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

Deletion result
The result is clearly no consensus. But deleted by admin! We can't be satisfied. We'll report admin for wrong decision and put on deletion review! Shame on you!117.18.231.143 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 27.123.136.58 (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF. -- CptViraj (📧) 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus that individuals who meet WP:GNG and die of the disease should be mentioned. A list of everyone who coughed and sneezed during the outbreak has problems with WP:NOT. Glad I'm not an admin, as I would have deleted and ended up on the receiving end of personal attacks over this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You speak common sense, 👍  ——  SN  54129  07:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider the deletion of this (highly informative) article a real shame. Is YouTube-like censorship arriving Wikipedia? What's next? A curfew for edition? --Zarateman (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this was a book example of a no consensus. A possible consensus solution would have been, perhaps, to keep the notable people who died and remove the people who has just been diagnosed. My opinion, with all respect, is that there was here a unilateral decision of deleting the whole list with little respect to the debate and the interesting open questions. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. This full deletion has been capricious and unjustified; for me, equivalent to censorship.--Zarateman (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No consensus is a cheap cop-out, I applaud the admins for ignoring some completely ludicrous "votes" (even though they aren't votes) top keep. Examples-
 * "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"
 * and there is still a third of the page to scroll through! Terrible, vapid input. If someone is going to contest this deletion, I will seek that out and counter-argue strenuously. ValarianB (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As indeed it has been... ——  SN  54129  15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite unfortunate. ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)