Talk:2009/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Consensus on some entries in Deaths

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the discussion on Wayne Allwine and reference to other entries which people seem to feel should not be included I suggest a simple poll on the inclusion or exclusion of the following people:

• Jade Goody
• Lucy Gordon
• Wayne Allwine

After one week there should be fairly clear consensus on who should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

• Jade Goody: Exclude
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude

• Jade Goody: Include, (she was semi-famous and did a few things outside the UK and outside acting in general).
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude

FFMG (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jade Goody: Include
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Include (Seriously people, voice of Mickey Mouse.)

76.107.137.39 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jade Goody: Include
• Lucy Gordon: lean toward include, but I wouldn't add her to the list.
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude (seriously, people, only 5 foreign language articles)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week and the consensus is:

• Jade Goody: In
• Lucy Gordon: Out
• Wayne Allwine: Out

I'll remove Lucy Gordon. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute here; I'm as happy to see Lucy go as you (presumably), but only four people voted! Can that really be considered a clear consensus? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A week is plenty of time; 3-1 is sufficient consensus (and given previous comments it could easily have been more convincing). DerbyCountyinNZ 05:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should billy mays be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.166.217 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ed McMahon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please discuss here instead of edit-warring back and forth. I'm regretting my decision to drop this to semi-protection. Enigma^msg 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The minimum criteria for inclusion in the Deaths section of this article is 9 non-English articles. At present Ed McMahon has (perhaps surprisingly) only 6 non-English articles. He may well get to 9 eventually but in the mean time I don't see sufficient grounds to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I suggest someone place a hidden note in the place where Ed McMahon's entry would be, advising editors of the criteria. Enigma^msg 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If asked, I'd lean toward inclusion. He probably is internationally known. But we should leave him out until consensus is established that he is an exception or the non-English articles appear. As for the hidden note, they seemed to assist keeping the 10th anniversary of 9/11 out of 2011, the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic out of 2012, and the 1000th anniversary of the founding of the United States out of 28th century, but it's worth a try. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside of North America, he's failry unknown and I think it's a hypocrisy to even consider making him an exception to the rule. Tobythegreat (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He was only an American game show host, nothing really international at all. I am actually surprised it has so many articles, I don't think we should list any TV personalities as they are very specific to their country. FFMG (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[moved from top of page] I noticed this is missing from the list and cannot add. Can someone please do so? 72.187.66.48 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the preceding entry from the top of the talk page. Relevant discussion above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FFMG. I used to live in Japan but he and his program are hardly known among them, although he has a Japanese Wiki article. Especially among non-English speaking countries, there is no reason for them to broadcast his program except on AFN, which programs are watched only by Americans living in those countries.--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe that there is a dispute about whether to add Ed McMahon to the list of deaths in 2009. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of FACTUAL information, there is no question that he died on June 23 of this year. Yet I understand that the consensus is not to add him. I will respect the wishes of the other editors here, and not get into an edit war by trying to add him again, but any discussion about his status as a celebrity would be more appropriate on his talk page. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is any question that Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable (not factual-I know, I am being picky) information. The question here is correct clasification of the item and if he belongs here or perhaps in 2009 in the United States. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I added him before I realized that there is specific criteria for whose deaths are notable, and whose are not. After reading the discussions above, I now understand why Ed McMahon is being excluded, though I still think it's ridiculous to base it on the number of international articles. I will leave it for someone else to add him, after he has met the minimum number. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know he is famous in the US (I live in a part of US, anyway). But I think he is famous (I should say) only among English-speaking Americans, because he does not have an article written in Spanish, which is spoken by (so called) Hispanic and Latino Americans, which consist of 15% of US population.--Belle Equipe (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the inclusion criteria is 9 non-English articles, then McMahon can't be included. If we try to make him an exception? accusations of pro-Americanism could arise. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite him being a household name for decades in the US, he was virtually unknown in the rest of the world, apart from among American expatriates. His death was hardly reported by the non-US media. The fact he does not have an article is Spanish shows that he was not well-known among Latin-Americans & Hispanics. That there is no article in German shows that he is little known among people of German extraction (who include many millions of the US population), which means he was not even popular among Americans generally. He is listed in the Deaths section of 2009 in the United States, but someone who was only famous to some Americans, and was never really a star, not at the top of his game, is certainly not someone we should break the rules for. Information yes (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind... That's what I get for not reading the guidelines more carefully, that's 10 languages for wikipedia articles. However, I did make the point that many people do not know who Ed McMahon is, but they know the phrase "Heeeere's Johnny" that he made famous. Try it with your non-native English speaking friends. I'm not sure if that's enough for an exception here, but it's something to consider. RandyKaelber (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough for an exception. The fact his death was, outside the US, reported as 'man who coined 'Heeeeeere's Johnny' dies' and 'US TV host dies' shows they did that because if they said 'Ed McMahon dies', 99% of the readers wouldn't recognise the name and hence would not read the article. The catchphrase is well known in many countries, but only because of its memorable use in The Shining, a film seen by many millions of people in dozens of countries. The catchphrase is well known outside the US, but McMahon never was. There must be millions of people who know of the catchphrase, but assign its use to Jack Nicholson and have never heard of McMahon, let alone know it was his catchprase for years prior to, and years after that. Information yes (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :-) As a counterexample, I saw many foreign language articles titled along the lines of "Ed McMahon <foreign language word for 'dead' or 'dies'>", but that's neither here nor there. Certainly there is no consensus to add Ed McMahon, and the standard rules for inclusion of a death here are not met in his case, so I agree that McMahon should be kept off the list on this page. RandyKaelber (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is also a fact: if you want to get on the concensus that Ed McMahon is virtually unknown outside of the United States then about half of the people listed as being dead or that have died should be ultimately removed. Do we in the US or most countries know these odd leaders and random people who have died? No. People such as that are as follows: Velupillai Prabhakaran, Yukio Endo, Alain Bashung. How many people outside of their countries know them? The fact standing is that Ed McMahon is an icon, he's been extremely famous for more than 47 years. We never heard of half of these people in the news. I greatly suggest that Ed McMahon's death be added to this list until at least it has been cleaned up. And as was stated in the previous statements in this article, those fine people who died were not reported in the United States or mostly elsewhere in fact. 99% of our readers in the United States, which totals more than 300 million people would not give a damn about those people. So just because he is only 3-4 pages away you do not include him? The Tonight Show is a worldwide shown talkshow. I would like a real answer, because as it is right now, your dancing in circles around this situation. This does not make sense. An Icon is an ICON. Just because the people who saw the show in the 60's-90's aren't adding pages on him does not mean anything. And, if we need to, we can make a whole new article on several things about him, such his financial troubles, his wife etc. etc. Himfan2006 (talk) 4:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody else understand that he is famous, or an icon, in the United States, as you said.

But at the same time, quite a few editors from outside of US says that almost no one knows him in their countries. It is also proven by the number of non-English articles he has.

Even one person is somebody known by everybody in his/her country, it does not give the person a merit for inclusion on year's page, because it is regarded as a domestic issue.

It is natural to include him on 2009 in the United States, but you should understand that what WP:RY states. Year pages are not designated for any specific country. --Belle Equipe (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The death of person known only or primarily in one country does not belong on this article. McMahon is included in the Deaths section of 2009 in the United States - no-one is trying to delete him from that article. He is also in Deaths in 2009, 2009 in television and the Recent deaths sidebar of Portal:Current events. It is surprising that he has an article is six foreign languages. It is probably the case that, for example, the Polish article was written primarily by people of Polish origin living in the US. No Spanish article, when there are 45m+ Hispanics in the US, shows he was not even popular among all demographic groups in the US, let alone abroad. Most of the other people in the Deaths section of this article are internationally notable, despite the fact many of them were not famous in most of the world and their deaths did not receive much media coverage outside their home nations. There is a real case for removing a few from the Deaths section of this article, but no justification for adding McMahon. The Tonight Show is not shown worldwide - very few people outside the US have watched even one episode. Information yes (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Prabhakaran is definitely internationally notable enough to be included - he was the leader of a long-standing major terrorist group whose actions received a lot of media coverage throughout the world. Whilst many people have difficulty pronouncing his name, the Tamil Tigers are known across the world for their notoriety and carnage. I would support removing Endo - I don't know why he's on the list. Information yes (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe an exception can be made for Ed McMahon. He is known internationally and probably will eventually be on nine eventually. JayLeno175 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How is he known internationally? I read the comments above yours and found out that not many people outside the US have ever heard of him. If you wish to create 9 non-English entries about Ed, go ahead. The 9 non-English entries criterion is just one requiremnent. He still has to be known internationally. And --- he just ain't. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am suggesting this due to recent conflicts with placing deaths, etc. on the article.

I feel that since 2009 is the current year, that the article should be separated and that only the introduction, major religious, holidays, awards, and 2009 in fiction should exist on this page, while all events, predicted events, and deaths should exist in separate articles. This would be similar to how our current decade's article looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.179.180 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better as it is. People arguing about which people to include in the Deaths section is no reason to remove the whole section. Politics a (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion might make a decent last resort before full protection. So far, though, discussions about individual entries have been civil and brief enough that they haven't even put page protection on the horizon. And if events or deaths gain or lose notability in retrospect, then they can always be added or removed accordingly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. vs. American

With some discomfort I made this change from "U.S." to "American" in the deaths section. But mightn't it be better to use "U.S." to indicate the United States? "American" is pretty clear in the vernacular, but since it can technically refer to not one but two continents (whereas "U.S." is specific to one nation), "American" might not be the ideal adjective. (Well, "U.S. American" might be clearer than anything--but let's not go there.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think that we all know what 'American' means, but we also know that it is not technically correct. Changing it to U.S., (or maybe even US?), would make more sense. FFMG (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

US seems good (without periods, like UK), and I've gone ahead and made the change. I just noticed that the change also helps the article to avoid using "American" in contradictory ways; it links to American Capital of Culture and Organization of American States, but in neither case is it using "American" (or "states", for that matter) in the USA sense of the term. I did, however, leave African American and Iranian American as they are, since those terms are linked to articles that specify the national rather than continental denotations of "American". Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to go around to every American article (not to mention all other year articles) and change American to US too? There is no need for this. In the English speaking world, American means a person from the United States. --Tocino 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, (see America as well). FFMG (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I just pointed to two instances (make it three, with General Assembly of the Organization of American States) in this article where "American" does not refer to the United States. Come to think of it, nevermind "the English speaking world"; in the USA itself, "US" is preferred in formal designations. For example, Robert McNamara, who is now listed as "American Secretary of Defense", never held such a title. His title was, in fact, U.S. Secretary of Defense. And he was not in charge of the "American" anything, but rather headed the US Department of Defense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions, such as U.S. Secretary of State, as that's his formal title, but in the English language there is no other widely accepted way to refer to citizens of the United States other than "Americans". United Statesians? Exists in Spainish and Portuguese but not English. Using just U.S. is also grammatically incorrect (U.S. without the periods, US, is British spelling as well). For example, Pat Hingle, U.S. actor is gramatically incorrect. He's not physically part of the United States, he's an actor. American serves as an adjective for what he is, an actor. --Tocino 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about using U.S. if it is part of a title (such as for McNamara), but otherwise using American? Information yes (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Arundell, Pina Bausch

Whilst both of these June deaths have enough articles, I can't see how either is sufficiently internationally notable to be on this article. Arundell never won; Bausch was little known outside her native Germany. Information yes (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removing Arundell. I'm slightly less certain about Bausch, she doesn't seem, from her article, to be particularly notable internationally but 20 non-English articles suggests that she might be. Happy to go with removal if that's the consensus though. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Arturo Gatti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see that a figure must have nine non-English articles to be included in the deaths section, but I would be remiss if I did not at least request that an exception be made for famous boxer Arturo Gatti. I believe he is significant enough to be included.-7/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. "World champion" boxers are now a 'dime a dozen'. I would be surprised if he was well-known outside Canada or the boxing community which means his international notability is insufficient for this page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't be listed here. I've added him to the 2009 in Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he now has 9 non-English articles, although 2 of them are pretty mimimal, and has been added to this article. I still don't think he's notable enough (given the enormous number of boxing "world champions" to be included. I don't suppose we could reach a consensus on this? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Gatti was hardly a "dime a dozen" whatever else you might say about him. He was one of the bigger attractions in the sport over the past fifteen years or so, aside from the Tyson's and De La Hoya's. I will leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are currently four major "world" champion boxing federations plus several minor ones and 17 weight divisions. That's possibly 68 world champions at any one time not counting the minor organisations. Gatti was relatively briefly champion in 2 different (minor) weight classses for 2 different organisations at 2 different times. He might be well known amongst boxing people or sports fans but that is not necessarily sufficient for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not the point. No one thought of him as a great boxer per se, but the quality of his fights were highly praised and he was an important attraction in the sport. He was not a "dime a dozen" as you dismissively put it. I am well aware of the plethora of belts; he transcended them with the quality of his fights, he engaged in four Ring Magazine Fight of the Year matches which were all considered to be classics. "Boxing people and sports fans" are not insignificant, despite your rather condescending comments, and he now has nine non-English articles and deserves his inclusion. I am pleased to see him listed. Again, I will leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to drag out a discussion that noone else seems interested in but...the reasons you have given make him notable in boxing and probably in sports but the deaths section of this page is supposed to be for particuarly notable people, ie those who are internationally and historically significant and I doubt if Gatti's death would have been noticed outside the sports media if it wasn't for the manner of his death (for example in NZ his death didn't even make the television news as far as I know). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That he was Canadian, of Italian origin and died in Brazil makes him and his death 'intercontinental'; I don't know if that has any influence on his international notability. Is Gatti more notable or less notable that Alexis Arguello, who is also in the July section of the deaths list, yet seems to be little known outside his native Nicaragua, apart from among boxing fans. Information yes (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I couldn't find references for this moment

(August 7, 2009, 6:05 am and 4.321 seconds) can be read as 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 (thousandths, hundredths, tenths of seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, day, month, year). if a reference to this is found it might be nice here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is very encyclopaedic, looks more like trivia to me. FFMG (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

you're probably right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added names of two supercentenarians (Maria de Jesus, former oldest-person, and Tomoji Tanabe, former oldest-man) on "Deaths" list after someone posted Henry Allingham's name on it. Each of them, at least, has a dozen or more non-English articles. But I thought we'd better have a consensus about inclusion of supercentenarians on year's pages.--Belle Equipe (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how any supercentenarians should be in the deaths section. Whilst some have enough articles, they are all insufficiently notable to be on this article. None of them ever held any powerful position, did anything special or achieved anything important - apart from having extremely long lives. Being lucky to be born with genes that allow a very long life, combined with having a healthy lifestyle does not make a person one of the most important people in the world. Information yes (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Previous consensus (on more than one occasion if I recall correctly) has been that oldest persons are not included in the Deaths section of year pages. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Tomoji Tanabe and Maria de Jesus. My feeling is that Henry Allingham should be removed as well. If he were the last WWI veteran he might have been notable enough but otherwise he is only slightly more notable than the other two. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If "Previous consensus (on more than one occasion if I recall correctly) has been that oldest persons are not included", Henry Allingham should be removed as well. I removed his entry because he is not the last WWI veteran in the world, and not the last WWI veteran even in the British Army (there is another veteran still alive, although he is not the current oldest-man in the world).--Belle Equipe (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Belle Equipe, the age of a person is not enough in itself. And even if he had been the very last WWI veteran I am not sure that in itself it would have been a notable enough entry. FFMG (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting Allingham back on the list. Why? Because the 2008 page has Lazare Ponticelli, one of the last french WWI veterans on it as he also had enough non-English articles to qualify. As far as I know Allingham and Ponticelli are the only two WWI veterans to die in recent times to be eligible for the lists. DerbyCountyinNZ, you are right by saying he should not be put on the list because of his advanced age but he was more than a supercentenarian and in this case I believe the correct thing to do is add him. Cheers,--Jkaharper (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ponticelli must have slipped through. My preference would be that they both be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd never really heard of Allingham before, but after taking a look at his article (and the sources cited therein) I honestly cannot comprehend how he could not be significant enough to mention. His age is beside the point. The number of other surviving WWI veterans is also beside the point. His importance derives from his WWI-related activities and awards, as demonstrated here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Just as Millvina Dean's notability, while in many ways related to her longevity, was by no means restricted to it, so is Allingham's notability clearly deeper than his age alone. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we've gotta keep these supercentenarians out. Imagine if each of them died a day after each other? We'd have about 20+ entries on each Year-article. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If, within at least a week from now, nobody objects to Allingham's notability in connection with his WWI-related activities and awards (not simply in connection with his longevity), I'll plan to restore his name to the deaths list. My contention is that, as per the links I gave above, he is clearly an important WWI veteran--regardless of whether he or any other supercentenarians warrant inclusion based on age alone. Conversely, even the very last surviving WWI veteran might not be eligible for mention if he hasn't been comparably active or acclaimed. So I propose that, if the sheer label of "supercentenarian" is of questionable importance, then he at least be added as "British WWI veteran" (much as Millvina Dean is in there as "British survivor of the RMS Titanic disaster", and not as "British nonagenarian"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one would object to the inclusion of people in the Deaths section of this article whose notability is almost entirely due to their age. This is the case for both Millvina Dean and Henry Allingham. While their age is not their only notability it is really only due to the fact that they have survived longer than their contemporaries that they have achieved the level of notability they had at their deaths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And as Henry Allingham's inclusion is disputed he really should not be added until there is consensus that he should. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that. That's why I said I'd add him if the alternative argument for his notability were not disputed. Since you're disputing it, that plan is automatically nullified. However, the article should not apply a double-standard to Dean and Allingham. As far as I can tell, either both should stay or both should go. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham's military record is not particularly notable, the attention he received in life, and death, was due to his extreme age. If he had died ten years ago, his military achievements would have been the same, yet no-one would have argued for his inclusion in the Deaths section of the 1999 article, as there would not have been media or public interest in him. Same goes for Millvina Dean; the interest in her is purely due to her having been alive after everyone else who had been on board the Titanic had died. Her having been in that situation was merely a combination of chance (that she was on board the ship as a baby, she was rescued; had longevity-promoting genes) and because she had a healthy lifestyle. Had she died a decade earlier, no-one would have wanted to put her in the Deaths section of 1999. Hence I believe that as well as keeping supercentenarians off the article, Dean should not be on the article. Information yes (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even Henry Allingham awarded some Soldier's Medals, it is still domestic honours. As BBC article indicated, he was only 18 when WWI started. If he were a key person during the war, he might be notable. But I do not think he could take any important role even at the the end of WWI, when he was still in his early 20's.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the arguments User:Information yes has put forward. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So, consensus is no supercentenarians on this article. Does that apply to previous year articles? If so, Lazare Ponticelli should be removed from the Deaths section of 2008. Information yes (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes he should. I think (but I may be wrong) that it was decided at the time not to include him so he may have been added in later. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2009 Jakarta bombings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

May I ask why it was removed, I think that such an event should be mentioned its obviously more important then half the staff on this calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.8.5 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My best guess is that its far too recent and that details are sketchy? But, nonetheless I agree that its eligible for placement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.34.160 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As terrorist activities are relatively common and the number of deaths in this case is fairly low (although of multiple nationalities) it might not be considered sufficiently notable for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst terrorist attacks with similar death tolls are not rare, those killed are from three different continents: Asia, Australasia, Europe. Therefore it meets the three continents rule for inclusion. Information yes (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This raises the question, again, of whether there should be some sort of minimum numbers for the inclusion of terrorist and disasters. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is no 'minimum number of dead' requirement for terrorist attacks, then it should be included on the basis that it meets the criteria for inclusion due to the fact that the dead victims were from 3 continents. In addition, it received a significant amount of media coverage in many countries on different continents. By the rules that currently exist, it is notable enough for inclusion. Information yes (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Koko Taylor

I don't believe she is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Deaths section; she was never significantly known outside the US. Information yes (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. She had a lengthy career, won major awards and is regarded as a major figure ("Queen of the Blues") in a longstanding, widespread musical genre. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with DerbyCountyinNZ on this one. She was one of the most well known voices in the world of blues and soul music and her article on Wikipedia simply doesn't reflect this level of fame, Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Did she win any awards outside the US? Was she ever regarded, anywhere other than the US, as 'Queen of the Blues'? Information yes (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Notability

Was she sufficiently influential outside the US to fit the international notability criteria for inclusion in this article? Information yes (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! Her books are published in 100s of countries and she has 9 non-English articles--Jkaharper (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As "an internationally renowned scholar, widely celebrated for her pioneering work" ([1]) and "a prominent theorist who is often cited as one of the founders" of her discipline ([2]), she's probably significant enough to mention. She's even among the "key contemporary social theorists", according to a book co-edited by an Australian and a Briton, and containing a chapter on Sedgwick by a New Zealander (if that last link doesn't work, then try this one instead). Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going merely by her article which mentions nothing about international renown and has only one non-US citation. If the links you have mentioned had been included in her article then I would have had a different opinion. In fact it should not be necessary that anyone provide links not included in someone's article to justify their notability! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Her article does seem a little underdeveloped.. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Description

If she is going to be included, 'social theorist' needs to be replaced with a better description, such as queer theorist. Information yes (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is, because the descriptions aren't wikilinked, they have to be as accessible as possible to the general reader. Queer theory might be a little esoteric for most folks; even the broader field of critical theory is poorly understood by many academics, let alone by laymen. In contrast, "social theorist", although broader still, is both standard terminology and relatively self-explanatory. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ekaterina Maximova

Is she sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion on this article? Information yes (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of "dance's biggest names" at a time when, "during the height of the cold war," her ballet company "remained one of the Soviet Union's most potent exports" ([3]), she probably is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Roméo LeBlanc

According to Talk:2009/Archive 2#Request to change rules, it seems there was a consensus regarding inclusion of any of the head of state on death's list. Is it applied to Roméo LeBlanc, who was the 25th Governor General of Canada but has only 6 non-English articles, as well?--Belle Equipe (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

LeBlanc was never head of state. Canada's head of state, since 1952, is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Information yes (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an amendment should be made for "head of state" to include the position of Governor-General? Persons in this position have been included in such articles as Lists of state leaders and List of longest lived state leaders. In this particular case Roméo LeBlanc's article would seem to indicate a greater claim to notability than many that are currently in 2009#Deaths. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada's Governor General is not a well-known figure. It is Canada's Prime Minister that goes to conferences and meets and discusses policies etc with other national leaders. Note how many language versions there are of the current Canadian PM's article. When a country has more than one concurrent leader, one of the is going to be much more prominent. LeBlanc belongs on Deaths in 2009, 2009 in politics and 2009 in Canada, but I don't think he should be on this article. That his notability is greater than some of the people on this list is due to the fact that a little known writer, a bit-part actor and a game designer are on the Deaths section of this article. Information yes (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Governor General holds the ultimate power in Canada - as they are a representative of the Queen. The individual summons Parliament, sets out the government’s program by reading the Speech from the Throne, and gives Royal Assent, which makes acts of Parliament into law, is the Commander-In-Chief of the Canadian Forces, among many other things. They are extremely notable, even if they are not always at the forefront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.152.86 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Governor General does not, I believe, have anything like as much real power, in practice, as the PM. He also does not have the high public profile the PM has. Therefore, I'm not sure he has sufficient international notablilty to be included on this article. Many countries have more than one person in power. For example, Germany has a President and a Chancellor, but it is the Chancellor who is has the higher profile and more real, exercised power and influence regarding deciding and implementing policies and meeting other world leaders. Information yes (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Mediterranean wildfires

Yesterday, an entry about these was added, then removed by someone else due to 'no article, no reference'. However, an article does exist and is referenced (although the person who added it did not give the article's name or a link). It has received significant coverage by the media in unaffected countries as well as in the five countries concerned. Should it be included in this article? Information yes (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. The WP:BURDEN of proof rests on whomever adds the entries, so it seems the entry was removed due to insufficient evidence, not insufficient notability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Martin

I included Andrew Martin's death better known as the former WWE/ECW professional wrestler Test who dies on March 13, 2009--Charles-Joseph (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I wondered where that "Test" came from and changed the display name to the Andrew Martin. What's proper in this situation? Favonian (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He is not eligible for inclusion in this article because he is NOT notable enough. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Johannes Mario Simmel, Pat Hingle, Dave Arneson

Can anyone explain how Simmel, Hingle or Arneson are sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion in the Deaths section of the article? Information yes (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Simmel it's certainly not on account of the Wikipedia article, which is in dire need of attention. He was, however, a very popular writer in the German speaking and Scandinavian countries, and there are nearly 20 non-English Wikipedia articles about him. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Simmel has lots of articles, but they are all short. The subject's notability should be made clear in his Wikipedia article(s). He died over six months ago; those who know about him, please expand his article. As it is, there is a substantial list of his work, but not much regarding achievements, popularity, critical acclaim etc. Information yes (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't add people who are only notable in one country

People whose notability is restricted to one country are repeatedly being added, against both guidelines and consensus, to the Deaths section. In particular, Ed McMahon, Billy Mays and Steve McNair. Each of those three are virtually unheard of outside the United States; this article is only for internationally notable events and people. A talk show host, a salesman and a sportsman, each of whom only a tiny number of people outside the US have ever heard of, do not meet the criteria for inclusion on this article. They are all on 2009 in the United States and Deaths in 2009; McMahon and Mays are also on 2009 in television, McNair is also on 2009 in sports. Information yes (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly most people don't read talk pages, (or think they know better than previous editors). FFMG (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Billy Mays died today, June 28, 2009. He's not exactly known the world over, but he was a pretty famous TV personality. Should he be added to notable deaths, or am I way off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.116.35 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He should definitely not be added to this article, as he was nowhere near important enough. However, everyone who has an article on English Wikipedia and whose death took place this year should be on Deaths in 2009, where he is listed. Information yes (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Even with his recent television show? Lenerd (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a US based show that I suspect did not have international distribution. See the comments above concerning Ed McMahon. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If Ed McMahon isn't notable/world famous enough for inclusion here, then Billy Mays certainly isn't.RandyKaelber (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How disrespectful! Both McMahon and Mays should be and deserve to be on here! How dare you say hes not important enough! You should be ashamed of yourself. I know when you die you sure as hell wont be on here!  Sub!  19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing disrespectful about not including someone on this page or indicating they are fail the notability criteria to be on this page. I suggest you re-read the comments for McMahon and Mays on this page. Additionally, I suggest you read the section civility. Comments as you made to RandyKaelber serve no purpose in the Wikisphere and are not appreciated. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing that says someone has to be "popular" to be listed. There are people listed that I have no idea who they are. List him, he was a t.v. personality.jjdiascro {talk} 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He was virtually unknown outside the US; the Deaths section of this article is for people who are notable in many countries. He only has two Wikipedia articles, the minimum requirement for this list is 10. Information yes (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability, not popularity. This is a general article on the year 2009 and the criteria for including a death here is high. There is a separate page for deaths in 2009 and McMahon and Mays are both notable enough for inclusion there.RandyKaelber (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting inclusion of a person whose only notability is as a salesman in commericals (he wasn't even on TV programmes) - is taking the piss. Information yes (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And you are talking bull shit. He just started a new television programm this year titled Pitchmen. --Derek Yoda's friend (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, he still does not meet the criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might consider that more people have probably heard about Billy Mays than half the people on this list. Kamila Skolimowska? Who is that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.210 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the criteria and remember the article is specifically designed not to be U.S. centric. For that there is 2009 in the United States ttonyb1 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays has a bigger wikipedia page then alot of the people that are up there. For example, Neda Agha-Soltan is an Iranian Photojournalist. That is one country while Billy Mays was know way more than her. Therefore he should be on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassosman (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Apparently, Billy Mays continues to get re-added. He shouldn't be included, as he fails the inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a degree of relativism might be warranted here. Consider, if you would, my obscenely amateur and simplistic summary of human activity (but if you'd rather spare yourself the two-cent history lesson, then just skip down to the main point, which I'll underline): For as long as--and as far as--human society has existed, it has been bartering, buying, and selling stuff. Okay, so trade is about as international as anything can ever be. Then, about half a millennium ago, this one German guy created this one thing that set the stage ([4], p. 40; [5]) for associating individuals with the items that they invent. Then, about half a century later, this other German guy did this other thing that set in motion a trend to associate individuals with the items that they sell or manufacture. And then, once this trend had gotten reasonably underway, yet another German guy said that things weren't quite as simple as that trend might make things seem to be, but he couldn't stop the overall trend from extending well beyond Germany and even beyond Europe--to America, where, a century later, people like Billy Mays and Vince Shlomi complicated things further, by showing that individuals could become associated with items that they have not invented, have not manufactured, and have not sold, but rather have promoted. So, if we are to determine whether Mays is historically significant on an international scale--and if we can agree that his contributions have been to an historically and internationally important field--then we might do well to ask ourselves if he has international counterparts (apart from Israeli-born Shlomi). In other words, have people in other countries reached comparable fame as pitchmen? Are other individuals known to 300 million people (or at least to a substantial collectivity) solely for promoting products? If so, then Mays's notability might be tempered by his domestic fame. If not, then his international obscurity could be counterbalanced by his overall uniqueness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respects, are you seriously comparing Gutenberg, Martin Luther and Karl Marx to Billy Mays?

Even if you are been serious, if Wikipedia had been around in 1468 we probably would have moved his death entry to 1468 in Germany, because in 1468 he was probably not notable enough, (although Gutenberg was well known in Europe and that was pretty much most the world back then).

If Billy Mays ever has roads, museums, books or even just articles published outside the US as a pioneering salesman/pitch man then we might want to revisit the decision not to add his name here. Only time will tell if he had such an impact on international society, who knows, maybe my daughter will learn about him in her history classes.

If, as you claim, ('cause I don't know him at all), he was known by 300 million non Spanish speaking Americans, then it reinforces the need to have his name listed in 2009 in the United States rather than here. If I was American this is where I would look, not here. FFMG (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to compare anyone (although I would suggest that the possibilities are endless), except to point out that Mays may lack either historical precedent or international counterparts, and yet may have both historical and international importance. I don't mean that his impact or his fame has spanned the globe (or even has reached 300 million people, as I indicated in an overstated attempt to point out that he became something of a household name and even a pop-culture icon in America). Rather, if he was made unique by being one of only few people in the world to have achieved iconic status solely for promoting products, then he might merit the attention of international observers. Indeed, he might be "internationally notable" if we take "notable" to mean that "a topic merits its own article" (Mays already has one here), and if we have reason to believe that this topic merits more than only one (Mays had had no others prior to his death, but now has eins, dos, trois, patru). He doesn't have ten articles yet, although he's halfway there. I'm simply wondering if we might substitute for the other half with the assumption that Mays would be a primary contender for the international recognition of a pitchman. If it turns out that Mr. X is already known for that in Country A, and that Mr. Y is a famous pitchman in Country B, then Mays could become the slippery slope that WP:RY is, I think, trying to avoid. But if Mays is pretty much the only one (and as long as other nations retain their interest in the art of commerce), then he wouldn't seem to pose a risk of including everybody (or of biasing things toward anybody). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that both the third and fourth foreign language pages Cosmic Latte has mentioned are clearly extremely minimal, basic translations (good old google translator) by the same English-speaking user, a cynic such as myself would suggest that it is someone's poor attempt at boosting his foreign language article numbers to try and prove sufficient notability for this page. If the regular users of those particular foreign language wikis are as attentive at Afd nomination it wouldn't surprise me if those articles disappeared in a few days. DerbyCountyinNZ 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True, I looked at the French article, fr:Billy Mays and the entire article is, "Billy Mays (né le 20 juin 1958 à McKees Rocks en Pennsylvanie, États-Unis et mort d'hypertension artérielle le 28 juin 2009 à Odessa, Floride) était un animateur de télé-achat à la télévision américaine." or translated back to English, "Billy Mays (born 20 June 1958 at McKees Rocks Pennsylvania, United State and dead of arterial hypertension the 28th of June 199, Odessa, Florida), was an American direct response presenter", this is it, nothing more about him, only the first line of the English article.

The summary left by the editor [6], is I don't speak French very well but ... please accept this article... he is NOTABLE. I am surprised that editors accepted this very, very, badly translated first sentence of the English article.

I suspect that if Billy Mays could see this he would not want to have any part of this behaviour on his behalf. FFMG (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the sort of thing that made me skeptical about the foreign-language-article approach from the beginning. Still, I wonder if anyone can think of international counterparts to Mays--folks who became famous solely for promoting products? I have no vested interest in including him, and won't complain if the consensus remains not to do so; I just wonder if something of a "salience-as-significance" criterion might be applied in the deaths sections, to those whose notability is unique, if limited. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be something that has been discussed already; I didn't read all of the above, but if a person is notable enough to gain a page on Wikipedia or an article on the Yahoo! homepage, should they not at least get one line on this page? Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also (at least where I'm from), Mays is a common household name. Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment In defense of the particular Frenchman who created the article, translations back to English from French generally do not read very well. I haven't looked into it much, but it may read better to a French person. Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(moved comment to bottom otherwise it breaks archiving)

It wasn't a Frenchman/woman who created the French article, that's the whole point, the first line of the English article was, (badly), translated into French only to boost the article count. The summary given by the first editor states that he does not speak French.

As for Yahoo! I am not sure what it has to do with Wikipedia, why would a page on one website influence what is done here? I am also guessing that you are referring to the US Yahoo! not uk.yahoo.com, au.yahoo.com or fr.yahoo.com. FFMG (talk)

The editor who created the French article has never edited any other French WP article. If everyone who died this year and has a WP article or a mention on Yahoo's frontpage was included on here, there would be many hundreds of names in the Deaths section of this article. The point of this article is for it to only contain internationally notable events, deaths etc. There is a much longer article that gives a fuller list of deaths: Deaths in 2009. Information yes (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He's known for many commercials,"Oxi Clean, Orange Glo, Mighty Putty", etc. His new show on Discovery. He's the world's best pitchman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunguy222jr (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If Billy Mays does not deserve to be listed here, then so do 90% of the people on this list. I haven't heard of ANYONE on the July list! Put Billy on the list! I mean, honestly, if it takes him having his own page, someone create the flipping page! (Same goes for Ed McMahon). AWNowlin (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths for the criteria. Both already have an English language page. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be on the list. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Billy ays in notable enough as many people regard him as the greatest pitchman of all time. JayLeno175 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The "2009" page is international. The topics here have to have a broad, international scope. No one outside the US has ever heard of this guy. Also, your assertion that "many people regard him as the greatest pitchman of all time" can't be proved. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

People who keep adding him need to understand that he was just a man who shouted exaggerations and lies on television in order to sell stuff to make as much money as he could to put in his own pocket. He was never the brilliant megastar that his fans who add him to this article are trying to portray him as having been. A salesman known in only one country is not in any way internationally notable, which a person needs to be to meet the requirement for inclusion here. How he managed to gain so many fans who are as aggressive in adding him to the list and boasting about how important he supposedly was as he was in pushing whatever product he was paid to sell is incomprehensible. However, his fans are very much in a minority, and are confined to the US. The rest of the world have never heard of him. Information yes (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if Billy Mays cannot be on the list because he sold products to people in this country and Canada, then why should Farrah Fawcett be on the list? she played in an American TV show that was hardly seen by the world. And Michael Jackson, he just sang to get money, Can you really say that someones career puts them on or off the list? I think that if they have a page on Wikipedia, they are certainly well known enough to have a spot on the list. We can't just single out someone because they "weren't important enough" That is like saying those people on internet sites shouldn't be on a list for anything because they definitely don't benefit to anyone as much as these people who had careers and made an impact in society. I say put him on the list. He's earned it for being someone who is recognizable on a national level. We can't base it on their outreach to other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson have both been world famous continuously for decades. Fawcett's episodes of Charlie's Angels and her films have been seen by millions of people in many countries. Mays is unheard of outside North America - only internationally, intercontinentally notable people should be in the Deaths section of this article. To say that everyone with an article on English Wikipedia should be on this article is ridiculous. Over 2,500 people with an English Wikipedia article have died this year. Outreach to multiple countries is absolutely a vital criterion for inclusion. Only those who are very internationally notable should be in the Deaths section of this article. Mays is on 2009 in the United States, 2009 in television and Deaths in 2009. Information yes (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9 non-English articles

Can someone point me out to this most absurd Wiki-law? I'm seeing it used a lot and have never heard of it. Where is it policy that this has to be followed? I'm on the fence about adding Billy Mays but to not have Ed McMahon and Steve McNair in this list is absolutely and utterly absurd. I want to see the policy, please. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths. There is actually nothing "absurd" about it as this is an international page not 2009 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a guideline and not a policy. The very first entry says it can be over-ridden by consensus and I'd say consensus has been shown just by the number of additions and reverts. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in what regard? DerbyCountyinNZ 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. There certainly isn't a consensus for inclusion. (Who is Steve McNair?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a consensus in the number of people that keep adding the entries to the list. I also see a lot of WP:OWN issues with the list. Absolute absurdity to not have 2 people that are famous all over the world just because they don't have an article on WikiWhatsMyLanguage. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of "consensus"; it certainly doesn't resemble WP:CONSENSUS, but I don't see that fitting any of the Wiktionary definitions wikt:consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't "famous all over the world", that's the point. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have to look many of the people on the death list up - either because they are obscure or old. Whether or not they are famous internationally shouldn't necessarily be the point. Their IMPACT, especially if they were groundbreakers, regardless of which country they lived in, should be the consideration. Regardless it is ALL opinion. Tahutton (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point I think, Ed McMahon and Steve McNair had little or no impact, probably less than some of the other entries you are referring to. It is not because you don't personally know some of them that they should not be listed.

And the opposite is also true for inclusion, because a person had a huge impact on your life does not mean that they should automatically be included.

But even if we put all that aside, Ed McMahon and Steve McNair clearly only had an impact in America, so it is logical they they should be in 2009 in the United States. As they had little or no impact outside the US it would seem odd to list them here. FFMG (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we can't make exceptions for American entries. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always found this rule a bit peculiar (IMHO, it's just too easy to abuse; it could be seen as allowing Wikipedia to treat itself as its own WP:RS; and while it might be an efficient rule of thumb, it can start to look like a golden hammer and preempt more nuanced debate), but I'd offer the following as a devil's advocate defense: A) "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." B) If a given topic has its own article, then that topic can be presumed to be notable until someone breaks the WP:SILENCE and attains WP:CONSENSUS against notability. C) Contributions to foreign-language versions of Wikipedia probably reflect international engagement with the project. Therefore, D) foreign-language articles about a topic are indicative of international consensus among Wikipedians as to the topic's notability. As for the "nine-ness" of it all, I dunno. Add the English article to the nine, and you've got a fairly popular number. It's just easy to get carried away and to treat the number as if it were half-magical. Perhaps it could be to WP:RY's benefit to emphasize the following: In order for a person to be listed under deaths, that person ought to have received significant international attention (i.e., as the non-English articles for that person would imply). If the person has not received such attention, then that person should be excluded without a compelling argument as to why that person could or should become the recipient of such attention. In other words, the rule can still be grounded by the quantitative bit (i.e., nine non-English articles), but it could use some qualitative colouring. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this is not a perfect solution, we have to have some sort of impartial way to help us decide if a person should be added or not.

But this is only a tool to help us, not a law that has to be followed at all cost, if you still want someone listed, (or removed), start a discussion here and a consensus will be reached on whether to add a person or not.

I still don't see the fascination of having a person listed here rather than on their country page. Surely it is common sense that an American football player that had no international impact should be listed in 2009 in the United States. FFMG (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mays, McMahon and McNair are all virtually unknown outside the US. Fans wrongly adding them need to understand that this article is for people of international importance only. People important in the United States only should be on 2009 in the United States. Mays and McMahon are also on 2009 in television; McNair is also on 2009 in sports. Just because many Americans love a particular person, it does not make them internationally notable. Politics a (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, this is the English Wikipedia. Imagine that. The irony that people dear to, allegedly, only Americans, not being allowed on the mostly American Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And since the criteria inclusion is also world-wide notability, Allen Klein, Vasily Aksyonov and Robert McNamara should be removed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2009 in the United States were on my watchlist, I'd argue against Steve McNair there, as well. However, I wouldn't summarily delete the entry. You also deleted Karl Malden, who is internationally known. Now, that may have been a mistake.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

McNamara was President of the World Bank for over 13 years; he was also a major figure in the Vietnam War and as Secretary of State for Defense he had major dealings with many countries. That gives him worldwide notability. Karl Malden was a famous actor known across dozens of countries through his films. He doesn't lose notability because of his age or amount of time having passed since his career peak. McNamara and Malden both have plenty of articles. Mays, McNair and McMahon never did, because very few non-Americans ever heard of them. Outside the US, so few people have heard of McNair that not only has there been little reporting of his death, but it has been reported as 'American footballer shot dead' not 'McNair shot dead'. Politics a (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue of deleting internationally notable people just because someone a user likes is correctly deleted because he is not notable outside his own country is a repeat of the Wayne Allwine situation, when one fan added him and then repeatedly tried to assert that he was a worldwide star. When several editors pointed out that he was barely known even in the US let alone outside it, he removed many people using fake reasoning. This English language encyclopedia is viewed and edited by people from dozens of countries. The deaths section of this article should contain only internationally notable people, not people who are little known in the rest of the world. Politics a (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that argues Ed McMahon isn't known internationally, is living under a rock. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an intuition that you may be right; but I would have to say, with all due respect, WP:PROVEIT... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Which countries other than the US are you claiming that McMahon was known in? Information yes (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the minimum number of articles apply to when the decedant died, or does reaching the minimum number, days / weeks etc. after death, make a person eligible once the nine non-English articles is reached? WP:RY#Deaths does not clearly state which is the case; it does not give any time restriction. Misawa and Shriver were both added before they had enough articles, then removed due to that. Weeks later in the case of Misawa, days in the case of Shriver, more articles were created, giving them ten each. Both are now in the article, despite the fact that neither of them have become more notable since they died. Information yes (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Henry Allingham

Considering there isn't an overall consensus of whether Allingham should be added, it would only seem right if we put it to a vote. I would appreciate it if other users could make it clear whether they wish to Include or Exclude him from the July section.

Include as per the reasons I've already mentioned. He has a sufficient amount of non-English articles to meet the criteria. He was constantly on the news for matters regarding WWI topics and became a household name in Britain. For these reasons, the fact that he was a supercentenarian should be overlooked. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Exclude. The attention he received from the media was only at the end of his life and when he died. That was due to his longevity; the fact he served in WWI was often mentioned, but his 'military achievements' were not, as they were nothing special. If he really had any notable achievements, whether military or otherwise, why did he receive virtually no attention until he became a supercentenarian? Many thousands of men born in the 1890s had similar experiences fighting in WWI. He was never a 'household name' in the UK - whilst many people in the UK have heard of him, the vast majority of those would only be able to vaguely recall his name, that he was extremely old, and that he was a soldier in WWI. In any case, it is irrelevant to this article how well known he was in the UK; inclusion in this article demands (in addition to the minimum number of articles requirement) international notablility, and Allingham certainly never had that. Exclude Millvina Dean as well. Information yes (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Exclude His notability is entirely due to longevity and is therefore accidental. While such notability may be sufficient for other articles "2009#Deaths" should only be for the most notable and despite the 9 non-English articles (which has never been a robust guide of notability) I do not think he qualifies. Ditto Millvina Dean. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Exclude I've already mentioned reasons. Even if he "became a household name in Britain", as Jkaharper mentioned, it is not enough reason to include his name in year's article. His death is reported like "Current oldest man in the world died. He was a British man who even served WWI", on outside of UK. His notability is totally based on his longevity, not because of his achievement during WWI.--Belle Equipe (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC) supercentenarians

Comment: As a non-Brit Belle Equipe I'm surprised to see how you can make such a general comment on the reporting of Allingham's death but perhaps I'll help you out a bit by telling you that after his death, every single last obituary aired on British news programs focussed not even primarily, but SOLELY on his part in WWI. I think it should also be noted that since Allingham and Patch's deaths, more programs (excluding news reports) have aired on terrestrial TV discussing their lives, than that of Michael Jackson after his death. I think it's a shame that people on here are so willing to dismiss their clear notability, simply for the reason that they were supercentenarians but I can see that it's clear nobody is willing to vote against their removal so I'm not going to bother debating this issue anymore. Allingham stays off the Deaths section. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We want comments on this talk page, and those like it, from people from many countries; that is how we establish whether or not a person is internationally notable enough to include. UK editors tend to be Anglocentric, US editors Americentric etc. Obituaries on Allingham focussed on his longevity and his WWI service. He was the focus of much attention regarding WW1, but only in the last few years of his life. The reason was due the fact he was one of the last surviving people to have fought in it; there were very few people left to talk to about it. Had he died years earlier, the public would never have heard of him. There was nothing unusual or special about his personal involvement in WW1; he was a regular soldier, like many thousands of others. If he were really a pivotal member of the British Army, he would have been the focus of media attention decades ago. There have been more programmes aired on UK TV since Jackson died than about Allingham and Patch combined. However, the point you seem to be missing, that is pointed out above, is that it wouoldn't make any difference if Allingham was the most famous person in the UK ever, he still wouldn't qualify for inclusion on this article as he is little knon of in the rest of the world. As pointed out by Belle Equipe, outside the UK, Allingham's death was reported as 'Oldest man dies' not 'Henry Allingham dies', due to the fact that, outside the UK, only a tiny proportion of people have heard his name. That's why Ed McMahon's death was reported outside the US as 'US TV host dies', because McMahon was only famous in the US. If a person is well-known in a particular country, their death will be reported as '(name) dies'. If it is '(description) dies' then you know he's little known in that country. When Paul Newman died, the media across the world reported it as 'Paul Newman dies', it wasn't 'US actor dies', because Newman was world famous. You must surely see the massive difference. Information yes (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Millvina Dean

Consensus is to keep supercentenarians off the page because longevity does not make a person notable enough for inclusion. So how can Dean's presence on the article be justified, as her notability is due her outliving all her fellow passengers. She would not have been considered for inclusion on a previous year's Deaths section had she died years earlier. Information yes (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true that she's known more for things that happened to her than for things that she accomplished on her own. (I guess longevity could be seen as an accomplishment, but she isn't known for having done anything special to prolong her life.) But her financial issues made a lot of headlines, and attracted attention (and donations) from at least two hemispheres: an Irish journalist, and the Canadian director, the English and American co-stars, and the Canadian singer from the Titanic film. (As an aside, it's ironic that she refused to see this film, but was rescued by the filmmakers from selling her other linkages to the ship.) The point is, people can become notable because of the circumstances of their declines or deaths; Ryan White and Terri Schiavo come to mind, and this year alone, Neda Agha-Soltan made headlines for dying on the street, and even Michael Jackson is selling more records in death than he did in later life. But I don't know if this is enough to include Dean while excluding Henry Allingham, given that Allingham was plenty more active in WWI than Dean (at two months old) was on the ship. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dean doesn't have real, long-term notability, just media attention. The media, especially the low-brow part, such as the red-top tabloids, love to make a big deal out of various people that don't deserve it, distorting the truth and misrepresenting things in order to increase their own profit. They tend not to care about accuracy or what is right. Virtually all the attention given to Dean was at the end of her life; if she had died a few years earlier, hardly anyone would have heard of her. The attention given to her alleged plight toward the end of her life is what attracted the attention of famous names, using the opportunity to gain themselves positive media coverage as 'saving an important nonagenarian from becoming homeless an having to live on the street'. When celebs paid / raised money for Dean, there was yet more media coverage: 'what a hero he is for saving Dean from extreme poverty' etc. It was made out to be a tragedy that she had to sell some of her possessions to pay her nursing home fees. However, thousands of old people are in a similar situation, many of whom have to sell their house to pay fees. The media also falsely portrayed the situation as that if sufficient money couldn't be raised, that she would have been thrown out of her nursing home onto the street, and that she would have been homeless, sleeping in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere. The truth is that when an elderly person is unable to pay his / her care fees, the government pay them. If the care home she was living in was an upmarket, luxurious home, then if she had no money she might have been moved to a more modest home, but she would have remained in an old people's home, cared for, fees paid, for the rest of her life, without ever going into debt. Neda Agha-Soltan's death is in the Events section, she is not in the Deaths section, as it is only her death, not her, that is notable. Dean's media coverage was a load of fuss over nothing. The Titanic sinking is notable, the 1997 film is notable, Dean is not. Michael Jackson was already extremely notable even without the massive media coverage given to his death, subsequent events and speculation regarding them, or the huge increase in sales of his music triggered by his death. Alligham's notability, and media coverage, like Dean's, is limited to their longevity. Neither of them achieved anything of note, nor held any important position. Many thousands of men born in the 1890s had similar WW1 experiences as Allingham. If he had held a high position in the army or had received important medals for exceptional bravery or skill then he'd have real notability - but he didn't; he was just a regular soldier. Information yes (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Your comment sounds similar to all the comments posted by some editors those who insisted to include Ed McMahon or Billy Mays in here, to me. Although his WWI part were aired in UK, his fame is still UK domestic. I did not see any program featuring him like that on the other side of the earth (but still in the corner of the US). Even if he is a household name in UK, it is different story on outside of UK, as I mentioned before.--Belle Equipe (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone offer an expalanation as to how she is genuinely notable, rather than merely the subject of media coverage and attention from a few celebs due to renewed interest in the Titanic triggered by the 1997 film? Information yes (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That she was the last survivor of a devastating shipwreck that is notable across the world... Scythre (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If being the last survivor of a disaster really does make a person notable, why aren't the last survivors of various other disasters listed on 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, etc? Information yes (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I never thought she should have been included, and in fact try to have her removed as soon as she appeared. So obviously I still think she is not notable enough for this page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sverre Fehn

How is he sufficiently internationally notable? His article states he received international recognition for something that does not have an article on English Wikipedia! Information yes (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jade Goody

Since there is now significant opposition to her being in the Deaths section, it is worth establishing the current consensus on her inclusion. She is notable in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in India. She does not appear to have ever had significant notability in any other countries, so she would appear to fail the criteria for inclusion on this article due to insufficient international notability - two countries isn't enough. Media coverage of her elsewhere was along the lines of 'UK reality star has cervical cancer' and 'UK reality star dies'. If she hadn't had cancer, virtually no-one outside the UK and India would ever have heard of her. I don't see how contracting and dying of cancer when young can equate to real notability, even though it is the kind of thing that the low-brow media love to publicise. Information yes (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, should you not stick to the "shoot first and ignore questions later" approach favored on this page? I would think that she, and a good percentage of the rest of the page, should be removed without discussion. Why does consensus need to be found to remove her from this page, while other people who were on the page were removed because consensus wasn't previously reached to put them on? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

She has been discussed before (see archives); consensus was not really obtained. If I removed her today, she'd be quickly readded, then removed by someone else and so on. I'm seeking to obtain consensus now to prevent a major edit war regarding this controversial figure. I can't see how she was ever important enough - she isn't unique in having becoming rich and famous, and receiving substantial media coverage despite lacking ability and achievements. The large number of Wikipedia articles she has is due to the massive media coverage she has received almost continuously for the past seven years. A controversial person, hated and loved by huge numbers of people, who elicits large amounts of hatred and sympathy, who went from rags to riches, made £8 million? out of nothing, who was volatile and emotional, had a very difficult family situation and personal relationships, gave the media a gift that, for them, just kept on giving (them huge profits). She cannot, however, be regarded as rightfully taking her place in a section that should be for the most notable people who died this year. She was never well-known in the Americas, Africa, continental Europe, Asia (outside of India) or Australasia, as she was only really a domestic celebrity, with the shorter-term fame in India solely due to her arguments with a famous Indian actress whilst on Celeb Big Brother UK, and subsequent events. Goody's 15 minutes somehow lasted 7 years, but they won't last much longer. In a few years time, she will be virtually forgotten. In comparison, Michael Jackson will still be talked about, and his music played by many, over 50 years from now. Information yes (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. For people to be removed from the list, consensus needs to be achieved. For professional wrestlers, however, no consensus is necessary to remove them. Why not get rid of the bias and have one set of criteria for everyone? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! Both wrestlers were removed as soon as they were added and their inclusion has always been disputed, there has never been anything like consensus that their inclusion should be allowed to stand so therefore the status quo (ie they are NOT added) until consensus is reached that they should be. Jade Goody's inclusion was disputed (by myself and others) but as you can see from the top of this page (and in the archives and in the page edit history) the consensus was that she be included. The status quo in this case is that she constitutes part of this article and if her removal is contested then there needs to be consensus on this page to that effect and until then she stays. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was absolutely right. While seeking "consensus" (in reality, a majority vote, as no discussion took place) for Goody, her name was allowed to remain on the page despite the fact that there was an ongoing "discussion" to determine whether or not she should be listed (the vote took place from June 10-18, and a random diff taken from this timespan shows that the entry was permitted to stay until the vote was finished). Likewise, the inclusion of Pat Hingle and Dave Arneson (both removed last night) was disputed; however, their names were left on the list for a full week while there was an open discussion about them. While Misawa is being "discussed" (I use the term loosely, as one side has yet to put forward any valid arguments), he was removed from the page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're still wrong. The initial discussion took place here beginning on the day of her death. At the time it was 3 for removal and 2 against. However it was not pursued at the time which is why is raised it again later (in June) as several people had used her inclusion as an example of non-notable entries in this article. Unfortunately none of them bothered to indicate this in the June discussion so she was allowed to remain. That she is currently included in the article shold not be used as an excuse to include others when it is becoming increasingly obvious that she should be removed, hence the present discussion. You are also still worng when you claim that Misawa is notable and there is nothing to indicate thatt he is not. Disregarding the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that an absence of fact (ie reports specifically stating that he is NOT notable) I have given above clear reasons that he has yet to be proven notable outside the wrestling community. All the links you added are still largely sports links and mostly from the US and Japan. Your argument has improved but there is still nothing convincing to suggest he was well known outside the pro-wrestling coumminty. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, as you've once again proven, I am most definitely correct. The discussion you refer to began on March 22 and ended March 28. During the entire discussion, her name was not removed from the list. While an attempt was made to seek consensus, you had absolutely no problem with keeping her listed. To illustrate this point, here are a few diffs from that period that show that she was not removed despite there not yet being consensus for her to be included: [7], [8], [9]. Please note that these are all diffs of your own edits and that you had no problem with leaving her on while the discussion took place (although in the first diff, you mention your concern that the proper occupation be listed. As I have pointed out numerous times before, you insisted that Mitsuharu Misawa be removed because there was a discussion taking place, thereby showing that you hold her inclusion to a lower standard than you do for a professional wrestler. You have claimed over an over that you have not acted in a hypocritical manner and that you are acting in the interests of neutrality rather than bigotry. Over and over, the diffs have proven that this just isn't the case. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the discussion on Jade Goody had already started on the talk page and was started by another editor not me before I had a chance to remove her (time zones and all that). As that editor chose to start the discussion without removing her first (possibly because she had well over 9 non -English articles) it would have been inappropriate for me or anyone else to remove her until consensus was reached. I removed Misawa 14 minutes after he was first added because I felt (as i still do) that there he was not sufficiently notable to bother raising the issue on this talk page first (for one thing if he is so "notable" why did it take nearly 2 months for anyone to bother even trying to add him to this article?). He was re-added and removed again several times before it was brought to the talk page and at that time he was not on the page, therefore it would be (and is) inappropriate for anyone to add him unless consensus is reached to do so. And if there is no consensus any editor could add him in a few weeks) when maybe everyone has forgotten about this discussion) and if he was removed they could add him in again and then start another discussion at which point it would be inappropriate for anyone to remove him until that discussion reached a consensus to do so. It is a question of timing. All of which brings us no closer to either adding Misawa of removing Goody. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Goody was narrow. Consensus can change, and it appears it has; all of the people who have commented on her inclusion this month want her removed from the article. She had virtually no impact on anything of note outside of the UK and India, so I can't see that her presence in the Deaths section can be justified. Information yes (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Misawa has only had enough Wikipedia articles since 27 July. Prior to that, he had been added, then quickly removed due to having too few articles. It is only in recent days, since the minimum number of articles was reached, that discussion on his inclusion began. Goody has plenty of articles, but lacks international notablity; since this section began, no-one has said that she should be on this article. Information yes (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was not narrow, it was 75% in favour of inclusion.

In the initial discussion the vote was 3:2 against inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, why was she not removed and why was there a need to reach another consensus? FFMG (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I lost track of it (it wasn't my proposal and there were probably other editing issues I was more concerned about at the time), that's why I brough it up again later when I realised she should have been removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What I think you are tying to say is that only 4 people voiced their opinion. As I said at the time, she was semi-famous both in India and England not just for big brother but also for a few other things, (and she did quite a bit for Cancer awareness as a result of her own cancer).

Are you suggesting we should have yet another vote because you are not happy with the previous results or because they don't 'feel' right to you? Then why bother getting a consensus at all and keep voting until the result you want is reached. FFMG (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a real consensus one way or the other regarding whether or not she is internationally notable enough to be included. In any case, consensus can change, and in this discussion, consensus is, so far, for her to be removed. She didn't do anything significant for cancer awareness, the media raised the profile of cervical cancer because a famous (in the UK) person had it. You can't honestly credit her with anything in that regard. Merely suffering (and dying) from a disease, then the media publicising that because of the sufferer's fame, does not qualify as the sufferer having raised awareness. In any case, cervical cancer's profile was not raised in enough countries due to Jade Goody or connected events, in order for her to be included. She was a reality television contestant (not even a winner) that inexplicably achieved fame / infamy and £8 million; she was not significantly internationally notable. Information yes (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)