The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Erik9 ( talk) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominated with:
Miranda and Gideon were litigants in two very famous and notable cases, Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright, but it's the cases bearing their names that are notable, not (without more) the litigants themselves. As WP:NRVE explains, the "notability of a parent topic ... is not inherited by subordinate topics," and WP:SINGLEEVENT makes clear that a separate article would only be warranted if they had done something else that makes them notable. Put another way, for these litigants to merit inclusion, they would have to be sufficiently notable to have an article even if the cases bearing their names didn't exist. Otherwise, they should be handled in our article on the case, and there only to the extent relevant to the case.
Neither of these articles meet that standard. They are a tailored fit for WP:SINGLEEVENT. I propose deletion or, in the alternative, merge and redirect to Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright respectively.
Lastly, George W. Bush was a litigant in a famous and notable case, but if that was his sole claim to notability, we would not have an article on him; John Terry was a litigant in another famous and notable Warren Court criminal procedure case, but we don't have an article on him. Anyone remember the names of the named plaintiffs in Brown v. Board? Not only do we not have a separate article on them, our article on the case doesn't even name them. I realize that not many editors share my disagreement with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I mention this for those who do. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that NSONG applies to these two articles. I wonder, though, if similar reasoning can help untangle WP:SINGLEEVENT's concern that "[w]hen an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Assuming that there are no other justifications for a standalone article ( WP:SPLIT, for example), I would suggest that when an individual is notable only for their role in a single notable event, and there is an article about the event, we should only have a separate article about the individual when it can present well-sourced information that would violate WP:DETAIL if it was included in the article about the event. Is that framework a good fit in this context, and if so, how do Mssrs. Miranda and Gideon fare by it?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
So the notion that you refuse to address is the notion that is actually at issue: whether these people are known about outside of the landmark court cases that involve them. And of course the proper venue for discussion of that, since the choice of outcome in such situations is between an article and a redirect, not involving deletion at any stage of the process, is the articles' talk pages. Uncle G ( talk) 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Further, please note that the argument I'm replying to specifically refers to the BLP1E policy and argues to expand it. Thus I argued against a real argument by someone I respect (quite a lot actually) and therefor it isn't a strawman I'm arguing against... Hobit ( talk) 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Erik9 ( talk) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominated with:
Miranda and Gideon were litigants in two very famous and notable cases, Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright, but it's the cases bearing their names that are notable, not (without more) the litigants themselves. As WP:NRVE explains, the "notability of a parent topic ... is not inherited by subordinate topics," and WP:SINGLEEVENT makes clear that a separate article would only be warranted if they had done something else that makes them notable. Put another way, for these litigants to merit inclusion, they would have to be sufficiently notable to have an article even if the cases bearing their names didn't exist. Otherwise, they should be handled in our article on the case, and there only to the extent relevant to the case.
Neither of these articles meet that standard. They are a tailored fit for WP:SINGLEEVENT. I propose deletion or, in the alternative, merge and redirect to Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright respectively.
Lastly, George W. Bush was a litigant in a famous and notable case, but if that was his sole claim to notability, we would not have an article on him; John Terry was a litigant in another famous and notable Warren Court criminal procedure case, but we don't have an article on him. Anyone remember the names of the named plaintiffs in Brown v. Board? Not only do we not have a separate article on them, our article on the case doesn't even name them. I realize that not many editors share my disagreement with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I mention this for those who do. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Now, of course, I'm not suggesting that NSONG applies to these two articles. I wonder, though, if similar reasoning can help untangle WP:SINGLEEVENT's concern that "[w]hen an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Assuming that there are no other justifications for a standalone article ( WP:SPLIT, for example), I would suggest that when an individual is notable only for their role in a single notable event, and there is an article about the event, we should only have a separate article about the individual when it can present well-sourced information that would violate WP:DETAIL if it was included in the article about the event. Is that framework a good fit in this context, and if so, how do Mssrs. Miranda and Gideon fare by it?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply
So the notion that you refuse to address is the notion that is actually at issue: whether these people are known about outside of the landmark court cases that involve them. And of course the proper venue for discussion of that, since the choice of outcome in such situations is between an article and a redirect, not involving deletion at any stage of the process, is the articles' talk pages. Uncle G ( talk) 13:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Further, please note that the argument I'm replying to specifically refers to the BLP1E policy and argues to expand it. Thus I argued against a real argument by someone I respect (quite a lot actually) and therefor it isn't a strawman I'm arguing against... Hobit ( talk) 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply