Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Earl Salisbury


 * 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 to Progress of the SARS outbreak. While the sources are good, I just don't think notability is established; this is basically a news item on what sounds like an interesting and decent guy. However, he can and should be mentioned at the SARS outbreak article.Cúchullain t/ c 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Salisbury

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article makes no assertion of notability. The one source referenced seems to say little aside from the fact that he intended to become a Communist, though I'm not certain how that makes someone notable - nor does dying of SARS. A Google search turns up at best a couple of obituaries, aside from Wiki mirrors and the like. Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, nominating as this seems not to pass WP:BIO.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's notable beacuse it was covered by the media, and while I admit at the time of nomination that it didn't seem to pass WP:BIO, I think it's a lot more clear that it does now. McKay 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete As Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's unfortunate as it seems that User:Mckaysalisbury, the creator, is probably the son identified in the article. It's a sad situation, but the article does fail to meet notability guidelines. This is not in any way a statement on the subject. Leebo T / C  16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed from Delete to Weak Delete. The article has more sources now, but I still disapprove of all conflicts of interest. I am reluctant to approve of an article started, maintained, and primarily defended by the subject's son. Leebo T / C  15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, note that I am *not* the son (Mickey) identified in the article. I think there are articles out there that make trivial mentionings of me, but let the record show that I am not claiming any semblance of notability for myself. McKay 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, with tasteful distinction made per Leebo between topic and notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update per rewriting. I think this article is on the cusp of notability.  Consider this an abstain, although if the article continues to improve I will note that.  I reiterate the WP:COI concern in general, but admit I see no glaring evidence in the article proper, it's actually written quite well now.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, I'm his son, and the creator of the article. But I'd like to think I can still debate this objectively. If anyone feels I'm debating this unobjectively, please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Also note that I have cleaned up the page, removed all OR, and sourced virtually everything.
 * I think it's conclusively been shown that his death is notable, the numerous articles written surrounding his death can attest to that. There was extensive discussion about this on the talk page. Becuase he didn't contribute substantially to his field, some have said that he isn't notable. I think that the WP:BIO page has changed, because I'm not seeing that on there anymore. What I am seeing is the primary notability criterion: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Which his death certainly satisfies, so I think the real question should be should this be an article about him, or about his death? WP:BIO under "general" has two criteria that seem to be met:
 * Wide name recognition
 * Multiple features in credible news media.
 * His name is recognized all across the country, particularly around Utah where the news coverage was heavier, but I had friends all across the country ask me if I was related to the James Salisbury that died. The plethora of news stories around his death permeated the US, because SARS was a big topic at the time. So clearly this criteria is met. The question still remains as to whether or not there should be an article about him, or just about his death. This is where the communist party link comes in. He had at least two newsworthy events in his life (I'd like to go back to get some of the things that he did while he was in college that were notable, but that's going to take a lot more work, *I* know that he did some things, but I don't have newspaper clippings handy, so right now those things, which are not currently covered in the article, are just OR.) So beacuse there are multiple, non-trivial mentionings, I think it's abundantly clear that the article about him should stay. McKay 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being up-front about your connection to the subject, that kind of disclosure is appreciated. In any case, I'm not sure that the additions do much to establish notability - the second and third sources mention him but aren't about him.  The fourth is currently coming up with an error but I'd assume based on the title that again, the article isn't about him so much as it may mention him.  Only the first article could qualify as potential proof of notability as he is the subject of the secondary source, the remainder are all incidental coverage.  Whether it's enough to pass muster I leave up to consensus to determine, and I appreciate you work in trying to improve the article, but my opinion remains unchanged.  I also agree with Leebo below, a more appropriate place for the info might be in another article.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that some of the sources are not about him, but in none of those cases are they a trivial mentioning. There are literally thousands of articles that mention him and his death, and I haven't even gone past the first page of google hits(google(James Salisbury SARS). If you'd like, I can bring up several newspaper articles which aren't available online that are about him specifically. I figure these sources are better than printed one because of the WP:RS policy. I've added another few articles, if you still think that he's not notable enough. I'll continue.McKay 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it could be solved by merging some of the information into Progress of the SARS outbreak. That seems like the likely place to mention him if he isn't already mentioned. Leebo T  / C  17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I stand by my above contribution, I think this suggestion by Leebo is a very good one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think he should be mentioned at that article (and I added him there), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't exist here too. McKay 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're probably already aware of Conflict of interest, so I won't harp on that, but these are my thoughts on disaster victims of various distinctions: Quite often the victims of disasters, or epidemics in this case, receive wide news coverage, but nearly all of it is linked directly with the event. Like you've said, his death is notable, but it's his death in the context of the outbreak that is notable. I feel that the best place to mention him is the Progress of the SARS outbreak article. His article doesn't really set his death into a particular context, other than that he died from SARS (a reader with no knowledge of the epidemic would be confused). Leebo T / C  18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what about the other event in his life notable enough to be brought up to the news media? Also, while I understand your opinion, I don't see how we should look at the outbreak for this article. This article is about a biography, so shouldn't we use the established guideline of WP:BIO rather than your own ideas about which articles to delete? McKay 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, like I said above, if anyone thinks that my potential WP:COI is interfering with my neutrality, please state how I am doing so, so that I may correct my inappropriate actions. McKay 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given the fact that you seem to be the lone proponent of keeping the article (at present), I would suggest that you disengage for a short time. The discussion will be ongoing for a week, during which time you can follow it's progress.  By disengaging in this manner, you allow other potential supporters to step up and give their views.  As it stands now, your continued advocacy seems to be campaigning.  When this impression is combined with your admitted relation to the subject, a newcomer to the debate (such as myself) may begin to question your objectivity.  I personally have not done enough research to voice an opinion for keep or delete, but I hope you consider my suggestion.  →Bobby ← 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, if anyone has any questions, I can be reached at my talk pag. McKay 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Deaths from SARS are somewhat few in number, add to this that the subject is a Harvard-educated Mormon who wanted to join the ChiComms and this guys as unique as the come, and it's well referenced, establishing notability. A slight rewrite may be needed to move it off this obit-sounding memorial tone. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - responding to request from the article's author to clarify/update my position after the work he has put in to the article. I do have to commend him for cleaning the article up and making it look less like a memorial page, good job.  I still, however, feel that the subject does not satisfy notability guidelines - most of the sources still seem to mention him in a secondary fashion as a SARS victim, as a point of reference in a larger topic.  I do wish there were more people commenting on this debate so that a clearer consensus could be reached as to whether or not that satisfies notability concerns, but again it is my opinion at least that it does not.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current sources pass WP:BIO, albeit in a weak fashion.  This is a case of when in doubt... RFerreira 08:34, 4 April 2007 (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.