Talk:Deaths in 2005/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Mother Benedict

An anon with a variable IP address and an aggressive disposition disputes that this late nun founded the first female U.S monastery, and has contacted me personally. I have replied that a written source would be necessary to dispute AP claims, but I cannot be sure whether my replies are received. I'm sure regular contributors agree that he shouldn't change a claim fundamental to an AP news story without a source more certain than his own dyspeptic mood. Please watch the entry for his modification, and change them as long as a source isn't provided. Xoloz 10:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The first [Benedictine female] establishment [in America] was at St. Mary's, Pennsylvania, where Abbot Wimmer settled some German nuns from Eichstätt in 1852", so I fear he is right. It does seem a bit bizarre to claim that the first Benedictine female monastery in the USA wasn't founded until 1948! -- Necrothesp 12:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, given the obit., the most I'm comfortable doing is inserting "reportedly." I have neither the time nor the inclination to research this fully; however, the obit claims that the monastery was elevated to the highest level of "abbey-ship," so perhaps that is the source of its distinction. Xoloz 12:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what you've done works :), but I feel sorry for the dead nun if she has been deprived of some honor that cannot be properly accounted. Xoloz 12:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it. Note also that the abbey itself does not make this claim on its own website. I think it's just bad research on the part of whichever journalist wrote the AP obit. It seems fairly implausible that no Benedictine convent in the USA had full abbey status until 1976. -- Necrothesp 13:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[1] The New York Times confirms that this abbey was the first cloistered female Benedictine monastery in the US. I knew the AP wasn't that careless. Also, it appears this nun was a controversial one. Changing entry to account. Xoloz 14:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's more believable, although I'm still surprised that none existed before then. -- Necrothesp 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Abbey of St. Walburga in Virginia Dale, Colorado was started as a cloistered monastery in the 1930's. There are probably a few more that I've overlooked [2]. AP really did not do much research at all.
True, although looking at their website, they didn't achieve full abbey status until 1986. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Morning Vandals? and the US

I have reverted two anon. contributors this morning (Oct. 11). One deleted Chinese activist Lu; no reason was given for the removal, so it may be considered vandalism.

The other was a (probably well-intentioned) soul who switched all the "American"'s to "United States". I am sympathetic to this edit (American is inexact, and USians are already full of ourselves generally), but the usage of American is more common here, and RDs is not the best place to argue semantics, imo. On the other hand, If we want to start an informal poll here on that usage, yahoo! I'm a standardization neurotic, but I couldn't care less what the standard is in this case. Xoloz 12:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll answer: I prefer American. United Statesian just doesn't flow well. --Syrthiss 12:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I prefer American as well. While technically inexact, most people won't think "Oh, he might be Canadian" when reading someone is "American". It's not going to lead to mass confusion. It's quite clear that we associate nationalities with people, and not the continents they come from, and there's no other country that has "America" commonly used as a label. There are other cases of inexact usage that usually doesn't give confusion either: New York vs. New York City, Holland vs. The Netherlands, etc. 193.172.135.148 13:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ghazi Kanaan

The BBC titles the article reporting his death as:

Syrian minister 'commits suicide'

that is, with quotes around the reason he died. This makes me wonder, why does the BBC does that? Does the BBC suspect that although he was reported to have commited suicide he isn't dead? Or that he was murdered? Or does the BBC always do that if someone is reported to have committed suicide? 193.172.135.148 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's because the only basis for his supposed suicide is a single report from the official Syrian news agency. Official news from totalitarian states is not generally considered reliable until independently confirmed, for obvious reasons. It's also being investigated by the Syrian authorities. -- Necrothesp 13:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Weiler

This is further notice to anyone interested that I have put Wayne Weiler, listed here, up for AfD. I have no particular disaffection for him, but his article is among the weakest test cases for professional sports notability I've seen. So, if anybody feels like adding to the consensus in this area, do drop by AfD and vote. Xoloz 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the debate closed with a fairly conclusive keep margin. This serves as a strong precedent for the inclusion of any professional athlete, regardless of length of career. Xoloz 11:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've been reading about him on Google. He was well known in the racing world apparently, and had raced on dirt tracks all across the country for most of the 1950's. The concensus at the time he started racing on the indy circuit was he was going to be a great one. A huge accident cut his racing career short, but he was in managerial and owner positions till he died. The article just needs a lot more added to it. Williamb 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Convicted murderers

Forgive me if this has been debated in the notable deaths section before... I haven't been here that long but are convicted murderers really notable enough to be mentioned here? For one, I only see those executed in the US here and not those in other countries (many a Chinese or Iranian could be notable for being executed as a political prisoner). There is nothing notable about a criminal, in my opinion, having been executed as a result of due process.--Kalsermar 16:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been debated before, the general consensus seems to be about a 50/50 split. If it's a notable crime (eg garnered some media attention), I have no problem with it being included. Zerbey 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The death penalty has also been the subject of much more public controversy in the US than in Iran, China, or elsewhere, for obvious reasons of relative press freedom. My position is that as long as significant opposition to the punishment remains, all US executions are notable. They unfailingly garner nationwide press coverage when they happen. The consistent vocal institutional opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, the single largest religious denomination in the US, is more reason to hold all executions notable. Of course, being notable doesn't make one admirable, as goes without saying. Xoloz 03:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rosa Parks

I normally eschew superlatives in brief obit. lines, but Ms. Park wasn't simply a "civil rights pioneer"; she's the symbolic civils rights pioneer for African-Americans. In a struggle to note her extraordinary role, I have settled on quoting the NYT headline "Founding symbol of the Civil Rights Movement." Feel free to adapt this, but I strongly urge some indication remain of her widespread fame. Xoloz 06:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure that "founding symbol" is terribly accurate either. How about "civil rights leader and icon"? Jdcooper 14:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I had actually used "iconic" in a first attempt, which was removed by an objector, so I tried a direct quotation instead. Feel free to make the change if you wish; I've no objection. Xoloz 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

USA and other country links

Do we need multiple links on the same day to the same country? I've been skipping linking country entries if I see there is one already nearby. However people keep coming back and "wikifying" Williamb 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Good question. I'm one of the "wikifiers" -- I do it mostly for convenience and preemption, because a) I don't some want a less experienced editor just linking "American" straight, and b) People get moved around in the first few days as dates of death are refined. Other opinions? Xoloz 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm of no strong opinion either way. I was going to say we could forego it if there were two 'american's right next to each other or something, but considering that we move stuff around like Xoloz says for both alphabetizing and inaccurately reported dates thats not too useful a rule. If we stopped doing it, we'd likely have to go back and remove a lot of linked things for past months / years / decades / eons though. :) --Syrthiss 18:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually in theory going back through the years and cleaning up excess links wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Not sure if USA having 500 or more extra links adds to lag or not. However I have no personal ambitions in that department. Williamb 18:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
High article linkage is absolutely a good thing. See Link popularity. It is far more likely that a highly linked to article will appear high up in the list on Google, etc. Some web pages have millions of links. To try and reduce the number of links would be extremely counter-productive as we want the country articles particularly but any articles generally to have as high a link popularity as possible, SqueakBox 19:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, link. I myself hate it when I read something, and can't simply click on a word or a term I'm reading now because the same word or term was mentioned elsewhere on the page, and people try to avoid link duplication. I hate playing 'find the link' games. I guess it doesn't really matter if there's the same link a few lines above or below, but it still requires searching. And it looks odd - you end up with say six names, followed by six countries, five of them links, and one not because two people died having the same nationality. I will always link, regardless whether someone from the same country died the same day. 193.172.135.148 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

George T. Alexander, Jr. and soldiers

I'll start this discussion (if its old hat, please say so), since I know that the 2000th soldier killed in Iraq raises notability issues. From AfD experience, I know that (generally), a soldier's death must have some independent notability to be encyclopedic. We have not listed another US soldier in Iraq here lately because such deaths, while very sad, are the expected result of war, and to list every casualty in every war being fought today be would be impractical.

So, does Alexander's status as "number 2000" rise to the level of notability needed? I have no firm opinion, and certainly no great desire to remove him, but I pose the question to seek consensus. Xoloz 02:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, keep him. Not that Alexander himself is remarkable, and not even his death. But him being the 2000th US soldier to die has generated a lot of media attention. And that in itself is, IMO, enough reason to include him. 193.172.135.148 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, George T. Alexander, this gentleman, has now been nominated at AfD for deletion, though not by me. I voted keep as well. Xoloz 19:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep, for anyone interested. Xoloz 06:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Photos on this page

Do we need some sort of rules about photos being added to this page? Everybody who makes it here is by definition notable, and virtually everybody listed here would qualify for a photo, if that were generally permitted. Problem is, once we let one photo on, others will surely follow, and the page could well become cluttered. Surely photos and detailed biographical material belong on the relevant person's own page. I hate to sound churlish, particularly about Rosa Parks, for whom I have the greatest respect. I just wanted to nip a potential issue in the bud. Cheers JackofOz 12:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the rule should be no photos, and no exceptions. POV would be the only thing to determine who gets a photo and who doesn't, so I strongly think that's sufficient reason to avoid photographs completely. There's nothing churlish about your comments. This is the sort of issue that could get out of hand very quickly. Rossrs 13:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh gosh, of course there shouldn't be any photos! Extra links to multimedia (which we have with Parks) are fine, if one wishes (I really wouldn't mind seeing every link on the page multi-sourced), but this is not the place for pictures themselves. Xoloz 18:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we have strong consensus here, so I'll add the no-photo rule to the warning to the page's editor's instruction. Xoloz 18:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
First off, thanks to JackofOz for giving me a head's up about this thread. I've never added a photo to this page before, and don't plan to do so on a regular basis. Let me summarize why I added:
  1. it's a particularly notable death (according to Newseum her death was front-page news for dozens of newspapers);
  2. it's a particularly dignified photo, iconic enough to serve as a more general memento mori that reflects death in a broader sense;
  3. it's not just a photo of the woman who has died, but the image of the front page of a newspaper covering her death. This article is about notable deaths, and it felt like an image of coverage of her death was particularly appropriate in such an article.
I have sympathy for avoiding POV debates in Wikipedia. It's entirely possible for that to become a problem here too, but that's shouldn't dissade us from at least giving it a try. One or two images per month, carefully chosen, could turn this dry list into something richer. If there's a particular community of editors who maintain this list, perhaps they could led a monthly discussion about which images to add. The criteria I mentioned above could apply to every month: notability as a function of the editorial judgment of newspapers around the country and the world, quality of the images being a factor as to which image makes it, etc. Kayaker 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
I agree it's a dry list, but I think that's the nature of the beast. WP has stacks of lists of names, so why not permit "carefully chosen" photos to be added to them as well? Or conversely, if photos are to be prohibited on this page, shouldn't the same policy explicitly apply to all our lists of names? I applaud your creativity in doing something nobody ever (to my knowledge) thought of before. But I can see various cans of worms already forming. I'm voting for the consensus on this occasion. Cheers JackofOz 02:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If there were any photo I would ever allow it would be Rosa Parks, but I must agree this is a can of worms. Young people dead before their time, heads of state, religious figures -- many people who grace this list are universally admired, but we don't need to start playing "pick the saint" as a photo contest. It would be disrespectful to all of the deceased, and those who admired them. If I recall, John Paul II (I didn't edit then) had about thirty minutes of picture-time before he was removed in anticipation of this problem. And besides the universally admired, there are generals, political leaders, artists, and sports figures whose images might inspire unbecoming partisan vandalism. So, I must reluctantly concur. Xoloz 04:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course POV lives both in universally and admired. Many, many people in the world never heard about this lady (compared, let's say w/ JPII). Ejrrjs | What? 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Ejrrjs, I'd suggest respectfully that you read my statement again. I was not referring directly either to Ms. Parks or to HH Pope JP II when I typed "universally admired." I was making a distinction between different classes of people, those less likely to be disputed, and those more likely to be disputed as admirable. And, for the record, JP II, whom I admired, was also notably disliked by some. Xoloz 19:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
That may well be true. Your hero may be my villain, or somebody I've never heard of. The list records those people who somebody thinks are worthy of being listed here. If others disagree, they can remove the name. But the point I think here is that this is a list of names of people who qualify, not a collection of photos of those people. JackofOz 04:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say no. For various reasons. First, this page is just a list of names, which can be quickly scanned by the eye. Adding pictures makes it harder to scan the list. Secondly, who is going to determine who's "worthy" enough to be included? Sure, [Rosa Parks] was one of the people triggering important events in US history. But in Europe, most people hadn't heard of her. Most people on this list I've never heard of before (and no doubt, the people I add to this list most people won't have heard of before), yet in their own country/profession, they are regarded as having been very influential. By all means, add her picture if you compose a "Most notable US deaths in 2005" page. But not on this page. 193.172.135.148 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Piller

His original line read:

which was taking three lines of screen estate. I've reduced it to

so it fits in one line - like most of the other entries do. 193.172.135.148 10:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have added a briefer mention of Star Trek. WP's large number of Trek articles (and the fame of the franchise generally) give merit to the mention. This is really what Piller is famous for -- producer etc., is simply a generic description of that. Xoloz 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dead horse? Best Mate

I see that a race horse died and it was listed on this page. The caption clearly indicates this page is for people. Should the horse be removed or should the caption be edited to include dead animals? I'd vote for removing the horse. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If the horse is notable enough for an article it is definitely notable enough to be on this page, especially given many of the people here are not notable enough for an article. I see no reason to change the template, but wouldn't oppose it being changed. What have you got against animals? The article is on in deaths in 2005 not human deaths in 2005, SqueakBox 15:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Animals are here by long precedent. I don't know if I agree with all animals, but racehorses garner loads of press attention, and the greatest ones (Man O' War, Secretariat) make Britannica.
For the record, I have always thought that every person here deserves either an article or a redirect to a parent article where they merit being mentioned. Every addition I make comes from a major press obituary, guaranteeing that the soul was mentioned in several newspapers around the US and/or the world, giving a prima facie case under the guideline for inclusion. Xoloz 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Best Mate has an obituary in The Times which I have put in the article, and is how I heard of him. I think anyone notable enough to have an article here is notable enough to be here, and if they shouldn't be here they shouldn't have an article either, SqueakBox 19:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I say keep. It wasn't just any horse but a legendary one which died in shocking circumstances, suffering a heart attack while being watched by millions. The fact that this death occurred in 2005 is guaranteed to feature in end-of-year reviews as a major news story. The death features on the front page of many newspapers internationally. And nowhere does it say that this page is only about human deaths. Animal mentions should be rare on such pages, but some are internationally newsworthy and this is a classic example of one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can have aged tortoises on here and presidential dogs, we can certainly have race horses. So long as they're notable! Zerbey 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
And given his record (3 Cheltenham Gold Cup wins and a King George VI Chase!), boy was Best Mate notable. It was horrible to see one of the greatest horses in modern racing keel over in distress, suffer a massive heart attack and die. The images of it on all the newspapers yesterday (most carried it on their front pages, because it was that big a story) were horrifying to see. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

By what you say he should also be in current events, SqueakBox 03:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And is now in Current events, SqueakBox 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say keep. It's notably enough in certain parts of the world, and that's enough for me. 193.172.135.148 11:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Jtdirl seem not to have read the heading on the page, which says The following is a list of notable people who have died to date ... (my highlight). I don't have a huge problem with listing dead non-humans, but I do think the criteria shown at the top should reflect that. JackofOz 11:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't have anything against animals but as noted at the top of the page (thanks for quoting it, JackofOz) this page is for recently deceased people. Either the horse goes or the heading changes. This isn't some grudge I've got, I just want the page to be consistent. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 12:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well change the opening. But do not remove Best Mate! Stop flogging this dead horse. I for one will revert any attempts to remove Best Mate as I think the people anti him are being ridiculous and extremely human centred, which makes me shudder. If you want to start removing things we can start with all the red links to unnotable humans, SqueakBox 15:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now changed the opening. It may be could be phrased better. I for one was happy with what it was as I don't assume our reraders are 5 years old but this is a collective effort so there you go, SqueakBox 15:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, SqueakBox, the words are OK by me. For what it's worth, I think you're seeing this issue from a less than useful perspective. It's not about anybody being "ridiculous" or "extremely human-centered", or bloody minded, or anything else like that. It's simply a matter of the title of a page and the contents of the page being relevant to each other. That principle should apply not just to this page but all of Wikipedia's 750,000-odd pages. Surely the credibility of Wikipedia deserves no less. Otherwise, what's to stop Abraham Lincoln's biography containing large chunks of information about, say, Pablo Picasso? The words you've supplied now more accurately describe what the page is for, so the issue has been resolved to everybody's satisfaction. No great fuss, but a win-win outcome. You have the win of Best Mate staying in the list, and those on the other side of the argument have the win of the page's description now allowing the possibility of other than human deaths. That's what "collective efforts" are all about - in fact, they cannot work any other way. Thank you for providing the solution. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers JackofOz 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the wording again, to avoid waffle terms. The list is primarily about people, but animals are here by precedent. If some editors insist that be said, let it be said outright. the "those who..." thing, while a nice effort by Squeakbox, is frowned on in the manual of style. I also would have preferred for animals to go unmentioned, but allowed, as I think mentioning them in the intro raises WP:BEANS concerns. However, consensus must be obeyed; the animals absolutely have the support of consensus (they're all throughout the archives, WP itself, and -- as I said before -- Britannica), so the wording gets more complex. Xoloz 04:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
To be pedantic, the current wording doesn't reflect the current practise. We also include deaths that are notable, even if the people dying aren't. Recent examples include someone eating by a crocodile, and a minister being electrocuted while performing a service. Criminals being executed aren't notable in themselves either (there are too many of them), but their execution is - and that's why they are included here. 193.172.135.148 09:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That's correct, but AfD has found, in Ashley Burns for example, that a notable death makes a notable person (someone worthy of entry in WP article space), so clarification in that sense is unnecessary and redundant, to a certain degree. Xoloz 23:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure why he got deleted again but I have reinserted him. Change the opening if you want but there is no excuse for deleting and leaving unnotable humans (if you want the asrticle deleted put a tag on it and we can vote thaen if the consensus is to delete he can go from here too, SqueakBox 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism was by 205.200.74.177. I warned him. Xoloz 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

How about changing the wording to "The following is a list of notable deaths in [insert month]". It would better cover the inclusion of executed criminals and allow for the inclusion of notable animals. Bellhalla 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I hadn't thought about it but of course the executed are not notable and therefore what we had was equally inappropriate for them as it was for a notable animal, SqueakBox 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the wording (which is a wonderful solution), object to the notion that the executed aren't notable (see above discussion.) Xoloz 16:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The "notable deaths" thing sounds good to me. Is there a way to make that the standard for every month? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 06:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It will be the standard for every forthcoming month, barring a change in consensus. It is the de facto standard for previous months as of now also. Feel free to change prior headers yourself, or I'll do it soon. Xoloz 04:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on the inclusion/exclusion of the horse, Best Mate. I am a casual reader of this wonderful resource but I was a bit confused to see a horse listed among the notable deaths. Since it is the first time I've seen a non-human listed, I wanted to see if there was a new policy in place. Reading all the pro's and con's, I wanted to add that I think that we should either adopt a "all notable deaths here" type of list or separate humans from other notable deaths. I'm thinking about the magnitude of this list in the future. Someone could make an argument for the death of practically anything (other animals, stars, ideas, etc.) as I would imagine any of these could be mentioned in a number of respectable/scholarly publications and could, through our early best intentions, become so inclusive that it is not useful. Johnthomas 21:08 EST, 15 November 2005.

I don't agree. Notable animals are few and far between. But we do have articles on some animals and I think it would be hard to justify not doing so. Ideas and stars neither live or die in the way humans and animals do. There simply is no reasonable argument for excl;uding animals who are notable either from here or wikipedia as a whole, SqueakBox 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I won't argue for a separate list, but now that we will be including horses, it would be fair to include any and all animals here as well. As such, perhaps we should give some thought to ensuring that the "Deaths in..." list retroactively include all notable deaths. I don't agree that notable animals are "few and far between." Hundreds of species of notable animals die in labs and zoos each year alone. There are also "celebrity" animals such as Mr. Ed, Rin Tin-Tin, Lassie, "Willie" (aka Free Willie), some of the primates that Goodall et. al. have studied in nature (they might be listed here - I haven't checked). My concern is that in the end, the list of notable deaths will dwarf human deaths. Not that this is a bad thing - it just makes searching for notable human deaths, which is 99%+ of the list now, that much more difficult in the future. That's all I want to say on the subject - anymore might be beating a dead horse ;) --Johnthomas 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Animals notable enough to be listed here are rare, however. If I recall correctly we did note Keiko, Dolly the sheep (which proves the practice goes back to at least Feb. 2003) and Timothy (tortoise), but I don't recall many other animals being thought sufficiently notable. -- Arwel (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
There have been a couple pandas, and a few movie dogs. Looking back through the record, it seems about one animal every third month, which is not a daunting problem. Xoloz 05:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It will be an interesting link to follow in the months to come as this list both grows and evolves. Thanks for the discussions and opinions. User:Johnthomas.

24.79.168.192

This anon has now removed Best Mate thrice, and has been warned twice by me. Please watch any edit of his here. Xoloz 06:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Young Lister

After Ashley Burns garnered fairly solid support at AfD this year, I now assume that children who die in unusual circumstances (and are covered in the national media) belong here. If and when someone writes a Lister stub, then I am sure it will be nominated, and we will have a (theoretical) full WP consensus on this. Until then, his listing does no harm, and I strongly suggest that it remain. Xoloz 20:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm not particularly bothered, but I'm unconvinced that non-notable people, of whatever age, should be featured. Lister is still a red link, and Burns' AFD was far from a "full WP consensus". The JPS 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't intend to convey that Burns' had that much support. I intended to convey that AfD gets more visitors and voters than this talk page, and it is a fuller consensus forum for this reason. Xoloz 04:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry - my misunderstanding. The JPS 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't list Lister because he was a child, or because of whatever AfD says about someone else. We've listed here a tourist being eaten by a crocodile, and a priest being electrocuted, with the reasoning that their death are notable - and by extension the person dying is. Considering that his death was reported by the BBC, I'd figure his death was notable. Whether or not Lister needs an article, I do not know. I'm inclined to say he doesn't need one - about the only remarkable thing about him was his death, and that has been reported. A red link isn't necessary a bad thing - it doesn't have to mean "there should be an article here". It just mean "there's no article". Leaving out the link all together performs a disservice to the reader - now the reader will not know whether there's an article but the link itself is missing, or whether there's no article. 193.172.135.148 10:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The red link is not the issue. There are a lot of people who arguably deserve an article but nobody's got around to writing one yet. The issue is whether the person is already notable. The fact that an unfortunate person makes the papers solely because of the unusual circumstances of their death does not necessarily make them a candidate for an entry in an encyclopedia. Azaria Chamberlain is a notable (pun intended) exception. She will be remembered, at least by Australians, forever. I suspect Burns and Lister will not. If we had a page for Notable People who Reached a Great Age, people like Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy (104) and Irving Berlin (101) would be listed, but Jeanne Calment (122) would not because she only became "notable" because of her age, not for anything she achieved independently of her age. Recent Deaths of Notable People records notable people who have now died, not people who as a result of their death became notable. JackofOz 11:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Sympathetic, Jack, so do please go vote at AfD. I will, however, point out that M. Calment is very notable, having attracted huge interest for obvious reasons on account of her age alone, so that portion of your analogy doesn't work all that well. Xoloz 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
This discussion has been held before. The page is not purely about notable people dying. It's a list of notable deaths. That's why Best Mate is listed; that's why executed prisoners are listed; that's why the 2000th American soldier to die in Iraq is listed; and that's why a tourist eaten by a crocodile is listed. And that's why I included Lister. Not including him because you suspect he will not be remembered forever seems like a weak argument to me. The title of the page says Deaths in 2005 and the first paragraph says notable deaths, after consensus about this was reached earlier this month. It doesn't say list of deaths of people who were notable before dying. 193.172.135.148 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A stub has been written, and I have nominated it at AfD. I considered the nomination a process one, so I, ambivalent, abstained. Please do all go to AfD and share your thoughts. Xoloz 17:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to confess this continuing debate about notability is hard to follow. There is, I now discover thanks to Xoloz, a huge amount of discussion at AfD on this very topic. (Although I would never have thought of going there, since nobody's suggested deleting Deaths in 2005 as an article.) And there have been earlier conversations above in this talk page, which are continuing. Seems like there's lots of different groups of people talking about notability, but they're not all talking to each other. Is it possible to have exactly one forum for debate about these kinds of principles, so that everyone can see what everyone else is saying without having to jump all over the place? By the way, navigating AfD is fraught with complexities. As a first-time visitor, I was utterly bewildered. We really should apply the same principles of simplicity and user-friendliness in our internal processes as we apply to our articles for general readership. JackofOz 02:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
AfD is the forum on notability, period (as far as I know). AfD has the power to strike Lister from the encyclopedia, after which listing him here would be utterly ridiculous. It is not a given that Recent Deaths must list every article in WP (we could exclude animals; we do exclude companies, species, nations, etc., all of which are capable of some sort of death), but it is a given that Recent Deaths can't list something stricken from WP. Of course, a primary function of RD is to list newly dead names who aren't written about, and that's great -- but once they're deleted, they're off this list. (Lister might be merged or redirected, rather than deleted. Since these other closures are merely subtypes of keep, my first impression is that -- in that event -- he would stay here.) If anybody has problems navigating AfD, let me know and I'll be happy to help. I'm an old pro there, and it is easy to get around once you do it a bit. Xoloz 05:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
OK ... so if AfD is the only appropriate forum for debates about notability, why don't we practise that. Any future debates about the notability or otherwise of names that get entered into Recent Deaths should not be permitted to take place here, but only at AfD. How would that work? Would it work? Probably not. Talk pages are all about debating what goes into the associated main page (one click away), so it is counter-intuitive, inconvenient and non-Wiki to have to go to Place B to have your discussion about Issue A. But that aside, say some name gets added and the person is not, in my opinion, notable enough (or at all). What do I do? Post a message here that "I dispute the listing, but please go to AfD for my reasons and any further debate"? Or do we cut to the chase and come up with a list of agreed criteria against which entries are tested? After all, if there's already been a huge amount of discussion at AfD about notability, it is onerous to have to read it all just to find out what there's already consensus about. I'd much rather there be some sort of summary of the debates that have taken place, and their agreed outcomes. I really do want to resolve this issue of where these matters can be properly dealt with effectively, with a full cast of characters all having their say, and without each person needing to exhaustively research the entire history of all previous debates on the same subject. This is particularly relevant for the newcomers that we are always seeking and welcoming. They have a right to know "the rules so far" about any given policy issue, and for them to be as clearly spelled out as consensus dictates and permits. And after all, notability is really a fundamental core issue for any encyclopedia, so this deserves some attention and effort to get it "right". JackofOz 05:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, Jack, for an article to be debated at AfD, it must exist. Redlinks, we handle here. Personally, I only remove redlinks I think are hoaxes/vand. -- otherwise, it stands till an article is written, then it goes to AfD.
We don't usually debate notability here very long, because once a stub is written, it goes to AfD. I've done four of those since August (Burns, Wayne Weiler, G. Alexander, and Lister), which you may have missed. The three prior have been kept, and Lister (though down) is being discussed as a rewrite by a few keep voters.
We have plenty of other stuff to discuss here, though. Organizational and content issues at this article belong here. You may have noticed that my line on Lister, when discussion started, was "he stays, per precedent, 'til he's a stub, then AfD." We might strike a child without going to AfD if verifiability were an issue -- say, "Jane Doe, 4, my neighbor, cancer." -- but there was a logic to the stand I took at the onset of this discussion. One issue to remember is that, wise though we Recent Death editors are, we are a tiny subset of WP, and AfD is considered a full WP forum. Some people don't like AfD, for a variety of reasons, and there is a discussion of reform underway at Proposals for Deletion Reform, linked from the AfD page; that, however, is a separate can of worms. Xoloz 06:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not interested in these politics. Gash, we're talking about a single line here. This is not worth the effort. Consider Lister to be my last contribution to recent deaths. 193.172.135.148 10:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


  • As per my entry in the AfD for the article on young Lister the distinction between Lister and Burns is that her death was reported with reference to the evolution of cheerleading into an athletic sport. There were many news stories from a wide range of media. Several days after the tragedy, Lister's death is not snowballing into a news story as shown by Google news searches. It may be of course that the British are a little more reserved than the US media or that there are other news stories happenning so it is not an excellent comparison.
Caving contains some risks and thos risks are no more or less acknowledged after this tragedy, nor are reforms being sought. Nor will school children be chained to their desks after this tragedy. These are reasons why no wikipedia article. They are not reasons why no entry on this page. There are sufficient new sories for the one line listing to be justified. Perhaps instead of a red link, which invites an article to be written, an external link to the relevant story might be appropriate for this and similar sufficiently notable deaths where an article is not warranted. Wikilinks of course can go to sections of an article if appropriate, but I cannot imagine the Lister death would add anything to the Caving article or Cave rescue. The Cave rescue does have a short list of cave rescues, including unsuccessful ones, so perhaps the brief further info could be there and the link to that section. --A Y Arktos 19:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Persuant to his deletion at AfD, Young Lister has been removed from the list. Xoloz 17:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Tommy Smith

Is there a source for Tommy Smith? He is cited as an entrepreneur but the link is to a footballer, and a quick search on Google News produces no results.

Whouk (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I also could not find a google reference and have removed the entry (*Tommy Smith, 60, entrepreneur, liver failure) as not being notable until some external reference and evidence of notability is discussed here. Quite possibly a hoax.--A Y Arktos 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)