Talk:James Earl Salisbury

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Page restored