Talk:Deaths in November 2017

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

Joshua J. Wright[edit]

Along with Willard L. Bowman, the first African-American elected to the Alaska Legislature (which had only one other African-American in its history, an appointee) in 1970. There's a paid obituary and scant few other sources which can verify his notability both as a legislator and as a pioneering African-American in his field in a particular location. Problem is, I found literally zero news coverage. I'm reluctant to add entries in such cases given the hypersensitivity over sourcing in general and the cherry-picking of sources prevalent on here. Typically, the governor issues a proclamation ordering flags at half-staff, the press release for such sufficing as a third-party source. However, he's been out of town a lot dealing with federal issues and such a proclamation could very well still be forthcoming. Also, the community in which Wright lived for almost 60 years saw its newspaper recently emerge from bankruptcy. These factors, combined with the fact that his primary basis of notability occurred approximately 45 years ago, make it not at all surprising that no easy sources exist. I've asked before on related talk pages how to handle situations such as these and don't recall receiving any reply. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a very decent and reliable source (we never turn away "Legacy" references here), but having read up on his life as described in the obit, he doesn't seem to pass even basic notability guidelines. I'm personally not inclined to add him, sadly. Ref (chew)(do) 23:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're telling me that you're one more person around here who feels entitled to exercise veto power over "state legislators are inherently notable" as alluded to in WP:POLOUTCOMES and carried out in practice while citing same? I shouldn't have to explain this, but aside from whatever coverage he may have received from Ebony and Jet and the like that tends to turn up in Google searches, most of the basis for his notability will be found in decades-old book and newspaper sources which aren't likely to surface online anytime soon. I really hope I'm not going to have to read another Kool-Aid drinking fest over how those couldn't possibly be reliable sources for reasons having nothing to do with editorial oversight. If so, I'll promptly delete all citations to Who's Who in Alaskan Politics, which includes Wright, incidentally. I also shouldn't have to explain that it's fairly common practice to dump perfunctory borderline-WP:NOTMEMORIAL violations on the encyclopedia covering obscure one-term state legislators once they die, despite the fact that in most cases, their notability was established long before this place was a twinkle in Jimbo's eye. The flavor of Kool-Aid known as "We need to wait for sources to become available, donchanow" has been extended to topics for which sources have long existed. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if YOU add him, and I can't see why you haven't just gone ahead and done that, I wouldn't be reverting you either. I'm just not convinced enough to add him in myself. If others revert, that's a matter for them, though. Ref (chew)(do) 06:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sargeant Suicide[edit]

I've been seeing sites add in sentences like Many British news organisations reported, without citing sources, that he had taken his own life., which leads me to wonder the strength of the claim it was a suicide, strictly ebcause no specific individual was named as having stated it was a suicide. Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Rusted AutoParts 00:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source has said suicide (or any other cause of death), I'd say it's not up to us to question where they got their information. Nukualofa (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so in this case. The organ in question is merely stating that many other news outlets are claiming suicide without citing their sources. Kind of a non-reporting glitch, to my mind - a hearsay piece of tattle. I've not seen any reliable outlets pinning "suicide" to their mastheads as of yet. Ref (chew)(do) 19:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the BBC says something is understood, rather than believed or assumed, I understand that to mean it's reliably understood. They don't just go around understanding things out of nowhere, like the other kind of British press does. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, November 8, 2017 (UTC)
The Issue is, who is the BBC citing in regards to that part? If they cited say the investigating officer or a family member, then of course it's an easy thing to take in. But when no ones being attributed, it makes it murky and questionable. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter to us and this page if they've cited their sources or not. We got a very, very reliable source that says he took his own life. And bucketfuls of other sources claiming the same thing. Nukualofa (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But as I’ve provided there’s sources that question it. If there’s doubt in regards to something it should be held off adding until it’s more firmly confirmed. Rusted AutoParts 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources that question his suicide? The source in your original post doesn't question that, it only says other news organisations haven't cited their sources. Your quote goes on with "Police said his death was not being treated as suspicious and had been referred to the coroner, a statement often used when a suicide has occurred", so even they are implying a suicide. Nukualofa (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that implies the source is questioning it. And that’s merely an inference on your part in regards to referring to coroner. I’m just saying we should wait until there’s no doubts. Rusted AutoParts 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are always doubts, especially implicitly. Is Trevor Bell dead, according to anyone else? But if the BBC was misleading us, it'd tell us. That's just how compulsive it is about fact-checking. You ever see a police department or political family with a Corrections and Clarifications page? I explicitly doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, November 8, 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like the BBC, or any other reputable news outlet, to tell me they are "having to report" (not that they "understand", which to me denotes a verbal hearsay and possibly tittle-tattle by someone connected) that *someone* has died. They do not have to cite their sources - their strong assertion should be all we need to proceed. However, when someone "understands" something to be true, there's a massive margin of error possible in that quite vague form of announcement, and I wouldn't trust it an inch until they adopt a more positive reportage. Ref (chew)(do) 23:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good enough for an "apparent suicide"? We've done that before. Sometimes even for heart attacks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

Antonio Carluccio[edit]

Is he really notable as a "reality television actor"? It's not supported by his article, and seems an odd phrase to use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to "television presenter". Two Greedy Italians was a cookery programme with presenters, not a reality show with actors. OZOO (t) (c) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible move, because Carluccio has never been an actor in the strict sense of the word, just as Paul Hollywood, for instance, certainly isn't either. Ref (chew)(do) 13:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Dudley (November 7, 2017)[edit]

The link is to an article on Guilford Dudley, which is a stub that doesn't mention Jane Dudley at all. Has her notability been established? Considering her notable only for being the spouse of a one-term ambassador strikes me as demeaning to genuinely notable women. 174.89.94.204 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She could possibly be viewed here as too local, since Guilford's death notice only casually mentions her and there's not much in her death notice that screams "globally notable". Included here or not, her mention here being a redirect will be yanked in 30 days regardless, and redirects are cheap. — Wyliepedia 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gensburg[edit]

Here's a more accessible source that has dates and age.

www.caledonianrecord.com/community/deaths/robert-a-gensburg---obituary/article_df2731c8-aa94-58a2-b248-c66261e145e1.html 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary the Goat[edit]

Hi. It looks as though we'll be chatting about the question of notability and qualification for animals in our Deaths page once again. The above animal qualifies as far as I can see because it has its own article which is not a redirect or piped falsehood, and because the internet is currently awash with mentions of the animal. And this from someone who would prefer that the Deaths page was human-only. Consensus reached as I understand it means the goat stands, I believe, despite its recent removal along with a summary summary. I've reinstated it for now, and we need to discuss this if I am actually mistaken, I think. Ref (chew)(do) 21:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to an article that's more about the comedy duo of the goat and it's owner. the infobox is of that of a series as opposed to a person/animal. That to me tells me the focus of the article is about the duo/webseries of videos they do as opposed to the goat itself. To which I feel doesn't make it meet the qualifications. Rusted AutoParts 21:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it though, and remembering previous encounters with the consensus on this, there is no leeway for arbitrarily condemning a subject with an article to the 'recycle bin' here. Those two parameters I mentioned have been met, so I think this subject is probably going to run and run once again here, until a majority come down on one side or the other. As I said, I'm not a fan of animal obits here, but I do believe in the consensus being followed where it has clearly been decided by majority. However, if you could get a groundswell here which supported the abandoning of such entries altogether, I would be very content. And I'd still like to hear from others as to whether the two parameters are actually hard and fast rules or not. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that applied to animals who a) had articles of their own and b) were of independent notability. Gary is not. His article is shared with his owner and it’s written as a series article than a biography article. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the article was altered to be more about the goat itself, I drop my concern of it not meeting criteria. Rusted AutoParts 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just you and I though - if anyone else has a view on this, please feel free. Ref (chew)(do) 06:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed him from a celebrity to a comedian. All bluelinks are celebrated and famous enough for something. He didn't make the jokes, but they'd be less funny without him playing it straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, November 18, 2017 (UTC)

Ann Wedgeworth's three[edit]

Hello, everyone. I'm not going to adjust Ann Wedgeworth's entry on the 16th, nor mentioning intent to start an edit war, but I thought we tried to keep actor entries as close to EGOT as possible (meaning: film, TV, and stage work)? Example, hers is listed as "Three's Company, Evening Shade, Steel Magnolias", followed by her Tony mention. Granted, she was memorable in every role, but, I thought, that perhaps the play for which she won the Tony should be mentioned. Discuss. — Wyliepedia 05:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'd put it second. Would personally replace Steel Magnolias (because I'm a man), but professionally, IMDb suggests she's not known for Three's Company instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, November 20, 2017 (UTC)
Her Tony win for the play is more notable than her performance in the play itself. Threes Company is the most mentioned in sources sonthat should stay. I feel the order is fine as is IMO. Rusted AutoParts 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If winning awards for things were more notable than the things that won the awards, relative crap like this would have award shows. Bigger award shows. I'll bet my bottom dollar her legit Best Performance got more press than that improv minute did. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm Young cause of death[edit]

In all obituaries for Malcolm Young it's been reported that he died after a long battle with dementia. Although it doesn't specifically says that the COD was dementia I take it as it's implicit that dementia is the COD, just like when the article reads "X died after a long battle with cancer", there it doesn't specifically need to stand that cancer was the COD, so why can't we put dementia as his COD? DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be. Early Onset Dementia and Alzheimer's is especially fatal. Pat Summitt was a similar victim.Sunnydoo (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is a straightforward cause of death. And it's on the increase for some reason. Ref (chew)(do) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Cassidy[edit]

Is this the only source there is on it? It doesn't look exceptionally reliable. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source says his publicist confirmed his passing on Saturday evening, but he’s still alive. Rusted AutoParts 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. The media - and no doubt some misguided souls here also - just need so desperately to be "the first" to break the news or make the edit that they jump the gun outrageously. Ref (chew)(do) 22:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked to see ho had done it but did not find Cassidy. Has someone talked to whomever did it? Carptrash (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No primary, mainstream sources - CNN, USA Today, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, et all -- are reporting anything as of Sunday Nov 19th 6:15 pm ET --- so there! Fgf2007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Daily Mail is hammering the story - but hey..... Ref (chew)(do) 00:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail eh, that well documented unreliable source. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add Kamala to the 67-year-old teen idols on life support in British tabloids and presumed dead enough for Wikipedia list. Not literally, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, November 21, 2017 (UTC)

Song listings[edit]

There is disagreement over whether the entry for his death (now confirmed) should refer to "I Think I Love You" - his biggest US hit, but not credited to him but rather to The Partridge Family. My view is that it shouldn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "I Think I Love You" - credited to 'The Partridge Family, starring Shirley Jones, featuring David Cassidy' - was the only US #1 on which he sang lead vocals. Its follow-up, "Doesn't Somebody Want to Be Wanted", was credited the same way and was his second biggest US hit. Credited as a solo artist, his biggest US hit was "Cherish". But none of those were as big in the UK as "How Can I Be Sure" and "Daydreamer", which both made #1 in the British charts. And of course he had chart hits in other countries. Which two hits should be listed here? Personally I veer towards not listing any of his Partridge Family hits, but including both his UK #1 hits - but, happy to discuss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Cassidy was from the UK then I would agree that using his 2 #1 UK hits, but he was an American recording artist and it was in the US that he rose to fame/teen idol status and had the most success. Using two UK hits would give the impression that he was most successful in that country, which just isn't the case. If the Partridge Family hits are not going to be included, then "Cherish" needs to be one of them. It was #9 on the Hot 100 as well as #1 on the Easy Listening chart and a hit worldwide. "How Can I Be Sure" could be the second one listed as it was both a top 25 hit in the U.S. and a #1 hit in the U.K. I do believe if only 3 credits are going to be listed then two should come as a singer, rather than as an actor, as that was his main claim to fame. BurienBomber (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The critical point is that it was not credited as a David Cassidy song, but by The Partridge Family. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is not correct and misleading. The Partridge Family did not die, but its lead singer did, and without him, there are no Partridge Family songs. How Can I Be Sure barely made your Top 25 mention. It was only 25. But the main point is you picked only two UK hits, while ignoring his major hits from the other countries: US, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. Why not adding his #1 hit in three countries, #2 in another, and #5 in yet another, which is also the most recognizable association song played in news mentions of him, I Think I Love You? Who ordered only 2 songs have to be shown and not 3? I've regularly seen on the Deaths in YEAR page 3 items associated with a famous person who dies if there was more than one or two. Something is wrong here in focusing so narrowly only on his UK charting, while ignoring countries that together totaled over 7 times UKs population. Oye289 (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, he was the vocalist for the Partridge Family. It was not just an acting credit as is implied in the entry. BurienBomber (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Cherish" and "How Can I Be Sure" (he's dead) that get my vote, as being the most representative worldwide of his own recording career. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with those two, per Derek R Bullamore. Ref (chew)(do) 19:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(But I'd shorten the whole entry by dropping Ruby & The Rockits, as this certainly has no relevance in UK television history, never having been shown here.) Ref (chew)(do) 19:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Refsworldlee - I'd never even heard of Ruby & The Rockits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-inserted "Cherish" in place of "Day Dreamer" as it so far is the closest thing to a consensus that has been reached regarding his song credits. "Cherish" is his biggest solo hit in the US. "Day Dreamer" did not even chart in the U.S. BurienBomber (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and if "I Think I Love You" is not listed as the first entry, then NO songs should be listed. He was a US performer, not from the UK. I don't know what is the matter with the editors who don't want ITILY to be listed, as it was #1 for 3 weeks, and by far his most well-known song worldwide. It was not only #1 in the U.S., but also in Australia and Canada, #2 in Ireland, and #5 in New Zealand. On the year-end chart for 1970, it was a strong #6 on the Billboard list. So, what is the problem in not showing it, unless you agree not to show any songs, because the other two were not as strong, or made the impact that ITILY did, and not just on the charts but also on background music when a news item about him is shown. Oye289 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it's a worldwide encylopedia, for all the nations of the world to share and to refer to, and Cassidy's information belongs to more than just his home country. Furthermore, it's for all editors to agree on an order and content of information, not for just one to step through everyone else to post his personal favourites. Why would you think that everyone would automatically agree with your particular favourite? That's a narrow viewpoint indeed. Ref (chew)(do) 16:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a worldwide encyclopedia, then why is his best-known and mentioned song in any obituaries or articles about him, not mentioned in favor of two UK songs that either did not make the US charts, or was only a weak #25 ("How Can I Be Sure?")? I never heard of "Daydreamer" until now! How do you reconcile those facts with your point about worldwide, when you ignore any of his songs from the US? Couldn't you at least agree to add "I Think I Love You" instead of shutting it out entirely? 3 songs, two from the UK, one from the US. Better yet, get rid of "How Can I Be Sure? and replace it with "Cherish" which charted higher. Oye289 (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody forgot the term worldwide includes not only his home country, but his mos

If I'm reading Oye right, it's not his personal favourite, but the one at least five nations of the record-buying world agreed to buy more than the others. That counts for something. Technically a Partridge Family tune, but that doesn't change the fact that he sang it, which is what matters here. I don't think being from anywhere should weigh on what people accomplish anywhere else. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, November 23, 2017 (UTC)
You are definitely reading me correctly! Two songs from the UK and none from the US? And REF claims this is a worldwide encyclopdia? C'mon, this is excluding his home country, his best-known song worldwide, biased for two lesser UK songs on their singles chart! Oye289 (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was squared away? Just saw it reverted again. Rusted AutoParts 21:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sir. A couple of eds have been in changing things - one of them even ignored the Rule Of Three - which is what prompted me to urge them to post here instead. Needs watching. Ref (chew)(do) 22:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I’d seen an edit summary by Ghmyrtle saying there was a consensus tonwhst he was swapping. Insane more changes to it so I thought consensus was being ignored or something. Rusted AutoParts 22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering. When Mick Jagger dies (100 years from now...) will this page list "Just Another Night" and "Let's Work" (his two highest charting purely solo recordings) since songs he sang as lead singer of The Rolling Stones shouldn't count? Yes, David Cassidy had a solo career, but the one thing everyone knows about him is he was in The Partridge Family (both the show and lead singer of the band) and their biggest hit was "I Think I Love You". 99.192.82.168 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot please all of the people all of the time." And that is a major problem in a list such as the one we try to maintain here. Playing favourites is not an option, because so many varied editors have so many varied favourites. I protect consensus fervently, but if that consensus counts against what I would personally like to see in an entry, I just bite my tongue and swallow it. It has to stop somewhere. Ref (chew)(do) 00:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let there be no doubt. I think editing decisions should be done by consensus as well. But my question is why what would seem like an absurd entry for Mick Jagger is viewed by some as the right answer for David Cassidy. The cases are exact parallels. Just saying "we should go with the consensus" does not explain why people are supporting a bizarre position that his best known work shouldn't be listed here because it wasn't solo work. Perhaps they might reconsider. In the case of the recent death of Tom Petty, no songs were listed, His entry reads:
Tom Petty, 66, American Hall of Fame musician (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Traveling Wilburys) and voice actor (King of the Hill), heart attack.
We could do the same for Cassidy and not list any songs but list his credits as actor in The Partridge Family show, lead singer of The Partridge Family band, and also solo artist. The more plausible entry for Mick Jagger (100 years from now...) would say lead singer of the Stones, solo artist, and actor. Names of songs are not needed.99.192.82.168 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, yeah! If you're famous for singing in a notable band, we mention your band. It's basically law around here. Forgot about upholding that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, November 24, 2017 (UTC)
So, REF, were you the one who re-inserted the two songs now showing, as that is the consensus here? I don't see a problem with adding "I Think I Love You" and either getting rid of "How Can I Be Sure? and replace it with "Cherish" which charted higher and in more countries, or removing all the songs entirely. What is your preference, and what is the real consensus here if Wiki is a worldwide encyclopedia? Oye289 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing apple with pears, or chalk and cheese, whichever expression you are familiar with. Jagger's own musical output outside of The Stones is minimal; Cassidy's similarly was not. It was not the Partridge Family connection that kids wet their knickers over back in the day. Whatever, the previously agreed consensus for his entry is now well established, and any continual raking over the coals is counter-productive. "I Think I Love You" will have its time in this dubious, death related limelight, for others who expire from the Partridge clan. Time to move on. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here started literally yesterday. You can move on if you like, but I just got here and want to discuss it. Your participation is up to you. 99.192.82.168 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oye289 - the answer is "no", I did not change anything regarding the song titles - better still, why don't you go look at the edit history to find out who you can blame next for that? I'd also rather you got off my personal back with veiled accusations about this and instead address your comments to every editor contributing to this discussion here (my editor name is not spelt in upper case lettering, by the way, lest I suspect you are shouting). I'm not interested in the particular songs featured, or inserting any personal favourites - just maintaining the status quo of consensus. If this now-gathering consensus decides to go with others of his songs or none at all, then so be it. I do not edit war, therefore I'm off this discussion. Ref (chew)(do) 07:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you got so upset, and I capitalized your name to have it shown easier. (Maybe I should have italicized it instead.) I thought omitting the song was a gross oversight. I Think I Love You was his most recognizable song worldwide: #1 in 3 countries, #2 in another, and #5 in another. Just because it hit #18 in the UK is no reason to omit it. There is a huge UK bias on this point in showing only 2 of his songs instead of 3 I've seen from others who died and had that many legacies (4 would usually be too lengthy), and I don't believe that is fair. That was my point. Oye289 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "the one thing everyone knows about him is he was in The Partridge Family" is simply untrue. For a time, he was a huge teen idol outside the US, among people who had never seen The Partridge Family. Any comparison with Jagger is absurd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Now that we have started seeing reliable published obituaries, from both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear that most mention "I Think I Love You" as his first and biggest hit, globally - even though it wasn't credited to him (except in a relatively minor way). So, on the basis that here we defer to what reliable sources say, I'm now comfortable with replacing one of his solo hits with that one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, why hasn't "I Think I Love You" been added? The obit mentions only two songs, ITILY, and "Cherish." "How Can I Be Sure?" needs to either be removed, or listed last of those three. Also, in the Deaths listing, it now says "liver failure" instead of "organ failure." Liver failure isn't in the obit. Oye289 (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are still disagreeing about which songs to list, so let me suggest that we just not list any. As I noted above, the entry for Tom Petty reads like this:

Tom Petty, 66, American Hall of Fame musician (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Traveling Wilburys) and voice actor (King of the Hill), heart attack.

If we use that as a model for Cassidy (that names bands and shows but not songs), we would get something like this:

David Cassidy, 67, American pop singer (The Partridge Family, solo artist) and actor (The Partridge Family), liver failure.

Because I anticipate someone might say "The Partridge Family is listed twice and that's redundant, so there are not three things listed" I will note that "The Partridge Family" WITHOUT italics is the name of a musical group and "The Partridge Family" WITH italics is the name of a television show. They just happen to share the same words in their names. So my suggestion does name three things. [Think of how "This Is Spinal Tap" is the name of the film and "Spinal Tap" is the name of the band.] We do all seem to agree that he is famous for (1) being the lead singer of a band (2) being a solo artist and (3) being in a popular television show, so we don't need to quibble about which songs to list at all. 99.192.82.168 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Partridge Family was never a real band. It was a TV show, and records were released (successfully) under the name of the show. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define "real". On second thought, never mind. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and you know as well as I do that there are a ton of sources that clearly accept that they are a real band. They were even nominated for a Grammy Award. 99.192.82.168 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Beesley[edit]

His death has just been announced having happened in late November, but no date given. How is this posted? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42394478 217.33.151.75 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undated deaths are reported on the day of the announcement, followed by "(death announced on this date)". WWGB (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_November_2017&oldid=1209440814"