The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 – Endorse. With a discussion of this magnitude, it's not surprising that many of the arguments were more appropriate to AfD than DRV, and I felt it reasonable to allow somewhat more latitude in that respect than we normally would at DRV. Those making policy-based (albeit AfD-ish) arguments to overturn claim that the WP:BLP issues could be resolved by better sourcing and that WP:LISTN is satisfied. There was some feeling that the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue could be dealt with by limiting the list to notable people, and the WP:BLP issue could be resolved by changing the list to people who had died of the disease. Other than that, there was a smattering of WP:OTHERSTUFF type arguments (both we have other stuff, and the news media have similar lists), and appeals to vote counting. Ultimately, the endorse arguments seemed more policy based, as well as outnumbering the overturn arguments by about 3:2. -- RoySmith(talk)15:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I do not agree with Barkeep49's conclusion that there was a consensus reached, never mind the consensus being to delete. Granted, there are some appalling excuses for keep votes tending towards WP:ILIKEIT. However, not all of them are - my keep vote cited WP:LISTN, for example. This is, in my estimation, the very definition of no consensus, and if you check the talk page of the discussion you'll see I'm not alone in thinking this. Launchballer12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close This is basically a massively indiscriminate list for something that is going to impact a significant percentage of the worlds population. A list of people who died from the virus is perhaps relevant, or a category but not people who had it for the same reason List of people who have had measles would be irrelevant. It also seems incompatible with our BLP policy. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a list of noteworthy people with Wikipedia articles who had measles be irrelevent? Much of the debate surrounding mandatory vaccines is based on the assumption that people who acquired measles had lasting injuries. Not a perfect data set, but still worth havingGeo8rge (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly no consensus to delete here. May have been consensus to keep, but I'm not going to waste time debating whether it should have been keep or no consensus. Any BLP arguments were made in error, and given too much weight, as BLP does allow contentious claims provided they are properly sourced, which they were. And if a couple of them weren't, they should have been removed or sources added, not the whole article deleted. Arguments that the list will eventually become unmanageable/indiscriminate are pure WP:CRYSTAL, which works both ways and should be given no weight in deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold It is clear from events that have transpired since this AfD was closed that this article, if restored, would be unmanageable and impossibly long. However, just because the crystal ball was right doesn't make it any more acceptable an argument to use at AfD, and my argument above for why the closure was incorrect at the time it was made still applies, so this is explicitly not an endorsement of it. Rather, per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, it is better to keep it deleted rather than restore and immediately take it to a second AfD. I am well aware that this is not a valid DRV vote, but perhaps we need a Scots verdict for when neither Endorse nor Overturn are fully acceptable. Smartyllama (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check: We have 950,000 articles about living people. Nearly all of them are adults and they travel more and have more contacts than the population average, so I assume their risk to get infected is at least as high as the population average. (confirmed cases*Wikipedia articles)/(world population) = 52. Hmm, much lower than I expected. Notable people are more likely to get tested or they are much more likely to be infected. Anyway, the list was already long, and it's only getting longer. --mfb (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per Smartyllama. Undue weight was given by the admin to the (flawed) delete arguments in order to support a blanket deletion for something that was at worst a no consensus. Claims of violations of WP:NOT were made but never clearly explained. WPancake (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Editors not agreeing with explanations does not mean that they were not explained. The impossibility of maintaining the list in a way that vaguely approaches completeness, and the medical facts of the likelihood that most will never be diagnosed, and the minimal long term medical impact on the vast majority of those affected such that it is a non-defining characteristic have been thoroughly and repeatedly rehearsed and do not need to be repeated. What is it that WPancake still needs explanation of (as opposed to being convinced over)? Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone who has privileged access to the content of the deleted article please extract the information on fatalities, which was for the most part well sourced as I recall, and set it up as the basis of List of deaths due to Covid-19 (or something similar. Thanks in advance. Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Individual articles mention if the person was diagnosed with COVID, likely because the individual issued a press release or it was news worthy. So I don't see why it is listed in articles but a list of articles mentioning it is forbidden. Were there any not notable people on the list?Geo8rge (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete as a preponderance of keep votes was explicitly stated in the close. Rather than respecting the views of this majority per WP:DGFA, the close engaged in wikilawyering to cast a supervote. The close conceded that there were valid ways that the article might be improved or restructured but failed to follow this logic per policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Again, this was contrary to the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". And, as this is a topic of particular public interest, it sets a bad example to be suppressing information about it. People will continue to seek out this information and there are plenty of respectable sources providing it such as the New York Times. Wikipedia has been establishing a good reputation as a clearing-house and consolidator of such public information and we should not give this up so lightly. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - (edit conflict) So, to first confront the above (based on their original !vote), they didn't engage in wikilawyering, they enacted the fairly clear rules about AfD reasoning being required to be policy backed. The article also couldn't have been improved/restructured as it was - a list of deaths would be a fundamentally different beast. Though I'd probably have advised noting he'd be happy to aid pulling that content out if requested. Considering the relevant arguments, I don't think this call was beyond the bounds of possibility. There were specifically rebuttals to the indiscriminate (et al) delete arguments, and I'm not sure the weighting for a straight delete was what I'd have gone for, but nor was it nuts. At this point, I'm going for a weak endorse - if that is rejected, I'd support either a relisting, or a No consensus. I would not support a panel close. Nosebagbear (talk)
No, they didn't follow "the rules". WP:DGFA is the page which explains the rules for making closes. There was manifest doubt in several respects but the closer still deleted regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion resulted in two consensuses. The first was that we could have a List of notable people with a confirmed diagnosis of covid-19, or list with a very similar title. The second was that this was not that list. The closer's analysis of the debate was broadly correct, if a bit oddly-phrased in places. I think the right outcome for this DRV would be to endorse the close but restore the content to draft space in order to facilitate reworking to the new-style list.—S MarshallT/C14:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's Comment So it was not an easy close. The part, even now, that I admit the most uncertainty with was whether or not to have preserved the death information. To do so in a license complaint way would have also meant preserving the rest of the information. Given the BLP concerns I decided that called for deletion rather than selective preservation. I don't think there's anything else for me to address at this point that I didn't already in the close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Not only was there a clear consensus to keep, the nom made zero mention of BLP as their rationale and there was initially little to no mention of BLP not only from the keep voters, but even from the delete voters - have a look and you'll see. It was only later in the discussion that some delete voters started bringing up BLP and many people, including me, began to counter that the article is in clear adherence to BLP. Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree the nomination was poor and I gave it almost no weight. However there was much discussion beyond that. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm not sure which magic formula has brought people to think that so many people interested in keeping a page should be overlooked eventually. Just let things be if enough people like them. Just let them be. Let them be, really. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While you could argue there was a consensus to keep, I would argue that you couldn't possibly come up with a more clear example of "No consensus", so I think the decision to delete was inappropriate. The closer cited BLP issues but gives no indication at all about how BLP is violated, which I would argue it isn't since all entries are well-sourced, and because it's impossible for someone to be added on this list if there isn't already an existing primary source about their diagnosis, therefore it's already public information. (There's also no shame in simply being diagnosed with an illness, so I don't know why so many people are worked up about it being a possible BLP violation in the first place.) I know this would've been a tough close either way and I know Barkeep49 acted in good faith, but I think his decision flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS and his policy-based arguments for deletion are weak. — HunterKahn15:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLP - must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. The list almost universially was working from reliable sources that were relaying press releases. More dubious were reliable sources relying on celebrities posting about what they think their diagnosis was on their social media, but a notable person posts something on facebook, there is no privacy issue. Geo8rge (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Consensus was not reached, and there are comparable articles for other diseases. I would comment that entries should be limited to people (i) who have enough notability to have their own Wikipedia article, and (ii) who have made it publicly known that they have COVID-19. --Orthorhombic, 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times has no problem: Celebrities, Athletes and Politicians With Coronavirus [1]
Overturn. I hate to criticize my fellow volunteers, but the overwhelming number of experienced users wanted to keep this list. We can't all pile on and parrot back what another editor says, so sometimes you just have to say 'per Bearian' or whatever. This list was being shared on social media, and our readers are looking for this information. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is the kind of close I wish more admins were willing to make. It seems these are the primary arguments of overturn supporters here (with my responses): (1) Nom: while there were bad !votes on both sides, not all keep !votes were bad and there was therefore no consensus. But the closer never argued that all keep voters were bad; closer discounted some keep and some delete opinions and weighed the consensus, and nom made no argument why this was actually no consensus. (2) BLP given too much weight; well-sourced claims are fine under BLP. !voters in the AfD did not claim the whole article was a BLP vio; delete !voters argued both that (i) policing the article for BLP vios would be difficult so there would always be violations, (ii) the list gives undue weight or unnecessarily detailed/centralized coverage to the COVID-19 aspect of someone's life (think of someone with a two-line stub article being included in the list, for example). (3) Undue weight was given to delete arguments, and NOT argument not explained. Seems like due weight was given to me, and AfD voters primarily cited NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which notes that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". While this argument probably works only in conjunction with other policies, this does not invalidate the closure. (4) WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete". DGFA specifically says a "rough consensus" prevails, and in context, "When in doubt, don't delete" refers to the capacity of the deleting administrator (i.e. when in doubt of own neutrality, don't delete). (5) AfD nom didn't mention BLP. But that doesn't really matter if it's discussed by !voters. (6) Closer did not enumerate BLP violations. But !voters did, and the closer doesn't have to. (7) There are comparable articles, and a list should be made that only includes self-identified notable cases. But that's not what this list was, and the history will contain all the cases that don't meet these criteria. I can find no other grounds to overturn, so I must endorse. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed to see experienced editors making arguments here that are inappropriate for DRV. I hope they will be disregarded by the closer of this discussion. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 19:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re (4), the closer clearly had doubts because they say above that it was "not an easy close" and "even now, that I admit the most uncertainty". When they are not sure themselves, they should not be imposing a minority view and claiming that it's a consensus. That's more than rough – it's riding roughshod. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what I wrote. It's not what I meant. "Not an easy close" just means that I put a lot of thought and care into the close. Some closes are easy - the consensus is clear and no explanation is needed and you can just use the default language of XFD. The most uncertainty was around the consensus that a list of deaths is notable and how that ties into BLP. Best Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think many of those asking for an overturn here might do well to read Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. Since my interpretation of WP:BLP policy is clearly at odds with many (most?) more regular Wikipedia contributors, I'm not going to explicitly endorse the closure here, but instead ask those who are basing arguments for the lists on the basis that if something can be sourced, it can be used, what exactly they think the purpose of the instruction to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" is? And no, the article wasn't always sourced to the subject's own announcements, and even where it was such announcements can be compelled by media pressure. If people are going to use 'it has been sourced, so we can use it' arguments, they should be honest, and remove the "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" clause from WP:BLP altogether. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 there is "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". Bingo, that's just what this closer did. Thanks for sharing. — HunterKahn17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stating opinion as fact doesn't become any more convincing by writing 'bingo' before it. And your own arguments for an overturn seem to rest largely on assertions that WP:BLP policy doesn't apply. Arguments which may be proper for an AfD, but aren't relevant to an assessment of what the consensus at the AfD was. But whatever, this review isn't going to be decided by !votes. At least, I hope not, since if that is the case, Wikipedia may as well scrap it policies and guidelines wholesale, and instead solve all content disputes with 'like' and 'dislike' buttons. Meanwhile, per Wikipedia:Consensus, AfD's have to be closed after being "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", which is what Barkeep49 says he has done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(did not vote in AFD) Endorse per Kevin's reasoning, and I also agree with Kevin that I wish more admin were willing to make this kind of close. This is what NOTAVOTE looks like. Once you discount the throw-away votes on both sides (keep, it's useful, or delete, it's evil, etc.), what's left are policy-based delete rationales that have the support of longstanding global consensus (like NOT and BLP), which were never really addressed by keep voters other than to assert or express their opinion that the article doesn't violate policy (see the comment by AndyTheGrump above for more on this point). Some of the keep rationales were nuts, like "it doesn't violate BLP because it's cited to a primary source" (what??). This type of article is very clearly against our core policies, it just doesn't matter how many people show up and say "Keep, it's notable". Similarly, it doesn't matter how many people who voted keep in the AFD show up here to say "overturn", or how many who voted delete in the AFD show up here to say "endorse". As the saying goes, "DRV is not AFD round 2". It'd be swell if editors who voted in the AFD explicitly noted that in their votes here. It'd be even better if they didn't vote here at all, and let uninvolved editors with fresh eyes discuss the close. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(!voted to deleted in AfD <- These should be required disclaimers for AfD participants, imo) Endorse – I am surprised, going through the !votes again today, to find that the proportion of non-arguments is heavily weighted against keep !voters. I expected it to be about even, or slightly against keep. That is not to say that there were not weak !votes to delete, but by rough count I found the proportion of non-arguments to be between 3:1 and 4:1 against keep !votes. This is especially true in the early days of the AfD where many keep !votes hinge on some variation of not useless or COVID-19 is significant. Both utterly irrelevant arguments. The latter period appears dominated by "well sourced, notable" and rebuttals of delete arguments. The main argument to delete does not hinge on poor sourcing or the insignificance of the subject. It hinges on an aspect of BLP policy, not indiscriminate, and providing DUE weight. There were attempts to address these, but with varying success. To the argument that contentious material must be removed, the keep side pointed out – rightly – that unsourced/poorly sourced contentious claims must be removed. Most of the claims are neither poorly sourced nor unsourced. This delete argument is thus weak. To the argument that the list is indiscriminate, the keep side argued that the list is highly discriminate because only notable people are/should be listed. That rather misses the point, since if even 1% of the ~95 950 thousand notable BLP subjects catch the virus that leaves us with 9,500 entries. This delete argument is thus strong. To the argument that the list provides undue coverage to a single minor aspect of each individual's life, I failed to find a valid counter-argument, except for a minority that proposed only deaths be listed (also addresses IINFO). In this case, the delete argument is strong. However, as noted in the close, there is some consensus favouring a list of notable deaths. In summation, discounting non-arguments significantly impacted the strength and number of keep to delete !votes, there were no particularly compelling arguments to keep, and there were two strong arguments in favour of deletion (IINFO and DUE) that were not sufficiently countered. Hence, endorse. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum regarding my own "!vote" My own "argument" to delete was IAR as the list strikes me as thoughtless. I maintain that view, but in a deletion discussion it holds extremely little weight. It did not impact my assessment here, though I am pleased to be able to endorse the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I was not involved in the previous discussion, but there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. I would request that the closer voluntarily withdraw their close and relist the discussion, perhaps for a three-admin panel closing. BD2412T18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(did not participate/vote in the AfD) Overturn as a consensus – either to keep or delete – was not actually reached. While the virus is expected to infect a sizeable part of the world's population, for now I think it would be justifiable to keep a list since that expectation has not yet materialized (and I hope it would not materialize even if the current situation says otherwise). Moreover, I think the list of notable people who died due to the coronavirus disease 2019 should be kept too; if this article gets deleted with finality I think there should be a separate article for it, or if not, a separate section in the pandemic's main article (especially if only few notable people die because of it). EDIT: Just saw the new article.
Another EDIT:
Comment - Or, why not just put the notable people infected in separate sections of their respective countries/countries where they got the virus, just like in the Philippine article (where Christopher de Leon, Juan Miguel Zubiri, and other notable persons are listed in 2-3 paragraphs)? But instead of paragraphs, make it in bullet form/table form? -- Originally posted by
Vida0007 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC); Edited by Vida0007 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If the information belongs in those country articles, then what argument is there against presenting the same information in a different format in the deleted list? Fishal (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Bearian and Andrew. Reputed media houses are publishing such lists, why banned here? See above given link of NYT, and others such as [2], [3], [4]. I think there are enough sources to keep it. Störm(talk)19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close BLP concerns make this an easy target. We don't need any such list of diseased people. The way things are going, the list will include pretty much everyone, so it's pointless anyway. Do we have a list of people who catch the regular flue? A list of people with toenails? If a notable person dies of this - as a few have already and there will be more to come - then that goes on their BDP article. We saw increasingly long lists of cases in (for example) 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States before there were thousands and they were scrapped. We have better things to do, surely? --Pete (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: I voted keep in the AfD, however, the basis for my overturn !vote is not based on my keep !vote. I simply think it should be overturned because there was not a clear consensus in the discussion. I've nominated an article for discussion before that's ended in no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLVD Place). In this case there was no consensus because both sides raised valid policy points that couldn't be reconciled. The same thing is happening here. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?21:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was a delete !vote on the AfD. The majority of editors favored keeping the list and I was surprised to see deletion. I could endorse the close, but then I would be going against our policy of consensus, and it would endorse a supervote. If I !voted to overturn the close it would be against my own desire to delete the article. S there you have it. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: There was clearly no consensus. A bloc of delete !votes were a result of canvassing. BLP concerns are easily addressed bu requiring reliable sources (no tabloid or social media) and were being addressed with the requirements in the Editnotice. JeanPassepartout (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to this ridiculous comment in Jimbo Wales' highly-visited talk page. The number of delete !votes jumped exponentially following this. WPancake (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<math teacher hat>First of all, they didn't jump "exponentially" (see Exponential growth); that doesn't make any sense here.</math teacher hat>. It was obviously non-neutrally worded, but I don't think you can just discount subsequent delete votes in such a high-participation discussion based on just that. There were keep votes following that thread as well; trying to disentangle would probably be pointless. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: There exists List of HIV-positive people, I don't see why there shouldn't for people with COVID-19. RiceGoneWILD 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Aside from WP:OSE, that article will be nominated for deletion once this DRV closes. If only the admin who closed that AFD in 2011 had applied NOTAVOTE, that list wouldn't exist either. Levivich[dubious – discuss]13:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think Andrew Davidson summed this one up rather well. The discussion does not show a consensus to delete the article. I am sympathetic to claims that this article is a BLP violation, since those are serious and should be purged regardless of whether or not they get "keep" votes. However, this article is not an open-and-shut encroachment, so I am not convinced there are any blanket reasons that tip the scales in this article's case. (As a disclosure: I didn't vote, but I have edited the article.) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Comment: When I saw this was "somehow" (unironic bias?!?) favor deleted when its pretty mixed by users for the page's future, for a varies of reasons. Then, I will keep my original stance at the AfD on a Strong lean Keep, regarding again, if more cases coming in the matter of days. Chad The Goatman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: A lot of ppl who voted to delete in the AfD were misinformed, they assumed we'd be posting every name of ppl infected but that is ludicrous, it was only meant for those that meet the notability criteria. This is not a disease from which one recovers 100%, maybe if these misinformed ppl had read the article on it, a lot of ppl that recovered still have problems breathing because it has a long lasting and possibly permanent damage to the lungs even if one recovers..the list would have been eventually in months to come culled down to only the major notable deaths (Those with pre-existing wikipedia pages) but it would still be a list with history so ppl who read the wiki can go back in history and check the names of those that were infected cause there is no other way of getting it, there aren't sites online which lists those, this virus is deadlier than HIV since it can kill you within a week of infection and currently with no cure, you can live with HIV for decades and yet somehow people who have no knowledge of science voted to delete this list.. Wikipedia's basic rule was to compile and collect factual data, not remove them cause the level of IQ on this project has dropped sharply in the last 10 years..you can't just delete information without giving it time to develop.. the pandemic has just begun, 165 of 195 countries on this planet now has it and its likely it will reach all 195 within 6 weeks (it reached mine yesterday)..I feel sad for this project when i started 14 years ago, it was a hive of knowledge, now all the bees have been killed and the hornets have moved in.. it deserved BETTER--27.123.137.25 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin had sound grounds for the decision. When COVID passes, those infected do not need a lifelong stigma from forever being known for that illness. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (did not !vote in AfD) I’m seeing very few people calling for an overturn based on the close itself and instead simply restating their AfD comments. While a nose count did indeed favor the keeps, once the surprisingly high number of empty !votes are set aside (many ITSUSEFUL/OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the keeps, mainly strongly worded IDONTLIKEITs for the deletes) and the policy-based arguments are weighed, there is a reasonable consensus advocating for delete based on WP:BLP and various WP:NOT concerns than there are people arguing WP:LISTN or other valid keep reasons. So which arguments didn’t the closer weigh properly? As often as they came up, I don’t see how saying "the deaths are notable" or "it's okay if it only lists notable people" are any kind of policy-based rationales, especially when that's often the entirety of the comment with no additional explanation. Something being useful, or encyclopedic, or important to the reader, similarly has no basis in Wikipedia policy. There were a few WP:LISTN-based votes, but there were also specific refutations of that using WP:NONDEFINING arguments. On the keep side there were some hand-waving attempts to refute BLP and NOT, but just saying you don’t agree isn’t sufficient refutation in my view; at the very least highlight what part you think doesn't apply and why. And to be clear, I think it's fine to !vote "per someone else", but many of those keep !votes were in reference to statements that in my opinion carried no weight themselves, and thus the "per" !vote received no weight either. Based on my read of the AfD, I agree with the closer that there exists a rough consensus for delete. CThomas3 (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (!voted keep) Perfect example of how AfD is not a vote. While I believe the list could be kept so long as the proper criteria were implemented and tried to refute arguments for deletion in my !vote, most other keep !votes lacked grounding in policy. Some arguments for deletion were also frivolous, but most were reasonable and made clear and valid links to policies such as INDISCRIMINATE, BLP, and NOTNEWS. There may be a consensus to explore creating similar lists (such as a list of notable deaths), but the consensus is clearly against the list in its current form. I echo CThomas's concerns that editors seeking to overturn the close are treating the DRV as a rerun of the AfD. – Teratix₵02:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (!voted delete) DRV is not for re-litigation, it is for examining a closer's work. In this case, I think Barkeep did a very good job considering a very tough AfD in a very harsh environment. He expounded on his reasoning, made the process clear, and did exactly what we expect of closers. I can't imagine how having someone else close it would help. The only place to go from here would be to have a team admin close, but I can't imagine we'll end up with a close that is better than Barkeep's. As I noted in the AfD, this DRV is also full of non-policy votes and folks coming off the street to just...hoot and holler. I pity any future closers. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see consensus to delete, but I also don't see how this list can possibly be maintainable or reasonable in size (unfortunately). overturn to NC is the only real outcome based on the discussion, but I'm pretty sure it's the wrong outcome. After some thought I think we're at overturn to NC but we should perhaps reconsider this soon (perhaps convert this to a list of people who had by a certain date? delete it? I don't know. It seems a shame to delete it...) Hobit (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (didn't discuss AfD) WP:LISTN establishes notability, not that an article should automatically be kept. The closer did a great job at explaining that the WP:NOT claims are completely correct and that WP:LISTN literally says It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.Username689204:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: The list should be kept as it was a summary of information available on wikipedia pages for notable people. For me the battle was lost when the New York Times and other top tier news sources published their own lists. Geo8rge (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result which was to delete the article, which I also put in an opinion to delete. This process seems to be to decide if something untowards happened with the closing action, a policy violation or serious error in judgement, it does not appear thtthis forum can be used as a court of appeals if people just plain disagree. I posted a sample at the discussion talk page of some of the bad opinions to keep and I will provide it here again too-
"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"
""When the nom acknowledges it meets list requirements but claims IAR, that's enough said right there."
"This is an important dynamic list."
"Well considered article"
"split if necessary"
"To dicuss this is stupid. Still dont find a good reason to delete. WP should keep this article to counter/debunk Fake news"
"a much needed data on high-profile people with covid-19."
"the delete !votes are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the policies they keep quoting. I call WP:SNOW on getting a consensus"
"keep however remove redlinked names"
"provided it is managed well and only includes notable individuals"
"because they are notable people"
None of these are valid, and I did not even get through the entire page. If a closer's job is to analyze the arguments and not just do a straw poll, then the numerical advantage of the keeps is rendered irrelevant. It was a good close. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over some of the delete votes as well, shall we?
"Delete this utter stupidity."
"This list is pure and unadulterated evil."
"Ick"
"Delete per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. WTF people?!?!"
"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."
"Delete What a fucking embarrassment to the "global encyclopedia" this is."
You have selectively edited some of those entries. The "ick" one is obviously invalid, but the "wtf people" cites WP:BLPPRIVACY, the "fucking embarrassment" one has a sound rationale following that opener, as does "below any morale". I will not engage with such a dishonest response further. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I respect Barkeep as this decision was not easy to reach but the decision on this Afd should have been no consensus as there were almost equal proportions to either keep or delete the article. Generally long controversial Afd discussions end up without reaching a clear and concise consensus. For example the Afd on Media bias against Bernie Sanders reached no consensus and the Afd on List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 was pity long enough and should have been decided as no consensus. Abishe (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh (original nom). My bias is probably obvious, so I'll spare everyone that. But for those arguing to overturn as no-consensus based on the volume of keep !votes, I think we should be wary about how difficult such a mindset would make it to delete any sort of high-visibility current event article. I also wanted to mumble some sort of regret at the turd sandwich that this turned into, and that someone was going to have to step up to take a big bite out of (kudos to Barkeep for that, and for whomever has to bother with this son-of-turd-sandwich too). Maybe I was a bit naive to think that the discussion could have been a smaller/more-focused one. My original statement may have sounded a bit ... playful, but I was dead-serious in bringing it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is just my opinion but... trust in your colleagues. We all see non-policy-based votes. We all see relitigation of AFDs at DRV. Plus pretty much anyone with a brain knows the correct result here is to have a list of notable deaths. I think we'll get there and I wouldn't worry about the noise along the way. (Although I could be wrong of course.) Levivich[dubious – discuss]13:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue here is the repeated and egregious violations of WP:CIVIL by deletion advocates, seen in this comment, according to which everyone that wants to overturn/keep the article is "brainless". WPancake (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. If you want my honest opinion, anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have lists of BLPs by disease should not only be site banned but also jailed. "Evil" isn't a reason to delete a page, but this really is evil. It's Nazi-esque, in the true sense of that word. You think that's an aspersions, go ahead and complain. I feel this is objectively true. Once you start scarlet-lettering people based on their medical conditions, you become objectively more like a Nazi. There's Godwin's law, and then there's actually using Wikipedia to facilitate discrimination based on medical fitness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Levivich[dubious – discuss]14:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the extremely improbable event someone uses our article to track down notable individuals with the virus like the Nazis tracked down the Jews, the problem will solve itself soon enough. That's the nature of highly contagious viruses. But seriously, that's not happening and it's a wholly inappropriate comparison. Smartyllama (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: with respect, I think you've overstepped the mark here by comparing fellow editors to Nazis (quite literally, a textbook personal attack) and calling for their imprisonment. Please consider striking your comment. It's not helping anything. – Teratix₵14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some people seem to be under an impression that all mention Hitlerism, etc., is banned? This is not the case: if someone makes a similar argument to someone else, all that means is that they are making a similar argument to someone else. (Funnily enough.) It is the argument that is comparative, not the individual. Nuance, please. ——SN5412914:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of users do things in good faith that the community does not support. I will learn and reflect from this no matter what but especially if the consensus is that my close was incorrect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (!voted Keep and rename in Afd) Closer took great pains to explain his reasoning in detail. Leeway must be given in situations such as this, else admins will shy away from contentious Afd debates. The game of baseball would grind to a halt if every umpire call was second guessed like this. StonyBrook (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The very fact people think an "existing primary source" would be useful at all is scary. All articles need to be based on secondary source, not primary ones. Reliable secondary sourcing as well, not statements on twitter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Above someone says there are 95 thousand BLPs. There are actually 946,000 biographies of living people, 10 times as many, and withso many articles on mebers of even current national legislatures missing, there is strong evidence we would have at least twice that many if we had biographies on everyone default notable. With our highest birth-year category being 1989, it is also probable that the size of this category will keep growing. In 5 years are new biographies of living people going to note that they were diagnosed with COVID-19 a few years ago, recovered and went on to publish notable works, compete in sports or be elected to public office. I highly doubt it, and unless you can argue that in 2032 it will be a known fact what all the US presidential contenders COVID-19 infection status is I will argue this is a non-defining thing about most people and not worth creating a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that any of us thought this could ever involve "posting of every name of peope infected" is just ludicrous. We have however realistically dealt with the fact that there are 946,000 biographies of living people in Wikipedia. it is very hard to see how the number of living people who are notable who get the disease will be held below 10,000. True, I also think it is ludicrous we treat as notable people who play in one game in a fully pro-soccer league or play one first class cricket match, and I think it is a policy violation we let articles languish for over a decade sourced only to IMDb which we declare to be non-reliable. However with every member of ever 1st level sub-national federal legislature and ever national legislature being notable, that means that there are probably at any time at least 20,000 notable people just who are serving in some sort of legislature, and with some only serving 1 term, I do not think the estimate of 150,000 living notable politicians and that we have only 50,000 of those articles at present is unreasonable, unless it is insanely low. New Hapshire alone has over 400 legislators. I have not seen anyone claim that we will include past COVID-19 status in articles going forward. I have spent lots of time removing unsourced categorization from articles, so I know that unsourced issues are major in Wikipedia. I have also followed COVID-19 coverage enough to know that out timelines, which look as if they are covering all developments, are severly lacking. This is just not a justified way to group people because having this disease is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close I can't see how this is a bad close. Barkeep49 gave a detailed rationale in his closing statement, explaining how they weighted votes and how they arrived at the conclusion they did. From a look through the !votes, I get the feeling that his assessment was reasonable - there were a great many 'non-argument' !votes, which rightly should carry little weight, which potentially sway the 'first impressions' count. I don't claim to have read every argument as closely as I'm sure Barkeep49 will have done, but from what I've read I'm not seeing a good reason to overturn this decision. GirthSummit (blether)21:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There was no consensus that it "does not comply with WP:NOT" as the closer said it did. There is no BLP issue here either, there no reason why anyone would be upset someone mentioned they had this particular virus, Tom Hanks and others actually told people they had it. Consensus was that it met all requirements to be a Wikipedia article. The closer cast a supervote and ignored what everyone had said. DreamFocus01:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That final comment is beneath you, Dream Focus. You can argue that the close was wrong without saying that the closer ignored what everyone had to say. I don't always agree with Barkeep49's closes, but I have no doubt whatsoever that he always thinks long and hard about the arguments on both sides. GirthSummit (blether)09:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep this thing deleted simply due to the fact that we have a privacy policy on here, especially regarding health issues, that should be respected. There are only a smattering of “notable” contractions such as Tom Hanks / Rita Wilson, Idris Elba, Kevin Durant, Andy Cohen, etc. but what are we doing here? Breaking news on random people? ⌚️ (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (did not participate in AfD) Apart from any notions about what arguments should have been made in that discussion - it seems that Barkeep49 did a thorough job of assessing those that were presented. I can't find fault with his conclusion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. I wrote in a non-WP-related chatroom on 18 March in relation to the AFD, just after having !voted in it, "I don't envy whoever has to close this (feel free not to read any of it)". I have read and reread closer's statement, and find no fault with it. It correctly begins by noting that !votes are not votes to be counted, and that ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments carry little weight. It then turns to the policy issues raised and assesses them; before finally balancing those arguments and reaching a reasoned decision. That's what's supposed to happen.
I strongly suspect that this case would be at DRV whatever the decision had been; and that any DRV would have attracted a large number of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT !votes and attempts to relitigate; rather than arguments based on "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate (from #Commenting in a deletion review, above; emphasis in the original). I have tried to follow that guidance. Narky Blert (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close Contracting coronavirus is not a lifelong affliction unlike say diabetes and the sufferers invariably recover, so was someone going to update the list once those with coronavirus recover from it, or was someone planning to come up with another ridiculous list? This list should never have been created in the first place. Blackmane (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close this is a contagious disease and people who get infected will likely survive but then they will have a permanent article in Wikipedia that reminds their friends that they had the disease. If the list was about "notable people who died from coronavirus" I would have a different opinion. See WP:RECENT. The closer weight arguments and I think in this case the delete arguments were stronger.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not think it follows that it will be a permanent article. Articles are often deleted years after they are created, and what seems valid now may not seem valid in a year's time. Deb (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- AfD isn't a snout count, and clearly the strength of argument was with those aguind to delete. This was a tricky close, but the correct one. ReykYO!07:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to briefly remind DRV participants here, including those favoring endorsing the close and those favoring overturning the close, to be mindful of the proper arguments at DRV (whether the closure was correct) and avoid relitigating the merits of the AfD itself. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is a "no consensus" situation. WP:LISTN, raised by many participants, is a valid policy-based reason for keeping this article. To summarily dismiss policy-based keep arguments is inappropriate. feminist (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the strength of argument here is definitely on the Delete side. A large fraction of the Keep comments boil down to that they think the list is useful, it cites sources or just statements of opinion with no supporting argument. However even looking at the better reasoned Keep comments I don't think several of the Delete arguments have been rebutted effectively, in particular (a) the fact that the list will get very silly as more people contract the disease (if 50% of the population gets it then the list could include up to 50% of living notable people) and (b) the fact that getting COVID-19 and surviving is not a particularly significant part of a person's life, to the point where we probably wouldn't even mention it in an article about that person (unlike, say, HIV or diabetes, which are life changing diseases). Hut 8.513:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Once you remove the ITSNOTABLE and ITSUSEFUL Keep comments there's practically nothing more (with apologies to the few editors who did try to justify their votes with something other than WP:ATA). Black Kite (talk)13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. IMO a well-reasoned close based on policy. The argument above mainly comes down tot he point Barkeep made in closing, whihc is that if you count the "votes" it's a keep, but that's noit how we work. Guy (help!) 19:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn either to No Consensus or to Relist - This is a difficult case, largely because Wikipedia policy, which states that strength of arguments rather than numerical count must be assessed, is difficult to apply. Also, two important principles must both be kept in mind, although they work against each other in this particular instance. The first key principle is that Process Is Important. Even if following standard processes results in a less than ideal result, it is usually better to follow process than just to Ignore All Rules and decide what the Right Thing is, because bypassing process is itself a less than ideal process. The second key principle is that Consensus Is Not Determined by Voting. Consensus is determined by strength of arguments. However, there is no obvious way other than numbers to determine strength of arguments.
In this case, the problem is that a numerical vote has resulted in what is clearly, in terms of policy, the "wrong" answer, and the closer has supplied the "right" answer based on policy. But Process Is Important. If this close is endorsed, it will encourage closers to supply the "right" answer when there is a numerical consensus that is "wrong", as in this case; but that will also encourage closers, mistakenly and in good faith, to supply the "wrong" answer because they think it is the "right" answer. Only under the most unusual circumstances should a closer decide that the majority is "wrong". We already get enough frivolous appeals at DRV saying that a closer should have disregarded numerical consensus.
Both the AFD and this DRV show that there is No Consensus, because the community is divided. There are two possible ways out. Endorsing the close is not one of them. One of the ways out is to overturn the close to No Consensus, and allow an immediate renomination (without waiting one or two or three months). The other is to overturn the close and Relist. The two options are really versions of the same thing. The AFD should be allowed to run for more than 7 days, maybe for 30 days, and should be closed by a panel of three admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Discussions (especially about BLPs) are about policy. All participants have a responsibility to put forward policy based arguments, and consensus is not necessarily measured in raw votes. The policy discussion leaned heavily toward delete, as the closer observed in their closing statement. --Enos733 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I did not participate in the AfD and honestly don't know which way I would've gone. It's a very hard case, and there were several decent policy-based arguments. Ultimately, I think there are ways to frame a close as either a no consensus for delete outcome here, and that Barkeep's rationale was sound enough that we can consider this within the closer's discretion. Importantly, it doesn't rule out a list of deaths, which seems like a reasonable compromise title. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Usually there will be several strong arguments in a discussion where the majority want to keep, and in those cases I would defer to public opinion. However, the arguments on the keep side were largely based on the article being "useful", "notable" and "well-sourced". While it is good that the list is useful, notable and well-sourced, they did not address the problem of the list being "an indiscriminate collection of information". Whether a person has had a disease is not a defining characteristic of the person; at most it might warrant a very brief mention in the biography. Most people suffer a number of diseases during the course of the lifetime, and to assemble lists to characterize people based on which diseases they have is a disturbing idea. If it were any other disease that isn't front and center in the public mind we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is tempting, and probably defensible, to close the AFD as "no consensus", and wait for a "delete" outcome a year later when the pandemic is behind us, but I find no fault with Barkeep49's closure or rationale either. Sjakkalle(Check!)15:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn In a close case (or one that is at least not heavily lopsided), the better argument should prevail. But when headcount is heavily on one side, yet the closer perceives more virtue to the arguments of the other, that should be "No Consensus". Ultimately I think this article will be deleted. (It would seem weird today to encounter an article "List of people with Middle East respiratory syndrome".) But no article should be deleted in a way that can be reasonably perceived as a WP:SUPERVOTE. Vadder (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Overturn, Both - The correct result is to split the article, change the title to List of SARS-COVID19 deaths or whatever you want to call the Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome associated with the virus COVID19 (I believe the above is the accurate term) and restore that. The list of illnesses is clearly emphemeral health info justly deleted on NOTNEWS and BLP grounds. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think the original close considered all the !votes neutrally. The result was not "no consensus" when all arguments were considered based on their merits. When considering only policy-based !votes, these trended toward "delete". epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - what, list all millions of them? Do you remove them when they recover or die? Close rational looks good. Nfitz (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (did not participate in AfD) It's NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made a defensible and reasonable judgement after excluding non-policy based rationales (eg. ILIKEIT). buidhe12:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Endorse Regardless of citation at what point is collecting a list of people who have a virus helpful? This is something a medical authority does, not this website, not to mention this probably violates a couple of laws having this kind of list on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I did not !vote in the AfD. I reviewed the AfD and found Barkeep49's close to be proper. It is an admin's role to judge the weight and strength of the arguments. DRV shouldn't be a venue to re-litigate; it's an appeals process when the close is fundamentally flawed. This is not the case here. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Strong) endorse. As what I had pointed out in AFD, the current LISTN is insufficient for determining the notability of a list (and especially a list of "notable people" of something or whatever). The deletion of the list does not violate the five pillars, and in fact ensures that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies07:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Doesn't make sense to me to have articles listing people with certain non-chronic health conditions. Where's the list for people with influenza? —guywan (talk • contribs)23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NOT INDISCRIMINATE was the argument that defined the debate and justified the close. The list may have seemed like a good idea when only a few otherwise notable people had the disease; it's gotten exponentially more absurd since then, and may well reach the point where it would be simpler to have a list of notable people alive during the epidemic who did not have the disease. Whether there would be a point in notable people who died of it might be a separate question, and I gather we already have such an article. I'm not sure this can be supported either: List of notable people who died of heart disease in 2020 might turn out to be a reasonable comparison. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A high quality close by Barkeep, thoughtfully constructed and well reasoned; the relatively few concerns of WP:SUPERVOTE at this DRV (given its size), is also apparent. The policy trade-off of LISTN vs. NOTEWS/INDISCRIMINATE/BLP is clear from the AfD, and Barkeep's summary. The "nuance" captured by Barkeep is that – so far – the numbers of people getting infected with coronavirus seems to be both large, and materially greater than the number of deaths (obviously, deaths are notable). This is different from List of HIV-positive people, where, for a period, infection was a near death sentance; it passed AfD, and has not been re-sent post this AfD (nor should it). In contrast, List of Spanish flu cases, has been re-sent to AfD, following the same "nuance" of this AfD, however it will probably survive as a result of the unambigious notability of the Spanish flu pandemic. Again, List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19 was a recent SNOW DELETE at AfD, so even when the universe of the list is restricted (i.e less INDISCRIMINATE), the "nuance" becomes even more apparent (given the lack of any death – or near death – of any football player), and the result is undisputed. A good close by Barkeep, and while a large AfD is going to leave a lot of people unhappy, they should regard the time and care taken. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD is not vote counting. Barkeep seems to have done a very good job weighing the relevant policies that were cited in the !votes at the AfD. I could say "per others" here but there are a ton of good comments in this section endorsing the close. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(click me!)21:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD was conducted and assessed correct. It is not a tally of votes but a discussion to decide whether or not it fits in with the encyclopedia. As accordance with WP:INDISCRIMINATE it doesn't. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
