Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Paul Bakke

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 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Yomangani^talk 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Paul Bakke

I really want to merge this with Regents of the University of California v. Bakke but I think that this deserves more debate. The question is does a party in a court case have his own notability if seperate notability is not asserted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) .

• Delete Merge and Redirect as he's covered adequately in relation to the case. I found this description: "Mr. Bakke has gone on to a quiet career as an anesthesiologist in Minnesota". --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to that case. - Lex 06:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable person in the news for years on end; certainly more notable than any survivor contestant. Carlossuarez46 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Subject is notable but notability only derives from the UC Regents vs. Bakke case. NB: Merging does not require an AFD. --Richard 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but JASpencer specifically said he wanted more input. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Extended discussion of the merge/AFD issue should be taken to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Suffice it too say that a merge proposal followed by a possible RFC are the appropriate options for getting input. AFD is not the place to discuss merges. Merges are potential compromises that come out of an AFD but an AFD should not be created when the intent is to merge.

That said, the answer to JASpencer's question is that it would appear that Bakke does NOT have notability of his own outside the case. The title should redirect as many sources will refer to the "Bakke decision" without necessarily mentioning the UC Regents. The fact that Bakke hs gone on to a "quiet career" as an anesthesiologist rather than becoming a leading, notable anesthesiologist suggests that most people would never have heard of him were it not for the case.

--Richard 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That rationale would exclude most notable people at WP; people who are only notable for one thing, should we delete Sirhan Sirhan and redirect the link to Robert F. Kennedy assassination? should we delete all the various survivor contestants who haven't done anything notable besides their all-too-brief walk in the spotlight and redirect all them to the appropriate show? Should we delete all one-issue famous people to the event that made them famous? A delete here would signal that the answer is "yes", and IMHO would be a mistake. Carlossuarez46 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a "Delete" vote would have the wide-ranging implication that you assert it would. Nonetheless, your general point is valid: my argument was perhaps badly stated. There is obviously a need to document the lives of notable people even if there was only one event that made them famous. However, if the article on person A does not provide more information other than A is notable because of his/her involvement in event X and the article on event X contains all the information that is in the article on person A, then there should be no article on person A but rather A should redirect to the article on event X. --Richard 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But the continued assertion that he has gone on to a quiet career that supposedly nullifies his notability is something beyond what the lawsuit was. Look at the article on Neil Armstrong and tell me if the academic career was of Joe Blow instead it would pass WP:PROF; that's what he's done since his notability was established. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge unless expanded. I suppose he passes WP:BIO by virtue of being "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" like [1] and [2]. And using sources such as these, the article could be expanded to include details about Bakke that don't belong in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. But as it stands, I don't think there's anything in Allan Paul Bakke that's not already in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Pan Dan 13:29, 12 October 2006 (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.