject, trees and trains:), do not believe they quite attain notability. Here they are:
 * 1. Carla Okai, 'Otways railways buff launches a new book', Colac Herald, Monday, June 20th, 2011 - trivial review of one of his books - "His latest book covers the history of the Beech Forest to Crowes extension railway, which began in 1911."
 * 2.   "Houghton, Norm (1948-)", Trove, 2008,   - general listing of Australian library holdings not just of Norm Houghton
 * 3.   LRRSA Victorian timber tramways - select bibliography, Items on Victorian timber tramways published in Light Railways Nos 99 to 197  - listing of journal articles including some by Norm Houghton
 * 4.   a b Houghton, Norm; Borschmann, Gregg (Interviewer) (1993), Norman Houghton interviewed by Gregg Borschmann in the People's forest oral history project  -  library holding of sound recording and transcript of interview of Houghton
 * 5.   Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 49, June 2008  - contains an article by Houghton and a non trivial  review of one of his books Beech Forest, Capital on the Ridge. - "For people unfamiliar with Beech Forest and its vicinity, this text provides a good introduction to the locality, highlights the community's persistent difficulties in dealing with economic adjustments, and explains the actions taken to establish eco-tourism during recent years."
 * 6.   The Advocate, 'Wombat Forest features in new book' By Hannah Knight June 19, 2013  - book review of The Wombat Woodsman - "The Wombat Woodsmen explores the history of sawmilling, explores how the politics of logging played out over the years and how the sawmills were arranged and worked."
 * 7.   Houghton, Norm; Geelong Historical Records Centre (1988), Geelong Historical Records Centre: a foundation history, Geelong Historical Records Centre - one of his books?
 * 8.   Light Railways Research Society, Books from other publishers  - lists 8 of his books for sale with brief description of each.
 * 9.   History News, Royal Historical Society of Victoria, Issue No. 279 Feb/March 2009  - mention of 5 of his books received by this society.
 * 10.   Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter no. 20 November 1998  - mentions a Light Railways issue with a Houghton article.
 * 11.   Review of Houghton's Sawdust and Steam by Rob Youl, Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 57, July 2011  - something wrong with download.
 * 12.   Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 51, January 2009 p.4  - contains article THE OTWAYS, RABBIT PROOF FENCES, COLAC SAWMILLS AND "FORESTRY" AT BEECH FOREST by Norm Houghton
 * 13.   A methodology to assess the heritage value of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Forest Management Area of Victoria, Peter Evans, Victoria. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1992 - not on net.
 * 14.   A report to the Australian Heritage Commission on sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Highland forests of Victoria, Peter Evans, Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1993 - not on net.
 * 15.   A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the west forest region Victoria / prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Environment Australia - not on net.
 * 16.   Colac-Beech Forest-Crowes Railway Conservation Management Plan, report to the Colac Otway Shire, June 2003  - report prepared by Houghton.
 * 17.   Peter Davies 'A little world apart...': Domestic consumption at a Victorian forest sawmill, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 20,2002 pp58-66.  - not on net.
 * 18.   'The Geelong Club: A brief history of its early days' By Norman Houghton, LaTrobeana Journal of the C. J. La Trobe Society Inc. Vol 12, No 1, March 2013 ISSN 1447-4026  - article by Houghton, the club historian.
 * Unfortunately, it is very difficult for people who may be regionally notable and/or with expertise in a niche subject to receive coverage that will lead to wikinotability (if only one of the Australian major dailies had reviewed any of his books then he might squeak over the line). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added ten more references to the article after looking through my own library - all of which provide substantial acknowledgement of Houghton's contribution to forest history through important field work and research. I appreciate that these are not on-line, and may be difficult to access for wikipedian's not in Australia, or willing to leave their computers to look in real books, but I assure you they all say what they say and confirm Houghton's significant role in the discipline.Garyvines (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, have left the comfort of the computer and ventured into the wilds of library land to check the non-online references. Unfortunately I didn't find all of them but found the following:
 * 15. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission on sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Highland forests of Victoria, Peter Evans, Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1993 vols 1 to 3 - a report recommending a number of sites for the (Australian) Register of the National Estate. Houghton cited multiple times and mentioned specifically ie. "The data summarised on these maps is larely the result of over ten years of private reasearch carried out by Stamford, Stuckey, Maynard, McCarthy, Houghton and Evans of the Light Railway Research Society of Australia Inc." (p. 3), "Timber Mountain by N Houghton (LRRSA) covers these mills [Murrindindi/Yea/Healesville] in sufficient detail to enable assessment of significance to be made." (p.8) 4 of Houghton's publications listed in bibliography.
 * 16. A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the west forest region Victoria / prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Environment Australia - a report recommending a number of sites for the Register of the National Estate. Houghton is specifically mentioned in the Executive Summary of this publication (p.3) and is cited throughout. 6 of his publications appear in the bibliography, 5 published and 1 unpublished.
 * 19. Tom Griffiths, Secrets of the forest: discovering history in Melbourne's Ash Range, Historic Places Branch, Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria and the Monash Public History Group, Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1992 - not acknowledged, nor a listed contributor, nor directly cited.  The Light Rail Research Society publication Tall Timber and Tramlines (see below) cited in chapter 4 of part 1 Timber Tramways Tall Trees.
 * 20. Heather McRae, Forest history in Victoria: a guide to government records, 1836-1994, Historic Places Section, Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria, 1994 - amongst people aknowledged as part of Geelong Historical Records Centre (p. 71), not mentioned or cited elsewhere.
 * 21. Francis Robert Moulds, The dynamic forest: a history of forestry and forest industries in Victoria, Richmond, Vic.: Lynedoch Publications, 1991 - Houghton is thanked by the author in the aknowledgements, as Executive Director of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, for assistance with manuscript preparation, thanked again in notes of chapter 3. The Sawmillers - "I am indebted to numerous publications of the Light Railway Research Society of Austrlia, Melbourne, including papers by N. Houghton, M. J. McCarthy, and E. Stuckey on the development of timber tramlines and sawmills, for the bulk of this chapter, N. Houton, Timber and Gold, 1980.  Also State Forest Department Annual Reports for 1908 to 1919.
 * I also found the following:
 * Tall Timber and Tramlines: An Introduction to Victoria's Timber Tramway Era (cited in 19. above) by The Light Railway Research Society of Australia. Houghton appears in the bibiliography (further reading) for the chapter: The Forest Tramway and is also cited 5 times in the book.
 * A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the Gippsland forest region Victoria /​ prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, 1998. -  a report recommending a number of sites for the Register of the National Estate. - cited multiple times, 3 of Houghton's publications listed in Sources section.
 * From the above sources, I believe this article is now a Keep as Houghton meets WP:ANYBIO - "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." and WP:NACADEMICS  "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.", that specific field/scholarly discipline being the history of tramways and sawmills in Western Victoria. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for this detailed research. It confirms what I suspected: the added references are just short citations of Houghton's publications, at best. I don't think this shows notability. In AfDs of academic bios, we usually require hundreds of such citations to meet PROF#1 or ANYBIO2. We're very far from that here. Yes, he's cited (it would be absolutely weird if he'd never been cited), but by far not enough to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment So how many do you want? Given the topic is a regional one (albeit a large region covering most of the forested area of Australia comprising 149 million hectares of forest, more than the area of most European countries) the citations are similarly in regional publications. Forest history is not a niche or personal interest topic in Australia, it is critical to the history and economics of white settlement and continues to be one of the major environmental challenges in Australia. Australia is internationally known for the ferocity and devastating effect of its bushfires. Houghton's contribution to this topic as a provider of base data on the nineteenth century exploitation of these forests is by far the major research on the topic. I suggest that the difficulty of some in appreciating the notability is due to a regional bias that can't see Australian subjects as having value on a world context, and won't accept a regional context as valid in its own parameters.Garyvines (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep -- sources and positions are a bit on the weak side for GNG, but there are a number of small citations. On balance, it's a well-written article with many sources; applying the "First Do No Harm" standard seems to me the best choice is to keep a good article on a marginally notable subject. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem is, the article only seems to be well-sourced. None of the sources is an in depth discussion of either Houghton or his work. A smattering of citations in a couple of books really is not enough to meet PROF#1. Looking at GScholar (link above, remove the dab from the query) is rather revealing. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.