Talk:Deaths in 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is organized as part of a group with the other Contents pages (category). Please direct feedback on the pages as a group to Wikipedia talk:Contents. Thank you.

For earlier discussions of this topic, see archive1, archive2, and archive3, as well as the talk archive at Deaths in 2005.

Contents

[edit] Executed prisoners

I just want to know why the Bobby Glen Wilcher entry that I put here was deleted. He was a death row inmate from Mississippi who was executed on October 18. And now an entry on Jeffrey Lundgren is here. That's not fair! Southerngyrl20 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some executed people are more notable than others. I know of Jeffrey Lundgren due in part to the article here. If something makes Bobby Glen Wilcher notable he, I presume, could fit.--T. Anthony 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think that Wilcher was too well known outside of Mississippi, whereas Lundgren's trial did make national headlines. I'm not sure if Wilcher made national headlines or not... Keekee 14:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
May it sound morbid, in my view every executed person is worth mentioning because capital punishment in individual cases can always attract attention and debate. I mean, once mentioned, nobody should be deleted for reasons of being 'marginal'. David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.24.76.48 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Peter Aubros"

An "overstimulating game of chess?" Survived by "13 children?" All right, I admit I'm laughing, but this is not the right time of the year for April Fool's jokes.

(If, by chance, this is real, the poster needs to provide documentation. In the meantime, it should be removed.)

[edit] DiEmilio

As I am a novice at this, but a frequent lurker, I have a question.

What documentation of death is required? The article on Jason DiEmilio references pitchforkmedia.com, which references philebrity.com.

Philebrity.com states

"We are saddened to hear today that Jason DiEmilio — known to many music fans here and around the world as the man behind the psychedelic/post-rock outfit Azusa Plane — has passed on."

And then later in the article:

"As of this writing, no proper obituary is available, but we promise to get that, as well as info on any services in his honor, to you the moment we’re made aware of them."

What worries me is that there is no independent confirmation of death here, and this may be all rumor.

Somebody set me straight on this please.

Thanks,

Bill

[edit] Jason DiEmelio

Why was he made a seperate article? Essentially he IS the Azusa Plane, I guess sometimes live he would have others on stage, but Azusa Plane IS Jason DiEmio. Wouldn;t a redirect to the band be better than a seperate article that would probably end up eventually being merged? -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Allen Fairhall

The citation says that John Howard heard on the 6th that Fairhall had died. It doesn't say he died on the 6th. I strongly suspect he would have died at least a day earlier than this, but there's nothing else on Google that I could find. When another citation becomes available, we will need to check his actual date of death. JackofOz 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected, Fairhall died on 3/11, according to the obituary in today's Age. I've moved him to the right date. JackofOz 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] odd death date

Why is Bellinda Emmett listed as dying on the eleventh? In all time zones i know of, it is still the tenth. Right now it's 10:30 Central united states. Didn't want to change iincase it's supposed to be that.

Because she died in Australia, today. And today in Australia is the 11th. --Ninevah 04:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Jagger's father

Mick Jagger's father dies at 93 CNN Google offers: all 256 news articles » I added Basil Jagger and it was deleted as not-notable. Yet it made the network radio news in USA. Hours later the horsey death Desert Orchid is still there. Hrothgar 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

we have an established tradition of including famous animals, and, odd as it seems, the horse was notable for its own achievements, whereas being the parent of a famous person doesn't confer notability automatically W guice 11:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I would add Basil Jagger, and redirect him to Mick. Generally, we redirect for famous people's parents and children, and Wikipedia redirect ought to make this list. Xoloz 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for pointing me to this discussion. I do not think that Basil Jagger is notable under the WP:BIO criteria. Could you point out how he is? I cannot recall a single achievement or reported instance where Basil has met the WP:BIO criteria. (Insofar that his death is widely reported, there has been very widespread coverage in the UK media of the death of Sharron Elliott, a British solder KIA in Iraq. Yet I would agree she is non-notable by the standards of this article). Sliggy 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly in favour of famous animals, strongly against celebrity's family members - would you count their sisters? Cousins? Best friends? We really need to make a policy about this question, since it comes up frequently Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Based only on ample AfD results (check on any famous pop-star baby), we generally merge and redirect parents and children to famous folks. A mention of the parents' death, even simply in their lifespan, is enough to justify this, and even print encyclopedias will include (Born year X- Died year Y) for a famous person's parents when it mentions (usually in the birth and early life section.) I do personally believe that everyone worthy of a redirect is worthy of mention here -- it increases interest and makes for easy editing of the famous person underlying. Note that this only applies for parents, children, and for meaningful siblings sometimes: folks actually likely to be included even in a Brittainica article on the famous person. Just being a cousin, aunt, or whatever, doesn't count. Of course, the death must be verifiable, necessitating a press reference. This makes sense, makes editing and interconnectivity easier, and doesn't create an unmaintainable flood. (In the fourth quarter of '05, when I was doing the daily AP obituary inclusions, we added two parents, IIRC.) Xoloz 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but your argument doesn't apply to including a relative of a notable person in an article that is "a list of notable deaths". Basil Jagger has achieved no notable achievement, as per Wikipedia notability guidelines (an accepted set of criteria). His is the father of a (very very) notable person. This does not persuade me that Basil is a notable person. In the interim I suggest that Basil Jagger should be deleted as being a person whose notability is not established, in light of the guidance at the top of the page: "Review Wikipedia notability guidelines before adding a listing." The redirect, of course, is unconditionally appropriate. I look forward to proof that he should be included within this page. Sliggy 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The notability guideline once did, and currently still should, include a previso for merging information regarding the marginally notable to more notable. It is on this basis that Basil qualifies. An appeal to a very strict literal reading of a rule rarely governs wiki-practice, where guidelines can change daily. For the sake of the mergist sentiment, I insist Basil remain. Xoloz 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Insist away. Where is the evidence of his notability please? Without evidence of notability he cannot be included in a list of notable deaths. Please provide this. I am not fussed about textual legalities, I want something he has done that is significant. Regards, Sliggy 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It is almost a week since I made the above request for evidence of his notability. None has been forthcoming. Can I assume that his death was indeed not notable? Sliggy 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I don't really care whether Joe Jagger is in or out, I note that this section is described as "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". Might I suggest that Joe's death is notable because he is Mick's father? Kevin

  • You might suggest that, but i don't think it'd hold much water. Everyone dies, famous offspring or not, meaning his death is no more notable than some who doesn't have a notable son W guice 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
One can reasonably argue that a parent’s procreation and raising of someone who has become a "notable individual" (i.e., Mick Jagger) are in themselves noteworthy for biological and environmental reasons and therefore also for historical or biographical reasons. I suggest for consideration the thoughtful comments of Adam Edwardsin the Telegraph.
As recognized by most, Basil Jagger’s death received a fair amount of media attention.
Kevin’s point that the list under discussion is a list of “‘notable deaths’ rather than ‘deaths of notable people’” is right on. One can reasonably take the position that the criteria of “noteworthiness” for a list of “notable deaths” should not be as limiting as the criteria for a list of “deaths of notable people.”
I appreciate the need to apply standards to the list entries. The notability guidelines are guidelines, not rules, but perhaps separate (or additional) guidelines could be considered for the list of notable deaths. If, on the other hand, the list of “notable deaths” really is intended as a list of “deaths of notable people,” the point at least should be clarified in the title and in the entry itself.
The apparent suggestion that the death of an individual who might not qualify for a separate Wikipedia article CANNOT rise to the level of a “notable death” seems a very questionable conclusion to me. Discussion of whether deaths of close family members (parents and children and perhaps siblings) of notable people might warrant inclusion at least under certain circumstances seems more constructive. I suggest a closer look at the model suggested by Xoloz. DBK 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ana Carolina Reston

Not notable enough to have a Google page (or as a supermodel, image on Google.) - Should she be here? On the flipside, junior football players make it here all the time. So it's a toss-upAde1982 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, without even a single googlefinding, she is not noteworthy. --Lordz 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters (via CNN) story [1]


Whoa! 23.000 googlepages since yesterday... though most apparently concerns her death. 82.192.146.25 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

reckon that's because she died? W guice 15:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just surprized, since I googled it yesterday without a single hit, and now she is suddenly famous. 82.192.146.25 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Exact same thing happened a few months ago with me disputing that "Miss Visually Impaired of South Carolina" wasn't by any way notable...by the next day, the media had seized on it, thousands of articles :\ Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Friedman death

Is certainly a notable event that should make our news section, I'd assume?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, if you look under "November 16" it's been there since it was announced. W guice 08:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Français "Rusty" Tullis

I note that poor old Joe Jagger has been buried and dug up regularly by bickering Wikipedians. However, if Joe fails the notability test, then why not also Ms Tullis (d. 11 November)? Her only claim to fame was giving birth to "Rocky" Dennis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.212.210 (talk • contribs) .

I agree she is of marginal notability, but she has at least been a subject in a (somewhat) biographical film. This is not true of Joe Jagger (as far as I am aware). If you think she is not notable then be bold and delete her, giving a reasoning in an edit summary. Sliggy 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Altman

I changed 'leukemia' to 'complications of cancer' since I haven't found anywhere where it specifically states leukemia. Both CNN, NY Times and The Times says cancer in general. DannyBoy2k

[edit] Cause Unconfirmed

Is there a reason why the term 'cause unconfirmed' has been added to several deceased persons? Is it a necessity or should the person be listed without noting cause of death if it is unknown? SailorAlphaCentauri 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though the term has been removed from the listed individuals. 132.174.124.1 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates referred to on this page

The page should make it clear at the very beginning that the dates shown are for December 2006 deaths. Misterdoe 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point...it looks like the December 2006 heading was changed to a date heading in an edit on Dec. 22. I have tried to fix this.--GregRM 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since this is the page for "Deaths in 2006" ALL the deaths for December should be worked into a separate entry for Deaths in December 2006 in keeping with the layout established for Deaths in 2005. And has the Category been created yet? (my connection is very slow tonight and I've given up on the main page reloading as I need to go) RoyBatty42 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. Deaths in December 2006 redirects to Deaths in 2006, for a reason, namely that we don't split off separate month entries (a la Deaths in 2005) until after the month is over. This is, as far as i can tell, easily the most sensible way of doing things which the regulars here are accustomed to. W guice 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Nathan

I have issue with Jared Nathan being considered notable. If I'm correct, an actor needs at least three credits to be considered notable and Nathan only has one. Why is he suddenly notable because he died in a car accident? I'm going to remove with a note in the edit summary that I discussed it on the talk page. Please respond here with justification before reinstating. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam - President or Former President

Today's article about Saddams execution has been amended a number of times from the "Former President" to "President of Iraq".

Factually, this is incorrect as he was, at the time of his death the Former President and I feel it should be cited as such.

Is there a consensus on this issue?

Cjohnson103 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Former president sounds like the clear choice to me. He was president up until March 2003. At the time of his death in December 2006, it had been 3.5 years since he was president. -- Chuq 11:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this discussion, the Wikipedia front page refers to him as "Former" as do the BBC. It is a minor change but think its important to get the facts right. I'm going to revert it pending further discussion. Cjohnson103 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a general convention in Notable Deaths to avoid use of the word "former", since every person listed no longer holds any position. Hence the word could be applied to every listing. The inclusion of Saddam's term of office, 1979-2003, in the entry makes it clear that he was not in office at the time of his execution, and makes the use of the word "former" now redundant. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether the word stays or goes for now, but I am sure it will be changed at some time in the future by one of the wikipedians who regularly tend this page. WWGB 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but take the view that I was once a schoolboy (many moons ago) and if I were to drop dead tomorrow, someone could quite easily place an entry saying schoolboy, 19xx - 19xx even though that had nothing whatsoever to do with my later life! The arguement stems from what his "occupation" (for want of a better word) was at the time of his death. Cjohnson103 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On this page we tend to use dates to avoid the unwieldy use of "former", which is a slippery slope which, as you rightly say, could be applied to any facet of someone's life whether or not it had any relevance to the rest of it. W guice 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/Talk%7EDeaths_in_2006_ff43.html"