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. Rough consensus is that a pure list of people who died is not appropriate for Wikipedia because of WP:OR and notability reasons, but that the topic is better covered in a prose article such as the one being prepared at Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (into which the information in this list has apparently already been integrated). Sandstein 12:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19

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

List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure the subject itself is notable enough for a list - I'm sure lots of COVID deniers have died from COVID, but I'm not sure what makes such a list encyclopedic. Does not appear to meet the requirements in WP:LISTPEOPLE or WP:MEDCASE. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak delete: While this doesn't seem too much of a bad article, it might be better as a category. Dunutubble ( talk) 21:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
It is only to include people who already made it into an article. Could also be a category, yes. Sturmflut ( talk) 21:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I was just thinking that as I submitted this AfD that a Category might make a lot more sense. Possibly as a sub-category of Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: I have changed my mind. This is a notable article- I now stand by DMack. I would additionally like to add that the only real problem is the name of the article, not the subject. Dunutubble ( talk) 22:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Not keep as written but rename or convert to article. My main concern as it stands is the term "prominent". Better would be "notable", then we automatically have inclusion criteria consistent with the rest of our site (I think that is the criterion Sturmflut is proposing). I'm not sure if simply collecting them in a "list of..." (or maybe even via cat) is suitable if we don't have any independent support that this is a known topic or key aspect of them as individuals. As a start, I would want to see a WP article about this as a social phenomenon, but I have no idea what its title should be. The following:
  • Ali, Shirin (December 2, 2021). "More and more conservative media leaders are dying from COVID-19 after advocating against vaccines". The Hill.
  • Judkis, Maura (October 7, 2021). "What do all these stories of vaccine denial deaths do to our sense of empathy?". The Washington Post.
might be enough to establish notability of the topic (there are tons more, these were just the first two fairly-recent in mainstream sources). And "being mentioned in those articles" could be an alternate inclusion criterion for a cherry-picked in-article list. So that would meet both bullet-points of WP:LISTPEOPLE. DMacks ( talk) 21:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
That might be a good option- This does seem to be an possibly noteworthy topic Dunutubble ( talk) 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh, come one. We can have a polite debate/discussion about whether to keep or delete this article without being silly. Of course, that's not what I'm saying! But the fact that a very reputable newspaper (or multiple newspapers) have an article on the subject does not necessarily mean the subject becomes notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't always share the same subjects as a newspaper. Yes, reliable sources are needed to support notability of a subject. But newspapers also like to make a point, have an editorial role in reporting, and doesn't automatically equate with a Wikipedia article. It's certainly good evidence of notability. But I stand by my original view that this is trying to just make an ironic point - which newspapers are free to do, but Wikipedia is not. Singularity42 ( talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The news sources have gone beyond merely making the ironic point, though. There are sources specifically examining the phenomenon of other sources making the ironic point, and the impact of this categorization. Our criteria for inclusion are based on coverage of a subject in reliable sources. We might quibble over the presentation of this phenomenon, but there has to be a policy-based rationale for deletion. BD2412 T 23:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Your logical train looks reasonable to me too, but I think it heads deeply into WP:SYNTH rather than WP:BLUE. It's using our own epidemiological/data-collection in order to refute common sceptic positions of "there's no virus" or "the vaccine is useless". So instead, we rely on published sources to define topics of "notability" based on what reliable sources choose to write about. It's not our position to decide therefore they're just filling column-inches with a '2+2=4' editorial. DMacks ( talk) 01:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • That can be controlled through reasonable editing limitations. I have proposed with respect to the draft that individuals included on that page be limited to those for whom reliable sources specifically reported the connection between the decedant's anti-vaccine activism and their death from COVID (so drawing that relationship is not left to editors). It has been proposed elsewhere that the list be limited to subjects with articles of their own, though I have not yet taken that position. I will be happy to enforce appropriate standards established for the page, and discussion and consensus for any challenged additions to the list. BD2412 T 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Just to clarify, the "you" to whom I was responding was Singularity42. DMacks ( talk) 02:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Much appreciated. I have moved my draft to Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19, and put a more up-front focus on the phenomenon of these deaths being collected and reported, relegating the list to section. I think that this will be a better approach going forward. There may be some data on the actual effects of this reporting (i.e., does media reporting on anti-vaxxer COVID-19 deaths actually move the needle towards vaccine-hesitant people getting vaccination). BD2412 T 04:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV as there is no clear definition of a COVID-19 skeptic. The provided sources demonstrate that anti-vaxxers are discussed as a group, but that's not the topic of this article. Renewal6 ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TompaDompa and Renewal6. This article just feels as WP:POINTy as Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, which I nominated for deletion, to great success. Love of Corey ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per subjective nature of the article (i.e. what may or may not make someone a "prominent COVID-19 skeptic"). Also per recent AFDs on two very similar articles linked above which closed with overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    How do you feel about the alternative term "notable", which has an objective meaning on wikipedia? DMacks ( talk) 19:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • “Notable” is a better choice of words than “prominent,” though I still support deletion of this article Frank Anchor 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This general issue is recurring in Wikipedia and I do not know how to access information on other comparable stories. I think there used to be some list for "anti-LGBT+ politicians and leaders known to have same sex lovers" which was deleted, and I think that is a comparable situation. Also I think there was some category or article for "HIV deniers who died of AIDS". I see arguments above that it is original research for Wikipedians to combine stories about "people who oppose X" with stories of those same people doing X. The reason why I think it is okay to have original articles about this is that it even if only some and not all list members are the subject of journalism for their conflicting positions, Wikipedia is the place for this kind of original list compilation. I do not think there is often ambiguity about whether or not someone is a COVID denier or whether someone dies of COVID; we will have sufficient sources to confirm such things. When this discussion progresses I think it should go in a list for some kind of policy or casebook page, because this same discussion will happen again in other contexts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Those examples sound like very blatant WP:Attack pages. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ TompaDompa: Why? And do you think this page is an attack page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Your first example inevitably comes across as an attempt to call people out for perceived hypocrisy, and your second example inevitably comes across as an attempt to mock people by juxtaposing their cause of death with their previously held beliefs. The latter also applies to this list. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dunutubble, DMacks, Clarityfiend, and Bluerasberry: Do you have an opinion on my proposal to merge this into Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 (I have already basically merged the list, but am focusing the draft itself on reporting of the phenomenon). BD2412 T 05:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: Yes merge right? And maybe history merge too, if there is not an edit conflict. I think your edits came before all the ones in the draft we are discussing. Why not? It is the same topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I definitely support the existance of your draft as an article. I would also support inclusion of an embedded list within it (merging from the nominated stand-alone page) if others feel that the stand-alone list page should not exist. DMacks ( talk) 15:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Neutral: The draft is well-written and fits the ideal of notability. But I am not sure about merging. Dunutubble ( talk) 16:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merging would be okay, but the table needs to be put in alphabetical order and pruned: many of the redlinks don't warrant articles, e.g. canvasser Hartman. Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; per WP:POINT and Love of Corey comments above. Spf121188 ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to draft pointed out by BD. @ BD2412: why is that doc still a draft? 40 sources, deep analysis, seems complete enough to promote. Hyperbolick ( talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I'd rather make sure that the editors who are generally opposed to lists on this topic are satisfied that the coverage in the draft takes it out of this category of concern. There is still more content that can be drawn from sources already in the draft to this end, and more to be found in the literature. BD2412 T 15:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TompaPompa's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The average AFD discussion takes around 7 days. This is the seventh day of AFD nomination. However I personally believe the discussion will last for a longer time. Dunutubble ( talk) 18:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Dunutubble: It is common for well-contested AfD topics to be relisted, sometimes twice. I would therefore estimate that the average length of an AfD discussion is around 10 days. BD2412 T 18:02, 10 January 2022 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prominent_COVID-19_sceptics_who_have_died_from_COVID-19&oldid=1065029513"