Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prominent COVID-19 sceptics who have died from COVID-19


 * 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)

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

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * That might be a good option- This does seem to be an possibly noteworthy topic Dunutubble (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That might be a good option- This does seem to be an possibly noteworthy topic Dunutubble (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: we already do have Category:Anti-vaccination activist deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic that is currently at CFD, and Draft:List of anti-vaccine advocates who died from COVID-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs)
 * Delete As I said at Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19 and Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19:"WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN issues aside, I consider listing this people by this intersection to be fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's policy on WP:Attack pages. Leave disparaging the judgments of deceased people to places like the Darwin Awards, Cracked.com, and r/LeopardsAteMyFace."Perhaps this is not sufficiently identical to either of those articles to qualify for WP:Speedy deletion per WP:G4, but the same arguments apply and I don't think we should have to relitigate this at regular intervals. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because something wasn't notable as a topic doesn't mean it can't become notable, especially if it relates to a contemporary or ongoing real-world situation. That's the essence of WP:TOOSOON, and AFD not being intrinsically prejudicial iff new sources become available ("new sources available" is a fundamentally acceptable DRV position). The refs being listed here are subsequent to those months-ago XFDs. DMacks (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that, but new sources becoming available doesn't make this any less of an attack page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep merge into Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19 and expand. As someone has noted above, I have a Draft:List of anti-vaccine advocates who died from COVID-19 that could be merged into this, and contains reasonably substantial discussion of sources documenting this phenomenon. Whether or not this is Darwin Awards-type material, we have an article at Darwin Awards. Based on the sources in the draft, this is a topic that specifically meets the WP:GNG, and meets WP:LISTN. BD2412  T 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What point are you trying to make by noting the existence of the Darwin Awards article? TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is no sound basis in policy for excluding reliably sourced content merely because it reflects deaths characterized as deriving from the conduct of the deceased. WP:BLP requires sourcing; it is not a shield to protect people's feelings when their behavior is reported in reliable sources. If you think such reporting is wrong, take it up with the news outlets reporting the news. BD2412  T 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a policy against WP:Attack pages. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists are out there, and media commentary thereof (New York Times, Vanity Fair, etc.). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is similar in scope to Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19 and Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19, in which I !voted "delete" on both of them as well. This is a POV fork that potentially violates WP:BLP per the WP:BDP provision. --MuZemike 22:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP does not protect people from having the association between their antivaccine advocacy and their death from COVID-19 being reported in reliable sources, which is what has happened here. What you are advocating is merely censorship. BD2412  T 22:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (since I'm the nom). A COVID-denier/skeptic is unlikely to take precautions (distancing, masks, vaccination) than the general population, and is therefore more likely to contract COVID than the general population, and therefore the group of COVID-deniers/skeptics have a higher chance of dying. So how is this notable?  It's just logic.  Unless we're trying to point out the irony - which, frankly, I love - but it is not what an encyclopedia should be doing. Singularity42 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The COVID-denier/skeptic would disagree with your proposition that they are more likely to contract COVID than the general population, or have a higher chance of dying. It is notable because it is reported as such in reliable sources. In your view, do The New York Times, Washington Post, The Hill, and Variety fail to qualify as sources for notability? BD2412  T 22:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Just to clarify, the "you" to whom I was responding was Singularity42. DMacks (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete per and . 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)
 * 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)
 * How do you feel about the alternative term "notable", which has an objective meaning on wikipedia? DMacks (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * “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)


 * 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)
 * Those examples sound like very blatant WP:Attack pages. TompaDompa (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? And do you think this page is an attack page?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Specific inclusions/exclusions would be a subject for the talk page (I have already moved some there), but I would note that Hartman in particular has an NYT obit and has been in the news before, so is at least more than a WP:BLP1E. BD2412  T 20:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete; per WP:POINT and comments above. Spf121188 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to draft pointed out by BD. why is that doc still a draft? 40 sources, deep analysis, seems complete enough to promote. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete per TompaPompa's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.