Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death List


 * 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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Death List
Fast Delete - seems to be an entry about a website forum (basically a free advert at that) that is constantly vandalised by members of that forum Gretnagod 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Having considered everything I have changed my mind and realised that this site DOES deserve an entry. If for no other reason than its inclusion in The Sun, the highest circulating English-speaking newspaper on the planet. However, IP addresses of edits should be closely monitored for vandalism - ie if its true that users of that site are altering other Wiki entries to fake deaths - ie Clive Dunn - then it should be pulled. There is no way it can be merged because, as much as anyone did, the creators of Death List actually invented the idea. Gretnagod 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * this site linked from dead pool claims to have a history of the concept since 1591. So I hardly think it's fair to assert that the creators of this website invented it in 1987.  TMS63112 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that site links from Deathpool. TMS63112 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we could argue over what an actual concept actually is, because I think the concept of this is different enough to other similar concepts to warrant inclusion. It is surely more than a forum as it tracks the day to day well-being of many people, some famous and some less so but all who are in, or were in, the public eye. Gretnagod 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever the differences between this Death List and other dead pools or Deathpools I belive the concepts are all similar enough that they could all be covered by one merged article with appropriate redirects. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep .. Notable website, interesting subject matter, verifiable media references. 18,800 googles for ["deathlist.net" ++Deiz 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Get it merged as below ++Deiz 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep As per arguments on talk page. Canadian Paul 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alexa rating is over 177,000.--ThreeAnswers 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 13% non-duplicate returns on [Google] (thus 14400 * .13 = ~1870) reveals limited popularity. Further many of the links seem to be garbage.  The brief notoriety spawned by [|"Keef's" lament] is insufficient to keep this here.  Therefore, unnotable, low-traffic, flash-in-the-pan unencyclopedic subject. Eusebeus 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This page should be KEPT!! (Lady Die, DL member) Keep.. Significance of site indicated by factors other than the number of site 'hits'; in particular, acknowledgements from           reputable news sources (i.e. The Sun, The Guardian, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Esquire, Yahoo!, etc). --In eternum+ 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, per Deiz. Adrian Lamo · (talk)  · (mail) · 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Web forums can create a lot of Google hits if they want to and still be beyond the scope of notability. --Agamemnon2 11:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * weak(ish) delete. Has a couple of thosand inbound links  and Alexa rank of 177,000, so seems to em to fail WP:WEB.  If it can be substantiated that they originated this idea then that would make them notable in my view. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 12:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not-notable enough, I'd like an Alexa rank of 100,000 or better, unless it is notable for other reasons (discussed in news media, popular book mentions, ect.). Prodego  talk  13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is hardly a flash in the pan as it has been going for 20 years

Merge and redirect to Deathpool or Dead pool (which should probably be merged into each other). TMS63112 20:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That works for me too. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per User:TMS63112.--ThreeAnswers 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per User:TMS63112 Ocicat 08:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above Ashibaka tock 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Significant, informative and entertaining website. Death List is not a gambling game nor do members submit individual lists as in a Dead pool or Deathpool. It is almost certainly an unique format (as suggested above by Gretnagod) and justifies a separate article.Obi 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with the above post. And surely this matter should be decided soon as it is dragging on a bit. 88.109.174.168 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin By my count, four of the 6 users who have suggested this article be kept are either anonymous IPs or their only contributions are related to this AfD. TMS63112 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment relating to above statement That is not relevant - it's not the number who voice an opinion either way but what they state. Death List relates to a unique discussion area and members do not choose their own picks, as in Dead Pools etc. Instead, a central committee makes the decisions and it is up to members to provide updates on the health and well being of those listed. The above post should be discounted. Gretnagod 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment User:TMS63112 seems to have a problem with anonymous users BUT on their very own page they admit they made many contributions to Wiki before registering. Pot, Kettle, Black? Gretnagod 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Response I don't have a problem with anonymous editors or with new editors. We were all new once, and I contributed anonymously to many articles. But, for better or worse, it is standard proceedure in closing AfD debates to look at the history of users contributions. The opinions expressed by users who have a history of contributing to Wikipedia are generally given more weight than the opinions of those who show up to "vote" on a single AfD. Therefore, I was simply pointing out information that the closing admin may want to consider. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to TMS63112: If you are suggesting that my opinion on this matter should be taken less seriously because I have not commented on other Wiki articles, I most seriously object. Just because I couldn't care less about most of the topics covered in Wiki does not mean my opinion with regard to this topic is less valid. --In eternum+ 00:30, 7 February 2006 (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.