Talk:Deaths in January 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent deaths[edit]

I thought consensus was to keep the previous seven days (at least for seven days into the month) from the past month rather than just wiping it clean each month? I look at Jan 2010 and there's only Jan 2010...what about people who have died before then but it's only been released or found out about after Jan 1st? 78.86.230.62 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can click on Deaths in 2009 and read about those. The December 2009 deaths haven't been moved to a new page yet. Reach Out to the Truth 17:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening with the person dying tomorrow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.160.76 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S/he can be added tomorrow. tomasz. 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the convention is: Keep the whole previous month there for the first seven days of each month.
Apparently they haven't yet got the hang of that, when it applies to the last month of the year. Deaths in 2010 and Deaths in 2009 are separate files.
So the bugs aren't all ironed out yet. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the list of the previous month's deaths displayed for seven days makes sense. The situation in January is that the previous month's deaths are in the previous year's article. I don't see a way to improve this situation; to list deaths that occurred in 2009 on the Deaths in 2010 article, or deaths that occurred in 2010 on the Deaths in 2009 article would not make sense - it would make one of the articles inaccurate, listing people who are outside the scope of the article. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Howell[edit]

Her article currently says she died on the 1st, but the Post reports that she died on the 2nd. Time zone difference? --zenohockey (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Ethiopia?[edit]

If any deaths in that country occur this year how will we deal with it? Due to the Ethiopian calendar they are still in the year 2002 so where would the deaths go? --Weather130 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DATE, "current events are given in the Gregorian calendar". WWGB (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Biden[edit]

I don't understand why Jean Biden isn't on the list of recent deaths. While she isn't technically notable herself, her death is notable (in the news) and the page Jean Biden links to a relevant section of Joe Biden's page. It might interest people looking for the exact date of her death and cause who might've heard about it in the news.--99.29.140.62 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already replaced this a couple of times; for people who may be notable but who do not yet have their own articles, the consensus here seems to be to permit redlinks to remain for a month after reporting of death, to allow an article to be created. This is NOT the page to determine notability (unless policy or consensus is already clear). Notoriety, on the other hand, in the case of executed criminals, is not the same as notability. Rodhullandemu 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so "notorious," or maybe better "known" and "publicized" figures like Mrs. Biden and executed criminals don't belong on this list, only notable figures as determined by policy (and redlinks to those who are believed to be notable). That makes sense then, even though the Catherine "Jean" Biden seems almost borderline to me. I won't argue it anymore.--99.29.140.62 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that apparently Jean Biden is currently only notable as the mother of Joe Biden; however, a more detailed review might uncover more independent reasons for her own notability; that's why we tend not to prejudge reports here. As with all other plausible reports of death, we would leave a credible length of time to allow an article to be created. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto the dog[edit]

If the edit notice at the top of the page somehow unclear? I will amend it if it isn't, but longstanding consensus here is that deaths of notable animals are reported here. If there's any question of notability, it should be addressed at the article, not here. Rodhullandemu 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user removed Otto's nationality, claiming that "dogs don't have a nationality". i re-added it because i don't believe this is true (plenty of dogs have passports, for one thing). i can see the "no nationality" argument holding weight for animals that aren't particularly affected by national boundaries (fish, birds, migrating wild animals) but i don't realistically see domestic pets fitting into that category.
Then someone else removed the entry altogether, saying we were "edit warring" and that dogs aren't notable. The latter point is fallacious, as there are plenty of notable animals on the Deaths in 200x pages, and, as anyone who's followed the pages for a while will be able to testify, innumerable discussions on the topic. Also, i don't believe that literally one edit apiece consitutes an "edit war". Basically i'm just summarising all this here on the talk page because it seems sensible, to explain my rationale, because the second user said "take it to the talk page", and for posterity. Cheers everyone, tomasz. 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a ref that says Otto was a British citizen. Garibaldi Baconfat 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See your talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The top of the recent deaths page gives the listing criteria as: Name, age, country of citizenship and reason for notability, established cause of death, reference. So are you saying Otto is a British citizen? Garibaldi Baconfat 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says the dog was British. None of the other subjects on this page has a ref which states "X was a citizen of country Y", and Otto doesn't need one either. Refs which assign nationality are sufficient. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animals are in no way "notable". Theres no way to determine if that dog was actually 20. Also, it was a freaking dog.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even read the article, have you? Guinness World Records accepted his age. Meanwhile, if you want to change longstanding policy and consensus, edit-warring isn't going to make it happen. Rodhullandemu 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LifeStroke420, as Rodhullandemu has already pointed out, and as the edit pop-up notice clearly states, "Deaths of notable animals (that is, those with their own Wikipedia articles) are reported here". This is supported by many archived discussions and has current consensus. Continuing to edit war over the matter and yelling in your edit summaries is not going to advance your argument in a positive fashion. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There is no way of knowing how old he was? Documentation was provided too Guinness. How old are you? There's no way of knowing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very notion of putting someone's bloody pet dog on this list is insulting to the people who occupy it and unfortunately will come to occupy it. Dienkonig (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a list of notable deaths, not a memorial, and is not designed to pay tribute to anyone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's insulting to list dead terrorists and murderers alongside decent people and animals but I live with it because Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeron Lewis[edit]

Yet another non-notable college basketball player. Can we have this deleted as soon as possible? I've checked his obituary and there is nothing notable about him other than dying. Williamgeorgefraser 15:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

Ricardo Montalban, Patrick McGoohan, John Updike[edit]

I've been trying to add him to the Jan 14 list, but every time I add him it gets deleted. I'm signed in, but I don't have a lot of history; is that the problem?PParkerT (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Ricardo Montalbán died on January 14 of last year not this year. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is listed on the proper page: Deaths in January 2009. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montalban, McGoohan and Updike all died during the first month of last year, not this year. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp[edit]

I just want to inform editors though there is a story of him dying in a recent car accident it is now being strongly denied. The story was incorrect in the article. It was an error. A search of this actor will show that it is being clarified. I just thought I would comment here because an IP had added this to the list with an attached source. It has since been deleted. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted him. The reference was false. Arnie Side (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need multiple major sources (eg BBC and CNN) before allowing such a claim. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Kennelly[edit]

Please demonstrate notability here as the ref gives nothing of notability. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted after this section had been opened. Be aware that wikipedia frowns upon edit warring while ignoring a discussion on the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this is being removed. Traditionally red links have been allowed to remain for one month to give editors a chance to start on article and Kennelly's death has been covered extensively in the media (BBC, Irish Times, The Herald, etc). It can be removed if the article is not created in a reasonable amount of time - this has been discussed many times, including here and here --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Generally, to survive a CSD, biographical articles need to credibly assert notability. The same criterion applies here, by convention, in that we routinely delete unsourced entries and those who prima facie are unlikely to be notable. However, also by convention, we allow redlinks to persist for up to a month to facilitate the writing of an article- which is the proper venue for determining notability- and if no such article is created, they are deleted. That a reliable source has reported the death, rather than by a death notice, might be an indication of inchoate notability, but it's too early to make that judgement call until a keen enough editor has had time to research an article. In practice, many new articles are created from initially redlinked entries here. That is why I believe we should not be too quick to judge notability, bearing in mind the advice in WP:BEFORE, unless it's obvious. That you've been reverted indicates that other editors disagree with your judgement. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply going by how Rodhullandemu and WWGB have been overseeing the "Deaths in" articles. I agree with what Rodhullandemu says. Further, in my edit from earlier today, I said that if you remove one person from a group and leave the other in, it's a random act, IMO. Later on, after Kennelly's name had been deleted once more by you, only to be restored by a different editor, you removed him and, finally, Leon Villalba, the other person who died with him. This is where January 21 is as of this writing. I dislike getting into edit wars. I'll let the powers that be resolve this. Ed (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that a strict interpretation of notability policy applied here would suggest that a substantive article should exist, or be created, before a death is noted here, and historically, it just hasn't worked that way, otherwise we would not tolerate redlinks. I'll just underline that this page remains a useful source of new articles, because editors may not be aware of these people until their deaths are reported. This is particularly true of people who are notable within our guidelines, but not otherwise famous. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Kennelly nor Villalba have independent notability. Their band, After Death, could deserve an article, if anyone can show that the band had any real success. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?[edit]

If this article is supposed to be only a list of notable dead people, then it should be renamed, maybe Notable people dead in 2010. An article should be in adequation with its title. But currently, according to its title, it's not an article about notable people only, whatever "notable" may mean. So I can see no reason why the following contribution should be deemed irrelevant to this article:

It is estimated that about 56.5 million people will die during 2010[1].

Grasyop ✉ 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is somewhat implicit here, although the article is a useful launchpad for reported deaths of people for whom articles might be created. We generally delete obviously non-notable individuals (e.g. Joe from Iowa) but tolerate redlinks for up to a month to see whether articles are created, otherwise they are then deleted. Rodhullandemu 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to insert the name of my unknown great-grandmother. I'm speaking about deaths in 2010, which is the subject of this article. I don't see how the above contribution, with no redlink, could be an infraction to WP:Notability, and I don't understand why it should be removed. Grasyop ✉ 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained on your talk page, this is a list class article that lists deaths that meet a specific criteria. The addition of the census link is unrelated to the purpose of the page and is inappropriate. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I replied on my own talk page: an article should be in adequation with its title. Grasyop ✉ 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is somewhat implicit here" Precisely, that's what shocks me in this article: it implicitely reduces humanity to its celebrities. Other people just don't exist. This article and alike despise common people. Grasyop ✉ 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is not a memorial and neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. There have to be some criteria for inclusion, and notability seems the be widely accepted one. "Common people" (and you accuse us of despicable behaviour?) have their own memorials, but this isn't one of them. And you should not confuse "notability" with "celebrity"- many of our biographical articles deal with people who are notable but are not well-known. Rodhullandemu 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'm not trying to insert redlinks. That's not the point. I'm adding a piece of information, which, in itself, is notable, and is relevant to the title of this article. That's all.
I give you a point about not confusing "notability" with "celebrity".
Grasyop ✉ 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and you accuse us of despicable behaviour?"
Read again: I didn't accuse you, nor anyone, I talked about an article and its title.
And I didn't say it was despicable, I said it is despising.
Grasyop ✉ 23:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say it another way: the number I propose to add is a notable piece of information about non necessarily notable people. The number is notable. And relevant, since it is about Deaths in 2010. Grasyop ✉ 21:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think if the article Anatomy was devoted to human anatomy only, the first sentence of the article prescribing it: "the following article is about human anatomy".

You would say: either rename this article Human anatomy, or accept non human anatomy in it.

Same thing here: the title Deaths in 2010 enables general statements such as: "56.5 million people will die during 2010". If you don't want such statements in there, you may want to rename this article as follows: Notable people dead in 2010. It's necessary that the title and the content of this article be in adequation! Grasyop ✉ 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories on Wikipedia consist only of notable people and things. For example, Category:Deaths from cancer only contains people who have a Wikipedia article and verifiably died of cancer. It doesn't say 'In 2010, nearly 8 million people will die of cancer.' Statistical info is in the articles cancer, lung cancer, stomach cancer etc. I'm not aware of anyone else questioning the standard way on Wikipedia to list notable people (and the occasional animal) in articles such as this one, and statistical details in articles such as death, ischaemic heart disease, suicide etc. Everyone who is familiar with Wikipedia know roughly what should be included in articles, and what should be excluded. To change things in that respect would need major changes to many articles. It would also require many people to indicate that they want that change, which they don't. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "For example, Category:Deaths from cancer only contains people who have a Wikipedia article and verifiably died of cancer. It doesn't say 'In 2010, nearly 8 million people will die of cancer.'"

That's inexact. The first article listed in Category:Deaths from cancer is not a person, it's the article cancer itself. (And this article contains the statistical info in its introduction.)

Moreover, I'm not sure you can compare categories, which have their own namespace, with an article in Main, and whose title doesn't indicate anywhere that it's supposed to be a list, exclusively.

Now, let's have a look at Wikipedia's guideline about list articles. It says:

- "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list" (And you can verify in the example given, List of vegetable oils, that the lead section isn't there only to introduce the list, it does have some encyclopedic content.)

So, why refuse an encyclopedic lead section in the article Deaths in 2010?

- "The titles of list articles typically begin with the type of list it is (List of, Index of, etc.), followed by the article's subject, for example: List of vegetable oils."

So, according to this guideline, the title of our list article should be: List of deaths in 2010. Grasyop ✉ 09:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2010 is one of the most-viewed pages in Wikipedia [2] with more than 1.7 million visits per month [3]. You might like to stop and consider that everyone else except you seems to like the status quo. In other words, the article is in adequation with the wish of the masses. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the suggested title Notable people dead in 2010, apart from being very clumsy and horribly worded, would have to include everyone who had died prior to 2010 in order for the article to reflect the title. Those who died in 2009, 2008, 1586, 1279 etc are also dead in 2010. Nobody has ever questioned the title of this article before anyway, suggesting the consensus is for the status quo. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first three project banners on this talk page clearly state that this is a List-class article. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see the point of the discussion. 50 million of the people in question haven't even died yet. Can the contributor give us the names of the 6 million or so others who HAVE died? Williamgeorgefraser 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

Both the article and this talk page clearly state it is a list, hence I can't see any need to change it. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda see this guy's point. However, the statistic you wish to include would possibly be better included in the article Death in 2010. This article is about deaths (specific) not deaths (generic). All statistical details would be useful in this article, a small summation of the most notable deaths (linking here) and other things like extinctions (possibly). Or I'm just nit-picking.Fol de rol troll (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate data[edit]

A minority of entries read:

  • Norwegian sports commentator...(Norwegian)
  • Russian composer and bard...(Russian)
  • Swedish adventurer...(Swedish)
  • Greek footballer...(Greek)
  • Greek theatrical entrepreneur...(Greek)
  • Polish historian...(Polish)
  • Greek politician...(Greek)
  • Russian film director...(Russian)
  • Estonian chemist...(Estonian)
  • French actor...(French)
  • German handball player...(German)

Don't see the need for (nationality) (occupation) (nationality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.81.49 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is not a duplication of the person's nationality. The second (nationality) notation is meant to represent the language used in the cited reference (which is important to English language speakers, who may thus struggle to verify the reference source). I do accept that the overall page layout may not make that abundantly clear, and is something that might need consensus to address. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The language name in brackets is only for when the source ref is not in English. If a reliable English-language source that gives the cause of death can be found, that should be used. Sometimes that is not possible, due to the decedent being little-known in the Anglosphere. The language may not be the same as the nationality; for example, the source language for a Brazilian is obviously likely to be Portuguese, and the language for a Mexican is obviously likely to be Spanish. To avoid people thinking there is duplication, we could put, for example, (Norwegian language) or ([[Norwegian language|Norwegian]]) instead of (Norwegian). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::... or just leave it as is, given that almost all readers seem to understand the difference by not raising it as an issue. WWGB (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Striking my snappy comment, not very friendly! Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you - WWGB - have sensibly in my view amended the wording of the lede of the main article, to make the situation considerably clearer for all users. Bravo. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. Everybody gets it because no one has mentioned it before. Why didn't I think of that. It's so obvious. I am such a jackass. Excuse me for wasting your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.81.49 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording at the top of this article is an improvement, and makes matters clearer. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Talbot[edit]

Helen Talbot was a fairly significant actress and pinup girl from the 1940s. You may want to keep her on the list a few days (she was deleted after only 8 hours) to give someone a chance to create her article. BurienBomber (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Deaths in January 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ELs or references[edit]

It seems all the 'references' are inserted as external links. Is there a good reason for this? CalzGuy (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it was done in that year. The references were quick to load and easy to check at the end of each entry. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Deaths in January 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Deaths in January 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Deaths in January 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 4[edit]

The Casey Johnson link still redirects to her father's article, instead of her own herewith, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Johnson and needs to be changed. 203.196.41.161 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Editrite![reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_January_2010&oldid=1207794571"