Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]
  • There are about 40 other articles in Category:Lists of people by medical condition. – Uanfala (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC). To avoid a double standard, either keep the article or delete the whole category.--Maxaxax (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oppose I don't think this list is useless. There are people of interest who may contract COVID-19 (or already have). That said, I did request a name change to protect privacy rights and limit to notable people, see the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC) - Change to Conditional keep. Wait for the result of my RfC to move to a different name. Keep if moved to include notable, delete otherwise. Renerpho (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) - Alternatives that I would support in strong favour of a deletion are currently discussed on the article talk page, including an editnotice. I really want to keep this list. Renerpho (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    Regarding the argument about WP:IINFO - I think the suggested name change takes care of that. And I fail to see how WP:NOTNEWS applies, as this list merely collects information from reliable sources. Information about a quickly changing subject that is making news, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Renerpho (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Change vote from keep to delete. The discussion below convinced me to change my mind. In particular, I have concerns that this is recentism and - despite my attempt to avoid this with the editnotice - a BLP/privacy nightmare. I'm not sure if the list will grow out of hand, but even if it doesn't, it is still a bad idea. Renerpho (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The name change is redundant. Only notable people who meet WP:BIO are being added anyway. JeanPassepartout (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS updating the list when we get to millions is just a ridiculous proposition. Not really the job of our encyclopedia to have a dynamic list which will stretch into the millions, or perhaps billions. We may also face some WP:BLP issues and some HIPPA law violations. Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's managable if only people who meet WP:BIO are added. No redlinks. BLP is not an issue if reliably cited. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, NOTSTATS and IINFO. Even right now, the title suggests that notable people are the only ones being included. Changing the title won't change the underlying fact that a list of people who contracted a common disease is not encyclopedic, and has the potential to balloon into an indiscriminate list of trivia. Category:Lists of people by medical condition appears to only have lists of people who have rarer and deadlier diseases. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how about deleting it when we get to the millions? Right now, this is a pretty short list. What will happen to it in the future may concern us in the future.Renerpho (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only about 400 names on List of HIV-positive people (which covers roughly 40 years) by restricting it to those who meet WP:BIO. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guarantee that this will balloon to hundreds, if not thousands, of notable people. Should we also create a list of notable people who caught the flu or have a fever and have been reported in the news about that? Why should we wait to hold a deletion discussion until there are millions of infections (which is not a matter of if but when)? This is an indiscriminate list, even if it covers only notable people. I think all the "list of people who have X disease" should be deleted for this reason, but this is another matter. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Should we also create a list of notable people who caught the flu [...]? We literally have such a list. Renerpho (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do not have List of pandemic H1N1/09 virus cases. We do not have a list for the 1968 flu pandemic, or the one before that in 1957/8. We do have one for Spanish flu, but the world had a much smaller population then and there are far fewer reliable sources to draw on. Bondegezou (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not that "the world had a much smaller population then" it is that Wikipedia is super presentist. I mean the birth-year we have the most articles in is 1989. Yes, 1989. If there is anything that drives this it is a combination of the fact that there were fewer pro-sports in 1918 than today, and even in pro-sports we have an excessive over covering of the present, and for legislature members, a group that are considered default notable, we have an excessive over coverage of present people. I just created an article on someone who was a multiple term governor of Yucatan in 1910 and a few years before. Wikipedia is overly presentist. That is what will make this list unmaintanable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further consideration, I'd only keep entries where the person is both notable and has died as a result so this is a conditional keep. epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (Oppose). I'm in agreement with Renerpho. It's not at all useless. Also – common disease? It's not a common disease yet (and how about reconsidering deleting it if it reaches the millions). We have a page of notable people with HIV or AIDS ("List of HIV-positive people"), and HIV/AIDS is 310x times more common. The BLP concerns are legit though, so I definitely support the name change to include "notable", though. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:22, 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]
  • Keep. It's not useless. BUT redlinked names should be removed. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think Lightburst said it best. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (KEEP). I largely agree with Renerpho and Paintspot. The list already only contains notable persons whose condition was revealed in reliable media so perhaps a fix in the title is in order. The nature of the list isn't all that different from the one on notable persons who contracted the Spanish flu. Having a list of HIV-positive people is also an interesting point raised by Paintspot. This pandemic is already seeing unprecedented measures being taken in certain countries, so to call it a just a common disease falls flat. Also worth keeping in mind is the nature of some of these persons, for example the political elite of Iran is heavily affected. Compared to the HIV list, one can find there that many victims of HIV, especially from the time when the virus was first discovered, were gay men who faced a lot of hostility in their societies to begin with. The Spanish flu also coincided with World War I and a lot of turmoil of that era. These lists are no more trivial than listing recipients of military decorations, hosts of sport events, winners of musical contests etc. What I'm saying is, they aren't mere trivia lists if you have the imagination to ascertain their utility. One can learn more if you analyze them, open some linked pages etc. - who were the affected groups, how and why, how it correlates to the spread of the disease in general and so on. I've summed up some of my thoughts and expanded on the thoughts of others, both those in agreement and those in opposition. --Killuminator (talk) 02:47, 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]
  • Oppose (KEEP) I think the article provides useful nontrivial information. Remember (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- this disease is not ending, its spreading and spreading fast and across more countries and already a host of famous people have died, there needs to be a list to keep up with this, this isn't likethe SARS virus 2 decades back, this is spreading across the world and believe it or not, but a lot of famous people will contract it and some will die from it, SARS and Swine flu were differnet, they were contained within 2-5 countries, this has spread to opver 100 countries now and already more than 20 known individuals with Wikipedia pages who were famous BEFORE this disease came into being died of it, only a fool would want to delete a list such as this...this is not a case of ontability as majority of ppl making this list of confirmed cases (living and dead) are already notable so ther really isn't a valid reaosn to delete this list which in the next 3 months will get longer and more informative...--27.123.137.38 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IINFO. This is an extremely discriminate list of already notable people and who have a notable condition. Will be of historic interest when this thing is all over. Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. I get that there is "ooh-ahh" interest in this page today, but down the line we can expect this list to become extremely large, and the longer it gets, the more trivial such a list becomes. I would not oppose if the list were to strictly focus on notable deaths, but just being sick is not interesting in the long-term. -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS not mandating delete in this case. See above for similar examples . Enforce no redlinks unless interwikilinked and move to List of notableno need after editnotice and consistancy with other "List of X victim" articles ... Agathoclea (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable and well-sourced article.--Sakiv (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose (or STRONG KEEP) per User:Remember. 2001:569:74D2:A800:5DBE:65F7:31:7FBE (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable and well-sourced article of notable persons, of great reader interest. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C06:37C8:AC02:11FE (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not useless. We have a page of notable people with Spanish flu (List of Spanish flu cases), this list is similar to it.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable lists of notable person who get COVID-19 and well-sourced. Dede2008 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well sourced notable list Uhooep (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is ENCYCLOPEDIC material. [The opinion is left by Gabinho (talk | contributions) at 07:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep WP:IINFO; see List of Spanish flu cases. brad. (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments above, but strong support page move and removal of redlinks without interwikilinks. Jdcooper (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with brad., Dede2008 & Oakshade Shilonite 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all. There seem to be certain people very keen on excluding this information from Wikipedia and I honestly have no idea why. WPancake (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite all the starry-eyed claims here, I've already removed two un-sourced claims. And there are about 20 red links in the list. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could only find one recent edit where you removed a claim. The referenced source did exactly say what was claimed though. Agathoclea (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reference I've removed is here, which had been used to substantiate the claim that Mudiay had tested positive for coronavirus. The page says "The NBA's statement did not reveal whether Gobert or Mudiay tested positive for coronavirus, nor did it identify any other player." which means we don't know if Mudiay is positive for coronavirus or not. It says "The NBA said it learned the unidentified Utah player tested positive", which means we don't know who the player is. Do you read it differently? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weird. I saw the Rudy Gobert reference where the article said at the time that he did not release the info, but they had other sources. In the meantime he confirmed. So as far as you are concerned I mislooked. My apologies. Agathoclea (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so long as all the individual names have specific coverage on people who are infected. Fundamentally not that different with any other "List of [xxx]" name lists. Juxlos (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, in my opinion. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said on the WP in french: Even on wikinews, the subject would probably be debated. Moreover, not all the people listed probably did not communicate officially about their health status, so the article is based on a certain press that is fond of this kind of information which, as said above, does not help to understand the phenomenon but is more of an unhealthy voyeurism patiently elaborated in a vast WP:NOR. Respect for privacy, human dignity, lack of hindsight, weak sources... Much more than enough to remove without delay. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless it's confined to notable people, but even then I'd still lean to delete as if they're notable they will have their own page on which the info could be place. Yrwefilledwithbugs (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is and always has been confined to notable people, meaning those who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia. Doesn't necessarily have to be the English Wikipedia. JeanPassepartout (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list only has those notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article on it, and has a reference for each entry. This is quite a notable moment in history, and the encyclopedia should have this. Dream Focus 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify Not a useless list. Multiple diseases have “notable cases” lists I don’t see why this can’t.--Rockchalk717 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What modifications do you suggest? Renerpho (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete redlinks. As above, multiple diseases have notable cases lists, and due to the excessive spread, and notability of COVID19, this should stay. G1217 (talk) 16:22, 12 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]
  • Keep, as long as it only contains notable people (Not people with their own article, as some people don't have an article) Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and list only individuals with Wikipedia articles when sourcing is available. Keep redlinks where interlanguage links exist or where notability is obvious. TJMSmith (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an RfC going on right now to change the title to indicate it's for notable people. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is ridiculous. This list is going to be massive. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like all of the 'list of women who have had abortions' lists we've deleted over the years, this is a WP:BLP nightmare in the making and unless a group of editors is willing to patrol or place pending changes on this 24/7, it'll remain that way. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)×[reply]
  • Keep It's a significant list at present and won't be a BLP issue if we stick to notable people and reliable sources. Once we hit thousands I might accept it is too widespread to be a useful list, but not yet. Ringbark (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is only a matter of time before this list gets out of hand with an eventual majority of the world population getting infected eventually much like the flu. This is not news. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list won't get out of hand. It's not listing every person on the planet who has been diagnosed, only notable people (those who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia). JeanPassepartout (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IINFO. see List of Spanish flu cases. Kanghuitari (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Editnotice has been proposed to deal with notability and BLP issues. JeanPassepartout (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Strong lean keep - As the news are keep reporting of couple to new noble cases everyday (as of March 13th), as more people who later contact the virus, there no ludicrous reason for deleting it right now as It did start as almost mundane apocalyptic-like proportions by both the site and out of it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per above & per WP:IINFO. Idolmm (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator by his/her own admission ignores Wikipedia's rules. No valid concerns are offered. Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Oppose) It is useful, and WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here, because the impact of this event is certainly going to outlast many events of the present decade (as it did the Spanish flu in the last century, for which we do have a List of Spanish flu cases). Also WP:IINFO is not applicable, as this is only containing notable people for a notable event. And of course, the number of users asking to keep this article is more than enough to disregard completely WP:Ignore all rules (which would be applicable only in blatant cases in which almost everyone agrees, without needing to consider specific rules). I think the nominator's criterion for wanting to delete this list is more related to a personal opinion that doesn't fit with either Wikipedia standards or other similar lists already present in the project. I would just make sure this list contains only notable people with source, but I wouldn't delete it. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have plenty of such lists, as other have pointed out above. Of course, only notable people with articles, and all reliably sourced - the usual criteria. Edwardx (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suggest it stays for now given it's very notable. However, I believe that after the pandemic is over then this would be a different matter. Then I would agree with removing this article but creating one for people who've died due to COVID-19. JMS Hunt 2020 (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)JMS Hunt 2020[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]
  • Keep Extremely useful, and definitely encyclopaedic. Would only break Wikipedia rules if names were not notable people. There are multiple similar lists on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this utter stupidity. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, your comment was unhelpful at best. Could you please substantiate your comment with an argument for why this article should be deleted a bit more than just saying delete this "utter stupidity"? Legion (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now, in the early stages, cases like the Trudeaus are being reported, but as the disease spreads, vast numbers of people, and vast numbers of notable people, are going to catch Covid-19 and this list will soon be unworkable. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is useful list to find who contacted virus. For delete comments that it will become too large, see WP:CRYSTAL. Störm (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Störm:, it's not CRYSTAL if epidemiologists are saying HALF the world's population will contract COVID-19 eventually. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS. Almost half of the world's population is expected to contract COVID-19. This is not at all a defining characteristic that would make for a notable topic for a list. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. As mentioned by others there are several other articles with lists of people infected by a specific disease. This fits with in that tradition. The scope of the article should only be people who are notable (Bluelinked biographies) and for which there is reliable source to prove their having been infected. The fact that this is a global disease an| that it could possibly have a disproportionate impact on “notable” people (because they interact with people who are more likely to travel a lot more) is a factor that is likely to be of importance to the future’s historians. Wittylama 14:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See List of Spanish flu cases, List of HIV-positive people. Northern Moonlight 15:18, 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]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN.--Launchballer 15:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may leads to an unlimited list that invades privacy of living person WP:BLP. The case of a famous Hollywood actor and actress couple is quite a extremely exceptional cases (see abcnews-web 12 March 2020, 23:24) because patients themselves publish online on their own. It is not so needed list article. Someone said there is List of HIV-positive people, but it says in header 'may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness'. It is nothing but what proves it is WP:IINFO article. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 18:54, 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]
  • Keep Much needed article, which depicts the importance of Coronavirus. Its already being reported in so many international news channels, hence it doesn't affect the privacy of the person by this wikipedia article. --Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely useful article. Super Ψ Dro 19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Killuminator. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as we maintain each individual's right to privacy and safety. If they've gone public or it's been reported via an indepedent news source, I think it's valid, relevant to the public interest, and encyclopedic in nature. Jccali1214 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's a good idea. --Stephen"Zap" (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NorthernMoonlight and WP:LISTN. If your argument is going to be "there will be too many people who contract it," then it's quite easy to break the list up into "entertainment", "politician", "sportspeople," etc. as separate articles. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Votes are 48-17 currently in favor of KEEP, including the vote that 117.18.231.22 tagged as a possible sock. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not SOCK, don't worry. --Kyuri1449 (talk) 05:34, 14 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]
  • Keep as long as individuals on the list themselves are notable. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For your information : the same vote in french wiki get"strange result" . [2]:Votes are 12-45 currrently in favor of DELETE. Some of the DELETE vote here are from french wiki memberMichel1961 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it refers notable people. ALoopingIcon (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename the article to include only the notable people. It is reasonable to have such a list of notable people infected. – НСНУ (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of this nature show our bias toward the recent and the sensational. The intersection is creepy and undignified. This is no more appropriate for the encyclopedia than List of people with colorectal cancer... this can be addressed in individual biographies where it proves notable — if the disease kills them, changes the trajectory of their lives in a meaningful way, or at least receives non trivial attention, like Rudy Gobert or Masoumeh Ebtekar. For everyone else, it’s not even worth mentioning in the bio, never mind a whole list. Let’s delete please -- Y not? 09:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • on second thought, I am okay to keep the list if limited to deaths. It’s really the list of infections that’s creepy and undignified -- Y not? 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - A historic list in the making. Modify the list name to include the word "notable" and add only those names that have their own Wikipedia pages, across languages. Csgir (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to change the name. Only notable people who meet WP:BIO and have an article on at least one Wikipedia are being added. There is an Editnotice to this effect. JeanPassepartout (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, the nominator claims the list falls under WP:IINFO, but is unable to explain how and why. The call for NOTNEWS is even more laughable, I wonder if he read it beyond the title. He is more credible with the WP:Ignore all rules call, which equals with a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Actually, the list easily meets both WP:SOURCELIST and WP:LISTN, which are our relevant guidelines for lists. I agree with adding "notable people" to the title of the article (about the content, it is already restricted to notable individuals). About the rest, it is only POV and fuss. --151.74.230.114 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep And I suggest to overhaul the article to include only notable people that listed. Not all people listed because it would be violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on three four previous votes: I have requested a rename to include the word notable on March 12. I withdrew that request on March 13, after an editnotice was created to deal with the problem. Editors are now warned to restrict additions to notable people who have an article about them on at least one Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Other people have been listed by medical condition as well (HIV, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and so on). Sources just need to be very strong and clear. --Quadriplegia (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep Certainly WP:NOTNEWS but this list article definitely passes WP:GNG and has been well written with reliable sufficient sources which complies with relevant current information. Abishe (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic, list is well sources, and subject is of tremendous interest to readers. — Hunter Kahn 19:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (provided it is indeed limited to notable people and kept well-sourced). This is clearly useful information and newsworthy. The main argument against it seems to be that if the disease spreads very widely, it will become so lengthy as to be unmaintainable - well, maybe so, in which case it can be reconsidered then, but we're not at that point yet. In any case, we have other similar lists on common medical conditions (List of people with epilepsy, List of people with breast cancer, List of people with type 1 diabetes, List of HIV-positive people) and seem to be able to maintain those. Robofish (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy Keep This list is notable and deserves to stay, as this is part of an international event with high noteworthiness. Also the delete reason is not very good. Swordman97 talk to me 23:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful chronicle of the unfolding pandemic. As an aside, it's the sort of information that Wikipedia is uniquely able to provide. Fishal (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should be one central place to store notable people that have been infected with the coronavirus. I do not see any reason in deleting it. However, a high standard for notability should be kept in order to not have the page overflow. CoronavirusPlagueDoctor (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP, which applies to both living and recently deceased people, and also WP:WEIGHT. It might make sense to have a mention in an article if a notable person has had a reliably sourced infection; how big the mention is, or even if a mention makes sense depends on how long the article is. But an entire list is over the top. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 02:45, 15 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]
  • Keep Provided it is limited to notable, blue-linked people, it would be useful for historians later. Probably (and unusually) it would be a good idea to have "notable" in the title so non-Wikipedians are really clear on its scope. Also, shouldn't it have 2020 in the title and not 2019? Was anyone infected in 2019? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:05, 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]
  • Delete (which is a turn around from how I felt a few days ago) When the official UK figure was about 600, the Prime Minister (or maybe someone else at his press concference) said that the probably figure was about 10,000. So the list is likely to only include 6% of those who 'ought' to be listed. Current epidemiological information seems to be that eventually we will nearly all have it with varying degrees of impact, and so the list becomes both unmanageable an irrelevant: we do not have List of people with the common cold. Comparison with List of Spanish flu cases is (no longer) valid: that has stabilised at less than 100 deaths and less than 30 recoveries (from an epidemic estimated to have had 500 million cases). Editors are not posting daily updates mentioned only in the limited media outlets of their particular interest area: the spread of knowledge about 2020 is very different from that about 1919. This is a very short termist article, and while current interest is undeniable, it will eventually be a bit of 2020 recentism. It is (I hope) probably worth having List of deaths due to COVID-19, or at least List of 2020 eaths due to COVID-19 as a record of the early spread, although the more pessimistic forecasts would have us believe that this would become equally unmanageable. Kevin McE (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - provided it is managed well and only includes notable individuals Spiderone 14:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because they are notable people. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no different than [[List of people with <insert random disease>]]. We've got hundreds of thousands of people with this specific disease, this is pure trivia. So what if these people are notable. They aren't notable for having the disease. Just like we don't have List of people with cancer, List of people with AIDS, etc... Complete WP:NON-DEFINING/WP:CRUFT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 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 would love for one of those asserting that the list is important or useful to explain what use they think it will have in a few years. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 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]
  • Keep. This is precisely the sort of list we should have for our readers. As schools and other major institutions close, our core readership will be looking for this. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt, and block indefinitely all those responsible. Or consign WP:BLP's instructions to show "regard for the subject's privacy" to the dustbin. This list is pure and unadulterated evil. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whereas we have lists of people with certain medical conditions List of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis which was something well beyond their control (birth defect, genetics, other conditions outside their control), something like this which is, to a degree, something within their control and could have been avoiding is basically labelling this people with a scarlet letter and beyond the scope of our BLP policy to group them like this. This is not to say that, for example, we cannot mention on Tom Hanks page that he was diagnosed with it (its well sourced) It's just that grouping them all as a list or category is against BLP. appropriateness. --Masem (t) 00:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it was heartfelt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With already 100k+ cases, this list is well on the way towards absurdity. What happens when there are ten million cases and a thousand entries on this list? Even now, I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and being a serious BLP issue. If someone gets Coronavirus, why is that encyclopedically notable? We don't have a list of people who have gotten the flu, and the list of notable 1918 flu patients is a list of those who died, and it's quite short at that. Not only that, but this list is becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus the BLP side: if you had an article and coronavirus, would you want a paragraph talking about how you got the sniffles for a week and the media lost its fracking mind about it? Unless someone has died of it in a notable and confirmed way, I think we oughtn't even discuss it on any page. So use what rationale you want, but I think this page ought be removed per at least WP:IAR. Also to any closer, there are a lot of new, unregistered, and suspect accounts in this thread, please ensure that all votes are kosher. What a nasty business. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. WTF people?!?! Ravensfire (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to ask the last few delete votes how it is a violation of someone's privacy to rely information about diagnoses that have been already publicized in reliable sources. This list strictly adheres to WP:BLP. "Ick" and "you have no human decency" are WP:NOTAVOTE. WPancake (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the time of this posting, Wikipedia has articles on over 945,000 living people; this number gets much higher if you count foreign language Wikipedias. The coronavirus is a global pandemic that will infect a good portion of the people on this list; even if slightly more than 2% get infected this article will have 20,000 names on it. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. I've seen editors compare this list to articles like List of HIV-positive people or List of people with type 1 diabetes. Even assuming these other articles are appropriate (which I do not necessarily believe to be true), they are different because they document people with life-long disabilities; the vast majority of people who get coronavirus will recover without issue. This article would be far more comparable to List of people who got the flu, List of people who got H1N1 or List of people who broke a bone. I also believe that generally privacy rights are an issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if the list gets big there are ways to handle that. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I gave a absurdly low number to illustrate my point; realistically I would be amazed if the number of notable people infected didn't exceed 50%. Regardless, an indiscriminate list is still indiscriminate even if broken down into dozens of sub-articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk)
  • Delete - Inappropriate subject for a list, likely to become unwieldy within weeks if not days, not a defining feature of someone's life. As a side note, I find it singularly unhelpful for the (apparent) article creator to be attempting to individually argue with each delete !voter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The list of deaths seems a certain keep; I can see cases both ways on the list of illnesses. I'd ditch that per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however remove redlinked names. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename List of coronavirus disease deaths or similar, per rationale put forward by Lightburst, epicgenius, Netoholic, Shhhhwwww!!, Bondegezou, Muboshgu, Y not?, Kevin McE, CaptainEek, Spirit of Eagle and Carrite, except instead of delete, limit scope; medical professionals are saying that a very large portion of humanity will catch this, most with light symptoms, and many others will have it and not even know it, making it akin to List of people with fever, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a case of WP:RECENTISM, where understandably there is interest due to the current shock value, but not likely to be interesting in ten years time. A death list OTOH is both more notable and more manageable, along the lines of List of pneumonia deaths. StonyBrook (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. Satisfying prurient interest is not Wikipedia's role. See Category:Lists of living people for examples of suitable not-indefinitely-expanding lists, and notice that Category:Lists of dead people does not exist. Please do not leave a WP:BADGERING comment, and particularly do not demonstrate a misunderstanding of WP:NOTCENSORED which is irrelevant to this discussion. There are 945,000 articles in Category:Living people. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the delete !votes are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the policies they keep quoting. I call WP:SNOW on getting a consensus. DigitalPanda (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's going to be too difficult to keep this list BLP compliant. Some names have been added based only on tweets. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate/Move to wikidata I don't personally think it belongs in the encyclopedia but it has some use, something on wikidata connecting biographies tested positive for it or something?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the statements above miss the point. We have only 945,000 articles on living people, so we will not "get millions" of people on this list limited to notable people. The big question is though, is someone notable for playing the Olympics in 1964, or who was a one-hit wonder in the 1980s, really worth including if they get this disease? I really do not know. Some of me thinks for some cases this might prompt us to ask if we have treated too many people as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of victims of HIV were actors, playwrights and people otherwise involved in arts and entertainment who were by any measure part of the cultural elite. It was not the political elite as we have seen suffering from COVID-19 in Iran, but many of the victims were very elite in their own way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are too many people who get COVID-19 and are asymtomatic for this to be a defining characteristic. The disease has spread too broadly for having it to really be in any way notable. I am not even sure in the long run it will even be worth mentioning in every biography we have on a person who developed COVID-19 that they did so. The mass list is not worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since each Wikipedia has its own notability guidelines, we should confine this list to people who have articles on the English Wikipedia. If you feel that someone is notable enough to be included and does not have an article, go through the process of creating the article before putting them on the list. This list otherwise would be used to do an end run around English-Wikpedia notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Each Wikipedia has different rules. So that French Wikipedia won't keep this article has no direct barring on us. I understand the "but Iranian and Spanish parliament members are clearly notable" argument. I still think we should create those articles and then add them to this list, not put the cart before the horse. It would do much good in breaking the Amerocentricity of Wikipedia if we did things in that order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is there also a seemingly similar discussion on the talk page?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support a deletion because of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS. I must say that, (at least) most of the people who oppose the deletion have not yet given even one vaild reason, and criteria for defining "notable people" in the "notable people" lists, which has not yet been defined in the list notability guidelines should be figured out (If the current notability guidelines are the only criteria, then it has no difference with no criterion). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, anyway. Related discussion in Chinese Wikipedia (for reference only). ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 14:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a much needed data on high-profile people with covid-19. Mimihitam (talk) 15:02, 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]
  • Delete - Sweet mercy! If there was ever a moment to invoke WP:IAR to delete, salt and bury an article under a ten story tall concrete tomb, this would be that moment. It is an unmitigated blessing to the world that Wikipedia did not exist in the 1940s, as AndyTheGrump's suggestion that we would have an article entitled "List of Jews known to be hiding in Nazi-occupied Europe" is near-certainly correct and – what's worse – dozens of editors would defend it because well sourced and notable. You're all so concerned with whether we can have such an article, that scarcely a thought has passed on whether we should have such an article. And no, I am no more fond of the few other such lists (for the Spanish Flu and HIV for example) that exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many negative side with personal! I can't believe my eye to read the delete votes. Shame on you! 37.111.43.38 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: especially area for notable deaths. If notable infected list gets too long, then split into different sections or pages, based on major areas or countries. HIPA issues are taken cars of once person self reports or reported in multiple sources. Iain (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above !vote isn't mine, but I'm personally transcluding it here from the article's discussion page, where it was added. It didn't show up here due to formatting issues. WPancake (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saw this on Jimbo's talk page and it can be deleted per various WP:NOT issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:06, 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 I have never said this article violates BLP. I have said this article is grouping people by a trait that is not defining in any way to the people involved. Sometimes there may be reasons to have lists that do that, but this is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lightburst — Ched (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—maybe narrowing its scope to deaths, or move to Wikidata as a compromise. Like others, I do not see how NOT or BLP is failed. I believe that any case of IAR is outweighed by the sheer usefulness of this article, that won't have the readership if it goes to Wikidata. It is undoubtedly useful for readers and undoubtedly meets GNG. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't usually !vote in response to threads on Jimbo's talk page but it's worth pointing out that this discussion has been mentioned there. I am worried about this article violating the Topsy rule where it just growed and violated WP:NOT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a fucking embarrassment to the "global encyclopedia" this is. These people are not linked together, and having in one point in their lives (chances are high that they will recover) a disease is not a defining biographical trait. Cue Got: "Shame *dingdingding* shame *dingdingding* shame!" Zaathras (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Johnuniq, this may turn out to be an indiscriminate list, which is not one of the things that Wikipedia is. As such, its deletion at the present moment should be strongly considered. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for comment I am reconsidering changing my vote. I previously said I really want to keep this list, but I am no longer sure about that. This is not a second vote (my "conditional keep" from above stands for now), but Jimmy Wales's statement made me think. I'd be more confident with my vote if the other "keepers" could explain again what they consider the appropriate step if this list got out of hand - by becoming too big, a BLP nightmare, or suffer from reduced notability once this ceases to be recent news, - and why they think that neither of these is a likely outcome. Renerpho (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the extent that BLPs are involved, the issue is whether the diagnosis is of encyclopedic value to those BLPs. Where the person is non-notable at all, there is no doubt that a non-notable attribute of a non-notable person is notable enough for Wikipedia. It isn't. And the fact is that we do not list "List of People who have had Measles" (or other diseases not especially notable for those persons), indicates that lists of non-notable attributes even of notable people are not of actual encyclopedic value. My position is that we might as well have a list of people with false teeth, list of people with plastic surgery, and a few thousand other such lists. I try to vote "Keep" at AfD if there is any valid reason to keep, (and I am known for this). Here, I find the case for deletion quite compelling. And not as a matter of "consensus" but a matter of specific policy. Collect (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOTNEWS, IINFO, and above all m:DICK. Guy (help!) 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the transmissability of this, this isn't a notable trait. If it was, we'd have to make lists for everyone who was infected with the Spanish flu or SARS, and any reasonable observer would call foul on those. This is egregious naming-and-shaming that flies in the face of our BLP policy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 23:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based both on BLP policy and the utter ridiculousness of such a list. Eventually it would consist many many thousands of names.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extremely compelling nom. --JBL (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:COMMONSENSE. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on my rationale: this is not like the list of people with HIV or cancer, because those are chronic diseases that severely affect one's life. Coronavirus, as far as we can tell, is not. You either get over it after a couple weeks or you die. (A list of notable deaths is, IMO, a valid article idea, but this is not. And presumably some people will have chronic sequelae from the disease, but this article's scope is anyone who's ever tested positive). The fact that some celebrity had a cough for a few weeks is gossip, not encyclopedic content, and yes, it is a BLP issue to give undue weight to trivial incidents, even if the media covers them. We don't have "list of people with influenza" or "list of people with norovirus", because that is obviously silly. Coronavirus does get more news coverage than those diseases, but that is WP:RECENTISM. And if the virus ends up infecting 50–80% of the population as some models project, the list will be utterly indiscriminate and useless. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admins the recent bloc of delete !votes come after canvassing on Jimbo's talk page. JeanPassepartout (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here from a bot-generated WP:AIV report about a LTA sockpuppet that had edited the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is it failing BLP? This is being covered extensively in the news and the list is comprised of high-profile people. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To repeat: I think the deaths of WP-notable people from coronavirus-SARS is an encyclopedic list; the list of illnesses, especially those with red-linked names, is personal health newsy news and is not. I hope that this change is made no matter how this particular debate ends and that only deaths are listed. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It is below any morale and I don't see any encyclopedic value in this article. Furhermore, taking into consideration how the event unfold, I think this might hurt people as they potentially might be targeted. In Ukraine, people attacked buses with the people on quarantine. Therefore, it is a legal matter and also a matter of basic dignity. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:51F0:D0B0:8E21:6B6E (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user doesn't make any edit! Idolmm (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom by Deacon Vorbis, and also per Lightburst, epicgenius, Netoholic, Shhhhwwww!!, Bondegezou, Muboshgu, Y not?, Kevin McE, CaptainEek, Spirit of Eagle and Carrite. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is intrusive and possibly a breach of BLP. We don't have lists for People with Cancer etc so this disease is no different. Report deaths, but not every recovered victim. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I’m not sure how this is BLP violation. The people are notable and there are reliable sources. The list isn’t WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list might be messy, but afd is not for cleanup.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course, it is indiscriminate. Let's not create a list a for every disease, showing every victim. Maybe make a list/article of people who are notable for their involvement in fighting the disease, who were also killed (or seriously harmed) by it.   This article really tells us nothing about the disease. --Rob (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viruses don't care about fame.Jvpnox (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listing notable people who contract a pandemic disease which is probably going to eventually infect billions, including a significant percentage of all living notable people and who are mostly going to recover without notable lasting effect is neither useful nor manageable. Even a list of notable people who actually die of the disease may become unwieldy. Also, this only includes some of the people who are both notable and who have been diagnosed, presumably with symptoms, some of which may be mild. It can never be even nearly complete, and as far as I can see, no-one has explained how it could be useful to the reader. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unless you think we should also delete this category from Wikipedia too.FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 09:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any compelling reasons among the keep !votes to retain this article. Just because names of people (notable or not) can be sourced and verified doesn't necessarily mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially when no context/background can ever be provided for every single entry in a list format of this sort. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tighten inclusion criteria so entries are required to be blue-linked and cite at least one high-quality secondary source. (i.e. no primary sources such as Twitter or Facebook and no low-quality, trivial news sources). I have read through the arguments for deletion and, disregarding frivolous or non-policy-based rationales, there seems to be two main reasons advanced. 1) The list publicises sensitive medical information of living subjects, violating WP:BLP. 2) The list violates, or will soon violate, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as an enormous number of notable people will be infected. These two legitimate issues can be solved by applying the proposed criteria.
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]
  • Keep. To dicuss this is stupid. Still dont find a good reason to delete. WP should keep this article to counter/debunk Fake news of notable persons (ie. World Presidents) that have died by the virus.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few thoughts. The fact we have several red links here shows us that our current 945,000 articles on living people in no way come close to being all the articles on living people our guidelines suggest. In fact it shows that even members of national legislatures, who are default notable and who we will keep articles on even if we are no where near having reliable source on (see Norman Kamosi as a case in point) we do not come close to having a comprehensive coverage of for even current members. Do not get me started on the problem that I was unable to find exactly what years Kamosi served in the national legislature of Zaire, or of how we have very few articles on his colleges, or of how we have articles on every member of congress ever but not ever current member of some other national legislatures. Other things to keep in mind, there are many people who suspect they have this disease in the US, but they have had to go through logs of resistence to even get tested, so even at this stage we are not close to at any level having a clue how many are infected, we are unlikely to ever have a full count. A big question to keep in mind is many of the people who are alive to do will at some future point become notable, will it ever come up that James Collins and Muhammad Khan, who are running against each other for the the New Jersey 1st congressional district seat, who are both current members of the New Jersey state legislature, both tested postive for COVID-19 10 years ago, before either ever ran for public office? I doubt it, so this will always be just a random list of some of the few notable people who were among the first diagnosed, it will never be a comprehensive list, and inclusion will not be like the HIV list limited to people for whom this became public knowledge for reasonable reasons, but just because it became public knowledge in the early stages of the outbreak. I will go on record as being unconvinced we need any of the disease lists and likely to support deletion of most of the lists, unless people come up with highly compelling reasons to keep the lists. There is none here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notion we should block "those responsible" for this list is clearly an over reaction. I suspect what will happen is that this issue will be revisted in a month of so, and by then we will admit such a list is unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert So you acknowledge that this list suffers from recentism? Renerpho (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that. I also voted to delete it. I also think Wikipedia overall suffers from both recentism and European and US centricism. The US is where we have the most coverage, followed by Europea, follow by a woeful lack in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The fact that 1989 is the year we have the most articles on people born in that year is also disturbing. Although since it has held at some year in the 1980s since at least 2006 we are getting a little less super recentist, but not much since it has moved from 1982 in 2006 to 1989 today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is heading for being an indiscriminate list. It will be basically "list of people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before Aril 1, 2020 and for various reasons this was publicly documented in reliable sources by this point." The reasons people will or will not be in this list will not in the long run be at all related to if they had the disease, or if it had a large impact on them. This is not an inevitably life affecting disease like lung cancer. The 1918-1919 Influenza list is one we basically need to scrap or at least limit to deaths because the people on it are not "notable people who had Spanish influenza" they are "government leaders who had influenza, plus a few people who later became super famous and someone who was very into doing their biographical back story decided to put on this list".John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I invite someone to nominate the Spanish Flu list for deletion on the very same basis as has been argued here for this deletion. If no one else has undertaken it by tomorrow afternoon, I will try to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on comment You are free to do so, but as far as this discussion is concerned, such an AfD request is an example of where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion of this list. The Spanish flu list does not suffer from recentism and it certainly does not touch BLP issues, so the arguments don't really overlap. Renerpho (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I counted right we had 72 for keep and 47 for delete. However it is not a vote, so the arguments on both sides need to be weighed. A few of the keep votes also were more "keep for deaths". I have to admit I am unconvinced that most of the keep votes have dealt with the fact that many people who get the disease are asymptomatic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have no problem with keeping a "List of notable people who died from COVID-19". Renerpho (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert Over reaction ? Why so serious ???? Idolmm (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the disease is still relatively new and there is not much systematic information about some aspects this is an excellent resource for looking at issues such as the very high rate at which politicians are being diagnosed, and in which countries that is happening. There may very well come a point in coming months or years where the number of notable people with the disease is unmanageably large, and it is no longer unusual for a given notable person to have it, and then it would be sensible to restrict it at that point to deaths and the most highly notable living survivors. Therealsleepycat (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments above. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a suitable topic for a list per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTNEWS, and eventual size of the list; similar lists that include living people are for lifelong conditions. The list of deaths is similar to many in Category:Lists of people by cause of death and can be kept. Peter James (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the 1918-1919 flu pandemic list. Also not List of people who caught yellow fever. Also not all mental illnesses we categorize for are clealry life-long conditions. I would however argue we probably should delete these lists, especially the yellow fever one. By the way Peter James, did you intend to vote delete? It seems that is what you want to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish people would look into the lists before commenting here. We have seperate lists for many different types of cancer, weather we should is a question I do not know has been adequately considered. We also have a list of people who suffered from the 1918-1919 Flu pandemic, but it is no where near comprehensive. We do not have a list of people who suffered from H1N1. On specific cancer lists we have List of breast cancer patients by survival status, List of people with type 1 diabetes (but not for type 2), we have List of sportspeople with diabetes which appears to be limited to people who competed as athletes with the condition. We have List of Ebola patients which includes lots of non-linked individuals. Supposedly all the people on the list are somehow notable in the context of the disease, I am not fully convinced. We have List of people with gout although that may not really be worth having. We have List of kidney stone formers which to me is probably too common to be worth having a list for (that one even has a fictional section for incidents of kidney storm forming in fictional works, I am banging my head). We have List of people with narcolepsy which had 13 entries, but is now down to 11 because I removed one redlink and one person who lacked a citation. We even have List of people with tinnitus, which is a barebones listing of a bunch of people and seems really odd considering how this is a symptom of multiple other considitions. List of people with gout has sources for very few of the people on the list. It has 71 entries but 65 of those have no sourcing. We have a total of 58 lists of people by medical condition. List of polio survivors is a clearly justified list, although even it may need a few better sources. Then we have List of people who caught Yellow Fever which somehow only has 16 entries, but at the same time has only 3 sources. I am tempted to go on a removal spree, but will refrain for a bit, but we either need more sources or removal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comparison to the HIV list is flawed for many reasons. One is that as far as we know HIV is a permanent infection that once you have it, you have it. Treatments exist, but there is no way to reverse the underlying presence, and you are permanently capable of spreading it. With COVID-19 there are much easier ways to spread it, so while you actively have it, avoiding you is much more needed, however it is not a permanent condition, and so there is no justification for covering in that respect. It is also not for many people a condition that is very much going to effect your life in the long run. So it is not like polio where there was a much higher likelihood of death, lots of disruption to those who did not die, and perment consequences that for some people came back to afflict them 70 years after they had the disease initially (see post-polio syndrome).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We seem to only have lists of people with breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer, not lung cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer, brain cancer, or as far as I can tell other cancers besides these three. Why this is I have no easy way of knowing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We actually have two lists for breast cancer, one by survivial status and the other a general list. This seems excessive to me, even if one list is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, split if necessary. Yug (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well considered article. --cyrfaw (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In its current form this article is just a stat sheet with major WP:NOT problems. If a person actually dies of coronavirus it can be noted in their article. If they are unwell for a couple of weeks with flu-like symptoms and then recover, it isn't a big deal. So far no really famous person has died from coronavirus, and no doubt when this happens there will be a great deal of coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have at least 20 articles on people who died from COVID-19. Weather any of these were "really famous" I do not know, but I am pretty sure most if not all unquestionably meet our notability criteria. However I have not seen anyone argue a problem with the list of deaths. The main concern is tagging people who may not even be particularly sick.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same considerations that led to the creation of WP:BLP. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peter Southwood and Lightburst -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is slowly losing its policy of WP:NOTNEWS as seen in IIN section on the front page and other issues. In particular Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Some of these are notable people, and some are not. Regardless of which they are, this list is not an encyclopedic topic. The fact that they all got the sickness does not mean they should constitute an article in themselves. It trivializes the issue as people think of it purely in terms of particular people who have died from it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather poorly-conceived idea of someone's notion of what journalism is, and evidence of why amateurs should not pretend to be journalists. The notability of a pandemic cannot be distilled into notability for individuals who may have contracted it. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think creating a List of people who died from COVID-19 is more reasonable than the current list. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a ridiculous list. Praxidicae (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is an important dynamic list. Also most of the red links have equivalents on other language Wikipedias. The list is an encyclopedic one that shouldn't be deleted (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2020
  • Comment. Several contributors above have suggested that the List of Spanish flu cases is a good precedent for the article currently under discussion. Having looked at the 'Spanish flu' list however, I'd have to suggest that this is open to debate, to say the least. Many of those listed as fatalities of the epidemic lack any source for said assertion entirely, either on the list or in the linked biography. Others are stated in the biography as having died 'during' the epidemic, which is self-evidently not the same thing as dying as a consequence of it, though no doubt some did. One I looked at, William F. Hooley, had an unsourced assertion regarding him having died a victim of the 1918 flu pandemic inserted immediately after a properly-sourced quotation stating that he had died "suddenly and inexplicably" [3]. An edit made in 2016, and unremarked on since, despite the obvious contradiction. The list is thus often unverifiable and some of the entries look like pure guesswork. Obviously, there are no WP:BLP concerns raised, but as an example of how Wikipedia does things it hardly proves the point that people have claimed, and as a source of 'data' it is more or less useless. On the other hand, as evidence to why enthusiasm for lists as sources of 'data' should be treated with a degree of scepticism, it is a prime example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: If the result is deletion, I'd like to import this to wikidata and ensure that the relevant items have been updated, so please ping me. Thanks so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. ——SN54129 11:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree with others that a list of notable people who die of COVID-19 would be encyclopaedic; but this list is no more encyclopaedic than e.g. List of people with measles or List of people with appendicitis. Narky Blert (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the nom acknowledges it meets list requirements but claims IAR, that's enough said right there. That being said, support trimming it to individuals with articles. The fact that many have articles on other Wikipedias isn't enough to make them notable since they have different notability guidelines than us. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSER. This page is one of the most egregious WP:BLP violations I've ever seen here, deliberately trumpeting info about people's health (one of the most private things a person has), including a lot of people who are only marginally public figures. We have no easy way of knowing if all of these people would be happy with their health info being trumped on one of the world's most read website, and preserved to posterity to peruse decades for now. But I doubt it.
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]
  • Comment We have seen all red links removed. I am not sure how long that will hold. It does not in any way solve the problems of undue weight, the disease being non-defining to most sufferers, or any of the other major issues that have been brought up in favor of deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep but with reforms It was this page that I was in fact looking for before it was created (thank you whoever created it), as I was curious which notable people have coronavirus and who died/recovered from it. In my humble opinion, I think that pandemic should be extensively documented all the way down to this, as this is clearly a most significant historical event in the twenty-first century. However, I recognize the privacy issues and I think the article may well be in need of reforms. Yet, I strongly urges against deleting this article in any circumstances; I believe it can be salvaged. Should the article be deleted, I would like to know what are good alternative sources for tracking the data like this? I have feeling there is none right now... Legion (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional thoughts: Should this article be deleted, I would like to suggest that an user create a copy of this artilce on their page and then update it regularly. That I would appreciate very much. Let me know if any of you created this alternative. Thanks Legion (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are dozens of notable people diagnosed only in Spain already. In the next few days, that alone will be +100. Same with Italy and we'll see the same in many other countries. How a list that will have soon +1000 items is useful? And then, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS. That being said, the fact that someone is infected may be notable for other articles, such as their bio, or the article about the pandemia in a given country. --MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable by Wikipedia standards? Enough to have a Wikipedia article that is? That's the only people getting listed. And the length of the article is never a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 19:12, 18 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]
  • Keep Was looking for this article for information and found it, so it served its purpose. Lots of such type of articles exist so this one should too. Nikolaiho☎️📖 21:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I echo many above with indiscriminate, noteverything, and notnews. I could see a list of notable people that died to the virus, but this is not that. Largely I see it as a list that has little to no encyclopedic value. From a data standpoint it does not really tell our reader anything about the virus, the people affected, or what happened as a result. It comes across as a list for the sake of a list, where WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR comes in. This is all big news now, listing the who's who of who caught it, but is it something that will be notable about that person in even a few months? I cannot think of a situation, assuming the survived it, that it would be the case which is where WP:NOTNEWS is useful for situations like that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't agree with the idea that this is evil, or even pernicious, I just don't think it is useful or worth maintaining. A list of notables who died, possibly, but there is will be a category for that, at the very least. If I am proved wrong by the passage of time and there is to be a list at some future date, it can probably best be created from Wikidata. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Also another thought here. If the length of this article is a concern, then I suggest considering breaking it up into articles by their own category. For example, categories as used in this article: Entertainment, Politics, Sports, and Others. Alternatively, I suggest considering breaking them up into articles by countries and dependent territories. For the United States, I suggest further breaking up into articles by states if necessary. All in all, as I said earlier, I advocated keeping the lists but reform it so to be manageable. It have their own purposes. How many readers have come to look for these information? I certainly did. Legion (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is a completely indiscriminate list, limited only by whether or not the person is notable. It is not a defining characteristic of any of the people on this list, and isn't even worth a category per WP:COPDEF. – bradv🍁 00:55, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_coronavirus_disease_2019&oldid=1138019061"