Talk:Jamie Bishop

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

AfD pending

I am going to propose this article be deleted. The subject does not appear to be any more notable than the following:

HokieRNB (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is insane.

I mean, completely aside from the fact that your assertion that Jamie Bishop is "not any more notable" than the students you list is, in fact, an assertion that is not correct. Did you actually read the article past the point where you noticed that he was shot in the VT massacre?

It does point up a significant difference between the written policies and procedures of Wikipedia and the unwritten rules by which the people who actually run Wikipedia operate. Certainly by any useful definition of "notability" Jamie Bishop is notable, and that includes the Wikipedia definition of notability, that a subject is "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." My quick google search gives me 51,200 hits. [1]. Yes, I'm aware that merely having a lot of google hits does not define notability; but I will submit that fifty thousand articles on the web-- including New York Times, and many other "reliable" sources-- should qualify as "significant coverage" by Wikipedia's standards.

However, looking at some of the arguments on the afds referenced, it seems that Wikipedians are attempting to redefine notability by adding a qualification "...unless that coverage in reliable sources discusses a recent massacre, in which case it doesn't count." Huh what? Look, if we are allowed to redefine notabilty, could we also add the exception "except if the notability is that this person is an otherwise unremarkable footballer," and, while we're at it, "except if the notability is that this person is some singer who has released one CD that I never heard of." (And after you've added those exceptions, let me know, I have a lot of other exceptions that ought to be added.)

Going back to the top, I also note that he was not, in fact, "another student victim" (quoting text repeatedly used in the afd articles you reference as "no more notable than"). In fact he is the only one of the professors shot in the VT massacre who does not have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, Jamie Bishop was arguably notable enough to be worthy of a Wikipedia entry even aside from the fact that his death was notable. He was notable in his own field-- he was a Fulbright scholar, and ran the Darmstadt University exchange program-- and even aside from that, he was attracting attention in the field of science fiction art and graphic design, and had achieved a level of notability in this field that is quite equal to many other people who have Wikipedia articles. I don't see why the statement "but he was killed at VT" should erase everything else he had done, and make him suddenly not notable.

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph one... you judge. It's not insane, it's just an observation and a statement of intent.

Paragraph two... you misquote. I wrote, subject does not appear to be any more notable, and you wrote, "not any more notable". Substantiate the subject's notability for something other than the events surrounding his death, and you have a case.

Paragraph three... if notability is to be derived from his academic career, then was he regarded as a significant and well-known expert? Has he published a significant and well-known academic work? Is his collective body of work significant and well-known? Is he known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea? Has he received a notable award or honor in his field? (WP:PROF)

Paragraph four... the qualification for notability already stands: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." By the way, there are standards out there for footballers and musicians as well. One CD does not make the cut. (WP:BIO)

Paragraph five... he and more than 250,000 others are Fulbright Scholars. The fact that he is the only other teacher that does not have an article does not make him automatically eligible for encyclopedic coverage. I agree there are plenty of less notable people that have articles, but that's not a good argument to keep this one. (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

I'll wait another day on the AfD, but ultimately you haven't convinced me. HokieRNB (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, saying that Jamie Bishop is not notable is insane, in that it only makes sense if you decide to ignore the meaning of the word "notable". What you are apparently attempting to say is "well, 'notable' doesn't actually mean somebody is merely notable, on Wikipedia has an unwritten rule that some types of notable shouldn't ought to count." Well, no. If you're going to make exceptions for what kinds of "notable" counts as notable, I'm going to lobby for my exceptions. I'm not sure why you have decided to argue in favor of redefining the written policy statements of Wikipedia in this case, but my proposal is that we should stick with them. This is the text of the definition of notability in its entirety:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Presumed means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.^[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.^[2]
Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[3]
Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.^[4]
Sources, ^[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[6]
Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7]

Now, I can in fact argue that Jamie Bishop is notable by any criterion, but looking just at the Wikipedia-defined criterion listed above, my question is, what is it about this article in particular that makes you decide to jettison the Wikipedia definition of notability to use some other definition you have decided on? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've apparently completely failed to read the policies that I linked to, namely WP:BIO and WP:PROF, wherein it addresses these issues in no uncertain terms. I'm not making any effort to jettison the Wikipedia definition of notability, but rather quite the contrary. I'm looking to adhere to it, and this article does not appear on the surface to do so. Let's move forward with the AfD and see what the community of editors thinks about this case. I'm perfectly willing to let consensus decide. HokieRNB (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped discussing the "policies" you linked to because for the most part they are mostly irrelevant to the question. You cite the WP:BIO) page, not bothering to mention that it essentially says the same thing as the notability page, namely: "The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
^ However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

WP:MEMORIAL

Now that over a year has passed, this article needs to be looked at again in respect to WP:MEMORIAL. I will begin this inquiry with the question: if he was notable as a professor before the Virginia Tech Massacre, then why is there not a single independent source dated before this event to establish this claimed notability? The way the article reads now, it looks just like a plain-old run-of-the-mill obituary -> not appropriate for Wikipedia. Rooot (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, another wikilawyer weighs in. Didn't we argue this to death a while back? Do we really want to spend our time arguing it all over again?12.180.144.70 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROOT, I think we have established this article's notability. You could try another AFD, but please be aware that its success is not guaranteed. BTW news sources are independent of the subject (Bishop). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no criterion for citations that discriminates between those dated before and after death. If that were a criterion, a lot of articles would have to be deleted-- Crispus Attucks, for example. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete this article b/c the subject is notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most of the folks involved in this article, I had met Jamie. He was a nice guy, but notable? No. Please read the part of the standards that say "significant coverage"! Lots and lots of one- and two-paragraph mentions do not add up to significant coverage. This is a memorial page, and sadly needs to go. We are not here to memorialize folks killed in recent massacres, for the same reason we don't memorialize all the victims of the Holocaust or the more obscure victims of Mao's and Stalin's purges. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about entire articles? Part of the problem with the obscure victims is that the lack of media attention means that they are not notable. The media focused on all of the professors. Also I believed Jamie Bishop created the book covers for his father's books. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm not following your argument here. 2)No, not that I'm aware of; besides, that doesn't make him notable either; just a working artist. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Part of our criteria of whether a person is notable is whether the person is documented in reliable third party sources. If entire articles cover the man and his work, then this satisfies the notability requirement. Let's look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" - this is a basic criterion. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

box in middle of article

The navigation box of the VA Tech massacre is in the beginning of Jamie Bishop's article. Shouldn't it appear at the bottom? I have never seen this on any other Wikipedia page. Has this been worked out before to appear this way? It seems inappropriate to me. Thanks! 74.69.11.229 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is normal on Wikipedia. It's called a {{sidebar}} but this one is so old that it's using the old code. Feel free to fix its code and add an infobox to the article! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jamie Bishop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roanoke.com/vtvictims/wb/xp-113476
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18248298/site/newsweek/page/7/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.escribirte.com.ar/concursos/170.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.portal-cifi.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=721
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222132836/http://jlundberg.livejournal.com/466650.html to http://jlundberg.livejournal.com/466650.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jamie Bishop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roanoke.com/vtvictims/wb/xp-113476
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112123130/http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/christopher_james_bishop.html to http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/christopher_james_bishop.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.

[2] However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[3] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.

[4] Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.

[5] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[6] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.

[7] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]