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.

DRV overturns unanimously to a keep result. Xoloz 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The keep arguments have not been able to rebuttal the WP:NEO arguments appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

An old AFD resulted in a consensus to delete, here

The article admits to be about a neologism. This is essentially a list of celebrities that died at age 27, with the vague allusion that this may be something special rather than bland coincidence. However, a basic fact of statistics tells us that given a large enough sample size, any number of samples can be found that have an arbitrary trait. This is speculation, trivia, and not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 11:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that, statistically, it's not that amazing, is not the point. It's a reason to downplay the significance the phenomenon, not delete the article about its following. Also - I'm not entirely down on the wikipedia slang but going by the dictionary definition of neologism - it's not one anymore. The phrase has been around in popular culture for some time. Gosh, wiki nazism is getting worse and worse.Caleby 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NEO and possibly WP:HOAX.--Edtropolis 13:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how is this a hoax, may I ask? We're not saying someone dead and in the ground is alive. Paul McCartney isn't even on the list, despite that (I believe. I could be wrong.) he was 27 at the time that many people believed he died. All on the list are undeniabley dead, and aside from Robert Johnson, where it is not clear, all were very much 27 years old. It's not supernatural, it's a widely recognized, and undeniabley odd coincidence. And neither is the term new and unheard of. Check out some of the links on the article itself. Or simply google "27 club", and find all the people calling it by that name. I fail to see how this is either a Neologism OR a hoax. CherryFlavoredAntacid 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Grouping people based on the age they died and profession is a trivial intersection, as well. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While any age group can have a significant amount of celebrities who died while in it, few, if any, have the recognition that the 27 club has. The 27 club is also the subject of peices of art/posters, as seen in the following links. [1] [2] While the subject may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, it has great relevance and importance to the fans of the deceased. I believe that to delete the article would be to leave a part of popular culture out. CherryFlavoredAntacid 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Same as above. While it is a statistical fact that every age group will contain a number of celebrity deaths, the 27 Club is without a doubt the most famous. It is represented on posters, shirts, and various other things. Further, the members all died of unnatural and/or mysterious causes. Avisron 20:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got any reliable sources on that? >Radiant< 09:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what? That they died of unnatural or mysterious causes? Avisron 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, most people who die so young in the Western world, die from unnatural causes. But see my comment above - downplaying the coincidence has a place in the article itself, but is not a reason to delete the article. Caleby 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trivial page, neologism, etc. Wildthing61476 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per CherryFlavoredAntacid and Avisron above. This is a natural phenomenon, not a conspiracy, but it's a notable item of popular culture. — Mudwater 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not trivial and not a neologism. It's a fact and a known phenomenom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.32.167.231 (talk • contribs) — 201.32.167.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep This phenomenom is quite known everywhere, I have just listened club de los 27 in Spanish TV and I went to wikipedia to get informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.76.26 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2007
• Keep Clearly established phenomenom, althought the BBC source 404's I did find mention of it on this BBC page http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/r2music/documentaries/nirvana_27.shtml --Thepinksuicidallemming 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to mee, deletion seems mandatory by WP:NOR -- 790 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read WP:NOR and it doesn't apply. There are multiple references.

• Delete - per WP:NEO and possibly WP:HOAX. - The article isn't even correct when it says these people were in their "prime". Jones, for one, had just been thrown of the band he started because he was unable to contribute anymore. Delete! June 23 07

• Weak Keep When this was re-created, I decided to do some research and see if my assumptions were right that this article is WP:OR on a neologism. Much to my surprise, I did find multiple sources for the phrase "27 Club" being used to group these particular individuals together, as well as one that comments on the spike in statistics among 27 year old musicians and artists (from Charles R. Cross article: "The number of musicians who passed away at 27 is truly remarkable by any standard. Though humans die regularly at all ages, there is a statistical spike for musicians who die at 27.") Check the footnotes I added, and my notes about the sources on the talk page. Do I think this article is needed on WP? Not particularly. But it is WP:V sourced now. I do fear it could be a magnet for OR, but that's not necessarily a reason to delete. However, I have to wonder if the topic might be better served by a simple category rather than an article. But I lean towards having a short article so the sources can be linked. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category could be good, that way it could also include other less-known members such as D. Boon and others that used to be mentioned on the 27 club article. How about a category "Musicians who died at the age of 27", and a stub article for 27 club with its references? It's not like Wikipedia is short of space... I'm right and you're wrong 06:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've heard about it, how a certain 'group' of musicians died at a certain age, something about how the "greatest musicians" died at 27, and this could be considered on the same level as any conspiracy theory (although, it is far from what could be called a 'conspiracy'). It's a phenomenon that is referenced more than once, in fact, several times. Zchris87v 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not encyclopedic, not notable. -- Steve Hart 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not notable to you, but it is notable to many music fans, don't the multiple references show that? If it wasn't notable, we wouldn't even be having this debate. I'm right and you're wrong 06:19, 28 June 2007 (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.