Talk:27 Club/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

This entire list is bogus

This entire list is bogus. There is no such thing as any '27 Club'. This is all just meaningless coincidence. DELETE, DELETE, DELETE!!!178.42.68.13 (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Follow these directions if you think this page warrants deletion. I don't think it does, but others may agree with you.--Tim Thomason 06:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the content of the list is a coincidence (which it almost certainly is), the fact that people talk about it (which the refs clearly show they do, many major intenational sources are quoted) makes it culturally significant and therefore notable. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon is notable because it exists in pop culture but the list itself is completely ridiculous and people on it are chosen on opinionated beliefs that they were good or notable musicians. A handful of the people surely are notable and relevant to the article, but only those who are globally recognized icons. I feel that pretty soon, people from garage bands who had 10 fans are going to be showing up here. They probably already are. I've seen mention of people I've never even heard of. I think this article definitely should be semi-protected.G90025 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the list inclusion criteria are misplaced. This page should just repeat other people's lists, not generate a new one based on opinions about who is or isn't notable enough.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.248.201.187, 20 August 2011

Another fantastic musician dead at 27: Brian Turner, played trumpet in "Friendly fires" I don't know day of birth but he passed away on 11.8.2011, COD being cardiac arrest.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/08/richard-turner-trumpet-player-for-friendly-fires-d.html 62.248.201.187 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't think that Richard Turner meets the notability requirements that were previously established, by agreement on this talk page, for inclusion in the second list. Those are that the person in question be famous enough to have their own Wikipedia article, or at least have been in a band that has its own Wikipedia article. There is an article for Friendly Fires, but it looks to me like Mr. Turner sat in on some of their live performances, but was not an official member of that band. The Friendly Fires' website says, "Rich played trumpet in our live gigs on and off for three years." The Wikipedia article about the band doesn't list him as a member, or even mention him. According to the Paste Magazine article you've linked to, "Aside from his work with Friendly Fires, Turner was leader of his own band, Round Trip," but there's not an article for that band either. So, it looks like he just wasn't famous enough to be listed here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's been added to the article anyway. I actually think this is a bit of a gray area. He could be left in or taken back out, since he was "sort of" a member of the Friendly Fires. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This cite links him to the 27 club, so I think a 'sometimes' entry is valid http://www.forever27.co.uk/forever/

Amy Winehouse

PLEASE TAKE WINEHOUSE OFF THIS LIST!!! Robert Johnson is the founding father of the blues; Brian Jones was in the Rolling Stones; Jimi Hendrix re-invented how the guitar was perceived and played; Jim Morrison was in the Doors (which began the psychedelic MUSIC movement through the combination of words, music, and synths); Janis Joplin was the first prominent figure in blues rock; Kurt Cobain was considered a key figure and voice of a generation.

Amy Winehouse did nothing special. As talented as she was, she does not deserve to be on the list with the rankings of the above mentioned people. Please move her down the list to the other mentionable people category.

Grammy's do not mean anything. Metallica was beaten by Jethro Tull as the best metal band one year. It is a poor reason to add her. Should we have added Michael Bolton too if he has died at that age. Negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.240.62 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse should NOT be part of the main group. Looking only at her music career she never reached #1 with a single or an album in the U.S. and her total album sales world wide were about 16 million. Calling her a music legend next to artists like Cobain, Joplin, Hendrix, and Morrison is an insult to the rest of the group. Let's be honest, she was a 1 hit wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.39.189 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse has been added under the name Amy Whitehouse. She should not be part of the main list but should instead be part of the second list on the lower part of the page. Nuttster99 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop putting Winehouse in the main group, she's an other artists at best. Not, and never will be, included in the main group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmiddy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It would be best for this page to be protected for the time being for this reason and the large number of joke edits being made about her. Tornado Maker (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Think page should be protected due to continued vandalism. Can't be bothered to keep reverting it. VampireKilla (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (BST)

its gonna be an amy madhouse 69.159.25.11 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the issue of page protection. BekahTheAngel (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

the issue of inexperienced editors messing up the layout is also affecting the quality of the article Tornado Maker (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page needs to be protected ASAP Angryafghan (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

People on Twitter are referring her as 'the new member of the 27 club'. You may not have liked her, but she was huge. If it's because he death wasn't in close proximity to the others, then Kurt Cobain shouldn't be included either. 92.6.85.174 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Never will be" in the main club seems a very partial thing to say. The way music experts are talking about it now suggests she very much will be soon, but I agree that until the sources exist listing Amy as a signigicant "member" she should be in the second list. U-Mos (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The main list consists of artists who were hugely influential in the music industry and have had an ongoing effect on today's musicians, young and old. Amy does not fit this criteria, no matter how good you thought she was as an artist. Rest assured, she will be forgotten soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.136.32 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that you are a bit arrogant here? ARE YOU the one to judge how much influence a musician has? And is it now up to you to decide if somebody should be forgotten or not? No it's not. --95.88.156.189 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Point is, the list is called "Musicians USUALLY included in the 27 Club", how could a person who just died be "usually" included in the list? 200.170.118.141 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(After multiple edit conflicts) You cannot state a few hours after her body has been found during the news hype that she is already member of the club. This takes time. We are an encyclopaedia not the Daily Sun or a random Twitter account. Wkr, Fontes (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get it. She was a member of this club even before her death, when everybody talked about whether she will join the club or not. She definitely was a great musical influence on music for the past 5 or 6 years and will probably still be an influential source for a long time. She's main list material. (GHA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.105.38 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like her as a musician, lol. And it is being reported as her joining the 27 club. Therefore, you're all being contrary for the sake of not ruining your precious Top 5. Whatever you think of her, she was a multi-award winning singer who did have a troubled life, but I remember everyone in that club first for their troubled lives and second for their music. Your criteria for who should be in there is, at best, illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.85.174 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated bellow, we don't make the list we register it in the way it is most commonly known. The body isn't even stiff yet... Wkr, Fontes (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And register it how it should be. See post at bottom. 92.6.85.174 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

the only reason she was huge was because of her permanent presence in the yellow press, not because of her music 79.248.224.136 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what you believe, all that matter is what reliable sources believe. U-Mos (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my last edit on this matter. Look at the list of articles via Google news and then suggest she isn't being widely reported as such. And her album sales and recognition within the music industry suggests she wasn't just a transient career. Just because her private life was so openly discussed, doesn't detract from either her recognition or the fact that people are already noting this as a major addition to the 27 club. 92.6.85.174 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So now that The Telegraph, The Wahington Post, Entertainment Weekly , TIME, Forbes and many others are reporting her as a member, at what point does Amy become a part of the "Musicians usually included in the 27 Club"?? LegoTrip (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, why is Amy Winehouse even mentioned here? The article says "rock musicans" Amy Winehouse hoewever performed Jazz R&B and Soul...even according to the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Winehouse greets, GBK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.236.34 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's just take stock of WP:RECENTISM. If she's going to go down as part of the 27 club, it won't be long before that becomes apparent. For now it's second list material. End of discussion please? U-Mos (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

She should not be added, the Original 27 club was made of rock singers who died at 27 in a short period of time, they all were hugely influential on the music stage... Cobain was later added because Nirvana made a huge impact on the 90's and helped define a generation and a decade. Winehouse was famous yes, influential? no. and she wasn't even a rock singer. As someone said, rest assured she will be forgoten soon (just let a couple of weeks go and the initial twitter and sensationalist media hype about the 27club tone down). She barely had a #1 hit for that matter. There is a REASON every single artist who dies at 27 ISN'T included on the list therefore included on the secondary list. Yaddar 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If Robert Johnson doesn't make the main group, then Amy Winehouse CERTAINLY shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.71.81.75 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Amy Whinehouse was more famous when she was alive than Kurt Cobain when he was. Maybe it is a bit premature to put her on the list just yet, but I guarantee that it won't take long until she is an obvious member, and will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegoTrip (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No way. If only because Nirvana was at its peak when Cobain died. If you want to claim that she was just as famous, I'd listen to your argument... but I suspect that you're simply too young to realize just how big Nirvana was from 91-94. Don't mean that in any pejorative sense.76.27.134.19 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe Nirvana's peak was 1991, and he died 3 years later. Amy's peak was 2006, she died 5 years later. It's not that different. Further more, both of these artist technically only had 2 successful studio albums (Bleach wasn't commercially successful, Incesticide was a b-side album, Unplugged was live) and Amy's list of awards (when alive) tower very strongly over Nirvana's (when alive) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Amy_Winehouse Further more, would you argue then that Brian Jones died at his peak? I don't think so. LegoTrip (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

She will be on the main chart (in this article) before long; inside a month I'd bet. Winehouse was a huge talent, towered over practically all of her fellow pop divas. She seems to have started out as a jazz singer, but crossed over into pop and became a pop music star. She wasn't a mere craftsman like many Grammy nominees, but a complete original. Her pattern of self-destruction was similar to the others in the club; it seems pointless to wring one's hands over what they could have accomplished had they gone straight, because they were all reckless as well as talented, and that's what made them what they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.32.133 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As of July 24, 2011, a search of Google News for "winehouse club 27" returns 4,068 related articles, many of which are unique and many of which place her as a primary member of the club. The popular and global attribution of Amy Winehouse as a member of the club in the primary reporting of her death is indisputable. Searches for primary information about her death will forever attribute her to the club and she should be included as a primary member. Her numerous awards, critical acclaim, self destructive behavior, and global press coverage rank her in the company of the primary list members, rather than the lesser known musicians on the lower list. Many musicians have died at age 27 since the time of Curt Cobain's death 17 years ago, but none received global and widespread popular attribution as a club member that Amy Winehouse has received. The historical attribution to 27 Club is fixed in the permanent record of her death. 76.111.3.173 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, She should not. Wikipedia ia only an encyclopia, Whose purpose is to give fact-based information on the 27 club. They themselves are not the 27 club, and they do not have the authority to change or add names, based on what people think "should be". If we want to add Amy Winehouse or Robert Johnson, the proper way to do it, would be to argue with the publishers of the list, not Wikipedia. Then again, who are the publishers? This page gives absolutely no information on that. The fact is there are many lists, that include many different names, and many opinions, as to who should or shouldn't be on them. There are also differing opinions as to weather this is a Rock phenomina, or an overall music phenomina. Fact: Between July 1969 and July 1971 (2 years), 4 extremely influentual ROCK Musicians died, all at the age of 27. Admittedly, that was probraby shocking at the time, but to add Curt Cobain to the list, we had to add 23 years to that time-frame, and to add Amy Winehouse, we've got to add another 17 years. Do you really believe we can't find 5 influental musicians who died over a period of 25 years at any age other than 27, or 6 musicians in a period of 42 years? There is no phenominon here, other than a cultural one. In order to improve this page, IMO, wikipedia should: 1) Explain the origin of the list, meaning the original 4 artists: Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison, and Jones. This can be done factually and without bias or opinion. 2) Explain all controversy in further lists and added names: no statistics, too many lists, no agreement on who is or isn't, should or shouldn't be, no official criteria, etc. 3)A discussion of some of the artists most commonly added. 4) Any argument over Amy Winehouse seems biased/opinionated to me. Anything "official" would certainly need to be discussed, but it's rediculous to think that it would have been done in 2 days. Who's to say that she won't be added? The most that should be said about her, is than many people are asking that she be added. Certainly, Robert Johnson and others could be discussed in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.50.225 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the principal argument against including Amy Winehouse in the main list is that others haven't done so in their lists. But the main article cites www.forever27.co.uk as a source - and this website has now included Ms Winehouse. Therefore, using the arguments used above by Ms Winehouse's detractors, she should now be included in the main article. Please can this be done.

I think the argument for her dismissal from this group is that not only did she die at the very bottom of her fame but she also let the drugs completely destroy what ability she had when she first came out. To me Forever 27 is not just about a musical artist who gets hooked on drugs and dies at 27, they need to have also made an impact of some sort that will be felt for years after their deaths and while no one can truly argue any of the other member's massive contribution to music as an art form a very big argument can be made that two years from now no one will even think to mention Amy Winehouse in any serious manner. People 10 or even 20 years from now will not be putting Rehab on and talking about how she changed music and yet here 40 years after Hendrix, Joplin, and Morrison and 17 after Kurt's death people are still being inspired by them. The same will not be true about Winehouse and it's my belief that by this time next year she won't be anything more than a footnote. The main group needs to remain closed only to those artists who's lives touched and changed millions of lives and who's deaths will be mourned for years to come otherwise we open it up to everyone who picks up a guitar and a needle and then the list goes from something special to just another sad statistic. FallyNess (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The principal argument against including Amy Winehouse in the main list is that the list is reserved for a small number of highly influential, credible rock artists. Winehouse had a target audience primarily of teenage girls. To mention Winehouse in the same breath (as Hendrix and Morrisson in particular) is ludicrous. - parkinpants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.87.73 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of comments here are towards the biased side of people who do not want Winehouse up there with the rest of the names, which in itself is ludicrous itself.

A previous comment above stated that she was a 1 one hit wonder, well Hendrix technically is too. She only released two albums. Well Cobain (Under Nirvana) and Hendrix (while still alive) only released three.

Another fact is how do you know what people will be talking about in the future. I highly doubt you can say what people are going to be thinking in a few years. About whether or not a performer is influential or not. Water78 (talk) 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LET ME JUST SAY that Amy belongs in the main group, totally in the main group, and will stay in the main group. NOT that it is anything to be proud of but if she is going to be in the list at all, she is going to be in the main group. That's it and no fuckery please. Thanks.

Why? Of course everyone is talking about it. She just died! In 5 years nobody will remember who the hell she was. 10thdayoftheweek (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Robert Johnson to first list (please don't)

I love johnsons music, but he does not make sense on the first list. The idea of the 27 club came from Jones, Janis, Hendrix and Morrison dying at the same age within so short a period: ie. Johnson was not part of it. that someone dies at age 27 sometime in the 30's or 40's and then someone else dies at age 27 in 1969 - that's not a 27 club. The 27 club begins with Brian Jones, simply because the deaths of Jones and Hendrix were the first sign of the anomaly/coincidence/whatever, which is the basis for the club. Drafting in random (though great) musicians from earlier ages afterwards makes no sense. Putting him in the second list makes more sense - since that is for musicians dead at 27, though not really officially connected to the club. As for Amy Winehouse, don't worry, I won't interfere in that (very heated) debate ;) 2.104.84.79 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree he should not be in the list, but he certainly deseves to be mentioned as the person who inspired the list, in some kind of opening paragraph that describes how the list was started. The 4 main artists died at the same age as Robert Johnson. Why would you list him for dying at the same age as himself? It's not the year of his death that bothers me though. If you can't put him on the list because he died 31 years before Brian Jones, how do we put Amy Winehouse, who died 40 years after Jim Morrison, on the list? Robert Johnson has everything to do with the 27 club. Amy Winehouse has nothing to do with it. Robert Johnson was a huge influence on 60's and '70's Rock. Amy seems to have influenced a few women, but it's only because of her behavior, not her music. Until a couple of days ago I knew all about her drug and mental problems, but I had no idea what she sang, so I went to iTunes and previewed both of her albums. Okay, it's nice music, she has some talent, and I could even buy it, but is influencing the whole music world? It's not all that different from Nora Jones, Anjulie, and several others. What's new or different?--98.71.50.225 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with quick succession. It's called the 27 club for a reason. people who died at 27. This is a list that exists only in the minds of thousands of people over the years noticing and talking about it, it's not written down in stone, and because of this the only qualification that has survived is "famous musician dead at 27" everything else is just subjective speculation. 173.206.72.233 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

He absolutely deserves to be at the head of this list. Without his unique ability and style, none of the musicians listed as the "primary" members" would have any prominence whatsoever. Rock and Roll derives directly from delta, Chicago, and Memphis blues. Robert Johnson was the primary impetus for the musical guitar theory that the guitar-oriented (Hendrix, Jones) of the so-called primary members are famous for. If you can't be bothered to read the articles on rock and roll, blues music, and the individual personnel pages, then I'll list the individual sources later. 220.71.81.75 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxisussex, 5 August 2011

Robert Johnson is NOT in any way considered a part of the morbid "27 club" It started with Brian Jones and ended (for now) with Amy winehouse. Her addition was reached by popular consensus,although due to the "clubs" popularity in pop culture any musician who dies at 27 will seemingly join. Further more,the "clubs" "membership" is based on popularity and a singer from the 1930's who noboby knows does not qualify. His addition was made by a wiki member who I suspect simply had nothing better to do. I hope somebody will correct the mistake. For I will keep an eye on this page and delete the addition as soon as page is no longer protected.

Maxisussex (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just joined Wiki so I could jump onto this debate about Amy being added into the main list, but I wanted to make something clear to you first. Before you act all high and mighty about who should or who shouldn't be on the most notable Club 27 members list, learn something about the person first. Club 27 didn't start with Brian Jones, it in fact started with Robert Johnson. Long, long story short, there was a myth that Johnson sold his soul to the devil for fame and musicianship, but in return he had to give his soul up at the age of 27. He ended up being a really influential blues artist. Club 27 isn't a list, it's considered a curse that some musicians perish from. That's why quite a few people don't consider Kurt a TRUE member, because he killed himself (after his death, his family mentioned that he'd always talk about joining the list as a kid.) Anyways, sure, Brian Jones was the first musician to die in the two year span that he, Jimi, Janis, and Jim died, but that doesn't mean he started the whole group. So no, the wiki member who added Johnson didn't do it from sheer boredom, but to make the list accurate. First was Johnson, then Jones, then the three J's, and so on. Johnson's slot on the main list shouldn't be touched. Anyways, onto the Amy issue, in my opinion, I just feel that she should be on the list for now (only because of all the mainstream reports saying that she is), but only time will tell how long she lasts on it. Hendrix, Joplin, and Morrison are still known and highly influential on today's music even after passing away 40 years ago, and have been considered as the driving forces of what rock and other genres developed into. That's what the MAIN club is, it's members' who died at the age of 27 who left lasting impacts on music and established themselves as legends. I highly doubt that even 20 years from now new artists will be saying, "Yeah, Amy Winehouse was my main influence." let alone even know who she is.

Epiphone982 (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm marking this request as answered since this page has been heavily debated and there should be a consensus to remove anyone from the list. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I vote to remove her. Pig Pin should be up there, founding the The Dead.

User Epipone982 how I can I say this to you YOU ARE AN IGNORANT BEYOND BELIEF Lets see no one will be saying Amy Winehouse was my influence in twenty years time, yeah because no one has ever cited her as an influence have they, apart from Lady Gaga you know that global superstar with like a billion followers on twitter or Adele that women with the best selling album in forty years whose broke every record imaginable, Duffy, another global superstar, Jessie J, another global superstar, do you people who go on about her not having any influence at all even do ANY RESEARCH. Tell me did Kurt Cobain go on to influence literally the biggest global superstars of his generation in under five years, did Janis Joplin, your ignorant of music beyond belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.127.155 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose merge

The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll should be merged here. It's simply not notable independently of the core subject covered by this aritcle. U-Mos (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Just to clarify this for the casual observer, or for the editor in a hurry: This article is about the pop culture phenomenon. The other article is about a particular book, that's about the pop culture phenomenon. So, if the book meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (books), it should be kept separate. If the book does not meet the notability guidelines, its article should be merged into this article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. This article is little more than a book report, especially with all the promotional copy removed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge I don't believe the book meets the notability guideline provided by Mudwater. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Merge Portillo (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Don't merge I think each article subject is notable, and they are not duplicates. However, if a merge must take place, the book should be merged into this article as a section (not the other way round). Alex9788 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the other article appears to have multiple sources, which makes the subject notable by WP:GNG. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The presence of reliable sources is not in and of itself enough to establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I don't dispute the subject of the book is notable and worth mentioning in this article. But does it warrant its own article? As far as I'm concerned only the first paragraph of the book's article is worth keeping, and that can easily be placed in a small section of this article. The rest is essentialy a hagiography. U-Mos (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I have not checked all the sources, but at least three independent, reliable sources, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, WNEW and Missoula Independent, cover the subject in a direct, non-trivial manner. Thus, the subject is notable by GNG. Additionally, the book also appears to have won an 'IPPY' award; searching for this award returns a number of results on Google News and Google Scholar, suggesting that it is a reasonably well-known award, so this might add to the notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Remember, folks, the question is whether or not the subject of the other article is notable, based on WP:GNG and on WP:NBOOK. If there are problems with how the other article is written, but the subject is notable, it should be improved, not merged or deleted. "P.S." As far as mentioning the book in this article, notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment:I'm un-archiving this talk page section, because there's still a merge proposal that has not been resolved either way. That is, the {{Merge from}} template is still at the top of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not seeing a consensus that the other article should be merged into this one. I think it would be appropriate to remove the merge proposal from the tops of the two articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Toshio Yamaguchi, 29 August 2011

Please remove File:Janis Lyn Joplin.jpg as it has no rationale for this article (see WP:NFCC#Enforcement for the applicable policy).

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of Janis Joplin photo

I believe the issue is that File:Janis Lyn Joplin.jpg did not have a fair use rationale for this specific article. It did have a rationale for the Janis Joplin article, which is why it was okay to include it in that article. As it says in point 10. c. of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, the image description page should include "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item... " So, I've updated the image description page, adding a fair use rationale for this article, and I'm going re-add the image. If anyone disagrees with this, please explain why in this talk page section. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced entries need to be removed

As there are too many unsourced additions in the second list. I propose that a period of one month is given and afterward any remaining unsourced entries are removed from this article.RaintheOne ^BAM 11:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nix 'em on 4 October if they can't be linked to an individual article on Wiki or cannot be linked to a verifiable source. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As this issue was discussed at #Should "Other musicians sometimes included in the list" be in this article? and noone has presented a reason to include unsourced individuals, I agree. However, I think a month is too much time to wait. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's make the deadline 9/20. I'll send notifications to any contributors who have made five or more edits in the past year, linking to this talk page discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going with the criteria that each person included should have a source linking that person to the 27 club, contributors should simply search for said source material for each entry, and add an inline reference to each artist name. Any artists without a reference by 9/20 should then be removed. Seems like the best way to me. EzraZebra (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree to this, and to show I'm serious, I'll even do some of the searching, in addition to removing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you say that no one has presented a reason to include unsourced individuals, but that's not the case, I for one did state a reason in the section you refer to. To paraphrase, part of the 27 Club is the idea that many notable pop musicians have died at the age of 27, and therefore it's appropriate for the article to simply list such musicians. However, the second list in the article should be limited to notable musicians, i.e. ones with their own Wikipedia article, or at least ones who were in a band with their own article. It seems that some editors disagree, and think that to be part of the second list, a musician must have been mentioned, in a reliable source, in conjunction with the 27 Club. Okay, there is disagreement, but that's not the same as no one having presented a reason. As for the time period before removing the unreferenced musicians -- if that's the consensus, and I'm not sure that it is -- I don't know if September 20th is enough time or not. That would depend on the progress made in adding sources. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid and nonsensical. You want to remove certain musicians just because they don't have an article? That doesn't make sense, especially those that were in a band. I say don't touch the article. It's fine for now. B-Machine (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The non Wiki-linked members need to have a reference provided showing birth date and death date to be included. If they're already linked on Wiki, this information is likely already sourced in their individual article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that what editors such as Muboshgu, ThePaintedOne, EzraZebra, and possibly Raintheone are saying is that each musician in the second list should have one or more third party references showing that they are sometimes included in the 27 Club. According to this idea, it doesn't matter if the musician or their band has their own Wikipedia article, it's the references associating them with the 27 Club that are important. As I've already explained, I don't really agree with them. With that being said, actually providing such references for a lot of the people on the list would not be particularly difficult. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a what I have been saying, and I think that adopting such a policy would instantly resolve the current inclusion/exclusion argument by basing the decisions on citations, which is exactly how wikipedia is supposed to work. I find this article in it's current state to be an oddity in that the large part of it is not based on citations, but rather some kind of inherited notability from other articles. I don't really see how we can set a deadline for citations to be provided when the whole premise of the second list is uncited. IME, any time an article starts wandering away from citations this sort of challenge of interpretation crops up. Frankly it's often hard enough to build consensus WITH citations, never mind without! :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing all of the unsourced entries right now. I assume that the deadline was set as a compromise, to give people who want to keep entries listed time to find a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Go for it...If sources are later found for a member who was removed, they can easily be added again. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't agreeing with this idea, I was simply proposing a way to implement it. -EzraZebra (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added many references for the musicians in the second list. More can be added later. I presume that these are the types of references that have been discussed in this talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What are The27s.com and Forever27.co.uk? They look like blogs to me, which would mean they fail WP:RS and WP:ELNO. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

They're not blogs, they're web sites about the 27 Club. The27s.com is the web site for the book, The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll. I'm not sure who runs Forever27.co.uk, but it's clearly not a blog. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone else weigh in here? Are they reliable sources? Maybe I'm wrong in being skeptical. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

they probably aren't brilliant sources, but they are the phenomenon that this article is disucssing so directly relevent. The are I suppose primary sources, which would exclude them on other grounds, but personally I think that for the less well known articles like this you have give a bit of leeway otherwise you end up not being able to cite anything. I've been a strong advocate of putting in citations and following policy, and personally I think these are good enough.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ron "Pigpen" McKernan

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I really think that Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (original keyboardist for the Grateful Dead) should be added. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, I think he should be moved to the main section of the article, instead of the "Other Musicians" section. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The main list is the very small group of musicians that are almost always listed as part of the 27 Club. According to what I've seen, that's Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain, plus, maybe, Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse. Admittedly however determining who should be on the "A List" is unscientific and a gray area, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be listed if they're particularly notable for something, or if the band they were a part of was particularly notable for something:

Robert Johnson was ranked by Rolling Stone Magazine as the fifth greatest guitar player of all time, and Eric Clapton called him an influence.

Brian Jones was a member of the Rolling Stones, who are one of the best-selling artists of all time.

Jimi Hendrix was ranked by Rolling Stone Magazine as the greatest guitar player of all time.

Janis Joplin is probably the best and most influential female rock singer in history (I have no source for this, but seriously, who has been more influential than her?).

Jim Morrison was the lead singer for The Doors, a legendary psychedelic rock band.

Kurt Cobain was the lead singer for Nirvana, a band which popularized a whole new genre of music.

Amy Winehouse, in my opinion, shouldn't be on this list. I wish she could have waited two more months before she died.

I think that Ron "Pigpen" McKernan should be added because the Grateful Dead performed more free live shows then any other band in history (the source for that is a book, so I can't directly link to it), and their followers were so numerous that the even had a name. Honestly, the main reason I think he should be added to the main list is because I was going through the "Other musicians" list, looking for names of people/bands that I recognized, and when I saw "Grateful Dead," I couldn't believe he wasn't on the main list. I mean the whole idea of following a band around for weeks and going to every concert of that band was was started by the Grateful Dead. While they didn't sell very many albums, that was simply because nobody had to buy them because tickets to their concerts were so damn cheap! And seriously, Amy Winehouse? Really? If she hadn't died when she was 27, nobody would remember her in ten years. People would still remember Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and Pigpen McKernan because of their influence and their contribution to music. People look up to Jimi Hendrix as a guitarist and to Pigpen McKernan as a keyboardist, nobody looks up to Amy Winehouse as a singer. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If we start using subjective criteria of who is 'good enough' to be on the A List, it will sprawl all over the place. The list definition is clear 'musicians usually included', so the citations you need are people talking about the list, showing that they nearly always talk about them. This is clearly the case for the currernt list (although time will tell if Amy stays there), but I haven't seen lots of list talking about this guy. Which is no slight on his achievement, it's just how other lists have happened to state the list.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay listen to me User Wokam you know nothing about music if you think Amy Winehouse was a nobody. Back to Black is the biggest selling album of the 21st century in the united kingdom it also sold over 13 million copies worldwide. Amy winehouse also won five grammies more than any other British artist has ever won in a single award ceremony and in the past five years there have been a ton of female artists who have cited Amy Winehouse as a huge influence and the main reason for their success including Adele, Lady Gaga, Duffy, Paloma Faith, Kate Nash, Florence Welch, Jessie J, oh and these are some of the other people who have thought she was incredible as a singer and a songwriter, George Michael, Diana Ross, Ringo Starr, Paul Mcartney, Debbie Harry, Alice Cooper, Bette Midler, The Rolling Stones, U2, Quincy Jones, Tony Bennett and Brian May. Now I am not saying that Ron Mckernan shouldn't be in there as he is a member of a major band which to be fair is all Brian Jones was but I am so sick of these ignorant dicks trying to get Amy Winehouse taken off. Honestly if a member of a band, not even the front man is on then a solo artist as popular as Amy Winehouse certainly should be on it. I would say she had a huge impact on her time not only was she one of the most popular but all of the other most popular artists of her time Lady Gaga Adele etc were directly inspired by her that not enough impact? Its also ignorant and conceited to assume you will know what people will be talking about and listening to in ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.155.160 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore that comment by 86.177.155.160, especially seeing as he's never made an actual contribution to Wikipedia. So, ThePaintedOne, here's the problem with that statement: like it or not, the Wikipedia list is the official list. Want me to prove it? Google "27 club". The first result is the Wikipedia page! The second and third results are clearly both pages made by "just some guy". The fourth result is the first one by a reliable source, The Washington Post. And if you click on the link, you'll find that about halfway down the article, it links to the Wikipedia page! And the fifth result (Forbes magazine) also links to the Wikipedia page about 2/3 of the way down.

Please cut the crap about someone having to be "usually included on the list." Do you know what someone does when they want to know who's in the 27 club, they Google it and go to the Wikipedia page! Still don't believe me? Ask someone who's in the 27 club, and see how they find the answer. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, can you please try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL on the talk page. Secondly, if wikipedia is actually creating the 'official list' whihc others are then citing, then you've just made an almost policy perfect description of Original Research and the entire article should be taken down. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should ignore the comments unlike you I can actually provide sources to all the stuff I was saying about Adele, Diana Ross and george michael saying Amy was great and I will if it will stop this crap about getting Amy Winehouse taken off the list, unlike you I actually have reason to include her on the list and can say who she inspired I don't just come out and say this person shouldn't be on because I don't like them also Billboard included Amy Winehouse in the 27 club as well that seems to me like a usually included in the list if billboard along with many other websites include her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.155.160 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations from Reliable Sources

To help with the ongoing work to clean this page up, I think a section collating the reliable sources that could be used to support this article would be of use. Lots were posted on the talk page around the time of Amy Winehouse's death, but most didn't make it to the article and they are hard to find in the general chat and archiving. Please feel free to add any more, which don't have to be Amy focussed that's just what is to hand, but try to keep them to good quality reliable sources, rather than the primary sources of 27 club websites. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

UK Telegraph newspaper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8657314/Amy-Winehouse-joins-the-Forever-27-club.html
Washington Post (refs this article though) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/amy-winehouse-jimi-hendrix-kurt-cobain-and-the-27-club/2011/07/23/gIQAiLAhVI_blog.html
Entertainment Weekly http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-forever-27-club/
Time http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-becomes-the-newest-member-of-the-forever-27-club/
Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-joins-unfortunate-27-club/
BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14264609
Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-and-the-curse-of-27/?mod=google_news_blog
CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20082553-10391698.html
Billboard http://www.billboard.com/#/features/dead-at-27-nine-artists-gone-too-soon-1005290792.story
Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/not-fade-away-rockers-lost-before-their-time-20090203

Nat Jaffe

Jaffe was a swing pianist like Earl Hines, not a "blues musician" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleepimp (talk • contribs) 05:16, July 24, 2011

Amy Winehouse should not be on the main list, if anything Pig Pin should be up top, founding member of the Grateful Dead? Amy may be good but she did not spawn a genoration of follows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.108.234 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse I think you will find did inspire a generation of followers. Lady Gaga, Adele, Paloma Faith, Duffy, Jessie J, La Roux, Kate Nash, Florence and the Machine, quite a lot, please just do a little bit of research before you post ignorant comments and maybe they wont be so ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobloi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

There is a fundamental problem with this article in that it approaches the subject as if it was an actual organised association, rather than just a popular meme. The "club" was not "created", and no-one (and most especially not any Wikipedia editors) is in any position to decide who is, or is not, a member of it.

The ongoing argument on this page over whether Winehouse should be a member is therefore totally pointless. No one cares what individual editors think about Winehouse's significance to popular music, or whether she should, or should not, be listed in "the club". No one cares how she may be compared with the other listed "members". The only sensible criteria we can work to is; does a good reliable source list mention a person in relation to the "27 club"? If Winehouse is mentioned like this, then she is a member of the "club". End of discussion.

The attempt to split the article into two sections of those "usually" included in the club, and those "others" who died at 27, is a flawed one that is never going to be satisfactory. The ongoing arguments on this page are proof enough of that. For a start, who is defines "usually"? What does that mean? What makes someone only an "other"? It appears to be a purely opinion based division that is always going to be disputed and does not belong in an encyclopaedia.

I propose that no-one should be listed here unless, as I say above, they are mentioned by a reliable source in connection with the "27 club". Otherwise all we have is a trivia list of random musicians who died aged 27. That is not what this article claims to be. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources were recently added for most, but not all, of the 27 Club members in the second list. The same sources could easily be used for all seven members of the first list. So my first question for you is, could you please review the footnotes for the second list, and post back here with your opinion on whether or not that covers things for those members? My second question is, if it does, are you saying that the two lists should be combined? I agree that the 27 club is unofficial, but if you look at a lot of the sources, either referenced in the article or just by searching the internet, you'll see that there generally are two "tiers" of members -- a small group, including most or all of the first list, and then everyone else. The article is about the pop culture phenomenon, so it seems to me valid for the article to reflect that, even though there's not a hard and fast rule about it. "P.S." I do agree that any discussions about whether or not a particular musician is worthy to be on the list, based on their talent, accomplishments, or influence, are irrelevant. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at #Unsourced entries need to be removed, but I believe we all agree that there has to be secondary sources specifically backing up the listing of everyone listed. That said, I asked a question about whether the sources used on the "other folk" is sufficient for Wikipedia standards. I don't know who created those websites, and a website created by a random doesn't meet our criteria. I believe Mudwater said one of them is written by the author of the 27 club book, but again I'm not sure about it and want others to weigh in. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't agree that there needs to be sources for everyone listed. Part of the pop culture phenomenon is the idea that a lot of musicians have died at age 27, so in my view it's legitimate to list any such musicians in the article, as long as they're marginally notable. But certainly some editors have said that references should be provided for each musician, so, let's pursue that for the moment. In short, I agree with your request for other editors to look at the references that are there now, and give their opinions on whether or not they are appropriate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how there can possibly be 'generally' two 'tiers' of members. Either the musician died aged 27, or they did not. Either we have a cite that connects the person to "the club", or we do not. Anything else is indulging in categorising by opinion and original research. Hedging things in weaselly phrasing such as "usually" or "generally considered" doesn't disguise this.

Of course, most sources discussing the meme will tend to mention the more famous examples, and we should equally mention the more famous examples in the article lead, as the best examples to aid the reader's understanding.

The fact that a large percentage of citing in the article is sourced to one website, which is in turn derived from, and publicity for, a self-published book, is a cause for concern. It doesn't negate what the cite says, but raises questions about notability. There should be better cites from a greater spread of sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One possible option that I think at least should be considered would be including the "original four", Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison, in one section, and everyone else, including Robert Johnson, Kurt Cobain, and Amy Winehouse, in the "other" section. The 27 Club wasn't "established" simply because a lot of musicians died at the age of 27, Keith Moon and John Bonham both died at 32 and Bon Scott almost also did, but there's no "32 Club". I would bet that if someone did a statistical analysis of ages that famous musicians died at, 27 would only be marginally higher that any other age, and would probably not be statistically relevant. The 27 Club was "established" because the original four all died at the age of 27 within 2 years of each other, and people thought that was weird. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, if you have can cite somewhere the "original four". If they are indeed the "original four", I would guess this would have to be from a source dated to, or in reference to, the early 70s. This would be as good as identifying where the idea for "the club" originated, a key point that the article currently steers well clear of. Do any sources have any theories? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any sources (yet). I could find some, but I'd rather come to a consensus on whether or not this is a good idea first. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 17:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. If the "27 Club" was first devised because four famous musicians died at 27 in such a tight timeframe, that should be the major focus of this page. Then, we can find some way to expand it for the "next group" of Cobain, Johnson and Winehouse. Whether or not we include the "other group" is still under discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think that the 'usually' and 'sometimes' concept is valid if perhaps worded to be a bit clearer. there is a small list of musicians who are always associated with the 'club' and this can be easily demonstrated in reliable sources (if you look in the archive around the time Amy Winehouse died you'll find a bunch of them). This is the original four, Kurt Cobain and more recently Amy Winehouse. This 'always' list can be easily shown from citations like the BBC, Billboard magazine, Rolling Stone magazine and I think is pretty solid. For everyone else, you have two cases. The first is that they have been mentioned in one of the 'forever 27' type websites, which are of perhaps dubious notabillity and in any event primary sources. This is where I think a second list could be formed, but equally it could be deleted if the sources are deemed too weak. I'd probably take an inclutionist line on this but could be persueded. You also have a few that are maybe mentioned in one proper reliable source, but not all of them, they could go either way between these two lists. Beyond that you have some that have never been mentioned in relationship to the list anywhere except on this article, under the premise that any notable musician who dies aged 27 should automatically be listed here, that third list I think should be eliminated.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the section heading of "usually" is not supported by any source. Has anyone done any such research to determine who are "usually" mentioned as being in the club? (And when I say "anyone", I mean some reliable source, not a Wikipedia editor performing their own original research.) If we do not have this then it's a huge red flag indicating categorisation simply through unattributed opinion.

It also remains a problem where people's listing within this "club" is either uncited or sourced through a single website of dubious notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cited the "usually" list. If anyone on the "others" list can be cited then I suggest they be added to a single list, and the others removed. As I stated above, this article is not List of musicians who died aged 27, but specifically those who can be cited as being in the club. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Come on seriously amy winehouse what the heck! she doesnt deserve a catagory with kurt and jimi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWillFixThisError (talk • contribs)

Jesus Christ I thought we were past this sigh, just do some research on Amy Winehouse before you call her a nobody even just read the previous arguments about her. PS I personally don't think Kurt Cobain measures up to Amy Winehouse. Listen to Love is a Losing Game and then Smells Like Teen Spirit and honestly tell me which was the better singer and songwriter. Also Kurt never inspired anyone as big as either Lady Gaga or Adele the two biggest stars on the planet right now like Amy did. However unlike how you feel about Amy Winehouse I don't think Kurt Cobain should be taken off just because I don't think he measures up to others as it is not about whether you think they were great its just about whether they are usually mentioned as being part of the 27 club, which both are, READ PREVIOUS POSTS. --Yardoj (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The separation between members of the 27 club and musicians who died at the age of 27.

I do not understand why there is a subdivision in this article. The only real criterion necessary for "admittance" is to be a musician of a certain repute and to have died at the age of 27 of which the repute required to be on the list is not considerably grand, only that someone familiar with their certain subsection of music should know of them. I find it very biased that some people are listed ahead of others on this list. It is true that the people I think about when I hear the words "27 club" are all of those in the "Musicians usually included in the 27 club" section with the addition of a few of the people categorized by "other musicians who died at 27" namely Alan Wilson, Ron McKernan, and Dave Alexander; but popularity or appearances in media are not viable ways to categorize people into this so unaptly named club. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is expected to lay out factual information in a non-biased and efficient manner. Segregating the musicians into different categories is unnecessary and biased towards the zeitgeist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.253 (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest you take the time to read the long and involved discussions on this topic on this page, including the various archive files linked above. I'm not saying you are wrong, but there are multiple views on this and reading those will explain why there is currently a division.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse should be added to the list as well. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, have you actually read the article, or indeed the massive and ongoing debate on this subject above? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What list if you mean the bottom list of musicians not usually included in the club I think I am going to scream. I am beginning to think some of you guys who keep wanting her taken off the main list have some weird ulterior motive as you can't all be that ignorant. Why do you people keep trying to get her taken off, when it has been stated about one billion times that there is virtually a universal agreement to include her on the main list and its obvious to anyone that she was a major figure in modern music. To say someone who has the best selling album of the 21st century, who worked with some of the biggest names in music such as the rolling stones, Quincy Jones, Tony Bennett and who inspired some of the biggest names in modern music, Adele, Lady Gaga, Jessie J and who has a whole category on wikipedia to themselves is the same as the artists on the bottom list many of whom don't even have a wikipedia page is just Bullshit. --Yardoj (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil, I don't think this person is even suggesting what you are infering, she is not being removed, and the long arguments you keep making about her fame are irrelevent anyway. She is in because the citations show she should be (see section above), end of story. No need to get worked up.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that I only keep bringing up her fame because other users (maybe not Leahtwosaints) are coming out with comments like "is this someone who has left a truly lasting contribution to modern music the answer simply is no" or "no one looks up to Amy Winehouse as a singer", "she will be forgotten". I appreciate that she may not be everyone's cup of tea but to make out that she never had any success or impact is ridiculous. And whilst it is true that the only reason she or anyone else should be included is if there are citations saying they should be, a lot of these users who go on about her being a nobody say that still say that she should be taken off even despite all of the discussions and links you've posted. At this stage its almost as if they are trolling now. --Yardoj (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith, but even failing that the best way to deal with trolls is to not feed them. Just point to the citations, which makes the case really clear. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

" im sorry that American Trolls who belive that they are entitled to thier own facts have smudged this page. Amy Winehouse had no particular impact on American culture because she was in the jazz blues corridor. One largely scorned by the rock n roll appetite of American culture. We do not value this type in our popular culture. Also at play here is a sense of "entitlement" by american culture over the 27 club itself. I guess some Americans are so closed minded that they actually believe that the only country in the world that can make music is in fact america. never mind ABBA , Queen , Led Zepplin etc.. . For those who believe that Janis Joplin has more wieght then Amy Winehouse I ask why when Joplin won SIGNIFIGANTLY less grammys that Winehouse. WIne house won more than two grammys sorry joplin fans.

Further more, Kurt cobain the great band leader they spoke of only won two grammys as well. one after his death. all of Winehouse's came DURING her lifetime. I argue also that Joplin's place in 27 may have been furthered by the media in the fact that Jimi hendrix died only 13 days prior to her. This fact has be talked about for decades in relation to the club. I'm sorry to say to my fellow Americans , Amy Winehouse deserves to be in and had you not been such a closed minded patriot act loving socitey your artists may have had the fertile soil to grow in to this infamous spot , in the end your culture not having the next 27 member is not the worlds fault it is your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.127.49 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed she should be in but she did have a big impact on American popular culture as she kicked off a third british invasion over there. Adele the biggest british artist over there said amy both inspired and paved the way for her, whilst Gaga the biggest american artist over there was also inspired by her too --Kobloi (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

None of you have touched the point here. The original "27 Club" existed because of two factors: a) they all died within a relatively short period of time, b) they were all 27. Kurt Cobain was included in this list, many years later, because of the global impact that Nirvana had. He is the only young musician to have made the impact he did and die at 27 in many, many years. I have no problem with Amy Winehouse, but she needs to be moved to the "other artists who died at 27" list because in a factual sense, that's where she belongs. Wikipedia is not about opinions. It's an encyclodpedia. Even if Winehouse was a game changing musician - and I'm not suggesting she isn't -, the consensus would not change until a long time after her death. This is a not a forum for crazed Winehouse fans, it is an encylopedia. There is difference between opinion in fact, I think we should be focussing on fact on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this crap about how its winehouse fans that are the "crazed" opinionated ones here who aren't providing the facts, all anyone who wants winehouse included on the list does is use facts but all of you people who don't want her on the main list do is just ignore them and then say why you don't think she should be on because apparently she didn't have enough impact which is purely an opinionated statement not a fact. Amy Winehouse had every bit as big an impact as Nirvanna did, for goodness sake the biggest stars around now (Lady Gaga, Adele, Jessie J) were DIRECTLY inspired by her. Her album is the best seller of the century of the united kingdom (okay it will eventually be topped in that respect, but its still the best seller of the 00's) of course none of that matters all that matters is if there are many outside citations linking her to the main list of which there are many, you only have to type in Amy winehouse 27 club on google to see. In fact several have already been posted to this page already for goodness sake, do you all just ignore them, are you trolling? --Kobloi (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You make a number of bold claims, Lexxxicide. Can you support any of them? Among others; why Cobain was included, why Winehouse is not included, the time it takes to become a member, the time it takes to change consensus on membership (And whose consensus??). Any cites to back up any of those facts? Or are they your opinions? You're just illustrating why Wikipedia policy is based on what can be verified, because we could debate opinions for months. Fortunately we don't need to, and should not do, because they are irrelevant. The cites are there, membership verified. It's that easy. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a single bold claim. Read the article. "The notion of a "27 Club" arose after the deaths of Jones, Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison.", a cited part of the article. I'm not a fan of Nirvana, but it would seem that unlike many of the people who are posting here, I can actually remember the furore that surrounded Kurt Cobain's career and death, and as such I was shedding some light on why he was included in the list. He is, without much dispute one of the most infamous musicians of all time and by that measurement, along with the fabric of the generation to whom his band appealed, right at home within the list. Anybody with knowledge, experience or memory of that time is will testify to that, however misguided some of the behaviour and rhetoric of young people at the time and in the years that followed may have been. The term also resurfaced in many publications including Rolling Stone at the time of his death and in fact, it may not be unfair to suggest that the term became popularised once again because of his suicide. One article has been cited that lists Robert Johnson and Amy Winehouse along side these musicians and at no point does that article suggest that either of them are "usually included" in that list, because they aren't. Johnson for a start died three decades before the term was coined and until recently was never included in the main list in this article. Neither is that article from a credible source, if it was from a highly distributed or accredited publication the argument may have more weight. In fact it appears to be little more than a series of syndicated blogs. It sort of stands to reason that neither of those two have been or are generally considered to usually be included within the list and in the case of Miss Winehouse, who's death has barely seen the dust settle, a great deal more time is needed before anybody can suggest what her legacy will be or how she will be remembered. It may have been a little callous to suggest that her fans are "crazed", but certainly much of the debate on this page regarding her is ill-formed and I'd suggest that much of it can be attributed to upset following her tragic death. All of that aside, I haven't edited the article I was merely trying to add some sensible and informed commentary on a rather heated and so far undecided debate. Perhaps you should try and step outside the box a little before you begin editing on this website and making accusations about other people being opinionated.

Because the sources include him.

I'm very calm, thanks. I'm asked you to provide sources for your claims, and you don't have any. You have a number of notions regarding some kind of unwritten set of rules of the club, but the sources appear unaware of them. Who do you think Wikipedia should use for its information?

There are a number of inaccuracies and fallacies in your argument, but I don't see any value in raking over them. Your 'accusations' don't add add up to much, other than you just don't like Winehouse's inclusion and a failure to assume good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided to revise my comment as I wrote the first quickly and made mistakes. I'd also like to add that the article cited was written less than twenty four hours after the event of her death and thus, to include Winehouse as "usually included" is even more dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexxxicide (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, Amy shouldn't be here, She was a great musician, but... She was not as important as Jim, Janis or Jimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.81.177 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} remove: Heart failure (although no autopsy was performed)

add: Since his death we thougt Morrison died form a Heart failure (although no autopsy was performed)

In fact Morrison had died of a heroin overdose

because: People should know about the truth, he was against heroin, and ironically died of an overdose ( he didnt like needles so, maybe snorted or smoked, do anyone know ? Is it accidental or suicidal ? )

---

Sources:

- the web.. anywhere

-http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-07-11-morrison-questions_N.htm -http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-03/entertainment/29753808_1_jim-morrison-heroin-overdose-doors-singer -http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/jim-morrison-died-at-nightclub/story-e6frfn09-1111113945856

Tralzhek (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done exactly what you asked; in this article, I'm not happy putting refs to drugs directly; such hypothesis belongs on the article on Morrison. However, I changed it to Reported as heart failure (no autopsy performed, disputed) - I believe that conveys the essence of the fact it is disputed, without going into excess detail; I also added a reference to support that.

Others (including the user requesting the edit) may well disagree with this, and are welcome to discuss it below, and form consensus to request some alternative. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"epitomic"

The 27 Club—also occasionally known as the Forever 27 Club, Club 27 or the Curse of 27—is the title for an epitomic group of influential musicians who all died at the age of 27. Their names are synonymous trademarks of the "rock and roll" lifestyle.

I do not think this word means what you think it means. --Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconceivable --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Janis Joplin

The pictures for both Robert Johnson and Janis Joplin were both recently removed from the page for being unnecessary, non-free images. I was wondering what people would think about using this oil painting of Janis Joplin until someone can find a free image of her. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to add Amy Winehouse to list

Winehouse is generally considered to be famous for her personal life and not her musical career. Although she did have some average record sales, she did not make a historically relevant musical contribution as it relates to the impact of the other artists listed in the article. The community must come to a consensus and provide data which proves that Winehouse's musical career had a significant, culture-changing, and historically relevant impact on society before she is added. Feel free to discuss your thoughts here. Thank you. And please stop the edit warring. It is not appropriate to add Winehouse just because you like her music or feel bad that she died. Sympathy is not one of the things which can get a person on this list. G90025 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• That is a really, really strange comment. Amy Winehouse was not noted for her music? A ridiculous proposition. Why do you think she won five Grammies? Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Silly enough to not merit further discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, well, I will agree that she is a notable musician with measurable success. But however, for reasons on which I went into detail further down, she still does not belong on this list. G90025 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Aye or Nay

• Let's take this to the people and establish a community consensus while the article is protected. All those who think that Amy Winehouse was a notable musician, say aye. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Aye. Really sticking my neck out on this one. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Nay LOL, really. She is in a class with Jim Morrison for cultural-changing contributions to music? Keep dreaming. She was famous for being a drug addict; end of story. G90025 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Five Grammies, best-selling album in the UK of the century, wide recognition of her voice and songwriting...you're the one who's dreaming. Besides, are there reliable sources placing her on the list? Yes. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A lot of people win Grammys. Take a step back and look at the other people on the list. Those people literally changed society and the way people live by their influence. Styles of dress, styles of music, cultural impact. I'm not trying to rain on the parade of the Winehouse fans on here but she simply has not had the type of societal impact of the others on the list. G90025 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• What? We don't determine inclusion criteria for a list based on personal preference or arbitrary assignment, but by sources and referencing. If a reliable third-party source says that Amy Winehouse is in the 27 Club, then we add her and cite it. It's irrelevant if any of us think that she's "in a class with Jim Morrison for cultural-changing contributions to music." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I exactly agree with you. She was previously added by people with preference for her music. G90025 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How did you know what their preferences were, and what difference did it make? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What Justin (koavf) said. And I have said already, a number of times. No one cares what Wikipedia editors reckons makes them notable. The chief problem on this article is not Winehouse's inclusion, it is the division of those listed, unsupported by any reliable source, into two sections. There should be one list. If they can be cited from a good source they're on it. If they're not, they're not. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this guys problem? his comments are laughable "average music sales" what is best selling album of the century over thirteen million albums sold worldwide average music sales. Five grammies in a single night yeah everyone wins that except for the fact that it was the first time any British artist won that many. At this point he has got be taking the piss. --Kobloi (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Clearly she should be on the list 33,200,000 Google results for "Amy Winehouse 27 Club"

Three good references here, there are many hundreds more.

• http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/870203-who-is-in-the-27-club-amy-winehouse-joins-stars-who-died-at-27
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8657314/Amy-Winehouse-joins-the-Forever-27-club.html
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblakeley/2011/07/23/amy-winehouse-joins-unfortunate-27-club/

Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Those are articles that were written immediately following the singer's death. There is an obvious suggestion because of her age at time of death that she be related to this list. But those articles are reaction pieces that don't take into account any of the other issues that I and others have raised. I think one major criteria that everyone PREVIOUSLY on this list meets is that they all had a worldwide, cultural and societal impact which significantly changed views and standards of the populous. I will agree that Winehouse is a notable musician, but when you try to weigh her notoriety by variables which would compare to the other people on the list, there is no cohesion. There is nothing that ties her into that grandiose type of impact on people. It would be like comparing Bill Clinton to Abraham Lincoln. Do some people think that Clinton was the best president ever? Sure. And millions of people are *still* crazy about him. They love him. So he is a relevant subject who many people consider to have been a great president. But if I were to compare him to someone like Abraham Lincoln, I would be laughed out of the room. Think of it that way. When you think presidents, you think George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, etc. If you look at the musicians previously on this list and consider their extremely notable and actually epic impact on music and society, and then compare that to Winehouse's contributions, it is so much of a clash. I'm sure that musicians who are 27 die every day. Most of them are nobodys that we've never heard of. Winehouse was a successful singer and notable. But she doesn't fit on this list, IMO. G90025 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

G90025's claim that Winehouse's inclusion should depend on her notability as a musician is ridiculous and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Her inclusion should depend on whether reliable sources regard her as being part of the 27 Club. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, what? Her notability as a musician should not have an effect on her inclusion or disclusion? LOL. Speaking of ridiculous! Then by what do you intend to go by? If you're not judging based on her musical notoriety, I'd like to know exactly by what you are judging on. G90025 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above her inclusion should depend on whether reliable sources regard her as being part of the 27 Club and they most certainly do.Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We are judging by whether reliable, secondary sources say she was a member of the 27 Club, and nothing else. Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions of whether her personal life was more important than her musical life, or vice versa; it's about writing an encyclopedia based on what the sources say (WP:PSTS) and nothing more. We have seen 3 sources cited on this talk page, and another one on the article page itself, which state that:

She was a musician

She died aged 27

She is a member of the 27 club

Whether or not she is *deserving* of inclusion based on subjective views of her historical/sociocultural impact is not up for debate, and is not a rationale for her in/exclusion. We have reliable, secondary sources saying she is, therefore we should include it. I'm failing to see how User:G90025's suggestion of "press overreaction" overrides our core Wikipedia policies, or is even a relevant argument. Likewise, the analogy to the presidents is irrelevant, because the parallel list here is Presidents of the United States -- which does not place any requirements of merit upon it. While we do have Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, it is a collection of secondary sources' lists. Nowhere has there been a SINGLE source provided which claims that Winehouse was not a musician, did not die at age 27, or that she is not a member of the 27 club.

Notability is criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, from WP:N: "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". It is not, and has never been, a criteria for inclusion in this list.

For me, this article absolutely should include her, so chalk that as an aye !vote. The complete lack of reliable sources to attest her non-eligibility to this club is pretty damning. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye This discussion was put to bed a long time ago in favor of her inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye The Google search numbers for "Amy Winehouse 27 Club" cited earlier speak for themselves. This debate should not be determined by G90025's apparent vendetta against Winehouse, people should remain objective.12bigbrother12 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Everyone else on the list died at least 15 years ago, so we know that their contributions to music have been remembered. Amy Winehouse just died. For now, she should be on the list, but if in 15 years everyone has forgotten about her, we can remove her then. For now, we'll just have to wait. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 19:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Aye Of course she should be on the list. When you have musical giants like Alexandra, Wallace Yohn, Bryan Ottoson and Orish Grinstead on it, it would lose all credibility not to include her. And as one of the earlier posters says, it's not a real club just a collection of musicians who died aged 27. Amy was a musician and she was 27. Ergo, she is in.--Shylocksboy (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)