Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination)

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:26Z

[edit] Mike Salisbury

Mike Salisbury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. Possibly the Natural Burial Co-operative and/or the Natural Burial Association of Canada would be, but not individuals in said organisations. Suspected link spam and vanity article; see previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury.

See also related nominations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sehee, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Woodsen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity. habj 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. This and the related articles seem to be part of a promotional campaign by User:Eulogy4Afriend. – Elisson • T • C • 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Person

According to Wikipedia subject-specific notability guidelines, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Mike Salisbury has been featured on a National Television Documentary ^[1], featured on several radio talk shows including the CBC, and CFRB ^[2] numerous regional and local print media including The Link ^[3] and The Toronto Star ^[4] and refferenced on numerous and authoritative web directories related to natural burial including, The Natural Death Center in the UK ^[5] the Alternative Funeral Monitor ^[6] and the Sapling Architecture, Planning and Landscape Information Gateway ^{[7] [8]}

According to Wikipedia guidelines, “What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms” Although Mr. Salisbury may not have been published formally; his thesis on natural burial has been subsequently referenced by several masters’ dissertations in the field of natural burial and related topics.^[9]

Salisbury is the president of the first and only organisation in Canada at this time developing natural burial products and services,^[10] and serves on the board of directors of Canada’s only national association of natural burial grounds.^[11]

Independent authors, scholars, or journalists have decided to give attention to both the emerging trend of Natural Burial in North America as well as Mr. Salisdbury's role as the leading advocate of natural burial in Canada. Because Mr Salisbury and natural burial has been featured in multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, the primary notability criterion to determine whether "the world" has judged this individual and topic to be notable has been met.

The assertion that this research is in some way a promotional campaign or vanity article is totally unfounded, this article is part of a much larger area of research I am involved in regarding the emerging Natural Burial Movement in North America including eco-cemetery, Joe Sehee, Billy Campbell, Mary Woodsen, Mark Harris and Tyler Cassity. While the merits of each of these articles will be debated individually, it is important to mention that these are WORKS IN PROCESS. It takes a remarkable amount of time to develop research and write these articles in order to clearly establish the notability and usefulness of these topics. I have identified these articles as stubs in order to encourage collaboration.

I would respectfully request that editors choose not to delete these articles before they have been fully developed and referenced. Eulogy4Afriend 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Eulogy4Afriend 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the notability criteria guideline, or chose to not understand it the way it should be understood. This is aparent from you referencing WP:BIO in the following way: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.", while a proper referencing would be "a topic is notable if it has been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." You fail to include only one word, but oh, is that word important. Surely, Salisbury is featured in the references you give, but not as the primary subject in a single one of them. The primary subject of all the references you give is the natural burial movement (which thus is notable), not Mike Salisbury (thus not notable). Being the president/CEO/leader/manager/whatever of an organization that is alone in its field is not in it self something that makes the person notable. – Elisson • T • C • 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you seem awfully hostile in your response, I will respond to your concern that Salisbury is not the primary subject of the references listed.

1. "Outside the Box" – a one hour documentary – ¼ of which featuring interviews with Salisbury about his work

2. The Nightside with Mark Elliot - 30 minute call in phone in radio interview with Salisbury

3. The Link - Feature Article by David Sheffield – an article about Natural burial featuring insight from Salisbury

4. The Toronto Star – an article about Natural Burial and interviews of Salisbury

5. The Natural Death Centre – web resource referring inquiries about natural burial in Canada to Salisbury

6. Alternative Funeral Monitor – Article about Salisbury and his company.

7. Sapling – independent review of Salisbury’s websites

8. Reference to research that references Salisbury’s work10. Natural Burial Co-operative – reference to appointment of Salisbury to president of Canada’s first natural burial co-operative

11. Natural Burial Association - reference to Salisbury’s appointment to Canada’s only natural burial association.

Now, I’m not an expert in all things wiki, however it seems to me that given the amount of media coverage referencing Salisbury’s work in establishing natural burial in Canada and the fact that Salisbury has been involved in conducting primary research in the field that has since been referenced by other researchers, arguably qualifies him as a notable person of interest.

I don’t mind debate, however it strikes me that editors could be just a little more responsive to authors who spend hours researching these things and trying to establish interesting and worthwhile articles. Eulogy4Afriend 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. He is there to speak about the movement, not about himself. – Elisson • T • C • 19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After reviewing the sources, I'm not finding anything notable about Mike Salisbury himself. All of the articles center on his organization. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree, the sources don't really support his notability. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He is not the primary of any of the sources except some non notable ones.--Dacium 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think everything that he has done, when considered together, should be considered sufficient for notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 10 February 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.