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. I have to say that I agree with 009o9 that the article would be better renamed to something like First U.S. Ebola patient or similar. This is supported by WP:1E which states Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In other words, the article is not truly a biography covering the whole life of the subject, but is only concerned with this one issue. However, I am not declaring that a consensus in this close as there were insufficient other participants supporting the idea of a name change. On the other hand, nobody positively opposed the suggestion (with the possible exception of Alaynestone whose comment in that regard is unclear to me) so there is no barrier to an editor being bold and making that change outside of this AfD.

SpinningSpark 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eric Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Duncan has not generated real (lasting) notability. His only claim to notability was that he had the misfortune of contracting ebola, and traveled to the US. At least one other person after him has done the same. The Ebola virus epidemic that followed his arrival in the US was quickly suppressed, and most of the 'keeps' in the previous delete discussion [1] were based on WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that never came to pass. The article should have been deleted, but it seems fear and speculation at the time prevented that. Geogene (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AfD, this guy is notable alright, he was a toxic migrant, most likely motivated to travel to the US for better healthcare after handling an infected victim, and he lied to medical staff about being exposed to the virus. I also recall that the CDC departed from stated geographical containment procedures by keeping travel open and despite having billions in the CDC budget they dropped the ball in preparing first responders. I don't recall how much of the information I read was RS, but this and the main article should be revisited with a keen eye for exposing policy failures. 009o9 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @009o9: The goal is not to remove the information; the problem is that he isn't notable and worthy of his own article. Rather, he is a part of the Ebola virus cases in the United States, and the article there contains all of the relevant information about him. It isn't like the information is just going to go away; it is that he isn't a notable person, he's just someone who was connected to a notable event. See also WP:BLP1E. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. WP:BLP1E doesn't strictly apply (and I'm not willing to stretch the "recently deceased" clause to cover this article), but the principle behind the policy is still apt: individuals who are merely a small part of a larger story with no further biographical context are better treated in the context of that story. I find the Keep !vote above disturbingly incompatible with WP:NPOV. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No long-term notability. Notable for getting sick in the midst of a popular press panic. Comments by User:009o9 blatantly racist comments and WP:POVPUSHING should be included as grounds for deletion. Referring to someone as a "toxic migrant" is totally unacceptable. On another note, why would someone travel to the US for healthcare when the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world? Arguing a keep on the basis that it serves the political interests of someone is astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder When you say "blatantly racist," what "race" are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned, migration/immigration is a policy issue plain and simple. He did not just get sick, he was living with someone who died from Ebola four days before he left Liberia, and lied about that contact (carrying her to the ambulance) during his screening. Duncan also had relatives throughout the US, but prior to the outbreak had never visited any of them and only made those plans two weeks before he arrived.[2] Do you realize how expensive that kind of air travel is? As for the cost of the US healthcare system, the point is irrelevant, emergency rooms must accept everyone, regardless of nationality and ability to pay. Duncan was patient zero in the United States and exposed massive failures in immigration and medical policy. 009o9 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment were crass and not relevant to the debate. I fail to understand how being a "toxic migrant" would make someone notable in any case. AusLondonder (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was just posted by The Washington Post, one minute ago.[3] Besides the previous AfD failure,[4], the article, Ebola virus cases in the United States is WP:TOOBIG at 118kb and much of the Duncan content should be offloaded here. The "Ebola virus" article is obviously going to continue to grow. As for the WP:BLP1E argument, the Duncan article passes item #3, the John Hinckley, Jr example. 009o9 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article says that the hospital was unprepared for an ebola patient. What does that have to do with Duncan, except that Duncan was unlucky enough to be the patient? Outside of entering the US with ebola, is there anything about Duncan's biography that is notable and encyclopedic, or even unusual compared to the thousands that died from ebola in Africa? Geogene (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the Ebola virus, his role was insubstantial so WP:BLP1E does apply. AusLondonder (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Shows policy failures and is a nationally notable story. Ebola story is too long to absorb this material too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the Duncan article is duplicated (word for word) in the Ebola Virus in the US article, and there's no content in the Duncan bio "about policy failures", etc., so I don't see the argument to keep. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While clearly WP:BLP1E, the key phrase is 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'. This was a very significant event, and this individual's part in it, albeit mostly inadvertent, was a key part of the event. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
• Delete and redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. The "event" was the Ebola crisis, not this person traveling to the US. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ebola virus cases in the United States is already WP:TOOBIG. In addition, TED's relevance isn't simply passive ("just got sick"). His movements and actions that lead to the first U.S. ebola outbreak, his interactions with Presbyterian, and the controversy surrounding how his apartment was handled, are all components of the story. Alaynestone (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "he got sick" doesn't cover it, then "he got sick, and was made a scapegoat" certainly does. But all that stuff about Presbyterian not being able to handle it and, his apartment, are out of scope for his bio article, they belong in the main article, Ebola virus cases in the United States, or some other spinoff. This is a biography. There's no bio here to write about, other than his getting sick, and that's all in the main article already. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC

Disagreements on semantics aside, you and I agree that x pieces of information are notable. All we're really debating is where they live, which is fairly minor for such a long AfD. You say it goes in the main article; I say (again) that's great but the article is already too long and needs to be broken out into sub pages, particularly given the potential for that page to continue to grow. TED is a concise heading for the page (vs. "First U.S. Ebola patient" or something else much less encyclopedic). The notable information needs to stay, and it needs to live in a place that is helpful to researchers. He meets the other criteria the other keep voters have made above. Still voting keep, but mostly, I think we're spending more brain power and time on this than it's worth. Alaynestone (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Ebola virus cases in the United States. Duncan is simply not notable and the article runs afoul of WP:BLP1E - he's not notable, the event he was connected with was, and the other article has enough information about him to render his own article redundant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excellent analysis by Alaynestone, the article is not a bio, more fitting is WP:PERPETRATOR. Renaming the article referencing,"First U.S. Ebola patient", "U.S. Ebola Patient Zero" or the like is a good idea. There is enough contradicting information in various articles as to TED's motives in the press, had he survived, he would likely have been prosecuted. (I.e., abruptly quitting his job with no explanation, purchasing a very expensive airfare (2 week lead) to visit children he'd never visited before -- or the alternative story that he rushed over to the U.S. to marry someone -- all after living with an ebola victim.) This was not "just a guy who happened to get sick," he's a case study in selfishness who risked his family's lives when he lied to customs officials. 009o9 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep preferable or redirect alternately -- at least as important as, say Typhoid Mary. Issue is not if people still know him by name -- it is whether his actions and their consequences generated sufficient notability, which I would say they did. I also commend @Alaynestone for his analysis. Quis separabit? 23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Intensity and breadth of coverage at the time carry this article past WP:GNG. The story has generated ongoing coverage, as the response to the disease outbreak is analyzed. Long-term impact is now required when a story is sufficiently important when it occurs, rather, it is a factor that can indicate notability. In this case, however, there was impact on treatment policies recommended and adopted by other hospitals in the crises period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an index case of the best-publicized infectious disease outbreak in many years. There is far too much information to be merged elsewhere. This is an extremely well-sourced article. Citing ONEEVENT would eliminate all articles of famous sick people. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep as there's enough for a separate article here including the details although I would've considered the redirect to ebola cases article. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the policy reasons behind WP:BLP1E. There is no need for a redirect as the world will little note nor long remember Thomas Eric Duncan. As to the comments by Bearian, the infectious disease outbreak is best handled in the Ebola virus cases in the United States article. If that article is considered to be too large, then it is likely that it carries a lot of non-encyclopedic content, and can be usefully trimmed. --Bejnar (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - satisfies the general notability guideline. There is enough reliably-sourced content about him to warrant his own article. Jujutacular (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG at this point. One of the best publicized cases of infection in recent memory. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:07, 26 September 2015 (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.