Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 celebrity death cluster


 * 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. Consensus is that, while the media have covered this, we do not want or need to repeat every piece of gossip the media talk about.  Sandstein  07:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 celebrity death cluster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:EVENT. There's no "lasting, historical significance" about an unrelated cluster of deaths of people who happen to be famous. -- Irn (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Coincidental deaths and speculations not qualifying for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is clearly notable as we have coverage in good mainstream sources such the BBC and here's some fresh coverage in The Guardian: Why are so many celebrities dying in 2016?. A common theory for this phenomenon is that we have a generational peak effect as a wave of celebrities that became famous in the television era are now reaching an age at which they are tending to die.  While we cannot be sure what history will make of this, it is reasonable to suppose that it might mark the end of an era, comparable with the Belle Époque or Jazz Age.  As we have yet to see the end of the current spike, it would be premature to delete the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Why are so many celebrities dying in 2016?... You asked Google – here’s the answer" Is the complete headline. I'm not convinced there's anything here. What the heck are we supposed to make of the fact that 94-year old Abe Vigoda has finally died, back in January, and how does that relate to Prince? Cuz he's in the article's list. Adding to the Internet delsort, too, for the Google search angle of the Guardian piece. Oh and Medicine, too, since we're talking about mortality. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(e/c):I like that suggestion, like it a lot. Being a 1961 model myself, the relevance hits home far more. In fact I keep looking for my name on Non-notable screw-up baby boomers death cluster 2016 every morning. If I'm not there then I get up. Irondome (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete what is a "celebrity"? We have Deaths in 2016 which demonstrates that at least a dozen "notable" people die every day.  That some mean more to the general public than others is pure tabloid garbage.  Not encyclopedic, of no lasting impact, purge immediately.  If it turns out that these "celebrities" are all dying of a "celebrity-based disease" then we can re-consider, otherwise this is simply lower-than-tabloid fodder.  As for "generational peak", see WP:BOLLOCKS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a media-created phenomena. Agree with WP:EVENT and WP:BOLLOCKS basically. Seems to be a list of deaths with a dodgy lede tacked on to give it legitimacy. As we are only in April it does appear somewhat premature. I would wait till some serious scientific media comment on it, maybe in 2018. Get rid of it. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article as it stands isn't really that useful but there is clearly a lot of coverage here. Much of coverage relates to a wider phenomenon (not likely to be limited to 2016) and related to the number of people now perceived as celebrities, the ageing baby boomer generation etc. The BBC, Telegraph and Time amongst many others have written about it so I believe there is a case that it passes the general notability guidelines and that a good article dealing with the resons for the perception of there having been more deaths could be written. The article title however is terrible. - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 10:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm absolutely gob-smacked that Abe Vigoda has passed. He was only 94, and had only previously been reported dead several times. Makes ya think. Look, I still believe The Rambling Man's take on this is bang on. But looking at the refs Basement12 has offered above, perhaps a selective merge with Baby boomers is in order, which already has sections on both Aging and end-of-life issues and Impact on history and culture that could benefit from some expansion. In fact, the more I think of it, the more I think this is where it should be. If this news/internet meme is about the cultural impact of baby boomer mortality starting hitting home -- and I type this as a non-famous member of that very generation -- which is the only really notable aspect of those RS, then I can't see the value to readers in forking off to a separate article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a made up thing. There is no curse, just a coincidence. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the article title states that this is a discrete 2016 cluster, it is therefore an event. So I'm adding to that delsort, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems like this should either be treated as part of a baby boomer mortality article, as someone else said, or else as part of some broader article on "death clusters" if indeed anyone has done any scholarly research into such a thing. Otherwise the fact that a bunch of famous people coincidentally died completely unrelated deaths (many if not most of them at ages when death isn't exactly unexpected) is mere trivia and thus an example of "what Wikipedia is not".TheBlinkster (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it needs to be noted that WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than WP:GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG. An argument to keep the article must, therefore, explain how the article meets the criteria of WP:EVENT and not merely WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been commented on by many mainstream media organisations and public figures, as well as being a common topic of conversation. This is similar to 2009's Summer of Death, which received a similar level of attention. These have been the only two recent years in which this has been the case. No-one's saying that the overall death rate, or the death rate of notable people, is higher this year. What's unusual is the number of deaths of very high-profile celebs who, when they died, had millions of fans. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this is WP:OR and non-notable. A lot of "celebs" died in 2016? You mean just like every previous year? It's essentially a content fork of Deaths in 2016.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment You must have noticed that a particularly high number of very famous people have died this year. It's not the number of celebs/notable people - it's the number of celebs who died who have millions of fans. Several people who you immediately recognise, who you don't have to think hard about to remember who they were. We haven't had a previous year that's had so many high-profile celeb deaths in the first four months. If this year weren't different, there would have been many people and organisations commenting during other years about how many celebs died - which hasn't happened since 2009. Jim Michael (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what constitutes a "celebrity" then? We have Deaths in 2016 which lists all the people notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  What makes this subset so much more "celebrity" than those who aren't listed?  Why is Chyna more "celebrity" than Blackjack Mulligan?  Why is Zaha Hadid more "celebrity" than Vladimir Kagan?  This list is garbage and pure original research, about as far removed from encyclopedic content as anything I've ever seen.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those four you mentioned had millions of fans. Architects and furniture designers rarely have millions of fans. You must be able to tell the difference between deaths of people like you mentioned - compared to David Bowie, Prince etc. Jim Michael (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I sink your battleship - two of those I mentioned are listed in this "article". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because some of the sources mention them, along with the major celebs. That doesn't mean that my point isn't valid. Most notable people aren't properly famous and don't have millions of fans. The large majority of people listed in Deaths in 2016, Deaths in 2015, Deaths in 2014 etc. aren't known of by most people. In contrast, mention Bowie to almost anyone and they immediately know who he was. You must see the difference between a little-known notable person and a very famous person. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So your mistake. And yes, I see my own personal interpretation on who is little-known and who is not little-known, but that's a personal (original) opinion.  What are the inclusion criteria for this list?  What defines a celebrity?  You yourself told me that two of the people on that list aren't celebrities.  So why are they on the list?  What is encyclopedic about this list?  As I said below, remove the list, leave the term as a dictionary definition, and move it to wiktionary as a one-liner.  Cherry picking people's personal lists of people they personally find to match their own definition of celebrity is not what an encyclopedia should be doing, and you know that.   The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a mistake. I'm not talking about who should or shouldn't be included in this list - because that's not what this discussion is about. This is about whether the article should be kept or deleted. The article's talk page is the place to discuss who to add or remove from the list. Not all of the people in the list were very high-profile and I didn't say that none of the four you mentioned were on the list. My point was that this year has seen an unusually high number of deaths of people who have millions of fans. That is why this article was created and why the subject has received so much media coverage. You must have heard/read many people talking about the high number of celeb deaths this year; people weren't saying the same thing about 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 or 2010. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You made a fatal mistake, claiming that two of the individuals I noted weren't celebrities yet here they are, listed and cited. You have made mistake after mistake, and your continual unsourced claims of "millions of fans" is bollocks.  There are "celebrities" in South Korea who have "millions of fans" who would never get listed in these tabloid reports because they're overlooked, because, yes, that's right, the inclusion criteria is pure original research, in other words, it's made up.  It's not encyclopedic.  As I said before, remove the list, leave the term as a dicdef and link it to Wiktionary.  This has no place in a genuine encyclopedia beyond a redirect.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that none of them were celebs - I said that they were nothing like the level of Bowie or Prince. Only two of the four you mentioned are listed in the article. Korean celebs who perform only in Korean aren't likely to feature prominently in the Western World, so their deaths won't be featured in the media outside of Korea. This isn't a suitable topic for a dictionary, so I don't see it being in Wiktionary. Summer of Death is in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. It's not original research - it's backed by reliable sources. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I only picked two to test the water, you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Your last post indicates that this is pure OR, a subject that is non-encyclopedic, i.e. we'll ignore the "celebs" (and yes, you have failed to define "celebrity" for the fourth or fifth time of asking) who die in Korea, and stick to those in the Western world.  Utterly subjective, pure original research.  Just because they are not featured "outside of Korea" it doesn't mean they are not "celebrities", or should we rename this "2016 celebrities who are considered important by the western world death cluster"?  Do you know what an encyclopedia is?   (P.S. Summer of Death is going to be deleted soon, just FYI) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not many Koreans will be well-known to our readers. If there's a year when an unusual number of Korean celebs die, that will be covered by Korea's media. Perhaps Korean Wikipedia will create an article about it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - this relates to your point above. Coincidentally, and at least to me interestingly, an article on this question went up just a few hours ago using stats from Wikipedia as a means to measure fame. I'm not sure how much that website is trusted as a source but it was that kind of statistical analysis featured in some of the other articles liked above that could contribute to making the topic noteworthy, not perhaps as it's own article but maybe as a section within the baby boomers article or elsewhere -  Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and something like gizmodo is the sort of place to put this kind of rubbish. A made-up measure of "celebritiness" filtered on Deaths in 2016.  How useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Without proper scope (selected by sources to avoid WP:OR) I'm unsure how this differs from Deaths in 2016.LM2000 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It differs in that a particularly high number of people have died this year who had millions of fans. Jim Michael (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Millons of fans" seems unmanageable and hard to gauge... but if you can find sources that support that scope then we'll talk.LM2000 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope is the celebrities specifically cited in accounts of the phenomenon. All the celebrities currently listed are supported by specific sources as being part of this peak in deaths.  Deaths in 2016 contains large numbers of people who may be technically regarded as notable but are not famous celebrities, e.g. Sunil Gudge.  Deaths in 2016 has about 20 entries per day including red links.  It's that list which is indiscriminate as it's so long that it's largely useless. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Deaths in 2016 is most certainly not indiscriminate at all. The inclusion criteria are precisely defined.  Individuals who meet the notability of Wikipedia, and for those without articles, red links are removed after a month (the red links are initially allowed to encourage article creation).  Indiscriminate lists, such as this one, are those where sources are cherry-picked using original research.  Why aren't many of those people listed here included? Or here?  Or here?  Also, can you provide a defintion of "famous celebrity" please?  Please note Wikipedia has a special template for that kind of thing, where a term like "famous" or "significant" &c. is used, see famous.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deaths in 2016 is quite indiscriminate because everybody dies and so, over time, everyone will end up on one of these Deaths in yyyy pages.
 * There's another place where we report deaths and that's the main page which has a Recent Deaths section. Deaths are reported selectively there and this is determined by a vote at WP:ITN/C.
 * In the page in question, the main topic is the overall issue that we may be seeing a surge in numbers. The list of specific names is a natural complement to this but is mainly illustrative.  As it's based on what the sources say, it is definitely not OR and is quite objective, unlike the other cases above which will either take anyone or are based upon a subjective vote.
 * Per WP:BLUE, we don't really need to explain what a famous celebrity is. But, if you want a detailed analysis, see Is 2016 Really a Bizarrely Bad Year for Celebrity Deaths? Here's the Data to Prove It, which comes to the conclusion that it's megastars which matter most in determining this phenomenon. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deaths in 2016 is not indiscriminate at all. It contains all notable people that die.
 * The ITN/RD section has nothing to do with this discussion.
 * Remove the list, and you have an non-expandable stub which effectively becomes a dicdef. By all means do that and we can move it to Wiktionary.
 * We absolutely do need to define what a "celebrity" is because it's clear from those on the list you have provided that it's purely subjective. Please see WP:OR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope of this article is very different from that of Deaths in 2016. This is about the fact that an unusually high number of celebs died this year who had millions of fans (not deaths of merely notable people or deaths in general). It's a topic that's received a lot of media coverage and is one of the most common topics of conversation this year. Deaths in 2016 is a list of all the notable people (and a few notable non-humans) who died this year. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the scope is very similar indeed, just the inclusion criteria for Deaths in 2016 is objective and encyclopedic, while this list is purely subjective and a result of a few people's opinions on who and who is not a "celebrity". You have summarily failed to define what a "celebrity" is, your own errors in such a definition are indicative that this is purely original research.  I have provided additional sources that discuss this with individuals who are not currently listed and who do not list some who are currently listed.  In other words, if you took a holistic view of all the "celebs" who have died so far, you'd end up with Deaths in 2016, simply because we have no objective definition of a celebrity and as such this kind of lame intersection combined with pathetic tabloidism should be excised from a proper encyclopedia. (And please, never, ever use "most common topics of conversation this year" as a reason to create a Wikipedia article, Jesus.  We'd have a whole topic dedicated to Kim Kardashian's Instagram account.  You see my point?)   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most notable people aren't celebs. Most celebs don't have millions of fans. We don't have articles about anyone's Instagram account. It's millions of people talking/writing about the unusual number of high-profile celebs dying this year that has made the media cover it extensively - that makes it notable. This isn't imaginary or a fad - many people still remember that June-September 2009 had an unusually high number of high-profile celeb deaths. If someone said to you that many celebs have died this year, would you say: "that's bollocks - there's been no more than any other year!"? Jim Michael (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to Summer of Death? Irondome (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for you to make an encyclopedic definition of a "celebrity" which bounds this list. If you don't want to do that, or can't do that, then please let me know.  Your personal theories and original research are great if we're writing a blog, but we're writing an encyclopedia.  You surely understand that?  And as for Kim's instagrams, plenty of sources have covered those, so why not start an article on that load of old bollocks to match this crap?  (P.S. Have you ever heard of statistics?  This, along with the 2009 nonsense are nothing at all, just a bunch of bored journos trying to eek out a living based on original research.  Why would you ever think that should be part of an encyclopedia? And why is Zaha Hadid here, for example, if you're proclaiming this to be a list of "celebs"?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All the celebrities mentioned in the article are supported by respectable sources such as the BBC and Newsweek. Compare this with TRM's position at WP:ITN/C where he declares that recently dead people such as Daniel Berrigan and Jean-Baptiste Bagaza are notable and so should be specially selected.  That selection process just seems to be based on personal opinion, rather than objective sources like we have here. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ITNC has no relevance to this discussion at all. This article lists a few people's individual opinions on who is a "celebrity".  It's pure original research and non-encyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Journalists are meant to do original research. This isn't just the red-tops - this year's celeb death spike has been covered by respected, reliable mainstream media sources. I didn't add Hadid and didn't argue for her inclusion in the list. It's difficult to define the boundary of who is or isn't a celebrity - but several people died in the first four months of this year who have millions of fans. Can you really not see how that is far more that during any other timeframe - apart from June-September 2009? Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * December 1980 was sexy as hell (in a news sense). Six heads of state, three music icons, a few old-guard actors, a princess, the poster boy for fried chicken in America (disturbingly enduring legacy here) and a goddamned vampire. Countless 24-hour bloggers missing in action, tragically. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This one got around to compiling a list three decades later. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Randomness is clumpy. This kind of cluster is expected to happen with a purely random distribution. Should we create an article next time we have a few months with no celebrity deaths? It fails WP:GNG as it is a non event. -- McSly (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic clearly passes WP:GNG as there are multiple good sources. Andrew D. (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This isn't an encyclopaedic topic: it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a gossip magazine or particularly stupid tabloid newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's covered in and backed by reliable, good-quality media sources - not mere gossip magazines or red-top tabloids. Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unencyclopedic and lacks clear definition. You yourself have demonstrated that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How are you claiming I've demonstrated that? Every entry in this article's list is backed by reliable sources. If you have a problem with the definition of celebrity, the place to bring that up is Talk:Celebrity. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have continually missed the point, and continue to do so. I have no problem with the article on "celebrity" but I do have a problem with this list of original research which is in no way encyclopedic.  I'm done here, and glad to see that the consensus is clearly in favour of the removal of this tabloid trash.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If five or ten years from now people are still talking about this, then maybe. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as article has an essay-like tone. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete A quick glance at any Deaths in 20xx page clearly shows everyone dies all the time. Some say the "phenomena" predates Wikipedia by about four billion years. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Sure, it passes GNG, but to me this just looks like a myth created by the media. The deaths are completely unrelated, and just happened to all occur in a similar time frame.  Omni Flames   let's talk about it  02:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Not at all different from Fan death in terms of statistic coincidence, minus the popularity and culture background that made the latter important enough for an article. Pattern of death also follows pattern of population boom delayed by average lifespan, and people sit on chairs.  JW  Noctis talk to me 05:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the West, black cats infamously suck breath. In Korea, black cats famously melt hearts. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.