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 delete. By raw vote totals this is a clear keep. However, we don’t vote at AfD - many editors explicitly call them !vote (not votes) for a reason. So in closing this I first gave little weight to the many ‘’many’’ ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT, !votes by those advancing both keep and delete. Instead the positions deserving full consideration on the keep side are those suggesting notability per WP:LISTN, especially now that the list has been curated to only include those people who with existing articles (demonstrating notability). Those with policy based explanations on the delete side focus on WP:BLP and various aspects of WP:NOT. Some delete !voters suggest LISTN has not been met because the list is indiscriminate, while some keep !voters challenge whether BLP has been violated owing to the inclusion of only notable people from verifiable sources, and because some degree of the delete position violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ultimately there is a consensus that a list of deaths would be notable and comply with other policies and guidelines if adequately sourced (though note that WP:BLP does apply to the recently deceased). That is not this list and so that consensus is not binding here. Instead we have two policies weighing against a guideline which explicitly says that it must comply with one of those policies. As there is a consensus (not unanimous but a consensus) that it does not comply with WP:NOT, this lessens the impact of the guideline. And as BLP, the other policy, suggests we act conservatively the outcome is to delete rather than merely move to a List of Deaths (and the accompanying change of scope of the article) as a means to WP:ATD. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (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)

If you really want a policy/guideline reason, I'd say delete per WP:IINFO (edit: and also WP:NOTNEWS). But morally, I think WP:Ignore all rules is stronger here. This is utterly ridiculous. For the inevitable arguments to keep per the list notability guidelines, I say ignore all rules and screw the list notability guidelines. It's about as easy to keep a garbage list per them as it is to indict a ham sandwich –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that a person's medical history is private. Especially in the US. See HIPPA laws and privacy. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that if reliably sourced, this is not an issue. Same rules apply to List of HIV-positive people and List of medical professionals who died during the SARS outbreak. In the case of Tom Hanks he made it public on social media that he and his wife tested positive for coronavirus. Agree it should only be notable people who meet WP:BIO and actually have articles about them, no redlinks. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a problem. If it's via inherent notability then "other stuff exists" can be a perfectly valid argument. Renerpho (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HIV/AIDS might have been 310 times more common when you wrote your comment, Paintspot, but that ratio is down to 265x a day later! This will almost definitely overtake HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the experience of having the disease will, for most people, be far less significant. So HIV/AIDS is not a good comparison. Bondegezou (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ...Also, past that, whatever happens with the "List of people" section, I think we should 1000% KEEP the Deaths section (which wouldn't ever become very long, and wouldn't be a WP:BLP issue). Thoughts Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment - Even then there should be no redlinked names in the list. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to expand a bit in order to address and hopefully alleviate some concerns as well as suggest improvements. The follow text is a copy of my comment on the talk page: I support removing the status column as well. A lot of these people will recover and not everyone will make a grand announcement, in fact some may have already recovered. Having an incorrect status for such people is definitely stigmatizing misinformation that could impact how people around them interact with them after reading this stuff on Wikipedia, an easily accessible free internet encyclopedia. Also, I support getting rid of tables completely and listing the infections chronologically (just like deaths) as it conserves space and has more encyclopedic value. Their exact circumstances of infection, recovery and death should be part of their individual pages. Also, when describing their notability, we should strive for brevity as much as possible. --Killuminator (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about automatically removing red links. Any member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies is most certainly notable but English WP editors haven't got around to creating articles on all of them in the same way we do like for the New Zealand Parliament. Oakshade (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they have articles on the Spanish language Wikipedia, that would be sufficient to add them. See for example the Iranian politicians who only have articles on the Farsi Wikipedia. JeanPassepartout (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not meant to cease to be notable. We write for the long term. Either it's notable forever, or it's not. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Far, far more people are going to get Covid-19 than HIV and Covid-19 is going to be far, far less serious for those people when they catch it than HIV. So I suggest the comparison doesn't hold. I note that isn't a List of pandemic H1N1/09 virus cases, which is a more comparable situation. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to admin, Above acc is newly active, because his last edit was in 2017. So may be WP:SOCK. 117.18.231.22 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That account has edits from 2012 in their history. Emk9 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not SOCK. Because my main activities are on jpwiki. This uckin illegal IP's message from Yangon, Myanmer shoud be deleted.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely WP:UNCIVIL. I recommend striking that out.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely sock, his last edit was in 2017 [1] and re-active recently. Isn't this strange? 117.18.231.85 (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This illegal IP's message from Yangon, Myanmer shoud be deleted (or temporarily ip-blocked). --Kyuri1449 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: Comment Could the WP:WEIGHT problem not be solved with subpages? The main page could serve as a de-facto disambiguation page to each of the sub-topics. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no BLP issues in this article. JeanPassepartout (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is never going to be useful for historians later. For most people on this list, catching Covid-19 is going to be a fairly insignificant experience. And probably most people in the world are going to catch it over the next several months: that this or that celebrity got it is trivia. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Lists of people by medical condition, List of Spanish flu cases and List of HIV-positive people. Kanghuitari (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since a list of people with cancer may indeed be unmanagable (and also because "cancer" covers a vast spectrum of different diseases), we have List of people with breast cancer, List of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer, List of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer... It is always an option to split the article once it becomes too big. We are not there yet for COVID-19, and it is WP:CRYSTAL to guess if/when we might be! Renerpho (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons that are either inappropriate or which are woeful failures as lists. The UK chief medical officer forsees 80% of the population contracting it: it is simply not possible to maintain a list that contains 80% of the current people based in Europe (let's assume that UK spread is not going to be very different to other European countries) and comparable percentages of those in the rest of the world. At best, it will be so hopelessly incomplete that it is meaningless and totally unhelpful like List of kidney stone formers which has c. 120 names (just one added in the last year) for a condition that affects up to one sixth of the population, or List of people with tinnitus, which has fewer than 100 names when statistically it should reflect about 10-15% of our notable people. The list will neve do what it purports to do, and therefore can only ever be a failing of Wikipedia to atttempt to record the unrecordable. It is not so much WP:CRYSTAL to say that it will become to big, as it is WP:RECENT to feel it is necessary to have it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve referenced the List of Spanish flu cases many times and it is way beyond a few years since that pandemic - about 100 years to be closer to precise. It is of encyclopedic interest to learn why certain notable people, particularly those who were young, died at that time and it brings historical context to their location and period, and not only to those who died, but this who survived which brings a perspective of age and sometimes economic status. There is zero doubt this will have the same historical interest. Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have also referred more than once to the Spanish flu list. That has fewer than 130 names on it, when statistically we should expect it to include about a quarter of the people alive at that time who have an article on one of the Wikipedias. Clearly, that never has, and never will, be a comprehensive list of all the wikinotables who caught that disease. But that is precisely what people are trying to do here (because it is current, because social media makes us aware of many more people, because these are people that current editors feel an engagement with). As time goes on, people catching C19 will draw less attention, and we will be left with List of people who caught C19 in the first couple of months of the outbreak and a few others with high social media profiles or some Wikipedians who follow them. Whatever historical context is provided by the Spanish flu list (and I think it is minimal at best) will not be conveyed by such an article. Kevin McE (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was heartfelt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't 'data', it is a list of random people, compiled while the media still saw test results worth commenting on. And (unless you know something that those investigating the disease appear not to), it won't be 'people with COVID 19' it will be 'people who have had COVID 19'. Or rather, the very small subset of people who had it, got tested for it, got reported by the media, and were somehow considered worth adding to the list. Even ignoring the blatant violation of WP:BLP, it is Wikipedia data-mining at its very worst. Intrusive, obnoxious, and utterly useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have something of a misunderstanding of when WP:SNOW is applicable. As for 'snitching' and civility, I'd take such concerns more seriously if this wasn't a discussion about a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. Some things deserve snitching. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You, and everyone else calling for a deletion, have consistently failed to prove how this article fails WP:BLP. It includes only self-reported and reliably reported cases. Your argument seems to amount entirely to pearlclutching and WP:ADHOM about how horrible and disgusting the article and its supporters are, based on your very own subjective sense of morality. This is, at its core, censorship. At least those calling for the application of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules are being more intelectually honest. Moral crusading is not a reason for deletion. WPancake (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently we can add WP:NOTCENSORED to a list of things you don't understand. As for WP:ADHOM, it isn't generally advisable to cite it while making ad hominem arguments yourself. And the article is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. Anyone who can't see why an inevitably incomplete list of random people who have contracted a communicable disease that is almost certainly going to infect 70% of the world's population isn't an intrusion into privacy should probably be banned from Wikipedia altogether. Or that's my perspective on the matter anyway. Which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to be censored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, you were asked to explain how the article fails WP:BLP and failed miserably. The claims that almost every human being will be affected by covid is just a blatant example of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Wikipedia is based on reliably sourced facts, not on speculations. There is no intrusion into privacy as the list is reliably sourced, for every individual of the list there is an ample choice of dozens/hundreds of primary and secondary sources, and the information is in the subjects' biographic articles anyway, the same way they mention any other mayor disease or accident they had in their life. I would be curious to know why covid is such a special case to be censored, as we had disease-related lists and categories for decades and noone ever complained, or maybe do you suddendly want to remove the thousands diseases mentioned in WP biographies? In both cases stop insulting other editors, and add yourself to the list of users who don't understand WP:BLP, or to the list of users who knowingly misuse the WP:BLP argument, or maybe just to the list of users who confuse WP:BLP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --151.74.230.114 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"You, and everyone else calling for a deletion, have consistently failed to prove how this article fails WP:BLP" That is a thoroughly ridiculous comment. Just because something does not breach WP:BLP does not mean that it should be the defining principle of a list. Please have the decency to remove this blanket accusation to the intellect and integrity of those who have called for deletion. As to the unregistered contributor's suggestion that there is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, nobody is asking for the encyclopaedia to carry that claim as an unsourced opinion, so the accusation is meaningless. But not as meaningless as a list that will only ever be more remarkable for those it never will, and never could, include. Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is the majority of delete votes seem to hinge on supposed, unproven BLP issues. I'm certainly not saying that every delete vote is based on such reasoning, but most of them are and it is a completely void complaint. A "blanket accusation to the intellect and integrity"? Give me a break. WPancake (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you said was "everyone else calling for a deletion": maybe you ought to revise the meaning of 'every'. If you accept that there are valid reasons to propose deletion other than BLP, then debunking the BLP argument establishes nothing about the validity of the list. Kevin McE (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user doesn't make any edit! Idolmm (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed criteria should resolve any BLP concerns (1), as they ensure high-quality sources will have already publicised and confirmed the case before it is added to this list. The criteria will also resolve concerns of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (2), as they ensure only notable and significant cases will be included. Those who are concerned the number of entries could number in the thousands or even higher as the disease spreads overlook that media focus on individual cases will decrease as the number of overall cases increases. High-quality secondary sources will not write about every single notable subject that contracts the virus, as there will simply be too many to cover.
I'm aware of the pitfalls of WP:OSE, but in this case the featured list on HIV-positive people is an excellent example of how this type can be done well, ensuring only well-referenced entries on notable people are permitted, and serves as a strong rebuttal to those who claim these types of lists intrinsically violate BLP. The 2011 AfD, closed as keep, is particularly instructive and recommended reading for any !voters in this discussion.
Finally, comments like delete this utter stupidity, this list is pure and unadulterated evil, and block indefinitely all those responsible are inflammatory, not conducive to productive discussion, and will be discarded by the closing admin anyway, so why are editors bothering to post them? – Teratix ₵ 11:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert Over reaction ? Why so serious ???? Idolmm (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is a policy not a guideline, and a key core policy. editors are supposed to be not just allowed but required to delete stuff like this on sight. It's not a vote, here, and this is one of those instances where headcount ought to be ignored and the key core policy applied. I recognize that doing this will likely bring a shitstorm down on your head, and I applaud in advance your courage and dedication in doing this. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as content is sourced by publicly available secondary independent reliable sources, it is in accordance to WP:BLP policy. Controversial content about living persons is not barred due to BLP. As a matter of fact BLP policy specifically lays out guidelines on how to deal with such content. Oakshade (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It even goes far to instruct that individuals should not be defined by negative connotations. Which is just what this "list" is doing. ——SN54129 18:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes User talk:Oakshade, I don't want to ruleslawyer about this; the spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad". My request to the closer stands and will stand. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is considered a negative thing to say someone has this virus. Is there some sort of strange social stigma I'm not aware of? People seeing how many famous people they know have it, will encourage them to take it more seriously and be careful. Dream Focus 19:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know this as well. Everybody gets sick, what's so awful about saying someone has flu-like symptoms? Especially if the virus is going to be so widespread and inconsequential to most people as delete !voters claim? WPancake (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both go read WP:BLP. It;s not about whether it's a "socila stigma" (=strawman), it's about whether it's contentious material. Goodbye. ——SN54129 19:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say that statements like "I don't see how this is considered a negative thing to say someone has this virus" or "Everybody gets sick, what's so awful about saying someone has flu-like symptoms?" kind of removes you as useful contributors to the discussion? I don't think they're going to impress the closer much, and maybe you'd better stop digging yourself in deeper. Herostratus (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: Please remain civil. ——SN54129 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:BLP textually states is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". It has already been explained numerous times why this isn't the case with this article. That said, why is it even contentious at all? WPancake (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's contentious on its face, since it's being vigoursly contended by a number of editors. As I said: ruleslawyering is fun, but we're not here use our great power -- we're a large, powerful website -- to fuck with private people's lives for no good reason just because we can and feel like it. We're just not, is all. And that is why BLP exists, and why it was written. And the admin corps appreciates this, I am confident. Herostratus (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not at all stipulate the removal of content because "a number of editors" think it's contentious. As stated above, if content is considered contentious by one or any number of editors, BLP is policy to ensure that contentious content is not "unsourced or poorly sourced" but is in fact properly sourced. If any one of these entries is not properly sourced by independent reliable sources then BLP stipulates the removal, but BLP doesn't stipulate the removal solely based on the content being considered contentious even by a majority of editors. I know you don't want to go into ruleslawyer about BLP, but you were constantly citing BLP as reason to delete this list and even ruleslawyering so far as to point out that BLP is policy, which closers already know - claiming closers don't know BLP is policy is rather insulting to them. Oakshade (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, BLP says that, but that's not all it says. It also right below that it says

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

Emphasis added. Also, "Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." If the person is notable for having the virus and that's an important reason then they have an article here, then OK. Maybe Patient Zero of this outbreak would merit an article. But these other people, no. I hope we're not even going to put in the articles "This person got the corona virus in 2020 but she was OK". Is that something people 20 years from now are going to want to know. If it's not even notable enough to be in their article (let alone being an important source of their notability), why are we calling them out here, for the world and for posterity. BLP also has entire section title "Presumption in favor of privacy".
If you don't care about any of that, then there's Wikipedia:Jerk. Don't be one, to anybody. Leave these people alone for fuck's sake. We're not bullies here. Good grief.
I don't claim closers don't know BLP. I'm confident they do, which is why this article will surely be deleted. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're going full-throttle ruleslawyer, WP:BLP also states

Biographies of living persons In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Emphasis added. And nobody has properly explained how people knowing somebody has the virus is negative to them or brings on some social stigma. And in WP's case, everyone here have already been reported to have the virus or, in adherence to BLP as this article does, their name wouldn't be allowed in this list. Reports are, including from well-respected epidimiolgists like Michael Osterholm have stated that an extremely effective tool is a test to know who have already had the virus but didn't know so we know they can go back into the community, especially for health care workers. Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, notable by Wikipedia standards. --MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 945,000 articles on living people. However this is not even all the articles we could have. There are 615 members of the Spanish cortes general, all of them are notable. The same applies to however people there are in the assemblies of Catalonia, etc. Then there are all the football players. Not just currently playing ones and current members of the Cortes. This easily gets to be huge numbers of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2020 (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.
Category