Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians who died young


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of musicians who died before the age of 60

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft without main article. The second problem is WP:OR because the title has the word young, but the definition of young may vary (see: Youth). Third problem is definining people who are 40 and 50 as young. Although it is not clearly defined, at least according to the sources on the article Youth, none of them defined 40 or 50 as "young", which make me believe it's also a problem of undue weight. Algébrico (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —Algébrico (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No definition of "young" (I'm gonna live forever if the good die young). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename I don't see OR as a problem here, as the list has a clearly defined criteria - musicians who have an article on Wikipedia who died before they were 60. I do agree that the title could better match the actual list - "young" being vague and rarely including people in their 50s. I don't see any requirement for all lists to have a main article - see List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation and List of national decorations to foreign recipients for example. I see no reason not to keep this at a better title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 60 is an arbitrary cutoff. Old age is also not clearly defined. And even if someone is not old, it doesn't mean that he/she is young. Algébrico (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The only problem with this one is the lack of sourcing, and I'd favor a delete if it doesn't move in that direction. However, it is has the level of detail that one would expect from an online encyclopedia, and there has been enough written about musicians who died young for the subject to be sourced.  Yes, I'm sure we'll get a bunch of lawyering about "define 'young'", "define 'musician'", "define 'died'", etc., and the title will probably change to something awkward.  There are some persons who die before they have become has-beens, and they attain legendary status.  Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Buddy Holly, etc. etc. etc., fall in that group, and it's a logical topic that an encyclopedia user would consult.  Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indefinable trivia collection. Might be better presented as a set of categories for various age ranges. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename- "too young" is subjective. Retitling and refocussing so that it instead reads something like "before age 40" (for example) would, with the proper sourcing, make a personally acceptable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete List not viable. What's the definition of "young"? I guarantee you won't find one which will meet our policies on neutrality and avoiding original research. --Folantin (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete see this AfD.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is Listcruft is it not? Dvmedis (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - 50 is young?? As per a similar afd. Artyline (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of a banned user.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft with no definitive end and subjective listings. Relies on WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the lack of strong definition of Young. -- Luk  talk 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - However needs better focus and sourcing. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I took the liberty of renaming the page and AfD, and added some citations; it is far less of a liberty than to delete an article because it has a bad title and/or no citations.
 * As for Listcruft, here is the relevant text showing that this article is none of that:
 * Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and List of Oz books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.

On the other hand, topics such as List of small-bust models and performers, List of songs that contain the laughter of children, and List of nasal singers should be considered highly questionable because there are no articles on those topics.
 * There is an article for each and every one of the elements of this list. Moreover, there is a value to this article that greater than the sum of its parts. You cannot find all of the musicians who died before the age of 60 by looking at any one of the articles, only this one. Anarchangel (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That the modern life expectancy has increased from 70 to 80 can hardly fail to have been noticed by the great majority of editors here. Many here have used the word 'arbitrary'; I ask you, what is your definition of arbitrary, and what is the alternative? In any article at all, the creator has decided upon a topic to discuss. In many articles, there are parameters applied that limit the article to a manageable size. This is a virtue of the article, or at the very least, necessary, and yet it is being portrayed as a detriment, even to the point of being a reason to delete. I believe that it is the inexperience of those responding in creating articles, that leads them to this conclusion, but of course I do not know, and it could be for any number of reasons. It is particularly irksome that, with seeming disregard to the fact that they have called into question the necessary limiting factor of the title, that sometimes the same editors have also claimed that there is no limit to the article, that it is doomed to become too large. The irony is really quite thick. I have added the preceding to my assertions, in the hope that if these arguments are placed higher on the page, people will read them. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another addition:
 * The cutoff for the article is as I have clarified in the lede; it must now carry the burden of elucidation that the original title did: these are untimely deaths. A death of old age at 30 in the middle ages, for example, will never be a problem for this article because it was a death by natural causes. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with many of your points, dying at age 59 or 57 is not particularly notable, and you cannot find anything close to all the musicians who died before age 60, because despite the title the list only includes certain types of musicians, and expanding to genuinely include all musicians who died before age 60 would be an incredibly large undertaking resulting in a list too long to be very meaningful. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think a list like this can be of use, but it needs to be much more focused, say on rock musicians who died before age 40. Many, many musicians died before age 60, to the point that such a list would be meaningless.  I mean, dying at age 59 is not particularly notable.  And I don't see any classical musicians here, such as Wolfgang Mozart, who died in his 30s.  And what about violinists, session musicians, blues musicians?  So as currently scoped, even with the improvement in removing the arbitrary term "young", I am still tempted to think that deleting is appropriate.  But, since I think this information in a more focused form is very useful, I would prefer to see the scope narrowed and kept in that form. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You weren't looking very hard. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is on the list. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. I missed that.  But people will be much easier to miss once this list - if it truly includes all musicians - are included.  And the general point I was trying to make still stands.  For example, Ludwig van Beethoven is missing, as well as virtually all other classical musicians.  And what about Latin American musicians, East Asian musicians, African musicians, etc.?  To try to include all musicians who died before 60, or even 40, would be unwieldy.  But I still think that a List of rock and pop musicians who died before 40 would be very useful. Rlendog (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I considered Beethoven yesterday, and ultimately rejected it, as his death seemed far too much like what would normally be called 'natural causes'. He was a heavy drinker, and there is some speculation he died of lead poisoning, but there just isn't room to put all that in. 56 was probably pretty late in years, in the time that he lived. I don't suppose I would object to him being included, but I won't do it myself. There is a short list of other classical musicians proffered on the talk page, and I will be pursuing their inclusion if appropriate. It's a fun project, and I look forward to being able to do it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rejecting Beethoven because is death is too much like 'natural causes' is one of the problems with using 60 as the cutoff age. I suppose if enough people are working on this article we ought to (weak) keep it to give it a chance to develop and see what happens.  I am still concerned that the scope is way too broad to be meaningful though. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have to use a solution to fix a problem is not a problem. The problem -was- the problem. It's fixed now. Using death by natural causes and old age as a counterindicator for inclusion isn't a problem. It's the solution. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Even when you stabilish 60, it's an arbitrary cutoff (like this AfD). Why 60? Even if it is changed to 59, 87, 22, 48 or whatever, it would be still arbitrary. It's also unlimited and unmaintainable. Algébrico (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "List of people who died before the age of 30"? The only proper reason for listing that is the sheer size of the entry: all people who have ever lived who were notable and died aged 29 or below? I myself would have voted to delete such a list.
 * All dead notables aged 29 or below would not fit within a 100k article; this article, with focus of only musicians, is currently 21k.
 * I would estimate it to be half complete, and it is easy to maintain. Only Top 40 artists or better can make it on. Heavy rotation keeps most on for months. The number is severely curtailed by the 59 or below rule. 90% of the 60 or so deaths are from 10 years ago or more. That's about a death every 2 years, and if you consider that the rap/gang culture that lead to Tupac and B.I.G.s deaths is now split into musicians and gangs, then it is a death every 3 years. The article can then be split into music categories, or time periods. Can you honestly say that once every three years, someone can't come along and maintain the article? I already removed a recent entry, myself.
 * Arbitrary cutoff? Please show the WP rule that requires the scope of articles' subjects to be confined to Universal Constants, so I can delete that rule, too. Anarchangel (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The rule against making arbitrary cut-offs is called no original research. You can't just make a figure up off the top of your head and create a list around it. You have provided no evidence that multiple reliable sources regard musicians dying before the age of 60 as a notable criterion. --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. But you do win the prize for most ingredients in a WP rule Mulligan Stew. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless you rename it "List of contemporary popular musicians who died before the age of 60" or something equivalent, since it's obviously intended to be a popular music only list. It's bizarre to include only Mozart for the thousand years of documented music-making before the 20th century, and as the only representative outside of the popular music realm.  At least half, if not most, musicians died before the age of 60 prior to modern times.  Shall we add them all? Antandrus  (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions. Hence the WP:AGF rule. But what is it called when one asserts they know the intention of an article? If the documentable musicians that died before modern times truly were as numerous, which I very much doubt (verifiability, less drug use, no airplanes, no automobiles, and WP:N applied, because life expectancy was lower), there would still be room in the article. It is 21kb at the moment. Deleting an article because material has not yet been found to round it out, is just crazy talk to me. And the arguments to delete are contradictory to a certain extent. First, there isn't enough material in the article, which is obviously fixable by finding it and putting it in the article, then there's obviously too much material out there, which is obviously fixable by leaving some out. Take heart, mon brave ami. It will be fixed. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Crazy talk?" "Assume good faith"?  Have you even read the article you are defending with a WP:BLUDGEON?  Have you?  The opening line is, and I quote, "Rock, pop and blues music has a long history of premature deaths of influential musicians."  That's "rock, pop and blues music."  I'm not making that up, it's there.  Read it!  If that is not a statement of what the article intends to be about, then what is it exactly?   I wrote in my comment that the article would need to be renamed; else it is an exercise in absurdity.  You would need to compile the names of the majority of musicians who ever lived prior to the time that the average age of death exceeded 60.  Anarchangel, that's one hell of a lot of people.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for bringing that phrase to my attention. It's gone. It was a fluff sentence in any case, I usually zone out when reading those. And your point about life expectancy earlier in history goes to the argument for calling the article its original title "Musicians who died young". You can see above how popular a name that was. Editors will have to use their discretion on this article. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading over my sentence "I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions." again, I feel I should point out that I was not referring to this discussion. It was by way of introducing the concept of AGF to show the futility and inappropriateness of ascribing intent to an article, when even persons are given the benefit of the doubt. No one had said anything up to that point resembling AGF. And this incident does offer an object lesson about the usefulness of the process of assertions backed with reasons backed with citations faintly outlined in WP:EQ and in the Disagreement Pyramid. Had you quoted that phrase in the beginning, to clarify your reasoning and back up your assertion, this would not have been an issue. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Is dying before the age of 60 really an achievement in anything but the past thirty or so years? It is not, and this is a list which will never be complete, for there are too many questions: Is 60 classed as young? How does a musician become notable enough for the list (does the drummer of a band with a sole minor chart hit in 1963 count, for example)? And, as Antandrus suggests, how about all of those early musicians where it would actually be rarer to die after 60 years old? I don't see any encylopedic value to the list, either. Esteffect (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of who is notable enough for the list, the answer is that anyone who is notable enough for their own Wikipedia article is eligable - no article, no entry. The title can easily be changed to reflect the actual policy of the list in terms of rock/pop/etc musicians. This is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As shown above, Esteffect, the concern of WP:N for reasons of life expectancy being lower in earlier history, is applicable to individual entries on the list. Because the problem is dealt with by the article's editors, and is part of the normal process of crafting an article, it is unnecessary to make it a part of an AfD. For example, I left out Beethoven, who was in his 50s when he died, not only because of seemingly natural causes, but partly because people died earlier in his time. AfD should be concerned with problems that cannot be solved with the normal editing process, but this is not such a one. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as arbitrary listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:ITSCRUFT. That the article is your peeve is irrelevant. Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it is impossible to maintain this list to be even close to completion. There are millions of musicians in the world and I'm not seeing a criteria that would trim this list to a useable size. Also, why 60? Seems like an arbitrary number... Note to User:Anarchangel: see WP:BLUDGEON before you comment on my (and other's) posts simply because you disagree with them. Tavix |  Talk  16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See Response Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this simply has no encyclopedic value. - Warthog Demon  02:59, 2 July 2009 (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.