Looking into this issue has given me a real insight into how Wikipedia works - and, perhaps by extension, how information exists in the actual real world. The way I see it:
1. Once upon a time, between 1969 and 1971, four megastars of the rock music world died at the age of 27 and the idea of 'The 27 Club' was born
2. This was repeated as an interesting coincidence by word-of-mouth and written in books (probably I first heard it from my dad - a blues guitarist - and maybe read it in one or two books about Hendrix when I was a young teen)
3. Kurt Cobain dies in 1994. Some people say, wow, look there's another one
4. Fast forward to the internet age and sites hungry for content. They write articles and lists on any old shite. They search anything that will make people click. So now any time somebody even remotely connected to celebrity (Elvis's grandson?) dies at 27 they are connected to the 'club', all to get views and ad revenue
5. The Wikipedia article is maintained and managed by about 4 or 5 unknown people. Their criteria for including someone in the 27 Club is if they've been mentioned in a reliable source. And apparently local newspapers and trashy celebrity magazines/websites are classed as reliable sources
6. Since Wikipedia is the go-to place for initial information these 4 or 5 unknown people - and the content farming magazines and websites - have, in a sense, redefined the list. No longer is it about "music megastars" but "anyone even tenuously linked to celebrity as long as they've been mentioned as joining the 27 Club by a so-called "reliable source" (such as In Touch Weekly, The Fader, or The Birmingham Mail's low quality 'article' saying (I paraphrase) "
probably some conspiracy theorists will notice that Jade Goody was 27 when she died")
7. If two studies are done these are presented as having "repeatedly disproven" the idea. The studies aren't checked and it doesn't matter if they're any good or not, as long as they're published by a "reliable source" seems enough
8. Linking to metabunk isn't allowed because metabunk isn't classed as a reliable source
9. Funny thing is, if I got a job on a content farm or maybe my local newspaper I would suddenly become a reliable source. Likewise if I went back to university and wrote some studies
10. Same thing, I think, if metabunk developed into something of a website that posted articles summarising its findings (are Mick's words here or on his YouTube 'unreliable' but 'reliable' if they're on some news show or in his book?)
11. It's all just individuals' opinions really. But as long as you're associated with the right publication it doesn't matter if you're fresh out of high school and mostly employed to make the tea, your words could help shape the world's most popular source of information. Same if you're one of those 4 or 5 unknown people with the determination and time to maintain and guard the content, whether qualified or not. A 60-year-old smarter and more learned than the average professor who chooses to express themselves in less formal places, however, is shit out of luck.
Funny old world, ain't it?
). Let's compromise: if they indict Ian Curtis, and they promise they will never indict Amy Winehouse, I can accept it 
. Their music may not appeal at first hearing, but that's the hallmark of truly great music (and of great art in general): it's not immediately pleasing, maybe not at all, but it needs some listening to be appreciated, afterwhich it becomes a shining gem. They were unique, great, true rock legends.
