Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who became famous through being terminally ill

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 as Indiscriminate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who became famous through being terminally ill[edit]

Contested prod. Unencyclopedic list. Garion96 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hell? Danny Lilithborne 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We aren't Time Magazine, either. --Dennisthe2 03:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete TIME magazine :) I love it! Silly lists like this are a blightDroliver 21:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go against the grain and say weak keep and possibly rename. I have to say... I kind of like this list. And I don't mean that in the WP:ILIKEIT way; I mean that this is a fairly decent list. It has distinct parameters (someone who is notable solely for their illness) and could have some encyclopedic value (say, somebody was looking for info on Terri Schiavo and wanted to know if there were other people whose only notability was illness... or something like that. Anyway, it's not the best list ever, but considering it's well-defined and finite, I still think that it has its place on WP. -- Kicking222 04:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a good point, but under the circumstances, this is something probably better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Listcruft. – Ch acor 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is useful for being a curiosity, even if it does not meet the strict encyclopedic criteria. Moreover, it passes the infamous "Pokemon character test." In other words, if we chose to delete this article, we would need to delete more than 100 other lists of people who share a peculiarity among themselves. One of the funniest is a dead-serious List of people who died in the bathroom. More than 100 others can be found in this collection of Google search results. Therefore, I would advise you to keep this article, unless you can find serious problems with WP:V or WP:NOT. 129.98.212.144 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pointer on the list of people who died in the bathroom. It shall be AfD'd, again on the grounds that it would be better served as a category than an otherwise unmaintainable list. --Dennisthe2 23:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm iffy on the quality of the list, but considering Category:Lists of people by medical condition I can at least vaguely support the idea, though it might be better to break up the list into sections of some kind or another. Like the cause of the terminal illness. Still, I don't feel deletion is immediately warranted. If it is though, look at the rest of the category. FrozenPurpleCube 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work. Make it into a table with columns for date of death, illness, and why famous. Anthony Appleyard 08:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is not unserious, and could be made encyclopedic by converting it to an annotated list (the annotations would provide context and support notability). I also disagree with the requirement in the lead section that the article exist, because adding list entries could identify articles for creation. I don't think a table is necessary, as the date of death is not relevant to the list (and could be found in the article). It also may be more appropriate to change the name to "people who became famous through illness" and expand it to cover terminal and non-terminal cases.Dhaluza 13:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably an indiscriminate list of information, but that argument aside, fundamentally requires unacceptable POV determinations. WP:NPOV does not provide the tools for editors to determine whether a terminally ill person became "famous" as a result of their illness or accessory to it, nor does it empower a determination of what "famous" entails for these purposes. The latter could be somewhat mitigated by renaming the list to "...notable...", but that is a poor solution that would allow the inclusion requirements to change if and when WP:BIO is revised further and that does nothing about the editorial determination issues regarding the cause of fame/notability. Serpent's Choice 14:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, which section of WP:NOT do you contend this list violates? For the latter, I don't see that as much of a problem in terms of NPOV, or if it is a problem, is no more of a problem than any other determination about whether a person is famous/notable. The condition of terminal illness, I think doesn't have any question of NPOV, so the only question is would we have an article about them if they had not been terminally ill? I think that except for rare cases we wouldn't, and if the illness came before their notability, then they'd go on the list. As such, I just don't see the NPOV problem. Could you explain why it's a problem? FrozenPurpleCube 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NPOV issue, the article fundamentally requires an editor to make a decision that cannot be supported from sources: "would we have an article about them if they had not been terminally ill". Our notability standards are ill-equipped to allow editors to decide why someone is notable, only whether they are notable. Complicating the issue is the current (although apparently lax) requirement that the subject have "an article in WP to link to", which does not avoid self reference. Concerns I have with the list include a number of people who may not meet the inclusion requirements: Sunny von Bülow (possible notability as a socialite/philanthropist before illness), Barney Clark (notability concerns, has no article), Nancy Cruzan (injury, not illness), Jenifer Estess (no idea who this is, no article), Karen Ann Quinlan (uncertain if unexplained PVS qualifies as "terminal illness"), Terri Shiavo (uncertain if unexplained PVS qualifies as "terminal illness"), . Several others are notable because of actions they took after their illness; they are known for those actions, not the illness itself. The inclusion criteria are unclear as to whether this is meant to qualify (is someone who writes a book about their illness notable because of their illness, or because they are a successful author?): Heather Crowe (PSAs), Terry Fox (Marathon of Hope), Alison Gertz (activism), Elizabeth Glaser (activist, DNC speaker), Kirsty Howard (activism), Morrie Schwartz (author), Mattie Stepanek (poet). Serpent's Choice 23:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see the first as a problem, or if it is, it's a problem that is endemic to all notability decisions. At some point, someone is making a determination that X is important, while Y is not. Recognizing that in some cases it is because the person had a terminal illness should be no more difficult to determine than whether they are an author, a singer, or left-handed. Still, I suppose this list could be titled differently to say "List of people with a terminal illness" (or possibly "terminal condition", given the PVS concerns) with a section for folks who didn't have any other claim to fame, so to speak. That would probably be preferable to me actually, since it would include more information. The Lou Gehrigs and Steven Hawkings of the world. So if that option will satisfy you, I'd be glad to endorse it. The list already says such people shouldn't be on it. As for your questions, Barney Clark would be the first man to receive a Jarvik artificial heart(mention on the Jarvik article would cover him), and Jenifer Estess refers to the woman this [1] movie is about. So I'd say she'd qualify as notable, or at least the movie would. Probably does need an article at some point. I don't know for sure about people writing books, but if their books are primarily about their illness (in constrast to say Hawking who writes about physics), I'd vote for placement on the list. Perhaps in a specific section for them too. But in any case, the inclusion of anybody on this list that doesn't belong is a clean-up issue though, not so much of a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it makes it seem as if these people used there illness as a platform for fame. Fabhcún 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the "indiscriminate list" clause of WP:NOT. A great number of people could qualify to be on this list if you start looking at local and national publications around the world; with no clear criteria on what qualifies as "fame", lists like this are going to be more problematic than encyclopedic. -/- Warren 10:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not create a category, which would be even worse as it makes absolute claims without providing context. Nathanian 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a not unexpected vote perhaps, given that I originally created the page. To respond to some of the points above:
- Could those editors who believe that this list is unencyclopaedic explain why they believe this to be the case? If you mean "not the kind of thing that would be found in a traditional paper encyclopaedia" then I agree, but I assume you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that that's not what unencyclopaedic means in this context. I'm hoping you aren't merely using unencyclopaedic as a synonym for quirky, as it's well-established that quirkiness alone is not a sufficient reason for deleting articles.
- In respect of the objections to "famous" - you have a good point here. I think this can be dealt with easily though - if this list is restricted to people who are notable enough to deserve an article, and use the wiki process to determine who those are, we have a workable lower threshold. I've no objection to a rename either.
- Editors who are suggesting that this list should be deleted per the indicriminate collection clause of WP:NOT are falling into a common trap. Please read that section of WP:NOT - it lists eight categories of article that should be deleted, that's all. This is not one of those eight, unless I'm missing something?
- Serpent's Choice - I don't feel you are interpreting NPOV correctly. NPOV is about ensuring that what we say is presented in a neutral way. It's not intended as a filter for editorial decisions - that is quite rightly the domain of the collective judgment of editors and the wiki process. A judgment about whether to include an item of information in an article can only ever be a judgment, and in that pure sense is therefore a breach of POV, but if we accept that reasoning, then nothing in Wikipedia is NPOV, as for every fact included, someone somewhere will have made a decision to include it based on an opinion.
- Fabhcún - re: "it makes it seem as if these people used there illness as a platform for fame" - can you expand on this please - What is is about the list that creates this impression? Is this your reason for supporting deletion? If so, I think we can explore less drastic options.
- Personally, I feel that the list is a pretty clear-cut inclusion-worthy entry. Kicking222 gets things spot-on, I feel. A principal reason why we have lists and categories here (rather than being solely a collection of articles) is to enable readers of an article on a topic to find other topics with similar characteristics. To those proposing deletion, I would ask - how would a reader of an article about a person whose "notability" is solely due to their terminal illness be able to find articles on other such people if this list was deleted? Alternatively, if you feel that a reader wanting to do that would be making an invalid use of the site, I feel the onus is on you to show that that is the case.

SP-KP 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate, trivial, unsourced, unverifiable, matter of opinion as to "fame" and reason as to "fame", in addition to other reasons given above. Agent 86 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agent86. I have a couple of questions - in what sense is the list indiscriminate please? Why do you believe the list is unverifiable? SP-KP 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, notability not established for some, worthless, unencylopedic trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. Please could you explain why you believe this to be unencyclopaedic and worthless, and why you feel that the lack of sources and varying levels of notability are deletion issues rather than a cleanup issues. SP-KP 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some good points made by some of the above contributions (though I wish some folk would read the essay WP:IDONTLIKEIT before commenting). Its current unsourced and rather primitive form make it hard to support – its editors would have had more chance if it had been well sourced from the start. I feel it has unsolvable problems with its entry criteria. The "becoming famous through" part is tricky and borderline. I'd have prefered "notable" rather than "famous" since it is much less loaded. And then there is the definition of "terminal illness". There are so many conditions that may or may not be terminal (AIDS, cancer) and many that will be terminal should the person not die of something else first (if you know what I mean) like prostate cancer or serious heart disease. There is too little to connect these people together to make a list like this a useful study tool IMO. Most of the people are also borderline notable. Colin°^Talk 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, some good points from you too. I disagree with your final piece of reasoning though, about the list's lack of cohesiveness. People with articles at Wikipedia are notable for a wide variety of reasons, and for every other reason (people who are notable through acting, through political leadership, through sporting prowess etc), we have lists, so a list of people whose notability is due to their having an illness is surely also worth keeping, isn't it, otherwise how does one find these people? Do you feel that nothing is salvageable from the list if it is deleted? If we developed the list into a "list of people whose notability is a direct result of their having a terminal illness", and sorted out the sourcing problem, what would your view be then please? SP-KP 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.