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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator's decision for this afd has been submitted for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15. Golden Wattle ^talk 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous only in death[edit]

List of people who became famous only in death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an indiscriminate and highly subjective list with no standardized criteria for inclusion. What constitutes becoming "famous" after death? Otto4711 09:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. List particularly fails to discriminate between people who became famous because of their deaths (notable victims of hate crimes, those who had laws named after them) and those who became famous after their deaths but because of what they did during life (Nick Drake being a prime example). Don't even get me started on the fact that some of these famous figures are people I wouldn't know from a bar of soap. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does. It separates those who became famous by the nature of their death from those who became famous for other reasons, Nick Drake is in the "not because of cause of death" type section.--T. Anthony 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the way I meant. As it currently stands, the list includes (but divides between) people whose manner of death made them notable and people who simply became famous after they died. In other words, it's indiscriminate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "famous" is a subjective term, as the nominator says, so this list constitutes original research and opinion. Possibly create a series of more specific lists. Walton monarchist89 11:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename the "famous" part to "notable" if need be. In some segments of the arts this is either significant or popularly believed to be significant.--T. Anthony 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all utterly subjective lists.--Doc^g 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this would be subjective even if "famous" were changed to "notable".-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How so? Black Falcon 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as listcruft and OR. this all comes down to opinion, which isn't encyclopedic Cornell Rockey 17:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- article has potential, many people have only become famous in death. Astrotrain 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - change subjective "famous" to objective "notable" per T. Anthony. The reasons for deletion seem to be:

1. WP:NOT#IINFO - there is a discriminating criterion (people who became notable because of the manner of or otherwise due to their death).
2. "Some of these famous figures are people I wouldn't know from a bar of soap" - WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason for deletion (a lot of people don't know who the head of government of their country is; WP gives them a chance to find out).
3. "Famous" is a subjective term - granted, replace with the objective term "notable"
4. "Listcruft" -- what the hell does that even mean?? Lists are allowed on WP if they serve a purpose. The purpose of this list is to bring together all those persons who are notable only (or largely) due to the circumstances of their death.

• It's a neologism several Wikipedians are fond of. Enough so they have their own essay Wikipedia:Listcruft. Mostly it doesn't seem to be used as strictly as that essay, but is kind of a shorthand for "this list is pointless and not worthy of my time."--T. Anthony 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. But why not just write that a list violates WP:Notability, WP:V, WP:NOT#IINFO, etc. It seems to me to be akin to a weasel word that criticizes a list without specifically noting what policy is involved. Granted that oftentimes editors at AfD who use the "listcruft" criticism do note specific policies, but many don't. Black Falcon 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NOR - firstly, it's usually a reason for cleanup, not deletion; secondly, "soft" verification through hyperlinks is possible; thirdly, it doesn't really fit with any of the 7 things noted at WP:NOR. Black Falcon 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Without responding to the rest of your reasons for keeping other than to say that I don't find them compelling, the seven things listed at WP:NOR are the things for which consensus has been reached. Those seven things are not the only things that can be indiscriminate. Otto4711 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I can accept that, but I will stick with keep and cleanup unless a reason is given why this list is inherently flawed or unsalvageable. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjectivity makes this WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list has criteria for inclusion and is categorized in a useful way. It seems an important article to assist in finding the name of someone when we only recall the general circumstances of their death and becoming famous. It is actively edited, and has thus been improved through collaborative editing. All in all, a useful list and quite encyclopedic. Inkpaduta 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regardless of whether this is an unnecessary addition to Wikipedia, this list is completely subjective and there would be no way to establish meaningful criteria for who belongs on it. Wikipedia doesn't need it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective. AdorableRuffian 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very, very fascinating and informative list. It isn't nearly as subjective as many people have stated. It is just the type of page Wikipedia needs. — Jordangg40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep If changing famous to notable, the criterion for inclusion becomes perfectly objective: being the subject of an article in the Wikipedia. Of course it must be cleaned up (the different sections overlap, for instance), but this is what editing is for, not deletion. --Goochelaar 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The point here is not entirely over the definition of "notable", it's over the entirely subjective and dubious judgment of who and who didn't "become famous only in death." This can not be established simply by changing the article title, and this is why it doesn't belong here.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The idea behind changing "famous" to "notable" is not primarily that it include only people in WP (although that is implied)--rather it is to list people who are notable (by WP standards) only or largely because of the circumstances of their death. Black Falcon 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the entirety of the section entitled People whose achievements were only posthumously recognized would seem to lie outside the ambit of the list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That should be deleted or turned into a separate list (including, I assume, mostly writers, musicians, painters, etc.). Posthumous recongition for achievements is separate from notability gained to the circumstances of their death (e.g., unusual deaths, killed by a famous person, first person killed by etc.). I have deleted the section in question, would you agree to let the article remain and be cleaned up? Cheers, Black Falcon 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not totally convinced - I feel there's a better title even than one which replaces "famous" with "notable", and a couple of the remaining names still don't quite sit too well - but I'll have a closer look and see what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title List of people who became notable only in death is somewhat problematic (and quite long). I'm thinking List of people notable for their death might be an alternative (it's two words shorter), but it may be less descriptive. I would appreciate your suggestions, if you have any. My feeling is that this information (cleaned up, of course) should be present on WP, but I'm just not sure how to incorporate it. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly the kind of thing which is very interesting and would be nice to have somewhere (particularly if "interesting" were the only criterion for inclusion here - a lot of those "Miscellany"-style books have lists like this). The suggested alternate title, though, doesn't fill me with great joy because not all the list does what it says on the tin. Those who are notable because of what happened to their corpse, for example, aren't really notable "for their death" so much as "for what happened next". There was an AfD ages ago for something like "List of Notable Deaths", which would be interesting as a comparative point, but I can't remember the title of the article to find it here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Perhaps "in death" is better after all. However, even if the title is not perfect, I think that as long as the introduction clearly spells out what the article is about, there should not be too much of a problem (or rather, there should, but it should be consigned to the article's talk page where multiple people can try to come up with a better title over time). Cheers, Black Falcon 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep As one of the main editors of this list, but not it's originator, I found the list had potential but at the time I found it, it was totally pointless, subjective, & filled with original research & POV entries. I developed some guidelines to help make a "cutoff point" for fame to make it more objective & also debated the word "in". The aspects which came out of it are:

Credentials for making the list were:

• Lasting fame (must be dead by 3 years at least)
• National or international fame (no local fame)
• Victims are grouped if of the same event or chain of events
• Reason for their lasting fame is noted with their entry
  

The debate over the word "in" is also in the discussion area. "In" could mean "because of" & it could simply mean "in the state of", which covers both those who's means death was the reason for fame as well as those who were only posthumously famous.
I had every itent of making this a meaningful list after coming upon it in it's horrible state. Those were attempts to put guides on it to make sure it was a useful & consice list. I do think it has a meaningful purpose & I found it because it partially filled the thing I was looking for. So please, this is not a list for deletion but cleanup & refinement. Some greater objective criteria needs to be put up. The originator refused any attempts to write out criteria, but I really think it needs some. My proposed criteria are right there for scrutiny & discussion. --Duemellon 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - concise enough scope, clear enough criteria for inclusion which could be refined if necessary. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:09, 12 February 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.