Rating the dead: is it wrong? I say yes, but what do you think?

Got this message in my inbox today -- I think it's interesting but misconceived, and I would love to hear what you think of it. My whole point with Obit Patrol is to focus on lives well-lived, of engaging personalities or those who made lasting contributions to those around them. This does not correlate with fame, necessarily -- although I am tracking obituaries through already-published sources, which indicates a modicum of notoriety on the part of the deceased. (There is a limitless number of "anonymous" lives that deserve similar attention here; unfortunately, I don't have the time or resources to give them the spotlight they deserve.)

My problem with this and all other "top-ranked" deaths of the year stories and posts is that it indicates that we value a person's visibility status -- the celebrity quantum of simply being knowable by the broadest base of people possible -- as the primary criterion for being remembered. I don't list people who I feel are already well-covered by the mainstream media (politicians, some sports figures, celebrities) or those who I feel were a blight on the planet rather than a boon (Ghaddafi, bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il). What do you think? Would love to hear from you on this.

"Dear Jayde Member,
With so many famous deaths in 2011 (Steve Jobs, Andy Rooney,
Osama Bin Laden, etc.), it's hard to determine who is the most
famous. Well FamousDead.com has put together a very intuitive
application that allows you to rank the most famous deaths of 2011,
by simply dragging and dropping them in order. After you submit your
choices, you can see the global top 10 list:
http://www.famousdead.com/top10/
Keep on Promoting!
Jayde Admin"