Talk:Deaths in November 2010

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

Heinrich Riebesehl[edit]

According to the German online-magazin SPIEGEL http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,726784,00.html Heinrich Riebesehl passed away on Sunday 2010 10 31! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.49.246 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've moved it. Rodhullandemu 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red link repeatedly removed[edit]

I'm not sure why red linked entry for Nick Bell has been removed repeatedly as not meeting notability standards. My understanding is that red links, assuming they are supported by reliable source, are usually granted more leeway at this page as they are an effective way to encourage article creation. The hidden edit summary contains several notes including "Redlinked entries for whom no article currently exists are typically kept for one month to allow creation of such an article". There is discussion further up on this page regarding red links, and there was no consensus to stop using them. So, is there a particular reason why the Nick Bell entry has been removed twice in the past hour despite being supported by an independent, mainstream source? Is there a reason why it is being treated differently than the remainder of the red links, specifically "leave it for a month and delete it if notability has not been established by then"? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'm just curious why this link keeps being deleted seemingly in contradiction to how we usually deal with red links. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability requirements are relaxed here, to enable creation of redlinked articles, and as long as I've been here, we have allowed up to a month for creation of these articles. Perhaps this consensus IS NOT VISIBLE ENOUGH. Rodhullandemu 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to appear to be edit warring to restore it again, but I think that some editors don't edit this page very often and are unaware that the requirements for temporary inclusion are a little more lax compared to regular articles. I will restore it with a pointer to this talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been removed again by the same editor without discussion here, despite being pointed to the relevant guidelines for his page. I don't know how to make it clearer...--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If editors continue to edit-war against consensus without discussing here, blocked they shall be. Rodhullandemu 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I did not check this page for discussion, I want to say that up front, it did not occur to me there would be one and that was a poor assumption. However, I would like to clarify I had edited the Wiki Deaths page and others quite extensively as time has permitted and am very aware of the red link policy, as well as notability requirements. I note also, I am not the only one who deleted the entry. Sadly, the fact remains, this young man cannot and will not meet notability standards. He was a sophomore player on a football team, started two games before tragically struck down by cancer. He held no school records nor made any notable impact on his school's football history other than dying in a most tragic and heartbreaking way. I mean no disrespect in the deletions, but commonly red linked deaths are removed if there is no chance of the person ultimately meeting notability requirements. I will no longer remove the death, but I caution that it is unlikely that ultimately it will stand as an article. OneHappyHusky (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to point to the talk page in my edit summaries, but sometimes these things are missed. No harm done. In addition to being jumping off points for possible article creation, a benefit of leaving the red links for a short duration (30 days) is that no one needs to make a cut and dry judgment call as to whether a person meets notability requirements. Generally if the death is reported in reliable sources (there are over 1300 GNews hits for Nick Bell at this moment), then there is no harm in leaving the link to see if an article will be created. Perhaps an article will be created that would ultimately be deleted through AfD, but the decision regarding notability can be made in the AfD discussion, we do not need to predict the outcome here. The irony in all of this is that I'm not entirely convinced Bell would meet notability requirements, but I don't see how he is any different than many of the other red links we are currently hosting on the page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And removed again, without even a mention on the talk page. Oh well, I'm certainly not going to restore it again. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this with all sincerity and with no snarkiness...but exactly what qualifies as a consensus and when is it visible enough? It just seems to me, right or wrong, the consensus is not happening in this discussion and maybe that should be considered...OneHappyHusky (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Bell will disappear from this page, never to return, on December 2. Until that time, however, any entry that has the potential for meeting WP:N (and the number of available references and times he's been reinserted suggests that he could meet it) gets its chance to remain on the page as a redlink for a month, unless deleted by an AFD. That has been the consensus for some time now I believe... I did a check back and the earliest discussion I could find was in 2007 and it has been reaffirmed several times since then, albeit with little discussion (mainly as not too many people come to this talk page to discuss!). A few threads down, however, a user claims "The established standard around here has always been to leave the name in for a month.. and if after a month no one has written an article, then it is OK to delete", which makes me think that maybe it's been around longer... Canadian Paul 05:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your answer. I was confused about how consensus was being used here, in this discussion, and now I understand. OneHappyHusky (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Clench died twice?[edit]

The listing for Deaths in November 2010 shows bassist Jim Clench as having died on both the 2nd and the 3rd.

70.238.156.134 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)William Scott 11.11.2010[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. The confusion arose because of conflicting reports as to whether he died on Nov. 2 or 3. His obit says it was Nov. 3, so I removed the Nov. 2 entry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Fenner[edit]

Can't add this as page is locked. Here you go: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/22/3073007.htm 66.187.239.10 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by another editor. Of course, if this article has not been semi-protected for no good reason then anyone could edit it. WWGB (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rear Admiral John K. Beling[edit]

Rear Admiral John K. Beling, 91, died 05 November 2010. Link is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111704457.html He was the commanding officer of the USS Forrestal during the 1967 fire aboard that killed 134 sailors. Can someone please post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.129.100 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuela Camagni[edit]

56 years old, Pope's maid, hit by a car. http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=441734 66.187.239.10 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Another link to it here http://ca.topmodel.yahoo.com/s/capress/101124/world/eu_vatican_papal_family 66.187.239.10 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless she was notable for something else other than being the Pope's maid, I think this is a rare case in which despite news reports, we should consider her unlikely to satisfy notability requirements, even given a month's time. There is a trade-off between WP:NOTMEMORIAL and establishing notability, but I see nothing so far to indicate that the gap is likely to be bridged, sad though her death may be. Rodhullandemu 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a precedent, the Queen Mother's butler, William Tallon, was listed on Nov 23, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_November_2007#23 Cheers. 66.187.239.10 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Although there's some content there, and some sources, the article has been tagged as needing better sources, and improvement, since August 2008. August 2008. (just in case you missed it). There would need to be at least similar coverage, in time and depth, to justify having an article here. I'm not saying that can't happen: just that it does not appear to be happening right now. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Kershner, another double death[edit]

Did he die the 27th or the 29th? LANTZYTALK 01:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Robitaille[edit]

I see that this entry has been added and removed a couple of times. Although there is some leniency with regard to adding red links to this list, there is no notability here. There is not a chance that there could ever be an article created based on our notability criteria. Unless consensus can be established that the red link should be kept as a basis for a future article, I see no reason to include it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have contradicted yourself. For you see, a majority of these inserted deaths won't be embraced with notability, so why just focus on Robitaille? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:12 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi! The "one month" amnesty was introduced to try and resolve such cases, and avoid edit wars here. Where a lack of notability is clearly evident and undisputed (eg someone's loving grandparent) then immediate removal is warranted. Where there is even a remote chance that the deceased may qualfy for an article, then it is generally left for one month to see if an article eventuates. Given that the original contributor and Rusted AutoParts seem to want the entry to be here, then I see no particular harm in letting it stay for the month, but I won't be adding or removing it myself. Yes, poor George is possibly covered by WP:ONEEVENT, but he did gain obituaries in many notable newspapers eg [1], so that may go some way towards notability.
While noting the comments of Rusted AutoParts about my role [2], I am just another editor who enjoys being a wikignome and keeping this page neat and accurate. My opinion is no more important than any other contributor. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you WWGB. I've previously noted that there is a pretty low bar here with regard to notability and have entered discussions arguing to keep specific red links on the list until the 30 days is up. My understanding has always been that there had to be at least a chance that an article could conceivably meet WP:N in order to be included, which isn't the case here. With this particular entry there seems to a level of negativity as well in that his sole claim to fame was being caught on video sleeping while working (the exact wording from the National Post article is "the subject of ridicule"). Given the 0% chance of this red link leading to article creation, and the rather sad spectacle of it all, I would think it would be more...compassionate...to remove the link as unnecessary. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kelley[edit]

His entry states he was an American Sportswriter, which is true, but he is also a Hall of Fame Sportwriter and is enshrined in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Perhaps that can be added to the line about him, as it is quite noteworthy. Most hockey writers are not enshrined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.93 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Deaths in November 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) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Deaths in November 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) 05:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_November_2010&oldid=1209232402"