Talk:Dead pool

Proposed merger

Does anyone object to a merger into dead pool? of Deathpool into this article? If not, I will attempt the merge. TMS63112 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Go for it, sir. Gretnagod 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• I second that.--Dakota 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely merge--RMHED 16:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger completed! Redirecting accordingly TMS63112 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the edit war

Would all users please stop the edit war by reverting each others changes re: the death list website. Please discuss the issues here and let's come to a consensus about the best way to incorporate this information in the article. Thank you. TMS63112 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that site belongs at all in the article except in the external links area. It is not a notable web forum -- it exists only on the web and its Alexa rankings are very low. Low Alexa rankings can be excused if the entity had a life outside of the web, but this isn't the case here -- such a non-notable site does not deserve half this article. I have even conceded to leave a longer-than-deserving paragraph about it (which includes contributions from more than one person). The information that keeps getting replaced without justification resembles a vanity page more than anything else, is poorly written, and overemphasizes the "importance" of this non-notable entity. Quatloo 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Death List itself is monitored by the UK media. That can be proved by its recent mention in The Sun, which has the highest circulation of any English-language newspaper in the world. And, as a working British journalist myself, I can happily state that the Death List is more known than any other Dead Pool, or perhaps the who dead pool format. Given that the whole of Wikipedia is, in my opinion, starting to resemble a diary of an angst-ridden teen, I cannot believe [[ User:Quatloo|Quataloo]] is even arguing against the Death List being included more fully. If you want to take a look at the sort of toot that shouldn't be on here, I suggest you visit Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Now that is pointless! Gretnagod 01:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read that coverage, and I disagree. Merely being covered once or twice does not make something notable, that falls into human interest genre of coverage and there are thousands of individuals and events in such stories every day which nobody would consider notable other than fleetingly. The proof is in the pudding, in this case, the web traffic, which is quite quantifiable and in this case truly negligible. The fact is, very few people visit that site. Quatloo 02:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, having read the comments and looked at the article history, let me try to summarize everyone's positions, in the hope of reaching a compromise everyone can live with. In Eternum, RMHED, and Gretnagod were proponents of keeping the separate Death List entry. After the AfD debate resulted in a merge, they have edited the article to include a separate section tilted "Dead pool variant" talking about the deathlist.net site. Their position seems to be that the site is sufficinetly notable and different from a "traditional" dead pool that it needs a separate section. They also note press coverage that the site has received as indicative of its notability. User Quatloo argues that the site is not particularly notable due to its low web traffic, and that a couple of press mentions do not warrant giving the site a separate section in the article. S/he does not object to an external link to the site, but would prefer the site not be mentioned in the body of the text. S/he also objects to some of the phrasing the other users have proposed. As a compromise position, s/he has written a brief description of the deathlist site for inclusion in the body of the text, without giving it a section. Have I fairly summarized everyone's positions? TMS63112 16:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I believe the DeathList website is indeed notable enough to receive the relatively small entry RMHED keeps re-instating. I do not understand why Qualtoo has taken issue with the DeathList entry; surely there are many other much less deserving Wikipedia articles - including the growing number of articles written about fictional characters (!) - to which Qualtoo's somewhat obsessive attention could be put to better use. Qualtoo implies, in his/her note above, that the inclusion of anything not "approved" by him/herself equates to "vanity" on the part of the poster, and yet has the audacity to refer to "conceding" to allow a longer DeathList entry. Who are you to decide what should be included and what shouldn't? It is not your place to override a 'merge' decision, which everyone else was willing to accept, for whatever your personal reasons are. As noted by TMS63112, it would appear that there are (at least) three individuals who wish to see the longer DL entry remain, as opposed to one individual who doesn't. If Wikipedia prides itself on its democratic nature, then I suggest, Qualtoo, that you consider the proof that is in that pudding. --In eternum+ 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only person who seems to have a problem with the "Dead Pool variant" edit is Quatloo. This version is less than half the original DeathList article size, and is a fair compromise,commensurate with the merge decision. --RMHED 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for posting your thoughts here. I want to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If two or more editors disagree about the content of an article, it should be resolved through discussion and an attempt to reach a consensus, rather than a "vote" and majority rules. I would ask that everyone assume good faith, and avoid questioning the motives of other editors. This can feel like a personal attack, and does not help us reach consensus. Let's focus our attention on improving this article, and not get distracted by the many other aricles in Wikipedia that need attention. I believe both the shorter paragraph Quatloo has agreed to support and the full section the other editors wish to insert would constitute a "merge" as agreed in the AfD discussion. I think the key issue is whether giving deathlist.net a separate section in the article gives undue weight to that one website. To help us answer that question, can editors provide links to news references other than the two cited in the article that help support the notability of the site? Thank you all again for participating in this discussion. TMS63112 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Alexa rank of the site in question is 105,860. Even a rank of half that would not make the site notable. I have already conceded that it can have a paragraph, a recognition of notability that it does not truly deserve. Wikipedia is not a place for vanity information about websites. If that were the case there would be 105,000 articles on them. Furthermore there is nothing specifically notable about what Death List actually is. It has a dead pool -- there are hundreds of these. The notability claim seems to rest on the fact that it has forums -- which is even less notable. Quatloo 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of articles about non-notable subjects/people, notability is a red herring. How very nice of Quatloo to concede that we can have a paragragh, not at all patronizing.DeathList is not a Dead Pool if Quatloo knew anything about Dead Pools he'd realise this.--RMHED 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a deadpool by the definition of this article. Quatloo 21:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus we had on the deletion of the Death List article was merge. Admittedly, Qualtoo has been very unreasonable about this in the past, but I thought we had come to a compromise that we could leave it with a small paragraph. When (not if) Death List gets bigger and more notable, we can renew this discussion. I do believe, however, that RMHED, In eternum+ and Gretnagod should be the ones to decide what constitutes the paragraph NOT Qualtoo. Let's agree for now to keep it small but with content control reverted to people who actually know something about the topic, not just someone who wishes to keep it short. 128.54.66.112 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in Canadian Paul 22:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

TMS63112. I must disagree with a couple of the points raised in your last comment, and I do not do so to be inflammatory, but because I believe that they are fundamental to the discussion at hand. First of all, I did not state that Wikipedia is a democracy, I stated that Wikipedia is democratic in nature, as I believe it is. Wikipedia is built on the principle that there is a community of people adding to, and amending, a common pool of knowledge, which is then to be shared. It was through democratic negotiations that the original DeathList page became merged with the Dead Pool page. If individuals who participate in the compilation of knowledge provided within Wikipedia do not believe that this compilation should occur within a democratic vein, they should perhaps consider editing their own encyclopedia, where they will have autonomous control over what is included or not. Surely autonomous control is not the point of Wikipedia, or it would not exist in the format that it does. I therefore contend that the wishes of one individual, no matter how persistent, should not override those of several, especially in circumstances such as these, where the very definition of what is being discussed is not agreed upon. Qualtoo suggests that the Deathlist qualifies as a Dead Pool, as dead pools are herein defined. I would contend that the definition of what a Dead Pool is, as it stands in this entry, is too vague. Dead Pools require, by their very nature, that individual players select their own ‘teams’ of celebrities who they believe will die. These individual players then compete against each other to ‘win’. Under this more specific definition, the Deathlist is definitely not a Dead Pool, but a variation thereof. Therefore, it should remain as a Dead Pool Variation.

Secondly, I believe that it is impossible to discuss the notability of any Wikipedia entry without considering it in the context of all other Wikipedia articles. I agree that to simply start citing examples of other poorly written articles is unconstructive. However, how can the definition of what makes something “notable” be established without context? Would 10 articles in obscure, non-notable magazines outweigh two articles in highly circulated, international newspapers? From what I understand, the DeathList administration have turned down requests for interviews in the past; thus, although the interviews do not appear in the media, the Deathlist is indeed “notable”. Finally, although I am unable to provide links, I believe that the DeathList was both a Guardian (UK) 'Site of the Day', as well as a Yahoo! 'Pick'.--In eternum+ 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If something lives only on the web, as Death List does, it can be compared to other websites using Alexa. For things that live outside the web -- such as personalities, corporations, real-world events, etc. this is not a valid measure. Often this is because pre-web history is under-represented on the web, and historical figures will appear fewer times mentioned than if they were presently alive. But Death List is just a webforum and as such it is very easy to establish its lack of notability. Quatloo 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with this reasoning. If the only other entries in Wikipedia were websites, then I would accept this measurement as sufficient, as there would then be across-the-board standards. However, you cannot make use of such an exlusive measuring system when other entries in Wikipedia are not quantifiable thus. Alexa denotes notability as compared to other websites only. Furthermore, as with most quantitative analysis, Alexa talks only in numbers: it does not enable an examination of who visitors to the website are. For example, which is more "notable": a website visited by 100,000 teens, in passing, as they visit hundred of other websites each night, or a website visited by 1000 top-ranking government officials and journalists, who visit that website exclusively? (Obviously, I'm not at all suggesting that either is the case with regard to the DeathList, I'm merely making a general point.) This is the problem with quantitative research; the number are just that: only numbers. They do not attest to the quality or value of what is being quantified. Therefore, although I grant that the Alexa measurement may been seen as one indicator it is not enough, in this setting, upon which to base decisions. --In eternum+ 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat II?

I was just trying to figure out why a video arcade game that as far as I know has no references to a "dead pool" would be linked from here.

Unless there is a reason I think it should be removed. Lazarus Plus

Done.70.241.5.134 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Shostie

dead pool is one of the arenas in mortal kombat -- it's a giant acid pool where you could knock people in so they melt and die. good times. aside from the name, i agree it is not related to this article. --dan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External link to deathlist

Are external links to something that is part of the article out of place? I'm amazed--Sully 18:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Deathlist

And the solution to the above is to remove it altogether, is this the consensus view now or just the view of the person(s?) who's deleted it?--Sully 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gonna re-add it. No need for an edit war.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Major omission; merge?

This isn't even so much as cross-referenced to assassination politics. The two should probably just be merged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ext links?

Do we really need those links to random death pool games? None of them seems particularly noteworthy to me. I'll remove them in a couple of days unless there is well-founded objection. -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They're spam. Quatloo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed most of the links. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this sentence meant to be serious?

Is the following serious or a joke? "In most pools, killing the celebrity in question is considered cheating and results in the killer's immediate disqualification from the pool, with the notable exception of assassination markets." CopaceticThought (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's too ridiculous either way. I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.198.98 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• why is it ridiculous? i have no idea if it's true or not that killing the person would normally be considered cheating, but it is indeed the whole point of assassination markets. --dan (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Deutsche Bank" actually made something like this

It is in the actual "SPIEGEL" (Number 6 of 2012, "Die gestresste Seele") on site 60 ("Zynisches Investment"). However, here is another source for it (in german aswell). I only found this english site about this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062831/-You-die-I-win-Deutsche-Bank-bets-on-Americans-life-expectancy

However, here is a little bit more serious page in german about it, also you find many newspages if you google for "db life kompass 3". http://www.db-kompass-anlegerschutz.de/life_3_fond.html

--91.49.157.123 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)