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 no consensus. Some see utility, some do not. Complaints about the inclusion criteria are important, but they can be edited. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died before the age of 30[edit]

Listcruft. Why 30? Why not 27? (cit.) (on the talk page, there is a proposal to lower the age to 29). There are thousands (I belive) of biographies of people who died before X age. It doesn't serve any purpose. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is actually a second nomination as the deletion of this listed was discussed already in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people who died young. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Who decided 30? Why? Who decided the list should only include "historical figures or celebrities known for reasons other than their death"? Completely subjective criteria for what qualifies someone to be included. Is everyone who has a page on Wikipedia a celebrity or historial figure? If so, this list would be very, very long and possibly unmaintainable. VegaDark (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. There is no given reason why 30 is a good cut off age and lowering it by one year to 29 would leave it in the same situation. This is what categories are for, althought i doubt we could even use this as a category. Lists are to put things together with information that sint in the individual articles. If it doesnt meet that, then it should be a category, unless it is pointless, like this. The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are an aid to navigation and that's their point. For example, I browse this list and notice that the Big Bopper died young. From there, I navigate to American Pie which explains all about the the day that the music died. Fascinating and I wouldn't have got there without this list. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above--Nengscoz416 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Why 30? Why not 29 1/2? 27 and a month? Purely arbitrary inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if not encyclopedic then certainly almanaical; may need to be renamed as 30 is not a magic number but it's a topic of obvious interest. JJL (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I found the list interesting, interesting is not a valid reason for keeping an article, and I tend to agree with the crowd who says delete. With the exception of the persons who died of "natural causes", isn't this simply a list of persons who were killed in accidents or homicides? If a person is murdered, is it more tragic at age 29 than at age 31? I like the method of organizing the data, and all lists should be this readable. However, I think that it is arbitrary to divide adults, who have died unexpectedly, into the groups 18-29 and 30+ Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too arbitrary and broad-based to be viable. Could have thousands of entries. 23skidoo (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not 30 exactly? Why is Wikipedia a more useful place for its readers if this article is deleted? Wikipedia exists to serve its readership, not its increasingly arcane rulebook. What exactly is 'cruft' apart from information you're not personally interested in? If the information is verified and the criteria for the list clear what is the problem apart from I don't like it? Rename it to 'notable' or 'famous' people if you must. Nick mallory (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't a category work much better than a whole article? It would be easier to maintain as well. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if you read WP:CAT and WP:OCAT and WP:CLS, you will see that "categorize" is not a good answer because many similar categories have been deleted. If something is not a good topic for an article, then it is definitely not a good category. Categories & lists provide navigational services and have different benefits, but still require some baseline criteria -- for categories that the topic must not only be "notable" but actually "defining". --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record, one reason I said delete rather than categorize is because of the ongoing culling of categories (don't get me started...). There was a category on this specific topic awhile ago, but it appears to have bit the dust. 23skidoo (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point of the article is obviously to list notable people who died young. If the watershed was not defined then the same nay-sayers would be complaining that inclusion in the list was subjective. Thirty seems a reasonable choice because of general culture, e.g. "never trust anyone over thirty", Logan's Run, etc and because humans are usually at their physical peak in their twenties and so over-the-hill at 30. If there is a better age choice then the article can be edited accordingly - deletion would be counter-productive. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, up until recently it was called List of people who died young and it went up to age 39. I split it into two articles (one for those who died before 30, one for those who died in their thirties) because it was getting too big. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussions above about arbitrary inclusion. Wikipedia editors would be better served by an article that talked about the phenomena of intense social interest in people who die young. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this kind of thing is both useful and interesting, and arbitrary inclusion issues can be discussed by people with an interest in the subject. That's no reason to get rid of it, however. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you how is it "useful"? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One use is as a source of inspiration - encouraging one to count one's blessings and carpe diem. "There, but for the grace of God, go I...". Colonel Warden (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia isn't a list Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What do you mean by "wikipedia isn't a list" ?- Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't an article either. 96T (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is! ;-) —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per VegaDark and The Placebo Effect.- Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept of famous people dying young is famous and discussed. Per the policies for stand-alone lists, I do not think the subject is neither too broad nor to specific, nor is it trivial. Lots of these people wouldn't been remembered the same way today if they hadn't died young. 96T (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 96T. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a list of famous people who died young is obviously interesting. The list of those who died in their thirties is less important, but still interesting (although that one easily could get too big). 84.70.178.139 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject lacks genuine coherence, and significance of age varies greatly over time. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the age at which someone died could be included on other people lists - we don't need to create new lists to handle this data. Otherwise, we'll have List of people who died before the age of 1, List of people who died before the age of 2..., List of people who died after the age of 80, etc. This would unnecessarily relist all people covered by Wikipedia. If you are interested in adding this data to lists, those lists can be made into tables, and tables can be made sortable (one click will sort the table by age at time of death). I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. tgies (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article was named List of famous people who died young and List of people who died young before it was renamed List of people who died before the age of 30 in January. Most of the people arguing for deletion seem to be arguing over the current name of the page. I agree with 96T. The concept is notable. And the information in the article is verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my complaint isn't about the age mostly, its the actual neccesity of this type of list. If i had seen any of those other deletion debates, i still would have voted delete, regardless of age. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with above statements. Chantessy 16:58, 13 February 2008 (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.