Talk:James Earl Salisbury

I don't mean to sound callous or anything, but how is this individual notable other than the fact that he was a victim of SARS? According to Wikipedia:Notability, one of the grounds for inclusion of deceased individuals is as follows: Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? This article fails to assert how this person was notable in his field, namely education. A Google search of his exact name turns up seven hits, most of which are merely referring to the exact same article, and a search of '"James Salisbury" psychologist' turns up 97 distinct hits, most of which refer to the man who supposedly invented Salisbury steak.

I'm not putting a warning on anything, I just wanted to throw those facts out there for general consumption. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Answer your questions:

To sum up the first sentance of Wikipedia:Notability which I use for reason of inclusion.

Notable if -- known outside of narrow group, because of it's impact.

While I think that the widely recognized contribution clause you quote is criteria for inclusion, I don't believe (and I think Wikipedia agrees with me) that it is reason for exclusion. Some people are notable because things happened to them.

Elizabeth Smart is a girl who comes to mind. She didn't make any contribution, but she was all over the news because something happened to her, and it was a media event.

The same thing happened with James, things have happened to him.

a simple google search for (James Salisbury SARS) [1] (linked on main page) brings 14,100 hits. the :first page of which are all him. Changing the google search to ("James Salisbury" SARS) returns about 550 pages all relating to him as far as I checked, with articles originating in all across the United States :and many countries across the world. The reason why "earl" was added was because James Salisbury was already taken, so I thought that adding his middle name, which he used occassionally concurrently with his :first name, was appropriate.

While I think the SARS event itself is criteria for inclusion, other events do help merit his inclusion. The Communism bit is something, and there was a UVSC wrongful termination suit in progress at the time of his death. I don't think that these events itself are reason for inclusion, but do help his case.

Oh, and not that I think it's reason for inclusion itself, but to correct a small oversight you mentioned above, google:("James Earl Salisbury") turns up 7 articles as you state, but there are two links each of two articles about him (SARS and Communist), 1 Wikipedia link, 1 unrelated link, and 1 link which itself is a link page for with his mother's name on it which references his obituary, and a different SARS article about him.

So, to sum up, I belive that there is reason for inclusion, not just that he was a victim of SARS, but because he was the first american victim of SARS, he *was* notable.

If you have any other questions, LMK.

McKay 16:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

After doing some more reading, I found reference to another reported American who appeard to have died sooner, so some of the facts I related above (that I recieved from the news articles) aren't perfectly correct. McKay 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You say "because he was the first american victim of SARS, he *was* notable," but that is not entirely accurate - his death was notable.

If you are going to point out Elizabeth Smart as an example, at least notice that the article is just about her kidnapping and not about her life. It's even named "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping" to highlight this. Very little pre-kidnapping biographical information is included - at most about two sentences stating her date of birth and where she lives. That's because the article is about the event, not the person. If you feel the event is notable, please add information about it and rename the article accordingly. Right now it is hard to tell if this person's inclusion is based on their job as a teacher or the way in which they passed away due to the inclusion of the "quotes" and "Communist party" sections. (Was he in China because he wanted to join the Communist party? What does this have to do with his death?)

As for including him based on a Google search, I specifically looked up his profession because the article was originally written like it was going to contain a biography of a teacher. Seeing as SARS isn't something for which teachers are very well known, I didn't feel it was an adequate thing to include in the search. A more accurate Google search of '"James Salisbury" SARS' returns 111 distinct hits - please use quotes when searching for people by first and last name since it forces the engine to look up that exact string. And as for counting a Wikipedia article in a Google search, why count the article about which we are discussing? That sort of defeats the purpose of the Google test which is to determine whether or not the subject of the article is noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

And finally - since he is not even the first victim of SARS, does that now decrease his notability? You based your inclusion on the fact that he was the first American to pass away from SARS, but now that is found to be false what other arguments do you have? (Not to say that you have no longer have reason to include him, I just want to know what you think). — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 11:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Those points are taken. And by far the most notable thing about him was his death. I do argue that his death is notable. There are other articles out there in a similar quandries, Jesse Dirkhising is an article about a person that should be an article about his death. The McCaughey septuplets are notable, but not because they contributed to their field. Really their birth is notable, but there is a group biogrpahy about them. List of murdered people has a nice list of people some of which should just be events? After his death he was plastered all over the news. Also. There are other events that make him "notable", but are less popular. McKay 19:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Let's delete this page. Jackryan 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to comment, please make constructive and polite references to how the article relates to Wikipedia policy in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Earl Salisbury. Leebo ^T/C 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Page restored

After discussion on my talk page with Mckaysalisbury, I've restored this page, which I had redirected to Progress of the SARS outbreak after this AfD, so that further discussion can occur and a clearer consensus can be reached. The essential issue here is notability; I don't think notability was sufficiently demonstrated per the WP:BIO guidelines at the time the AfD closed, but McKay disagrees, and moreover, has indicated that he'll look for additional sources to further establish it. If anyone feels the notability problems haven't been remedied in about a month (or has another reason for deletion) we can relist at WP:AfD at that time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read some of the discussion that Mckaysalisbury and Cúchullain haev had on this issue. To make it abundantly clear, my reasoning behind the original nomination was that not enough notability was established - and during the course of the AfD and addition of more information on the subject, it was established that his notability seemed secondary to the SARS outbreak incident. Cúchullain was correct in interpreting my stance as being amenable to a merge as closed - the important, verifiable information was retained while not subjecting the encyclopedia to fluff information. While I do not entirely agree with the notion of restoring the article I will concede that consensus was a bit dicey on the AfD. My opinion is still that the discussion was closed properly with a merge, but in the interest of obtaining a better consensus I will support the idea of revisiting this issue in about a month and renominating it unless individual notability outside of a footnote in the SARS story is firmly established by sourcing. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that if/when the article is relisted at AfD, the nomination should be phrased to allow for merging the useful material. I don't think most editors will really want all of the information deleted, and some leaning towards keep may just want to ensure that the useful parts are retained somewhere, so this will clear up a lot of unnecessary confusion. I do think we should wait a month to renomiate it, though, to give Mckay time to work and everyone else time to think.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, the question has never been how you feel on the issue, I think it's clear that you and Chuchu both feel that the references are not enough to show notability. I do, and I think that at least 1/2 of the participants in the AFD thought agreed with me as well. I'm going to start a new page /Notability to discuss the notability criteria directly. McKay 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I do not have any strong feelings either way on this, whether the content remains in a seperate article or merged into a SARS-related page. Please remember that an AFD is not warranted if the desired outcome is a merge, as this is an editorial decision. My two cents. RFerreira 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but not all the info would be merged, only the parts relevant to the SARS epidemic (and that's mostly over there already). It just needs to be clear that it isn't a debate between doing away with all of the information, or none of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to decide

Well, it's been well over a month, and there have been no major changes to the article whatsoever. It's time to make a decision. I see three options: redirecting the page James Earl Salisbury now, relisting at AfD to gather consensus, or leaving it be. I would agree with either of the first two options. Redirecting now makes the most sense to me, as notability has not been further established from last time by McKay or anyone, and it seemed everyone else was fine with that measure from previous discussion. Relisting at AfD, however, could help find a clearer consensus. What does everyone think?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the redirect is the most sensible solution here. I don't th ink that an AfD nomination is necessary per se, although if there is substantial disagreement about the decision to redirect (or not redirect) then broader input should be sought. I'm not really sure where would be the best place to do that - WP:PM might not be a bad idea either - but as AfD was the source of the original merge decision I'd not be opposed to seeing it there, either, as "James Earl Salisbury" is not likely to be a common search term. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Per original discussion and lack of substantial progress, I too would favor the merge/redirect. I would not at all object to a AfD relisting, however, as it might get some new voices heard. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Three requests:

1. No one thinks the content should be deleted, so an AfD seems spurious. WP:PM does seem like the proper place to get additional input if that's what's desired.
2. I haven't had the time to work on this like I wish I would have. Can I request a 1 week extension? I'll work on it more if I have that time.
3. I have learned a lot about the processes involved here in the past few months, quite a bit in the past week actually, so I think I better understand what's going on. I would like to know peoples reasons for thinking this shoudln't be an article, so I can, if possible, direct my efforts over the next week appropriately. Here's how I see the situation:
   • WP:N has it's "General notability guideline", which states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
   • the rest of the criterion is fairly clear, reliability and independence. We've got articles from the New York Times, CNN, CBS, and articles from the AP that were printed all over the world.
   • Much has been said with regards to the "significant coverage" part, Some think articles like "SARS Kills American; China Continues Cover-up" are probably "trivial" references of him.
   • I'll state my guideline (mostly derived in the past few months) that I think coverage is "trivial" if the subject isn't mentioned in the title, so though he may have been mentioned in an article "Doctor accuses China of covering up SARS outbreak" such an article shouldn't be used to establish his notability. WP:N also states "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." which fits in neatly with my guideline. An article titled "James Salisbury Dies" would be considered "exclusive coverage" (well really if that's all that the article was about, but the title shows it neatly).
   • So, with my guideline as a reference, I think it's clear that he passes, as there are multiple reliable articles that refer directly to him in the title. I can see how you might have a different interpretation of "substantial" and I would like to hear it so we can address those concerns directly.

I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from. I hope that we all can see each others' points of view and make a decision with that in mind. McKay 20:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Three things. First, thank you for elaborating on your position, it makes it a lot easier to start a discussion. Second, the interpretation of the word "substantial" in terms of coverage in an article is, for better or worse, subjective. Personally I dislike trying to break such things down into black-and-white qualifiers like "Appears in the title" or "Is covered by 30/25/10% of the article". I ask myself the following question : "Is this person/place/whatever a primary subject of this source, or is it used in the context of the primary subject?" This allows me to excersize some judgement without forcing me to adhere to a strict definition.

Third and most important (in my opinion) is WP:IAR. I do not cite this policy to mean "throw all the rules to the wayside", but rather, to say that all of the rules are designed with the goal of making a better encyclopedia. 95% of the time a literal reading of the rules will accomplish this goal. But there are those exceptions, times when, for example, N may be technically satisfied and by a strict interpretation of the rules, the article should stay - but another solution makes more sense. I believe this to be such a case. All of the provided sources reinforce this in my mind, that Mr. Salisbury's "notability" stems from his being a victim of SARS and the attempted Chinese coverup, and therefore the information about him makes much more sense found within the context of the SARS outbreak rather than a standalone article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "substantial" is intentionally subjective. Different wikipedians will interpret it differently. Your criteria differs from mine, and that's fine. I don't even adhere to my criteria rigorously. And yes, you made your interpretation of the events known before, but it is good to have it here for easier reference. The deletion policy is a lot stronger than the WP:N guideline, so consensus is really what rules here. I would like to note that majority does not a consensus make, but if consensus determines the article should be merged, that's what needs to happen.

With regards to your third point, you're trying to make a better encyclopedia, and that's what the goal is. But does having an article about him make the encyclopedia worse somehow? If you think some of what's here should be incorporated into the SARS article, put it in there.

If I understand you correctly, you don't think that any of the articles with reference to SARS make him notable beacuse they're all referring to him in light of the primary subject, that of SARS. So what would it take for him to become notable. I'm trying to get references of him being mentioned in the news for other strange things he did throughout his life which were notable enough for news coverage. Is that more along the lines of what you're looking for? McKay 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, part of the problem is that the sources are all pretty much saying the same thing - that he died of SARS in China. My interpretation of the "multiple sources" requirement is that they preferably cover something more than a single incident, unless that particular incident is particularly notable. Unfortunately dying of SARS is not especially notable. Perhaps if he'd been the first victim, or even first American victim, something to set him apart from the crowd, but it's just not there. However if you can dig up sources that cover something else notable about him, that changes things. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential reasons for notability:

1. we've got SARS death, which might not be enough by itself.
2. I'm presuming you don't like the reliability of the CPC event?
3. I know that about 9 1/3 years ago, his wife (a Chinese National) gave birth to triplets, in China. They already had a child from a year and a half prior. So between the controversy of an nearly forced abortion, and the rarity of triplets (especially in China where fertility drugs are rare, and with the single birth laws births are more rare per family so the opportunities for triplets are more rare) that event was covered by several news sources, magazines, newspapers, TV...
4. There was an incident about 6 years ago which involved a potential wrongful termination lawsuit which did garner some local news coverage.
5. More local news coverage prior to 10 years ago.

Would any of these be enough for arkyan? For anyone else?(this is what I'll dig up over the course of the next week). McKay 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still in support of the redirect as originally stated, but I'm having a difficult time putting my feelings into words on why I feel it should only be a redirect. I'll try to think about it and find some way to convey it properly. Leebo ^T/C 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) In response to McKay's last comment, I have to admit to being a little skeptical. To me each of these appear to be notes of minor interest, not really encyclopedia article stuff. Admittedly this is my deletionist philosophy coming to the fore : I believe that there are a lot of biographical articles out there that consist mostly of people digging up neat little tidbits about someone and tacking them on as "references". Either way, for my part I'm willing to withhold further opinion on the fate of this article for a few more days to give you time to collect these references and update the article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of that seems like simple news items and factoids. I don't think they go very far for referencing a complete biography about someone. While WP:NOTNEWS is not official, its basic tenents are discussed at various guidelines, for example WP:BLP1E from under biographies of living people (though obviously we're not talking about a living person). I'd be interested to see if you can fashion a convincing bio out of these minor news items, but I'm still very skeptical, and don't want you to waste your time and effort.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(As an inclusionist,) I tend to think that WP:NOTNEWS is silly, because it contradicts WP:NOTPAPER. WP:NOTNEWS says "so any story from any time in the past would be equally entitled to an article. The standard guidelines, strictly interpreted and applied to their logical conclusion, lead to an absurd result." But I don't see an absurd result. I see wikipedia getting closer to the complete sum of human knowledge. The reason we don't have articles about all those articles isn't because wikipedia will run out of space, but because no one has written about them. Another reason that WP:NOTNEWS is really silly is that there's an entire section on the Wikipeida Main Page dedicated to "IN THE NEWS".

You also mentioned WP:BLP1E which I think is a reasonable guideline, but we've already got two seperate events (satisfying BLP1E, and I'm trying to add several more, but ark thinks that it's worthless, so what should I do? McKay 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now now, I neither stated nor implied that I thought anything was worthless. I was expressing my skepticism that the mentioned facts would satisfy my opinion of inclusionworthy, but withholding an actual judgement until I see these facts in action. I don't like to judge based on summary information. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant to say was that even if I did that effort to add those other things, Ark still wouldn't think that subject is notable. McKay 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of any additional progress here I'm going to have to finalize my recommendation to redirect this article as suggested originally. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye aye. I'll go ahead and do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)