Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW, and the nominator is already blocked. There is an overwhelming majority in favor of keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[edit]

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

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

Per WP:BLP, which applies to both living and recently deceased people. Recentism and completely unnecessary. This will grow out of hand and become unworkable, even if it's just a tiny fraction of the 945,000 living people on Wikipedia. This is best managed by self-maintaining categories from individual articles. Dollywares (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has 17 edits on Wikipedia., of which two are in the article space. One is adding the template to the article for this nomination, another one is obvious vandalism [1].--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Dollywares (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

That is inflammatory and a personal attack. It has no place in an AfD debate. Please stick to the merits of this discussion. Dollywares (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, not quite unsurprisingly, has been blocked as a sock. My text which they removed above calling it a personal attack was that we do not show good faith towards vandals.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my first reaction is WP:NOTNEWS and we have seen this movie before (It ends in deletion). Not really the job of our encyclopedia to have a dynamic list which will stretch into the millions, or perhaps billions. And what criteria is there for being on this list? i.e. all deaths? prominent deaths? ~~I will withhold my !vote until I see what arguments other editors make.~~ Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that from the edit summary that this was an attempt to recreate a list after a contentious AfD and deletion review ended with a firm delete. Trout to the creator for circumventing the procedures to recreate an article/list that will waste valuable editor time rehashing protracted arguments. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quote of the closing statement of the previous AfD is "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)."--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@Lightburst: are you referring to this deletion discussion? if so, I don't think the editor created a duplicate list at all. The subject of deleted list is people with COVID-19, where as this list is people who died from COVID-19. I'd argue that the difference between a list of living people with this virus (and fluidity in sources) and a list of dead people because of the virus is that of night and day. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you. I still maintain it is WP:NOT the job of an encyclopedia to create or maintain an incomplete list with arbitrary inclusion or exclusion criteria. NLists should be focussed. I will think on it some more. It seems that these Carona lists and articles are popping up like Pokémon articles. Lightburst (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is very generic and applies to almost any list, take List of 20th-century women artists. The only option compatible with our policies is to only include notable persons and, in particular, to disalow redlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my original nomination to reflect what is being discussed on the talk page, that any deaths even tangentially related to the pandemic should be included (e.g. drank bleach or committed suicide). Dollywares (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be rather disingenuous. There was a question raised on the talk page as to whether deaths tangentially related to the pandemic, but it was never presented as a proposal and has little support. The likelihood of it ever happening will be virtually removed if the proposed article move, which has majority support, is acted upon. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inspiring filler creation (requiring more deletion later). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It clearly follows WP:SALAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE, in line with lists such as List of people who died by hanging and List of people who died on the toilet (didn't know the latter was so common...). Recentism? perhaps, yet so is literally everything related to COVID-19. I'd also question whether WP:BDP really is an issue here -- not only are the deaths verified by reliable sources, but rather 'dying from COVID-19' doesn't exactly strike me as being something salacious. FWIW, I personally was curious to see which notable individuals passed away due to the virus, and evidently the 7,000 daily readers are curious too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you recognized one yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: yes, unfortunately. Mark Blum, actor, and "repeat offender" of the Law & Order franchise. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the one entry that gave you what you came for made you sad. Did the other seventy just disappoint? Or something better? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This virus has clearly developed a rich taste for the arts, so if anything I'm surprised. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would've supported deletion of the other article, but this seems much more manageable and appropriate (as well as inevitable). We're already seeing this supported by lots of reliable sources treating this subject as a group, covering SALAT/LISTPEOPLE. Certainly limit the list to those well-supported by reliable sources, and to notable people with articles, but beyond that I don't see a problem here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin The nonimator has been recently re-active on Wikipedia for only AFD, see also other editor's comment on his talk page. The user's last edit was in 2018 and back recently. Isn't this strange? So, we need check user for this user. Thanks 37.111.43.38 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling edit: Like -Ymblanter has pointed out. I too found this edit by the nominator curious and potential vandalism. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Less time spent with ad hominems and more time actually addressing the merit of the deletion discussion would be of a benefit to everyone, I'd say. As several editors have already weighed-in, attempting to short-circuit the afd on technical grounds would be rather contentious. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I agreed with the nominator so - attempting to short-circuit afd on technical grounds seems unlikely. carry on. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. Note that I voted delete for the other, more broad article "List of people with coronavirus disease 2019". At that discussion, I argued 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. However, deaths are relatively rare, and much easier to source and track. Also, based on the comments above evidencing other questionable edits by the nominator, I am unsure whether this is a good faith nomination. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all convinced that the group of persons who have died from COVID-19 is itself notable. The pandemic and the casualties in general (i.e. the numbers, the locales etc...) have obviously been discussed at length, but the celebrity/famous deaths have by & large? No. Leave the mentions to their respective biographical articles. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is not trivial and definitely encyclopedic, so it meets WP:SALAT. I do think the stringent criteria of already having a WP article should be retained, as the list could become unwieldy with red links otherwise. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed by others above. Meets WP:NLIST, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE. User:MelbourneStar puts it well in their explanation. (Additionally, where there was no consensus on the "List of people WITH it" discussion, there was definitely a consensus to keep a well-sourced "List of DEATHS from COVID-19" page.)Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If/when this grows to a point where the list becomes unmanageable as the nominator says, then we can discuss splitting it as appropriate. "This will be a long article someday" is not a reason to delete a worthwhile page. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I can see this being a complicated list, what are all the qualifiers here to be included on the list? Will the pandemic last in to 2021?? A whole year? That could include a lot of people. For that I think the list could fail due to content size. Then I suggest Deletion. I really don't like the morbid nature of this list, however we seem to have these things on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy Category:Lists of people by cause of death has lists related to disease, overdose, suicide, execution, genocide, murder - all morbid. WP:NOTCENSORED. Most of those lists are huge as well. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agreed with deleting the list of infected as for most people it is an illness of minor length and seriousness. Cause of death however is obviously more notable for a person's biography. Category:Lists of people by cause of death includes several lists which are far longer and far less related to each other - List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication is a colossal Featured List. The BLP concern is not an argument, reliable sources are required for every page on Wikipedia and there are lists of deaths where the cause would be much more stigmatised, such as the aforementioned drug overdose page or List of HIV-positive people (also featured list) Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't see any rationale for it to be deleted at this point - we have other similar lists of people by cause of death, and this one can be further updated in real time, which is useful. Furthermore, I've been checking it every day, and I see others have been as well. So from that (admittedly narrow) perspective alone, it's something people are interested in, and should be kept accordingly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please I think this is important data worth consolidating in one place and referring to, to shore up what the pandemic's losses might add up to over weeks and months - I agree that there are other similar lists of people by cause of death, and this one can be further updated in real time, which is useful. I want a reference like this. - Jeanmarine2 - 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Of great interest. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly relevant and useful. Will continue to be relevant and useful long after the pandemic is over. Exactly the sort of information that should be and is aggregated on Wikipedia. Brycehughes (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable deaths is fine and manageable unlike the list of everybody with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I look at this list every day. Lots of people are looking at it. That alone makes it worthy of keeping. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per all of the above. Clearly defined criteria, non-trivial, able to be maintained, high readership. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and encyclopedic. No clear rationale behind this deletion request. Azerty82 (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to keep the list, based on the criteria in Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE, and in comparison with other such lists.–Jérôme (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly relevant and encyclopedic list. Why would we intentionally make it more difficult for our readers to find encyclopedic information about a topic of extreme importance? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per all of the above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are all notable people who died prematurely in the greatest disaster of our generation. It is fitting and appropriate to record their passing. In the event of growth, the article may be split as necessary. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if that happens then we can think about it at that point. Not now. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be a snow keep. Not in violation of any notability policies for lists. Spiderone 10:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be this can be something historically needed! MM17^(discuss) 11:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be good to stop blindly following arbitrary Wikipedia blahblahblah rules and instead think of the common interest for society. This is an article that will help to inform people and make them take the virus more seriously. Why is it that so many articles about irrelevant writers or people who starred in 1 porn movie in 1971 are kept, but not a list of victims of an ongoing pandemic? I truly don't get the logic of Wikipedians. I hope that you guys will follow the path of wisdom. --Spafky (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered how the overwhelming majority of preceding Wikipedians are blahblahblahing with you, at least as far as this society's arbitrary rules and common interest goes? Also, there is kept a list of ongoing pandemic victims. Because we listen to Wikipedians, not logic (it's all good). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have not seen any real argument against this article's usefulness or notability, only vague ideas that it will become unmanageable at some point in the future. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:42, 29 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.