Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Luka Banda

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. --VS ^talk 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph and Luka Banda

Joseph and Luka Banda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

These are non notable conjoined twins.The condition itself is rare, but not the patient.Very few links link to this article as well, most not even being articles themselves.No reason provided on how these twins are notable, either.Delete is my opinion--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to something other than the biography of these kids: I think this article should be deleted in the spirit of WP:BLP; we don't and probably won't ever have a real biography here. It's a one day news item. I'd mention them in conjoined twins, but that's it. Also, most of the article is copyright infringement; that's a lot of text to take from one source, cited or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep. Since the condition is rare, they are notable. Are we then going to delete all the articles on twins conjoined at the head such as these. Muntuwandi (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but the point is that only the condition is rare, and actually those twins have a reason to have an article;the article shows the reason clearly.--I am sooo cool! 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I would delete or merge all the articles on conjoined twins that are there just because they were born, not because they chose to be before the public eye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: This was an operation of historical significance. I might support a merge with Ben Carson or a move to Type 2 Vertical Craniopagus twins and I agree the quote needs to be paired down or used to flesh out the article. There is a precedent for a merge here. Perhaps you could explain how this article violates the spirit of BLP? MoodyGroove (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
  • WP:ONEEVENT.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is it of historical significance? It's a fairly routine operation, made unusual primarily by the sheer rarity of the disease, done on people who have no immediate historical importance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Type 2 vertical craniopagus would be redirected to Craniopagus twins.The Ben Carson article merge wouldn't suffice--I am sooo cool! 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and i just preformed a google search with only 289 results.This shows slight lack of notablility.I am sooo cool! 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• My question is then are we to delete all the articles in the category of conjoined twins. Since their only notability is being conjoined. One has to realize that in all these cases the conjoined twins usually end up gaining some sort of celebrity status during the time of their operations. On google, well it may not be so reliable since this operation took place 12 years ago back before the internet was really popular. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. Many of them have extended notability by going on TV or touring in sideshows, more than just having a condition or having as an infant had an operation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben Carson was also part of the team that operated on Ladan and Laleh Bijani, part of his reputation was earned from this very operation of these two twins. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, those twins have a reason for being notable. This case doesn't show any reason for notability.--I am sooo cool! 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is subjective, what did Ladan and Laleh Bijani do other than be conjoined twins to warrant notability. It was the fact that they were conjoined is what made them notable. It is the same case with these twins. My only concern is the double standard that might be raised. These twins are conjoined just as much as all the other twins listed in the Category for conjoined twins. Then what would be the criteria for deciding who among the conjoined twins is notable or not. All the concerns that have been raised here also apply to the other sets of twins as well. Whatever happens here will set a precedent for the other articles as well. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

An example is Krista and Tatiana Hogan, who are notable because they are British columbia's first conjoined twins.Another example is Ronnie and Donnie Galyon because they are the oldest living male conjoined twins.Josepha nd Luka Banda show no reason of notablility whatsoever.I am sooooo cool! 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There will be no formal precedence set, and frankly being a conjoined twin is not and never has been a reason for an article. Ladan and Laleh Bijani traveled the world looking for help and chose to have a risky and ultimately fatal surgery on them. Joseph and Luke Banda were children with a congenital defect that was repaired by surgery, no choice of their own. Not only that, we have a life story for the Bijanis; the article we have on the Bandas will probably always end shortly after their birth, which is not sufficient for a biographical article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again those are subjective attributes, one could easily find something unique about any sets of twins, like which country they were born in. I agree that the older historical cases are definitely notable such as the engs. Simply for historical purposes. However to say that Krista and Tatiana Hogan are notable because they are british columbia's first conjoined twins lacks merit. Jo and luka banda are also probably Zambia's first conjoined twins as well. The fact is there is need for an article on craniopagus twins and this article needs a variety of examples from around the world to counter systemic bias. Since it is a well established fact that wikipedia tends to be biased to western news items. Whatever the outcome, my concern here will be the same treatment be accorded to other twins in the category from recent times because inherently there is no difference. If it is agreed to listify, then I will have no problem with that. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, Ben Carson served as a consultant during the Bijanis operation partly because of his experience with Jo and Luka Banda. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't give notability to this case; it merely adds detail to the Ben Carson article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe the best idea is to Smerge with the ben carsin article?I am sooooo cool! 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This one is special. "...Siamese twins joined at the top of the head, facing in opposite directions. There'd been 13 attempts in ..., none of which had resulted in two living or intact individuals" It succeeded, and in a setting much less than a modern research hospital. DGG (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

comment I agree with DGG. Most of the conjoined twins are not joined at the head. Those who are are not vertical and facing opposite directions. For example the bijanis were joined at the side of the head so they could actually walk. However these twins without an operation would have never been able to walk or get out of bed, let alone see each other face or body. While conjoined twins are rare, this condition is even rarer. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) commentI disagree with merging with the Ben Carson article because this is a medical condition and should be linked to other related cases through the category or list of conjoined twins. If we are to merge, then all the other twins who were recently operated upon should be merged to one article such as the suggested Type 2 Vertical Craniopagus twins. As I have mentioned earlier, there are several other recent cases in the Category for conjoined twins so we shouldn't selectively single out one case simply because we don't like it and leave the others. The basic medical condition is the same in all the cases in the aforementioned category. Because this condition occurs randomly, the people affected will most likely not be of the celebrity type, but simple ordinary folk. Therefore, we don't expect to get much from a biographical perspective from any of these cases. However they are still very significant from a medical and historical perspective based on the rarity of the condition. In terms of notability, they are covered in CNN, BBC and the New York Times. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"this is a medical condition"? That's exactly why I object to this article. Joseph and Luke Banda are not a medical condition; they're people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

and what about the other twins in the category, aren't they also people. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what does that have to do with this AfD? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Precedence, if we are going to have the Category for conjoined twins then it should be populated with noteworthy cases. Its not that other crap exists, all the cases are just as noteworthy as this one.Muntuwandi (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not cases, they are people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be nitpicking over trivial details such as grammar and avoiding the main issue. They are all people with rare medical conditions and their operations are medical cases or incidents. If wikipedia is going to have articles that discuss rare medical conditions, it would be utterly pointless if they are no examples to refer to. We can't just say conjoined twins exist without giving both contemporary and historical examples of them. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not trivial details; a lot of people with various deformities get very tired of being "cases" and "disorders" when they just want to be people. It wouldn't be utterly pointless without examples; there are lots of articles on diseases without examples, both in Wikipedia and in paper encyclopedias. Furthermore, I don't oppose examples in the articles; I object to making an article called "Joseph and Luka Banda" that treats their entire life as if it were all about a congenial deformity corrected shortly after birth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The field of medicine wouldn't be what it is without precedence and history. If we are discussing a medical condition like the flue or a fever examples would not be necessary because almost everyone is affected by them at some time. However these conditions are rare and anybody interested in them would have to learn from the few medical cases that have existed. Even Dr Carson says

One of the reasons surgeons have so much trouble separating Siamese twins is that nobody gets to do many of them. On the table, the anatomy is so different from normal, that you're constantly trying to figure out, Can I cut this? Does this wire lead to what? It's like trying to defuse a bomb.[1]

At present, I would think that any surgeon who would attempt to separate craniopagus twins would have to study or get some references from this particular case simply because there are very few cases to learn from. There are very few births with conjoined twins, fewer survive birth and even fewer survive the operations. I think that simply trying to have this article deleted without addressing the wider issues of the topic of conjoined twins goes against the wikipedia's spirit of knowledge. Firstly the twins survived birth and an then an extremely risky 2 day operation. Yes they were born in Africa from parents of limited means, they are not hollywood celebrities, maybe you believe that wikipedia should only have articles about Britney Spears. However from a medical standpoint their case is significant. The Bijani's surgery, for example came after this successful surgery and Ben Carson was a consultant partly because of his success with this same operation. I suggest keeping this article and if anyone has concerns to focus them on the topic of conjoined twins and in particular craniopagus twins. Muntuwandi (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep These young men are notable because of their condition. Undoubtedly there will be future follow-ups on their progress and development. -JodyB _talk 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• The reason I say delete is that only the condition is rare, not the people.The large quote also says a lot of copyrighted mateirial was inserted into this article.major cleanup is seriuosly needed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsocool! (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (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.