Talk:27 Club

I think this article is a mess and I don't like it
I'm really not a big fan of this article and how it's set up and what people's criteria for the 27 club is. The problem is, it's all up to people's interpretation what makes them part of the 27 club and I think that's a terrible bar to set for eager Wikipedia editors that just wanna validate their favorite artist, band, musician, whatever.

You've got artists on the list now that don't even have wikipedia pages. Four of them. That would be "Murda Killa," "Yoo-ju-eun," "Yung Trappa," and "Julian Figeroa." I'm terribly sorry that those people died so young and I'm sure they had their fanbases, but clearly they aren't even notable enough to have a wikipedia page or even a verifiable source confirming that they even died to begin with.

Also, the criteria for what makes someone part of the 27 Club is to me just backwards. You've got the king of Iraq (Ghazi of Iraq), a person who only even mattered to anyone because of nepotism and political hegemony and was by all means a tyrant (I've never heard a positive "spin" put on this guy by anyone, not even Iraqis). Then you've got on here a guy who was an "artist" named Dash Snow that, according to his article, made "collages with his own semen."

Do the right thing guys. Absolutely annihilate this article and only leave like, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Amy Winehouse, etc...Household names, not literal jagoffs that make collages with their own semen and get called an artist somehow. Emandudeguyperson (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the fact that the list that is infesting onto this article needs removed, however there needs to be a clear criteria of who is worth mentioning on the article as example members. And any one editor's estimation of their worth isn't going to be an acceptable criteria.  This is why the criteria has always been, imperfect although it is, of a mention of both person and club in a reliable source. Both your examples there have Wikipedia articles, and sources. What anyone thinks of their lives about to the age 27 isn't relevant.  And the others you mention have Wikipedia pages in other languages, and sources.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So you would basically say, as long as the person is noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia article, that they should be added to the list if they're dead at 27? Emandudeguyperson (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying a better, far more restrictive, criteria is needed that isn't based on who deserves to be mentioned in the opinion of editors. But we have always been unable to reach agreement on a better criteria than appearance in reliable sources.  If you look through the talk page archives you'll see this discussion has been gone though multiple times before, including those suggesting they personally know who deserves a mention, and who doesn't. (There was even for a while a ridiculous two-tier membership, entirely based on who editors thought deserved to have some kind of VIP membership.) If you have a better criteria, very happy to hear it.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I understand what you mean. But back to what I said in my original post, regarding only allowing household names on the article, that's basically the criteria I would set up. Like a ton of people are aware of Jean Michel Basquiat, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and I could even give a pass on some of the less well known musicians maybe. I guess what I'm trying to say is I feel like it should be exclusively viewed as a club of artists. I don't think it's a good idea to start adding political figures... I could go down the list right now of some of the names on here... "businessman," "military," "king of iraq," I think all of those should literally be deleted. And even some of the more obscure artists, musicians, etc. should be deleted as well. I meant what I said originally which is basically that unless that they are internationally, damn near universally recognized, then we should probably keep them off the list. But I also respect that you want to use the criterion of the sources linked to their deaths actually naming them as part of the "27 club" as well, which seems fair. I dunno, for me, like I said, I think a lot of the names on the list right now are just a big "WTF?" and why are they on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandudeguyperson (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on this: The cultural phenomenon known as the 27 Club is the idea that a lot of popular musicians died at the age of 27 -- and, as part of this concept, any popular musician who died at that age is a member of the 27 Club.  (By "popular musician", I don't mean that the musician was popular, I mean that they worked in a genre of popular music such as rock, blues, jazz, and so on.)  Therefore, the table of "identified members" should include any musical artist who died at age 27 -- even if we don't have a reference saying that they're a member.  But to not accumulate an excessive and unmanaged list, the table should only include musicians who have their own Wikipedia article, or who were a member of a band that has its own Wikipedia article.  (As Escape Orbit said, these ideas have been discussed before, and a similar, previous suggestion by me was not met with universal acceptance.  But now is a good time to bring this up again, I think.) — Mudwater (Talk) 11:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have boldly removed the table entries for people who were not musicians, here. Although we have not yet established a consensus that that's the way to go, I thought it would be helpful to look at the updated list, which in my opinion is a significant improvement.  (I have retained entries for musicians who have an article in a non-English Wikipedia.) — Mudwater (Talk) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Your action goes against Wikipedia content guidelines. We are not here to decide what the rules are for the cultural phenomenon called 27 Club. Instead, the media decide—WP:Reliable sources. We are not allowed to decide that it's only musicians, and we don't decide that every musician dead at 27 is in the club, regardless of sources. You can't remake Wikipedia to satisfy your preference. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mudwater I understand your thinking, but unfortunately reliable sources have extended the original definition to include other famous people as club members. The article needs to reflect that, no matter how appropriate you feel it to be.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The 27 Club originally was for rock musicians. That's supported by reference like this.  And there are other references that support the concept that any rock musician who died at age 27 is a member of the Club.  With that being said, if there are other references that show that the concept has been expanded to include non-musicians, then I suppose we're stuck including them also.  It's too bad though.  Being in the 27 Club used to mean that you were a glamorous but wild rock star, often one who died of a drug overdose, or by murder or suicide, or in a car crash or by other misadventure.  Now they'll let just anyone in -- soccer players, businessmen, and even the King of Iraq.  It wouldn't have passed muster, back in my day.  *Shakes head sadly*  Okay, now I'm kind of kidding.  But, yes, generally speaking we should of course base the article on reliable references.  With that being said, there's still some room for deciding how best to do that.  — Mudwater (Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I also discourage anyone to go against wikipedia policies. Please don't edit the article to fit your own standards, etc. That's why I wanted to come here and talk about it first and foremost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandudeguyperson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussions on this topic over the years show a clear consensus that the current inclusion criteria for the Identified Members list are unsatisfactory. The article's subject is the cultural phenomenon of the 27 Club — and yet the overwhelming majority of editor time and discussion is devoted to maintaining and policing The List, which has grown to take up double the vertical space of the article's prose. This is a list article in all but name. The lead even makes that explicit.
 * Here are 4 different ways the current list is listcruft (quoting from that essay):
 * The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable.
 * The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.
 * The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic.
 * The problem is that we haven't established consensus on an alternative set of criteria. I think that's mainly because it's the same few editors repeating the same points and there haven't been enough participants to build momentum for an alternative.
 * I agree with @Escape Orbit, @Mudwater, @Emandudeguyperson that a better, more restrictive inclusion criterion is needed than mere mention in reliable sources. As MOS:CULTURALREFS states, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist."
 * But we do need criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and common sense. — Goffman82 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Escape Orbit, @Mudwater, @Emandudeguyperson that a better, more restrictive inclusion criterion is needed than mere mention in reliable sources. As MOS:CULTURALREFS states, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist."
 * But we do need criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and common sense. — Goffman82 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to petition to put some kind of warning at the top of the 27 Club article. something that reflects the split in opinion on how the article should be presented and reflects that the article needs some work to make it come off a bit more professionally.

Does anyone else agree? And if so, then we can at least agree to put a warning at the top of the article stating that it might not meet up to typical Wikipedia article standards and needs work etc etc.

Let me know what you all think about this. I think it might be a good middle ground for all involved. Thank you for your time. Emandudeguyperson (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a solution. If you have any precise ideas of what the tag might say, indicating exactly the problem with the article and how it might be fixed, then perhaps.  But tags are not a way for editors to tell readers "I don't like this article". -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment came across as very dismissive, and I do not appreciate that. It's not about just disliking an article, and that never was the point at all, and I stated my actual issues with the article several times in detail. How rude. I was simply stating that we could include one of the standard default templates at the top of the article that indicate that the article needs work to meet wikipedia quality standards. But I know you are totally opposed to doing that before I even said anything. Please, treat other users with respect. I did not say anything disrespectful towards you. If anyone else would like to add to the conversation without biting my head off, feel free to do so... Emandudeguyperson (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Emandudeguyperson I'm sorry you think I was being dismissive, you seem to be extrapolating a lot from a few words.. I was just asking what tag you were thinking of adding, and what would it achieve?  All Wikipedia articles are always in a state of improvement, and some need it more than others.  But it's not usual to put a "could be better" notice on an article that doesn't specifically identify a problem, their purpose being to encourage action and/or discussion of the problem.  The issues with this article can't really be described in one tag, and are largely a matter of opinion.  So I don't see what an imprecise tag would achieve, other than an expression of dislike for the article as it stands.  But if you have one in mind that identifies the problems and would help resolve them, happy to hear of it.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverting History and Identified Members edits
@Binksternet I don't understand your revert edit summaries. Please elaborate on the rationale for reverting 1) my edit of the History section that was under active discussion here between me and the other editor, 2) my edit of the members list which has valid references? — Goffman82 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are referring to this edit of mine, with the edit summary of "the source says some people were in the 27 Club, and some other people were not". I thought that was very clear. The mentalfloss source starts by saying some people are in the 27 Club, then it says that other people have also died at age 27. It DOES NOT say that these people are also in the Club. That's why I removed Pope John XII, etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article is actually a bit ambiguous on this point. It says that "Club 27 is headlined by..." the famous musicians, but I think there's a strong implication that the others named are also to be considered in said Club, only that they're not the headliners. This sort of analysis is a bit on the silly side anyway, given that the Club isn't a real thing anyway. But I'd be inclined to include those listed myself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My reply below is in response to Binksternet's message above. — Goffman82 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely narrow reading of the source:
 * "On Saturday, Amy Winehouse passed away and became the latest member of Club 27—an exclusive club you don’t want to be in. Club 27 is headlined by musicians Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Brian Jones, who all died of a drug overdose, suicide, or accident at that young age. But the musically inclined aren't the only ones who die at 27. Here are 10 other people who didn’t live to see 28."
 * I think it's reasonable to assume that the article's author has the same definition of Club membership as the one stated in the lead of 27 Club: celebrities who die at 27. It's hard to imagine they decided to write an article about the 27 Club simply to inform us about 10 famous people who died at 27 who are not members for unspecified reasons. — Goffman82 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think this illustrates the problem with reliable sources forming the basis of who should be in a list. Some reliable sources are free and easy about including other people, which is fine, but we really should be asking; What does including all these people add to the article?   Most of the time the answer would be; "Nothing."  We do not need an every growing list of people matching an increasingly loose definition, in the opinion of maybe one source, to fully illustrate to the reader what the "27 Club" is.  It's not as if the concept is difficult to grasp, the reader does not need dozens of examples to get the idea.  And if the reader then wishes to decide that someone, who otherwise is not in the list, because no reliable source has mentioned them, is a member, well, who cares?  There is no official factual list, there is no standing that can be falsely appropriated by a "false" member. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I continue to follow the existing inclusion criteria, I strongly agree that they need to be updated. — Goffman82 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has spoken up in favor of this revert, I'm going to reinstate the list additions for now. @Binksternet you haven't provided a rationale for reverting my edit of the History section that was under active discussion here between me and another editor. Is there one? — Goffman82 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did indeed provide a rationale for removing the names you added. I noted that the mentalfloss source did not explicitly place the additional names in the 27 Club. Failed verification is the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You stated this, but from the comments in this section so far, nobody here agrees with you. The names are in an article about the 27 club, and the article doesn't say they're not in the club (as if that even means anything anyway) so they are valid entries. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my view, the Mental Floss article does not say that those people are members of the 27 Club. In fact, the article strongly implies that only rock musicians are club members.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On reading the source more carefully: being pedantic (as we must) the mentalfloss source does not say these people are in Club 27. Indeed, it could be read that it is actually saying that they are not. As I said above, this issue just illustrates the almost arbitrary nature of our inclusion criteria.  A slight rephrasing by one writer (Stacy Conradt in this case) can change if someone is in or out.
 * I'd also re-emphasis; the inclusion of these people does not add one iota of value to the article, or makes the slightest difference to how these people are regarded. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion it looks like there is no consensus to keep the mentalfloss.com source and its unusual list of people who died at age 27, including a pope. Goffman82 and Amakuru want to keep it, Escape_Orbit changed from keep to neutral, possibly leaning remove. Mudwater and I are favoring remove. When discussion is at an impasse, disputed text should stay out of the article per WP:ONUS. Note that Goffman82 has recently expressed a wish to tighten the inclusion criteria, which would certainly result in the Mental Floss names going away. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed some entries sources to a 'Listverse' source on similar grounds; poor quality source, source just says they are notable deaths, not that they are club members. What is particularly distinguishing is that two of these people were not notable prior to their death, they were notable after. That does not fit with the criteria described at the top of the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Addition to the Music section
There is a song by the band Letlive called "27 club" from the album "The Blackest Beautiful" that also makes references to the club, and also makes a reference to Kurt Kobain's suicide letter.

The song was released with the album on July 9th, 2013, and also deals with Jason being misidentified by people all the time; whether it's a Christian, or a drug addict (according to an interview with Rocksound that can no longer be found, but is referenced on Wikipedia and Genius). HayDumGee (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

10,000 days
I don't know if it's significant, but your 10,000th day of life happens when you're 27.JohnMason (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's only significant if WP:SECONDARY sources mention it. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)