Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eynar (talk | contribs) at 10:22, 13 March 2020 (Keep (oppose)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

[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)[reply]
  • 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)[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]
  • 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]
  • KEEP (Oppose). I'm in agreeance 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]
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]
  • 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 notable ... 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_coronavirus_disease_2019&oldid=945341659"