Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ely (surgeon)

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 keep. Although I realize that I just relisted this, I think that the two latest !votes push this decidedly towards "keep". Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ely (surgeon)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale, "not a candidate for prodding". COI article, not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject was a plague doctor back in 1788 and did good work on Duck Island. At this time of a modern plague, it is good to recall such success. For example, this morning I was surprised to find that Wu Lien-teh was the top read article on Wikipedia recently. Who he? – another doughty plague doctor. Per policy WP:NOTPAPER, we have ample room for such historical figures and no good reason to delete them. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Lien-teh was nominated for the Nobel Prize and his page has over 30 sources, so not really a valid comparison. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any scientist can be nomintated for Nobel selection, so not really a valid argument either. PK650 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject could not have been awarded a Nobel prize because they did not exist until the 20th century and are not given posthumously. See WP:RECENTISM. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making in response to your comparison to Wu Lien-teh was that Wu was nominated for a significant award or honor and has multiple sources, clearly establishing notability, unlike Ely. Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ely was honoured by an award too and there are adequate sources supporting this. My point that we should keep this article per policy is unchanged. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG, further per WP:NOTEVERYTHING CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Page is written by a user called JohnElyDescendant who states on their Talk Page that they're a descendent of the subject indicating that this is some family genealogy project and under the heading Notable Descendents it states "John Ely's grandson Samuel Griswold Goodrich, also known as Peter Parley, was a noted author and diplomat whose book Recollections of a Lifetime, Vol. 1 pages 533-534 was the source for the information herein." so another, older, family genealogy project. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it satisfies WP:GNG as some in depth coverage can be found in Magazine of The Daughters of the Revolution January 1893 Vol1 No 4 p16 CV9933 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless there is evidence the sources in the article are unreliable, this passes GNG. The genealogy sources unless they are unreliable, should not be dismissed, because they are still independent of the subject. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the sources are scant, but what would you expect for an 18th century physician? There was an Act of Congress promulgated to pay him for services rendered to the army, which you can find in the LOC: An Act to Allow Compensation to John Ely, for His Attendance as a Physician and Surgeon, on the Prisoners of the United States; surely this is a prima facie notability claim? PK650 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale provided by Andrew Davidson above. - wolf 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not meet GNG. An act of congress is a primary source, we need secondary sources, and one article in a magazine over 100 years ago does not cut it either. Clearly not notable as a soldier, and the evidence does not show he was a notable medical doctor either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert:, try to keep in mind that the guy was born almost 300 years ago, so we're not exactly gonna find pages copious amounts of recent content all conveniently published on websites for us to readily snatch links from. A primary source is still a source, (and an Act of Congress is pretty damn notable), and what's the difference between a magazine published 100 years ago and one published last week? If that is your only metric to evaluate sourcing, that's not gonna cut it. If it was RS then, it's RS now. There appears to be additional sources, and it's quite possible that even more can be found. This isn't just about a soldier, or just about a doctor... on the whole, I think this has the makings to be a worthwhile article. - wolf 20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No a primary source is disallowed by the rules of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary source coverage of an individual, not original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you sure about that...? - wolf 00:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't disallow them per se, John Pack Lambert. One must just pay attention to appropriate weighting of the sources. There are records that this man existed; furthermore, there are records that this man made a significant contribution in his field, and he was honored for it by the legislative branch of this very young country, no less. Notability has clearly been established, and you're just squabbling over the seemingly scant records available, which is entirely reasonable given the circumstances. You can't judge the sources by modern internet standards! PK650 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Well said. I was kinda hoping Johnpacklambert would try to provide a link to some WP:PG to support his assertion, or perhaps in the process see the one I have ready to provide him, to dispel said assertion, but your reply will do, quite nicely. Cheers - wolf 02:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The PG is WP:GNG which states: ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." and ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm yes, well thank you for that. Now tell us all what WP:SATISFY states. - wolf 19:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked JPL what WP:PG supported his comments on primary sources and I provided them, I don't care if that doesn't satisfy you.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "You asked JPL what WP:PG supported his comments on primary sources" - Exactly. I didn't ask you (but, you didn't actually answer, anyway).
        "I don't care if that doesn't satisfy you." - erm, then why bother? (and you clearly haven't read wp:satisfy) - wolf 03:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm perfectly entitled to respond to a comment regarding sourcing whether or not its directed to me or someone else. I did answer it. I read satisfy and can't help it if my giving you the policy doesn't satisfy you. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read it, you missed the point. - wolf 14:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some valid points have been raised in this discussion; as editors we have an obligation to find and implement the best quality secondary sources available. I think the magazine article that I mentioned above falls into that category, although we might have to consider how much weight we give it. On the other hand, important correspondence between Washington and Ely is preserved at Founders Online, and the factual analysis that accompanies them strikes me as being the kind of secondary sources that could be used in this article. The 22 documents at the Gilder Lehrman institute of American history are primary sources, but even so, may have some use depending on how they are used. Information at The Society Of the Cincinnati in The State of Connecticut is also an independent secondary source in my opinion, and all of these taken together should satisfy WP:GNG. The COI editing that Onel5969 picked up on should be reviewed. CV9933 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more sources found here The Queens of American Society and American Theater I think the deprod rationale was correct the first time around. CV9933 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just enough sources to establish notability, I think. Zawed (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont understand the OP saying it is a COI article. This is a BLP of a dead person, dead a long time ago. What is the COI? Article seems to barely meet GNG Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jtbobwaysf, are you serious? Did you look at the username of who created the article? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I didnt initially, but I did now. I recall COI refers to financial motiviation. Creating a tombstone for a grandparent is not a COI in my understanding. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jtbobwaysf, no coi means that you have a personal, not financial, interest. For example, you can't write an article about your best friend, or your employer (who might not be paying you to do so). UPE deals with financial remuneration. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Onel5969: jooc, is coi a policy-based reason to delete? If so; can you cite it for us? And if not, why bring it up? Thanks - wolf 18:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thewolfchild, it's a lens through which the article should be judged. See WP:COIEDIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But coiedit is more about the editor than the article, isn't it? There doesn't appear to be anything in coiedit that has any impact on the standing of any article wrt any possible coi edits. Following that, is there anything in WP's deletion policies or AfD guidelines, that permits a biased evaluation of an article based on a possible coi with an editor? My understanding is that article's here are evaluated based sourcing, along with quality of writing. Yet the very first thing you mention in your OP is the "deprodding", which seems irrelevant, followed by "coi article", which is what we're seeking clarification on, and only last do you mention sourcing, which is really the only legitimate argument for deletion. (jmho) - wolf 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." I suppose we would have to do some SYNTH to assume that this editor has a relationship with someone who died a couple of hundred years ago. Is it a psychic relationship? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, even if a little tongue-in-cheek. But I seriously do not see how an alleged COI can be listed as either the main reason to delete an article, or used as "lens" to bias any contributor's !vote towards deletion. I hope that any reviewing admin will disregard any COI issues when forming their close, and further hope this COI tactic isn't used again in any future AfD noms. - wolf 14:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . In addition to what’s in the article, a a university library search (apologies but not sure how to take out the university proxy from this url) revealed that the man was honored by the United States Congress in 1790. “An act to allow compensation to John Ely, for his attendance as a physician and surgeon, on the prisoners of the United States (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 46060). New York]: Printed by John Fenno.” Given that historic record and the sources in the article, seems notable to me per WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Regarding the discussion about primary/secondary sources, I would like to comment that secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Once that is established, primary sources ca be used to support non-controversial information. (And I hope it goes without saying that both primary and secondary sources need to be reliable sources). Hope this helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Maryland Gazette (Annapolis, Maryland) 01 Apr 1790 has a long newspaper article about him seeking money from congress for his work in the revolutionary war. I also found newspaper coverage praising his work on small pox. I added references to both in the article. Dream Focus 12:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons cited above. See "Col John Ely 1737-1800". The Society of Cincinnati in the State of Connecticut. Retrieved March 27, 2021. We have the ... official report of his services from the Committee on Rev. Claims of the House of Representatives, January 23, 1833. Clearly notable and important. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.