Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable Ebola patients




 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

List of notable Ebola patients

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BIO1E Also, if they've got their own articles, this looks like unnecessary duplication and essentially a WP:content fork. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Revised, see comment below. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move/Rename, but keep out the living biography information where it is an issue. Maybe just the generic statistical data about cases.Starstr (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that this article provides some interesting starting points in the current research and discussion during the ebola crisis in West Africa. I vote to KEEP the stub class article, which deserves development, not deletion. MaynardClark (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this nomination at all. How would BIO1E apply to an index of articles that share a common characteristic? If you want to try deleting an individual article on that basis, that's a completely different issue, but I've never even seen the argument that BIO1E would apply to a list like this. By its own terms it's focused on when a person should have a standalone article. So if anything, BIO1E would support a list or prose topic article instead of individual articles. I also don't understand how a list that groups articles together somehow duplicates the articles themselves; perhaps the nominator is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia lists of any kind? Please read WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN (comparing this list with Category:Deaths from Ebola). There may very well be an argument for deleting or (more likely) merging this list somewhere, but it hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks postdlf, I'll revise. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm happy to withdraw the nom if other editors feel that's best. But first, I'd like to know if in their view, this article satisfies navigation in the WP:MOS. Also, the talk page and the article edit summaries suggested to me that there was concern about the content. Specifically one editor noted that the focus on 'notable' Ebola patients, would mean that the list is out of proportion to all others with Ebola. So undue weight would apply. And finally another editor pointed out that the list is essentially covered in Template:Ebola. My concern firstly is the ‘notable’ cases are really the health care workers who’ve fallen ill. Granted, they've done God's work there, but their misfortune in contracting the virus is no greater than that of any of the thousands who've fallen ill. Perhaps what is needed is a rename, or repurpose? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "unduly" reflecting the same focus that sources represent. UNDUE says exactly the opposite, that we should not focus on a viewpoint or aspect of a topic to an extent that reliable sources do not. That sources have described only a relative handful of individual cases in detail while merely giving statistics for the majority of victims is not something for us to ignore. See also WP:NOTDIR, which explains that while we index articles we do not repeat the phone book (in other words, we almost always keep lists limited to notable entries). Listing all the thousands of people who ever contracted Ebola (even if verifiable), rather than focusing on notable cases or at least those with some secondary source coverage, would be contra NOTDIR and indiscriminate (and arguably WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Also, your comment about the list being redundant to the template is contra WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we list the thousands. I was simply repeating the concerns on the talk page. And I'm asking editors if the article satisfies navigation in the MOS. If so, then I'll withdraw the nom. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This entry does not stand by itself.    The people listed are simply victims of Ebola.  There are Wikipedia entries about the wider topic.  --Lfrankblam 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)