Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people responsible for a death


 * 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 Speedy close as Delete per WP:SNOW. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of famous people responsible for a death

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Another list of famous people who... The big problem with this article is that it's scope is not clearly defined. Who qualifies as a celebrity, what qualifies as responsibility for death. Do you need to pull the trigger, fail to call the police at the right time, not know CPR, refuse a kidney, where is the line? Beyond the problem with scope, I question the encyclopedic value of this article. This article was just deleted(google cache) and recreated due to the large amount of unsourced statements that living people were responsible for death. I think this is a magnet for unverified information and a violation of WP:BLP waiting to happen. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First "magnet for unverified information" and "violation of BLP waiting to happen" are not useful or valid reasons to delete an article. Given the phobia of the dreaded "overcategorization," this is a perfectly worthwhile, verifiable, and easily-maintainable list. I see no valid reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the other issues I brought up? Regarding the scope? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That can easily be dealt with via editing. One editor's inability to define a scope doesn't mean that a scope cannot be defined. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so where would you draw the line? So far no editor has defined the scope. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and specifically for the scope; such a list is inherently arbitrary, taking in, potentially, everyone from Laura Bush to celebrities who've served in the military (Clark Gable was an air force gunner during WWII; does he count? Or would he count because he didn't convince Carole Lombard not to fly that night?)  It could include John Wilkes Booth (famous before he shot Lincoln), but not Lee Harvey Oswald (although, since there was pre-'63 press regarding his Russian hijinx, might he have counted, after all)?  Robertissimo 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not have the sober encyclopedic tone required for an encyclopedia article. By its nature this article will invite poorly sourced information in violation of Biographies of living persons. Also it is a POV fork. Fred Bauder 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete tere being no encyclopaedic topic "famous person responsible for death", the term "famous" being subjective, and the degree of responsibility likely to vary between failing to call the cops and actually pulling the trigger, plus the potential for endless sneaky POV and including the objections raised by Robertissimo, this list is arbitrary, subjective, and likely to violate WP:BLP by lumping together living individuals of varying degrees of complicity. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This is much better than the already deleted version. I don't think we should delete articles just because they are a magnet for abuse - the answer is to closely monitor the article to make sure it isn't abused. However, the scope is too poorly defined, and is too difficult to define. I don't think there is encyclopaedic value in this list. --Tango 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy's points, to which might be added that it will inevitably fall afoul of WP:BLP in that even when a negative, well-sourced fact is available, a list cannot communicate it in a balanced, sober fashion. It also seems to me to run afoul of WP:NOT.   Buck  ets  ofg  16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete scope too poorly defined. --Fredrick day 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As mentioned above, the critera of being 'resonsible for a death' is too vague to be clearly supported. If a source mentions that someone is not reponsible for a death in a legal context but clearly describes them as the primary actor in the event, does that qualify or disqualify for inclusion?  If in an interview a man declares himself responsible for his wife's death because he was out of town of business, or forgot to load their home defense weapon, is that the type of resposibility that is being referenced?  The large scope of things that the word 'responsible' describes, which can potentially conflict, is inherently problematic.  And that is even apart form any consideration of merit or potential for negative interactions with BLP or POV issues. Bitnine 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Is Bush responsible for deaths in his Iraq war? Bin Laden for the trade tower deaths? The format does not provide room for encyclopedic coverage of the grey areas and "fame" and "responsibility" are mostly grey with very little black and white. WAS 4.250 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Astounding BLP implications aside, the scope of this is too wide and much too vague, per most of the above. Grand  master  ka  17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I concur with tango. The article is a magnet for abuse yes? reason to delete probably not, althought there may be other reasons. I did delete it when 100% of article was unsourced. NOw it isn't. -- Drini 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Robertissimo about the dangers if this list is allowed to stay. How long before we get into a dispute over whether to add George W. Bush and Tony Blair on the grounds that they were responsible for the Iraq war? Or celebrity women who have had an abortion? I do not think this is a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete inclusion is arbitrary, and it's not clear what inclusion signifies; better covered in individual articles where it can be presented in context. Tom Harrison Talk 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cost/benefit analysis is, in my opinion, a sometimes valid way to look at deletion questions.  Encyclopedic value?  Very little.  Potential for trouble?  Fairly high.  Friday (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too vague. "Responsibility" (apparently meaning moral responsibility) is not something an encyclopedia can decide.  Would a soldier make the list for shooting enemy troops?  What about a general who puts the troops on the field in the first place?  What about a CEO whose company's factories have poor safety records?  This looks like a libel magnet waiting to happen, and with very little encyclopedic value to offset the risk.  I could see a "List of convicted murderers" or even "List of court cases involving a death", but not this. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 'Famous' is ridiculously subjective; as is 'responsible'.  If Madonna has an abortion, does that qualify as being 'responsible' for a 'death'?  If Mel Gibson's dad has a stroke and ends up in a coma on life support, does Mel become 'responsible' for the death if he agrees that it's time to pull the plug?  Further to that, is the judge who agreed to let Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be removed 'responsible' for her death?  How about the family members who made the request?  Just the one(s) who removed the tube?  Maybe the doctors who declared that she was in an irrecoverably vegetative state?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per subjectivity of famous. Plus it could be listcruft easily if not handled properly.-- Wizardman 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - if properly verified and referenced, I see no insurmountable problem with this article. The ambiguities can be resolved by specifying more detail in the lede (not necessarily needed in the article's title, which should be kept simple) or by splitting the list into sub-articles. Now granted, looking at this AfD's results so far it looks like this is a futile "vote", but similar articles may show up later. Bryan 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - famous is too subjective, "responsible for" is too broad, and, quite frankly, I don't think this is encyclopaedia content. Guettarda 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete &bull; Legal liabilities are too great. The integrity of Wikipedia is the primary concern, and this article threatens that integrity.  Period.  If it's kept, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it get Office attention in the future.  Cheers,  ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 03:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the arguments above, particularly the argument that famous is a subjective term. --The Way 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. I honestly cannot think of any defined scope that would prevent this list from being unmaintainable. Resolute 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Far too broad in scope. Wikipedia has around 300,000 biographies; under the broadest interpretation, this page could link to at least half of them. --Carnildo 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not only would this list be close to infinitely long, wasting hours that can be spent on more meaningful articles, the criteria for inclusion on this list is ridiculously vague. Who determines who is famous? Who determines if they're responsible for a death? That, and all the other reasons listed above. Gab.popp 09:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list is extraordinarily vague, as TenofAllTrades and others quite rightly have pointed out. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Scope is too wide. Degree of responsibility required is not clear. Mgm|(talk) 12:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Friday already beat me to the cost/benefit argument, which a strong reason for deletion. Very weak reasons to keep this vague list yet endless problems to deal with. SuperMachine 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Adhering to our Verifiability policy is only part of the picture. Another large part, ignored by all of the editors above who have asserted that individual entries can be sourced standalone is our No original research policy's bearing upon the list as a whole.  The legal systems of the world don't have a single "responsible for death" category.  They have gradations, including murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and others.  The world outside of Wikipedia does not lump all of these together, and thus Wikipedia should not do so, either, per our policy.  Doing so is a novel synthesis of data that does not reflect the world outside of Wikipedia. And before someone suggests constructing individual lists of famous people who have been convicted of (say) involuntary manslaughter:  Even ignoring for now the admonition in Lists (stand-alone lists) not to create lists of "famous X", a list of famous people who have committed a particular crime is of little relevance to encyclopaedic discussion of those crimes, and is of no use to readers who have come wanting an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid newspaper.  The important cases as far as readers, who come to an encyclopaedia to learn about involuntary manslaughter, are concerned are not the cases that involve famous people.  They are the landmark cases where the details of the law on involuntary manslaughter have been settled, and where important legal principles were invented or overturned.  Those, not lists of cases involving famous people, are the sort of lists that we as editors should be constructing for readers.  (Better yet, we shouldn't be constructing mere lists of cases at all, but full discussions of the legal principles and details, citing the cases that were involved.) Delete. Uncle G 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; far too vague. I appreciate badlydrawnjeff's efforts; perhaps a separate list of people responsible for accidental deaths?  I like the Burroughs/Tell entry, but the other entries on the page are just murders/manslaughters that are just a drop in the bucket of famous people responsible for a death.  Ral315 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2007 (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.