With regards to Don Sanderson, I found him by accident when I was googling for something else.
IFAIK, his death was not reported by CNN or the Beeb. It was reported by the USA Today, Washington Post, NY Times and, strangely, The Wall St Journal. Of course it was also covered by the CBC and just about every other news source in Canada. I think he is the first person to ever die in a hockey fight which makes him more significant than, say a realtor.
For that matter, there could be cases where the alleged illness is disputed (e.g. the “Michael Jackson needs a lung transplant” story).
In the main Death Pool thread a question has been raised about Juana Tejada and a rule about being known solely because of their illness. If we had such a rule, I would have judged that she fell foul of it and would not count as a celebrity. So consider whether you think such people should be included/excluded and therefore whether you support a rule prohibiting people known only for their illness.
Note that this discussion relates solely to possible rule changes. She was a perfectly valid pick for the 2009 Death Pool.
OK I’ll bite since I brought it up in the other thread. I would be in favor of disqualifying a pick like this in the future. I agree that it is valid for this year. I think most other rules about what is a celebrity would be hard to enforce but this one would be pretty easy. It is obvious that no one would have heard of Tejada if it wasn’t for her illness.
Everybody is terminal. The pool is about when.
That would be a great sig, Sir. 
You could award bonus points for people who die in less predictable ways such as homicides (other than hostage killings), suicides, drug overdoses and accidents. People who picked the Crocodile Hunter could have gotten more points than those who picked say, Jade Goody. It would encourage more people to pick the likes of Amy Winehouse.
We have another non-celebrity who made the news solely because of their illness: Alex Macomber. If we allow this, then it opens up all the “Brave local teen battles cancer” stories that you get from time to time in any local paper.
The pick was valid this year. Unless I can hear persuasive arguments otherwise, I will introduce a new rule for next year that people must not be “celebrities” solely for their illness.
That is a very good rule and I wholeheartedly support it.
Agreed.
Ditto.
Now, back to our show, is there any reasonable definition of celebrity?
I thin the most recent dead celeb, George Weber is an interesting case in point.
I’ve never heard of him. But I presume that by virtue of where he was a DJ, millions or even 10s of millions may recognize him. Also, the first several pages of Google search results seem only about stories of his death. Well, he just died, so of course there would be a flood of such stories. Exactly the same as that hockey guy. So is this guy a celebrity? I would have to say yes, but I can’t really define why on a way that would be broadly applicable as a definition.
Also, if I may be sold bold, what about ME? Am I a celebrity? I was all over the news in 2007, for just about 3 weeks. I was on CNN and NPR, and in about every major newspaper in America, and many of several other continents. My opinion is that I’m not a celebrity. Why? I’m not sure, but the best that I can come up with is that celebrityhood DOES expire, and can do so very quickly. I’m not even sure I ever WAS a celebrity – I was more of a blip, there was nothing sustained about it.
On the other side of the coin, there is Joe the Plumber, who did even less to merit celebrityhood than me – when it first struck, at least. But he hired an agent, and started a website, and pretended his ignorant-ass opinion meant something, and voila, it did. Much as it pains me to admit it, he IS a celebrity.
Ah well, I got nuthin’ else.
You’re Hurricane Felix, aren’t you.
I’m afraid you are a celebrity only in our hearts. George Weber was on the flagship station for conservative talk radio, WABC (he was a newsreader, not a commentator). He also did work for national ABC radio. He had a distinctive voice. Not weirdly distrinctive like Paul Harvey but a good radio voice that was easily remembered. He was also quite good at the banter he had with hosts like Curtis and Kuby. And I think the story of his death might have legs. He was killed in his apartment in what seems to be a good neighborhood. Chances are it wasn’t random. So he was listened to by millions of people daily and his death may become a big story. I don’t see how he isn’t a celebrity.
For me, there’s a simple test–had I, personally, heard of the person before they became ill? If so, I’ll pick the person with a clean conscience. If not, well . . . we have three choices:
(1) Allow such picks. That’s what we’ve done to date. The world will keep turning, but I think it makes a Death Pool less fun.
(2) Ban such picks, and rely on an honor system to prevent them. Might work, might not. Is anybody that desperate to win a contest with no prize, that they’d cheat? ("I knew who that hockey player was! I’m a big junior hockey fan.!)
(3) Ban such picks, and allow the organizer to disqualify, based on judgment, in doubtful cases. This requires an umpire with thick skin and the ability to tell people to STFU and start their own Death Pool if they don’t like it.
If it were up to me, I’d pick (2), but I’m fine with (3) as long as I’m not the umpire.
I have a problem with that definition. (FTR I have no one on my list that anyone would have a problem with) What about local celebrities? Like George Weber, he wasn’t known much outside of New York but millions of people knew him in the area. What about people famous outside of the US? Just because we haven’t heard of him doesn’t mean they aren’t famous in Australia.
Its a little frustrating to me when someone picks a person I would never have the chance of ever knowing. I don’t like it when someone picks the Prince of East Bumfuqistan. But I don’t think we want to go there. Maybe there are some few extreme examples that we can ask a ruling on. I would not be against having a short lively exchange with amarone as the final referee.
The famous for being sick category seems to be a lot easier to make a ruling on than the definition of celebrity. Alex Macomber would be out.
So would the junior hockey player and Juana Tejada.
I also wouldn’t mind a rule against people famous only because of their relatives. If they use that relationship to parley it into fame of their own that is fine. Sylvia Plath’s son is not a celebrity.
Isn’t “famous for being sick” the only issue? I mean, I assume that everybody picked, ever, was famous enough to somehow come to public attention. (The exception would be if people were picking their personal friends, neighbors, and relatives, and I haven’t heard of that happening.) The only issue is, were any of those people famous only for becoming sicK?
Read the OP. There are several issues open to discussion.
I understand that. But the issue since post#88 has been a measuring criterion for people who are “famous only for being sick”. Loach has raised the objection that a person might be famous in one country but not in another. And I say, it doesn’t matter–if the person picking them knew of them before they were sick, then they weren’t famous only for being sick. It’s a subjective criterion, but the only one available.
Nah. Especially since in the case of Winehouse, a drug overdose, suicide, accident or homicide is probably the MOST likely way she’ll go out, not the least likely.