Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh666 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Let me start with the simplest. This is a content fork of an otherwise comprehensive and succinct article, an effort to expand coverage of single news event and to vaguely predict a coming disaster. This article is unnecessary coverage of a larger event that strongly demonstrates a regional bias. -  Floydian  τ ¢  04:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)  Floydian  τ  ¢  04:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only similar article this is a fork of is 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak, which, at 211 KB is not succinct. The regional bias is assumed, but there's nothing in the article that remotely seems to predict the future. --Light show (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Close this AfD/or Keep. We don't use AfD's to settle content disputes. Here's the situation. The Ebola epidemic involves 6 countries. The article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa gives poor coverage of the individual countries. The article is too big. There was discussion on the talk page about new articles. Nobody objected. The articles got created. Tonight, Floydian, without any discussion or consensus, went from article to article deleting them and turning them into redirects to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Another editor showed up on 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States and started deleting whole sections without first discussing on the talk page. He engaged in battleground behaviour both on talk and edit warred on the article. Both these editors have done nothing to contribute to these articles. Their editing has only been disruptive. This AfD is an extension of that disruption.
 * Diffs of page blanking and changing them to redirects without any discussion and/or consenus:
 * blanked Guinea
 * blanked Nigeria
 * blanked Sierra Leone
 * blanked Liberia


 * This is disruptive behaviour. I'd go to ANI, but I'm too tired. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless if this remains the only case of EVD diagnosed with in the USA, the article should remain, however it will require some expansion into sections including how the locals in the area reacted "Power-washing sidewalks and scrubbing common areas", the 100+ people he had contact with that are been followed up on, the family put under armed guard Quarantine, and possibly also include more info about Americans that were medivaced out. This 'stub' will help keep much info out of the main outbreak page that currently is extremely large. Gremlinsa (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The 1st known case of Ebola in the USA is a historical event. Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. History must be recorded here. LiberatorLX (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs improvement but there is no reason to delete it. Miqrogroove (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic and wide coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The people want it. tharsaile (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is really preposterous in two ways: all the other countries' outbreaks, even Nigeria's, have articles, and this is widely covered in the media with over 10,000 hits so far. The article is being worked on, and it still needs improvement, but it's a quite notable subject and is a pretty large content fork from the main article, Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, which is too big to begin with. On another point I agree with – Floydian's blanking of the other articles on the other countries' outbreaks without discussion was not in good faith. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2014 (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.