Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan


 * 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. This was a particularly large AFD discussion with thoughtful input from editors on both sides; thanks to all participants for remaining civil and engaging in a fruitful debate of policy. At this time, I find a consensus to keep the article for a few reasons. First, those supporting keeping the article have successfully established that Duncan meets the general notability guideline as per his significant media coverage, both while living and after his death. Consequently, the burden shifts to those supporting other outcomes. I do not find convincing evidence that this is a case of BLP1E, insofar as several editors have aptly quoted the policy, which states, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles." Other commenters suggest redirection or merger, but many of those comments were based on a prior state of this article. Irrespective thereof, editors are reminded that an article's lack of perceived quality should have no bearing whatsoever on a discussion as to whether or not it should be deleted. Overall, there seems to be a consensus, albeit a rough one, to keep the article. Although notability is not temporary, posterity ultimately may deem that the Ebola outbreak in the U.S. or his role thereof are not sufficiently significant as to require a separate article, and at that time, there may be a more appropriate course of action for this article. However, for the time being, I find a consensus in favor of keeping it. Thank you again to all discussants for remaining civil and engaging in a fruitful debate of policy.  Go  Phightins  !  17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Eric Duncan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unnecessary content fork of a person notable only for one event. The content should be merged to 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak, as it basically duplicates that article. If there is eventually too much material for the main article, an article such as Timeline of the infection of Thomas Eric Duncan can be created. Xqxf (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Well, the content is exactly the same as the portion in 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak. Duncan as a person is non-notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See also this thread. User:Sy9045 is probably against deletion. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should be retained. His activities in Liberia are highly significant, and may best be discussed in an article dedicated to him. KHarbaugh (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What activities? Contracting Ebola? That's apparently all that this article is describing, as well as all of the media sources about him. His "activities" can be described in the article that this duplicates word-for-word; in fact, 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak is more comprehensive about the subject than this article is. WP:CONTENTFORK doesn't apply at this time, because everything that is notable about him is within, and important to the flow of, the "2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak" article. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One Monrovia specific issue is: "how plausible is the claim that Duncan did not know that Marthalene Williams died from Ebola?". This requires discussing events in Monrovia. In general, Duncan's significant issues spanned two continents, and do not seem to fit neatly into articles organized around events on only one continent. But that's just my opinion. KHarbaugh (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The U.S. cases article also gives a little context about his contraction of Ebola from Liberia. His ordeal started in Liberia, but mostly happened in the U.S. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is patient zero. He is the first person to contract and die from ebola in the United States. His case is being talked about throughout U.S. hospitals and his story is being reported throughout the world. He is causing a health scare throughout the United States. His article should not be deleted. It's ludicrous that this is even being considered. Bowe Bergdahl has his article from one event. Similarly, the 7/7 attackers each have their own articles from one event. Seung-Hui Cho has his own article from one event. Robert Rayford has his own article because of one event (his case is very similar to Duncan, being the first confirmed person to contract HIV/AIDS in the USA). There are several like those throughout Wikipedia. Why are their cases different from Duncan's? You can change some of the content if you want (Wikpedia editors often duplicate content for similar sections anyway), but Thomas Eric Duncan should have his own page if we are being consistent. Otherwise, we'll have to go on a massive deletion of articles because there are several people with their own pages who are known for one event. Sy9045 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This one guy is notable for one event, and his article duplicates the article about the event. Do we have articles about the people who brought Ebola to Spain, or about the medevac cases to the US? No, we don't, because their Ebola diagnoses are duplicated in the articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, we have one for the first confirmed AIDS/HIV case in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rayford. Second of all, please read Wikipedia's criteria again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). If we are following wiki guidelines, this article should stay. Third of all, there are several people with their own pages known for one event as I stated above. Wikipedia's criteria does not exclude people notable for one event from having their own pages. Please read its criteria page again because it seem like you haven't. Fourth of all, did you read I wrote above? In addition to the points I've already mentioned, I already responded to the duplicate issue in my previous post.Sy9045 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also see that the other page has copied content from what I added this morning for Thomas Eric Duncan's page. If you are going to complain about duplicate issues for this page, I expect you to do the same for the other page.Sy9045 (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That further shows that this page is a content fork, and that the information belongs on the main article. Simply because you are adding some information to this page first does not make the main article a duplicate. Xqxf (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The content I added described his background (how he worked as a driver, his old girlfriend, his estranged son, etc). One of the editors took what I added and added it to the main ebola page, which probably doesn't belong there.Sy9045 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Abruptly quitting his job prior to travel and the reasons for his trip to the US are relevant to the primary article. Fleeing to Ivory Coast (not Puerto Rico, as it turns out) is minor enough that it can be included as background. Xqxf (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As stated in notability guidelines WP:1E: 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'.  It remains to be seen exactly how the 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak will play out, but I suspect Thomas Eric Duncan will be one of many participants.  The complexities of his case (such as possible false statements from hospital officials, possible improper treatment, etc.) are highly significant, interesting, and worthy of attention, warranting a separate article. Krubo (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I came here to say it should obviously be redirected, but Krubo has swayed me. I think it should stay for now. I suspect it will become clear over time that Duncan's case is a minor contribution to the overall narrative, at which point I would support a redirect - but we're not there yet. -Juansmith (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, so if you're not confident he will remain independently notable (taking a long-term view) that is an argument for making it a redirect for now. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect As per the nominator and Epicgenius, this should be redirected to the main 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak article. Stesmo (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... tough one. The issues surrounding Duncan's ebola could fit into the Africa/Liberia articles, or the U.S. article, or both. Also, as Krubo notes, the U.S. ebola outbreak is still ongoing, and we don't know how things will go from here (although I suspect Duncan will receive a large amount of attention, as "patient zero" of the U.S. outbreak). Canuck 89 (have words with me)  10:26, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Wiki guidelines, the article should stay. See Krubo's link and text, and also this one, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Duncan is patient zero and has infected one other patient in the USA. He has played a very large role in a very significant event.Sy9045 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom. and epicgenius. The person is not notable, the infection is. wrt. Duncan being patient zero, only one other has so far caught Ebola in the US from him. If he had not travelled to the US, he would have died in Liberia, and would not have made a footnote in the news. The story with him is taking Ebola to the US, hence the US Ebola article is the correct target for the redirect. Martin 4 5 1  19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's guidelines, he is notable. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I don't see anyone on the opposing side refuting these points. Unless you can prove that this event is not highly significant and/or he did not play a large role, this article must stay according to Wikipedia's criteria.Sy9045 (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly an event that is in the news, but so far it has resulted in one death, another infection, and a bunch of scares (deaths and economic losses far less than something like influenza, which kills 25 - 50k people per year in the US); I would say it is significant, but not "highly significant". The guideline does not say an article must be created, and this current article is a redundant content fork. The only information in the current article that does not duplicate Ebola virus outbreak in the United States is that Duncan grew up in Puerto Rico and fled from war, which is minor background that can go in the main article. This article can always be recreated if there is significant additional information about Duncan that is notable, but not relevant to the primary article. A good example would be Mayinga N'Seka, for whom the type virus for the entire genus Ebolavirus is named, and who has coverage that does not fit in Yambuku. Xqxf (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's the headline news story on every major news network for more than the past week, including international news networks like the BBC, as well as being discussed frequently by the White House and hospitals across not only America, but across the world, I would say that qualifies as a significant story. You can remove content if you want or rearrange things to resolve the duplicate issues, but Duncan needs his own page if we are going to be consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. The person he infected is currently the major headline right now across major news networks. Duncan has played an extremely large role in a very significant story.Sy9045 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way to "resolve" the duplicate issue would be to transclude the entire article (other than the first sentence and infobox) from Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but we have a better way to do that, which is with a redirect. Should we also have a separate Nina Pham article as another duplicate, since she was the first person to contract Ebola virus within the US? (I will also note that the Biographies of living persons policy applies to both individuals in creating these articles, since Duncan only recently died. In Pham's case, much more is known about her background and more of a case might be made for a separate article.) If the article can be significantly expanded to not be a duplicate, while still being within the BLP policy, then I could see arguments for keeping it. (But I still do not think Duncan has individual notability at this point.) Xqxf (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done this anyways (which is really silly), and the article text is now 1.5 sentences plus an infobox. Xqxf (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously not the only way; see my !vote below. But while the AfD is running, I can live with it, though it makes it harder for the old article to shrink or the new article to be expanded organically .  Again, my view is the content should move to the fork. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 20:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it causes some potential problems, but I have no issues if someone wants to un-transclude some of the material and expand/shrink it properly. My concern (and why I keep complaining about duplicates) is that the information was already getting out of sync between articles, which this will prevent for now at least. (Some relevant information was added in the process, too.) Xqxf (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Transclusion doesn't cause problems, for now. But if the Ebola case gets out of hand in the U.S., the articles can be split and un-transcluded.– Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep - he could count as an index case. I would not mind a redirect, which would save the article's history. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect He is a nobody. 178.128.140.0 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect Unless there is anything about him that is not related to his diagnosis, this page is un-noteworthy. 118.209.169.192 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sy9045. Stanleytux (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage of this deceased individual in numerous secondary sources all over the planet. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP THIS PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.54.20 (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)  — 124.13.54.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Will allow us to focus the article this is forked from (which is too long) elsewhere. Also, per notability guidelines WP:1E, per Krubo, and Sy9045.    -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Duncan" has already entered popular vernacular as a synonym for "patient zero".--Froglich (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The information in his article is a duplicate of the US article. He is notable due to transferring the virus to another country - how many individual articles will we have if we call each 'case zero' a notable occurrence? It is likely before this is out there will be other transmissions to the US causing local outbreaks, would they constitute notable case zero articles?  The notable fact is the evolving epidemic which is covered in the US article. |→ Spaully τ 10:46, 15 October 2014 (GMT)
 * Note: Wikipedia is not news, which this article is, since it talks about Duncan – who is only notable in the news! Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage as the first Ebola case in the United States. Passes WP:GNG. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I think being the first person to develop Ebola outside of Africa is being notable, combined with the fact at last two other persons have been infected by him; basically, he is a Patient zero, much like Gaëtan Dugas.--Jean Po (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Maybe in a few months he will seem unimportant, but as of now he might have started a serious epidemic. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has been significant secondary coverage of this man, and there will continue to be as the media digs into his past history. The policy WP:BLP1E is not applicable since this man is dead (and I would question a claim that this man is notable for only "one" event). And merges don't belong at AFD, which is what the nominator has said should happen, so this should be speedily closed. There is redundant information between this article and Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but only because Duncan has received significant coverage and most of that article focuses on him and his actions. Due to the nature of outbreaks, that article will only get larger, and the information on Duncan should be rightfully spunoff into a separate article. But his actions don't only concern Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, but potentially other countries as well since while he was infected with Ebola he passed through 4 airports, and flew from Monrovia to Brussels to Virginia to Dallas (even though the CDC claims he was not contagious at that time). If it is an outbreak in the US, then information about him will continue to be added to the outbreak article, but which outbreak article? Ebola virus outbreak in the United States? Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia? Possibly even Ebola virus cases in Belgium? Duncan may be most notable for bringing Ebola to the US, but his actions potentially affect more than one country. There is an article for Gaëtan Dugas. Typhoid Mary has an article, it isn't simply merged into Typhoid fever in the United States. The question is how many cases of Ebola can be traced to him. Relegating all the information about him to one (or more) country-specific outbreak articles is not appropriate, and that's what would be redundant. --Redmitrow (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has recently became more notable, and could potentially be a huge impact on the United States with recent developing events. Furthermore, Thomas Eric Duncan could be as notable if not more than James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David Haines, and Alan Henning. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – And I would almost say "SNOW KEEP".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Patient zero anyone? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – This could, unfortunately, very unfortunately, be a much bigger deal what this man did in the coming days, weeks and months. Thetalkingheads (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I came to Wikipedia today for one reason - to find information specifically about Thomas Eric Duncan. I wasn't looking for information on Ebola, but specific information on Thomas Eric Duncan. Such information will no doubt continue to come to light, and I believe this article is just the place for it to land. I agree with the wiki guidelines argument, and the patient zero argument.Sal Calypso (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article needs to give time to grow, more developements are still being released. This just might be the tip of the iceberg. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: absolutely the same as Typhoid Mary. Duncan's thuggish irresponsibility and lying on the questionnaire which allowed him to enter the U.S. is more than notable. No political correctness, please. Quis separabit?  21:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  Redirect to the appropriate section of the main article. This is Biog1E stuff. When all is said and done, one or two paragraphs regarding Mr Duncan's background, events around his death, and the controversy surrounding his treatment will suffice.  However, clearly this discussion cannot be lucidly carried out at this time, when the AfD page is overwhelmed w/ a peanut gallery pushing regionalism and POV. (such as the comments made re: "thuggishness" by the editor above ^^^). &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Typhoid Mary precedent. This is patient zero for the most significant biological event to hit the USA since the Spanish Flu. Neukenjezelf (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I rv the objectionable adjective. I guess the "peanut gallery" comment is professional too. Or maybe if almost all the votes weren't "keep" maybe we wouldn't be a "peanut gallery" in the first place.  Quis separabit?  00:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? A couple of people with a disease in hospital, and no evidence of it spreading from them to anyone else (beyond the one in-hospital case), is more notable than the introduction of HIV?  It's more important than the eradication of smallpox?  It's more important than the introduction of West Nile virus?  I think you may be overlooking most of the last century.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article should be kept, as most here agree, except for one outspoken individual who must reply to every single opposing thought. As mentioned above, the event is significant, and the role of Duncan is significant.  As US patient zero he deserves his own page.  There will be more individual pages to come.  Keep this article!  User: Genomizer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.197.72 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A detailed article on Mr. Duncan deserves its own page. If the issue is to avoid duplication, the main article's section on Mr. Duncan needs to be trimmed and summarized, with a link to the separate Mr. Duncan page for those readers who are seeking detailed information on him specifically. If a reader wants an overview of Ebola in the United States, they don't need detailed information on Mr. Duncan, outside of his role as the index patient. As time progresses, the Mr. Duncan article can be considered for deletion, but for now the details of his life may be of great interest to many readers. As others have noted, the article does not violate Wikipedia policy, and precedents for this type of article exist. Dweisber (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect: I do not consider the Ebola case in US as a major disease outbreak (at least not yet). The index cases in Nigeria (Patrick Sawyer), Liberia, Equ. Guinea and Siera-leone are major but not US or Spain. If this article is kept, what I interpret it to mean is that index cases should always have a Wiki article as long as references exist, which is not in-line with any Wiki policy (except you want to say he passes GNG, which I disagree with). Darreg (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect: The arguments to keep are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and crystal ball predictions about the long-term significance of ebola cases in the US. Meanwhile, WP:BLP1E will continue to apply here for about two years. This guy is only notable for having bad luck. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Duh. "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefac (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of which are unfounded assumptions. Geogene (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Like others, I came here today to find information specific to Duncan, specifically regarding his culpability. That is more detail than belongs in the general article on the outbreak, but is still notable information. Warren Dew (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Thomas Eric Duncan needs to be redirected/merged with the page Ebola virus outbreak in the United States because Thomas Eric Duncan is only notable for contracting the Ebola virus, and is not notable for anything else other than Ebola, so Thomas Eric Duncan should not have an article about him, but a section in the article about the Ebola outbreak in the United States. Cookie Monster (talk), 04:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Typhoid Mary is known for nothing but typhoid fever, and Gaëtan Dugas is known for nothing but HIV, Thomas Eric Duncan is known for nothing but EVD. BTW, voting on an AfD is not a minor edit, as you marked it. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Unlike Patrick Sawyer, who was a Liberian Government official, this subject is not notable for any other thing apart from being a zero case of ebola in the united states. Ebola is yet to be an epidemic in the United States, so this article is not warranted - he is notable for just one event.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is already controversy over his medical treatment, with treats of a lawsuit by his family, which supports a separate article about Thomas Eric Duncan. Ward20 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was racial bias in Duncan's treatment, this is quite relevant to the initial spread of the outbreak and not just to Duncan. Xqxf (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The current content of the page is still just 2 summary sentences, an infobox, and transclusions. The non-transcluded article body is a total of 58 words. For all the cries of "We must keep Patient Zero!", little has been done to actually solve the issue of redundant articles. Xqxf (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, AfDs are supposed to be argued on the basis of what the article could be, not its present state. Other articles on individuals with Ebola are probably not keeps. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete notable for one thing only and so should not have own article. well-covered already in other articles.  Wikipedia not a tabloid.  Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect as BLP1E. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He's patient zero, and received a great deal of coverage in the press. ScienceApe (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States, per WP:ONEEVENT, for now. He is only notable for one event, first bringing an existing outbreak to the United States.  He is neither the first patient with Ebola, nor even the first of this outbreak (that is apparently a boy named Emile who died in Guinea).  He should be covered in the relevant articles, but I don't think that currently confers sufficient independent notability.  Notability is not temporary, so we should be conservative for now.  However, if more people in the U.S. develop Ebola they contracted (directly or indirectly) from him, that would make a better comparison to e.g. Arvid Noe.  So redirect for now, but be open to develop into a new article if the outbreak is not contained. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect If the virus spreads and Mr Duncan is still considered notable in a few weeks or months, he could get a page then. Onefireuser (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a big event in the US with long-term changes in hospital preparedness for possible future ebola patients. Thus, we already know it is lasting and he played a fundamental role in it. He therefore the article passes the John Hinckley test for WP:BLP1E. I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per I am One of Many and it is stated in notability guidelines WP:1E: 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:50, 19 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.