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. The argument for deletion was based on WP:BLP1E, but the subject does not seem to meet the third criterion, since the event was significant and his participation was substantial and well-documented. Whether specific WP:BLPCRIME content should be included in the article is not an AfD issue unless that is the primary content of the article, which is not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Bennett Sr.[edit]

David Bennett Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

While the transplant itself was a newsworthy medical event, I think Bennett himself isn't notable for being the recipient of it and fails WP:BLP1E, not being the main subject of the news articles. There was an additional human interest story about ethics because he had committed a crime, but this fails WP:CRIME. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while a "just" patient, he is still a very noteworthy person who is very important to something that may be historical. --SuperMug (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable person, just a patient. --87.162.172.243 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and crime info shouldn't be in there either WP:NPF.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says that articles generally shouldn't be created when one of three conditions are met. As far as my judgement, Bennett's article does not meet #1 because reliable sources cover him in the additional context of the stabbing; it aldo doesn't meet #3 because the event (operation) was historic and significant and Bennett's role in the event is well documented. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF states “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.” That’s why I’m stating the crime info is irrelevant. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The public discourse surrounding Bennett's surgery includes the revelation that he is a convicted assault perpetrator. It is relevant. Most articles published yesterday by reliable sources cite the public disagreement over whether or not Bennett's past should have disqualified him from surgery, and this aspect of the story has left far more of a lasting impact than I think you're assuming. I think we should definitely include his criminal record. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. if articles are published about it, if its part of the RS conversation about this event and his role in it. Then it should stay. Frankly, as an aside, in medicine we do not care what you have done or who you are. We treat every patient the same. The only exception being transplantation with limited organs, wherein we only care insofar as it affects the likelihood that you will be able to get full use of that organ. Ergo, alcoholics don't get liver transplants until they have sustained sobriety. This man's criminal past has no bearing on his ability to use this heart. An important conversation, but just want to be honest: there is a clear answer according to medical ethicists. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously I carry the bias of having created the article. My main point of reasoning that led me to create it in the first place was that the article Louis Washkansky exists, with Washkansky being notable only for receiving the world's first human-human heart transplant. Bennett Sr. has had the first successful animal-human heart transplant and therefore matches this level of notability. In addition to that, he is also notable for his criminal record, although that certainly is less noteworthy than his operation. As for the point that he is not "the main subject of the news articles", I would appreciate if you could expand on what you mean, Reywas92, because every article I've read has talked exclusively about Bennett, his operation, and the healthcare team that performed it, with Bennett making up much of the discussion. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move - This article features important information that any encyclopedia would want to cover. The first successful xenotransplant from pig to human? That's groundbreaking. This is history. However, I do agree with the other posters here who say the article currently violates WP:NPF because Bennett is an unknown member of society and only became relevant because he was the patient involved in the surgery. The surgery is what's relevant and notable, not Bennett himself. So I recommend either keeping the article as is, or moving it to an article about the operation. And I know it's already been mentioned, but Bennett's criminal history is also notable. The conversation surrounding this medical breakthrough includes the discussion of whether or not Bennett deserved to be the patient for this groundbreaking surgery because of his history of violence. That's relevant, and it should be documented in an encyclopedia, so that readers in the future can do further research. However, because Bennett is alive, I recommend removing his name from the article and merely referring to him as "the patient" until he passes away and the article is no longer relevant to WP:BLP. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think expansion of xenotransplantation may be appropriate, but we don't need a separate article for this one surgery either; Xenotransplantation#History has relevant medical info. This actually isn't the "first successful xenotransplant from pig to human", it was the first heart transplant, a kidney transplant having occurred last year. There are plenty of individual occurrances that you may call "history", but that doesn't mean each one needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, For WP:BLP1E reasons. The idea that because he's notable for the transplant, we MUST include his unrelated conviction is ridiculous. We would never create an article for someone based solely on a crime like that, and attaching it here just feels gross to me. Merge some of the content to Xenotransplantation#History, as suggested above, and give this man some peace. Parabolist (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or reorganize. There are many wikipedia entries on non-notable people who have passively suffered some newsworthy event: crimes are generally described in the article on the victim, who is non-notable until the crime, rather than creating an article about criminal, who is notoriously notable, as it were. In order to find this article, I instinctively used the patient's name from the news article, because in my mind this is the general Wikipedian rule—my instinct was correct in that I found the quickly (after disambiguation for David Bennett). Also, the criminal history relates to (1) medical ethics (who "deserves" a transplant?); (2) there is such a thing as local color; and (3) the character of the recipient. The crime is worthy of being discussed in one-week follow-up scientific article in Nature.^[1] One reason Bennett was disqualified for a regular heart transplant was "he had a history of not complying with doctors’ treatment instructions", in other words, a lack of character. The single article on xenotransplantion will become unwieldy as more and more significant developments take place in the future. On the other hand, some wikipedians love humongous articles. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't deserve to have the crimes that they've served their time for prominently attached to every single google search about them just because some editors on wikipedia think that it adds "local color", good god. A drop of empathy here, christ. Parabolist (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. removing the paragraph on his crime. it's not directly related. To the extent it illustrates medical ethics, itcan be added if that aspect is sufficiently discussed in serious sources., not just one newspaper, however reliable. Presumably by that point it will no longer fall under BLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would rewrite the crime section and use more and better sources re: the medical ethics question. But this man is notable, and has been discussed in various ways. His role was substantial, it will likely have lasting notoriety, and his past is now part of the conversation. its part of why he has notoriety that lasts beyond his "5 minutes of fame." Medical ethicists will write papers about this, for sure. But we don't have to wait for them, we already have lots of RS coverage which establishes GNG. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He definitely became part of medical history after his heart transplant. Once (if?) this kind of medical intervention becomes an established procedure with its own article, he can be mentioned there through a redirect. Asav | Talk 03:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep David Bennett has made history, and it is important for future generations who may be reading the article to know who this person is.
• Keep, David Benett is definitely going to be talked about later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringeasfomglmao (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no brainer. A few weeks ago, the Zara Rutherford article, the youngest woman to fly solo around the world was successfully deleted showing that the Wikipedia way is wacky. I created it again (someone else created it the first time) and, luckily, nobody has tried to delete it. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (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.