Talk:Deaths in 2008

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

January 2008 February 2008 March 2008

A user keeps removing this with the argument that 'suicide is not a cause of death' - maybe not, but then neither is 'gunshot' or 'homicide'. It's a method of death, and should be distinguished - e.g. suicide by hanging is completely different from an accidental strangulation, or a judicial execution. Can an admin rule on this, please? Be best (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't generally "rule" on such matters; outcomes are best decided by discussion and, hopefully, consensus. I tend to think that suicide IS a legitimate cause of death, but I'm not prepared to revert others until there is some debate. I guess that makes the tally 2 – 0 at present. WWGB (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - but I don't know what the procedure is if two users both hold legitimate views on such matters. I don't want to get into an edit war with someone over this, but I do feel strongly it should be noted. Be best (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have occasionally made the point that suicide isn't a cause of death; there was one recent case, but that's the only recent one from memory. It's certainly valid information biographically speaking, but strictly speaking it isn't a "cause of death" in the medical sense that we use in this list. If the person hanged himself, then the cause of death is strangulation, and whether it's self-inflicted, externally inflicted or accidental is not really the essential point but secondary information; if they shot themselves, the cause of death is gunshot wound to the head, heart or wherever, leading to exsanguination ... . "Homicide", equally, isn't a cause of death - it recognises the fact that another person wilfully cause the subject's death, but doesn't specify what the method was. The cause is poisoning, gunshot wound, suffocation, strangulation, massive injury caused by being pushed out of a plane onto Death Valley, drowning, or whatever the method of choice was. I'm not arguing that we should excise all mention of suicide, or homicide for that matter; but as I say it's secondary to the actual physical cause. If all we know is the person committed suicide, but not how they did it, we should not just say "suicide", because this tells us nothing about how the death occurred. The fact that they killed themselves, which is all it tells us, is not what killed them. Once we learn more about the method of suicide, then it would be appropriate to say that whatever it was was self-inflicted, or use the word "suicide". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent reversion, the method of death was jumping under a train. 'Suicide by train impact' was edited to 'train impact' which is, IMO, daft and uninformative. If we know for certain it's a suicide, then the method will be announced too, and both should be given. If all we know is from some report saying 'suicide' as recently we had with Heath Ledger, that's a sign that the report is unconfirmed and shouldn't be relied on. Very few of the 'causes of death' we list on this page would be found on a medical certificate so it's a distinction without a value.The pertinent thing we want to record for a notable death is how they died - and if the person dies by suicide (as opposed to accident or murder), that's as important to the reader as to the method they used. Be best (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the same argument, Cancer's a method of death too...you don't see people editing "cancer" to put "heart failure", "liver failure", "lung failure" or whatever part of the body actually failed because of the cancer's hold on the body and it's damage. Same goes with AIDS, although most of the time I've seen "AIDS-related" as the cause, so maybe "Suicide-related" and "Cancer-related" should be the result from this. For those of you *for* this suicide argument (who want "suicide" seen as a cause) you should point this one out and let the antis try to wheedle their way out of *that* argument :-) 87.194.44.145 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, let's use a bit of sense. People come to the Wikipedia Deaths page for information, not a debate on whether suicide can strictly be termed a 'cause' of death. If someone asked you how Kurt Cobain died, would you say 'through the impact of a bullet' or 'he shot himself'? Smurfmeister (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm not arguing that we should excise all mention of suicide, or homicide for that matter; but as I say it's secondary to the actual physical cause." in my opinion, it's precisly the other way round. Everyone has a physical cause of death, but not everyone has such comparatively unusual methods of death, making the latter more notable in these cases. tomasz. 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, Smurfmeister, there is dispute over how Kurt Cobain died. But if the official story is true, yes, he shot himself. Actually, according to a paramedic friend of mine, the only cause of death ever is cardiac arrest. DandyDan2007 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide is a "general" cause of death, just as is homicide, accident, or "natural causes". Typically, the more "specific" cause might be given - gunshot, falling off a house, heart attack, whatever. To say suicide is not a cause of death is silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Having read the above, then maybe our practice should be not to just say "suicide", as if that tells readers everything they want to know. Just saying "suicide" raises more questions than it answers, because there are countless ways in which a person can do away with themself. It needs to be accompanied with some more specific information about the method. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

none of the reversions I've seen stating 'suicide is not a cause of death' have in fact just said 'suicide' - in every case I've seen, the cause given has been 'suicide by xxxx', and the change has been to 'xxxx' which I find nonsensical. I agree, 'suicide' on its own is not a good CoD but if that's all we know from the sources, better to put that, than unknown - but when there's a reputable source, I've never seen 'suicide' alone as the cause. The objection from the people doing these edits is to 'suicide' itself, and from what people have said above, there seems broad agreement that 'suicide by xxxx' is a valid CoD for entries on the Deaths pages.Be best (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy with that. The last time I made an edit on this issue was where the original post just said "suicide" - [1]. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that... if it says "Suicide by XXX" it's good to go... if just "suicide" then it needs further explanation.Tom M. (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on "Suicide by..." as a descriptive alternative...suicide alone isn't enough 87.194.44.145 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think suicide is a cause of death though suicide by [whatever] is clearly better. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there agreement that famous animals, such as that Kentucky Derby horse, qualify for this list? Or did someone merely slip that one in? I do think it's reasonable to list famous animals, given that major news sources would be likely to list them, and often right next to famous humans. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous discussions at Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals and Talk:Deaths in January 2007#Barbaro. WWGB (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogereeny. And let's not forget that Sports Illustrated awarded its 1973 "Sportsman of the Year" to Secretariat, and ESPN regards Secretariat as among the top 100 athletes of the 20th century. And Secretariat is listed in the 1989 deaths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable animals are always listed here, I would say a general rule of thumb is that if they have an article they need to be included, there was a discussion about Best Mate that preceded Barbaro. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals do not belong on this list. Precedent be damned. It is an offense to those who've passed away and their family and friends that they are listed alongside mere animals. There should be a separate category for them elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.127.63 (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree that it is or that there should. A notable death is a notable death. tomasz. 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is not a book of condolence and should not be concerned with anyone who might be offended because their loved ones are listed alongside animals, some of whom are infinitely more notable in cold, hard encyclopedic terms than some of the humans listed here. If someone or something dies that was previously alive, and is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then he, she or it should be listed here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far from animals being here being offensive to grieving people it is your comments that are offensive, 209. Mere animals? As if we are not animals and as if we could live without them. Your anti-animal stance breaks our neutrality policy. This issue goes way back on this page, it was Best Mate in 2006. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or more editors using anonymous IP addresses in the range 59.94.xxx.xxx are replacing suitable citations with alternative references to dailynews365 or topnews365. In most cases, these alternative references are inferior to the original. This seems like some kind of weird spam situation to promote the website. Some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Other editors may wish to check that future edits from this source are made in the best interest of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to revert unless it's the only reference available. But these people are amazingly persistent. I see they reverted you, and there are numerous reversions and re-reversions in the history. Does the '3-edit' rule thing apply in this situation? Be best (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consult with an admin to be sure, but reverting junk is exempt from 3RR limits, as far as I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's an argument for putting a temporary block on the IP address 59.94.242.200 at the very least? Look at the page history just for the last few hours. Be best (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consult an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report on WP:AIAV in the future, and yes, spam reverts are exempt from 3RR. -- Y not be working? 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sites are now blacklisted. Good riddance. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. Because reverting and reporting their crap was getting very old.Be best (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like their website pushers went feral on 3 March when they discovered the site was blacklisted. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. Love the innocent act.I notice that latest IP address wasn't blocked, only warned. What does a group of IP addresses have to do to get banned around here? Be best (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone have anyone opinions as to whether this is appropriate for the external links? To me it seems like memorializing, especially since we don't tend to list military deaths in action. tomasz. 20:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems harsh not to link to a site honouring soldiers who actually die serving their country, when we seem to list every two-bit politician however minor, but I agree. It's a memorial site. One I wish there was no need for. Maybe there should be a separate memorial page listing or something. I can understand why people would want to list this here and it sucks to be all officious over the grieving.Be best (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the deaths reported there do not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. It's a memorial, not a list of notable deaths. I'm for reverting. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new day should always be added as soon after midnight east of the international dateline as possible and removing it looks to me like simple vandalism. Please don't. We are an interantional encyclopedia, which people seem to forget all too easily. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I've been doing the removing, because it really doesn't make much of a difference to me, but I thought that they were being removed because there was no one listed under them. A few months back there was a day when no one notable (ie. with a Wikipedia article) died, so the page just skips over that date (I think? I can't find what month that was anymore). Cheers, CP 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Deaths in September 2007#17 and, yes, the lonely 17 still appears. WWGB (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... well in that case, they should remain. Cheers, CP 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales isn't like a state in America or Australia. It's a separate country and nation. It's entirely appropriate for someone to be identified as 'Welsh' rather than 'British' or simply from the United Kingdom. It's akin to Canadians not really caring for being called Americans, despite the fact they're all on the same continent. Be best (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see British Government website which refers to British nationality, and to British nationality law#Classes of British nationality. I look forward to references that support the alternative point of view! Cheers, WWGB (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's either 'Welsh' linking back to Wales or he's British. But to call him Welsh and link back to United Kingdom is illogical. The BBC article on his death calls him Welsh, he worked for the National Orchestra of Wales, therefore it's reasonable to assume he identified as 'Welsh' primarily, and the 'Welsh' bit is important for a recognition of his notability. I wasn't aware Wikipedia asked what passports people hold before assigning a nationality. From my understanding from my long residence in the UK, that government website is wrong. People identify as 'English', 'Welsh' or 'Scots' for nationality, or 'British' if they don't feel a particular tie to one country or the other. They all hold British passports as citizens of the United Kingdom. But you wouldn't link a Scottish subject back to 'United Kingdom' would you? That would be nonsensical. Be best (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of droning on, I will just make the following points:

1. The amended entry was British linking back to United Kingdom, not Welsh linking back to United Kingdom.

2. The heading at Deaths in 2008 asks for country of citizenship.

3. The government website is wrong? Yikes!!

4. I can't agree that one's nationality is determined by how you feel. Surely it has a legal basis?

5. I identify as a New South Welshman, but I'm still Australian. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the boss. Do what you like. NSW isn't a *country* though, is it. Be best (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep it mind for your entry, WWGB. Just make sure you meet notability by the time you die, k? One good way is to sleep with the Governor of New York. -- Y not be working? 17:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an Englishman I'll endorse WWGB on this one. As the opening says, state country of citizenship. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that instead of archiving a whole month at the end of a month we archive on a regualr basis but keep deaths here for more or less a month. People are in such hurry to archive that at the beginning of a month this page is blanked and those notables unfortunate enough to die at the end of a month literally never get to see the light of day on this page which drastically reduces its effectiveness at the beginning of the month. I ma happy to do the extra work, what do others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the "rollover" that occurs at the end of each month is actually "archiving". The Contents box at Deaths in 2008 lists every date in the current month, but also every month in the current year, so any death this year is at most two clicks away. The only deceased who get a raw deal are those who die on 31 December - they certainly disappear from the current view very quickly. I'm inclined to vote for the present system, but interested to hear what others think. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the red linked ones should appear on an archive page, if anyone wants to create an article on them in the future. Many notables get deleted from the list simply because they are from a non-English speaking country. For example see Herman Le Compte, whose article would still probably not be in existance had I not started it. Editorofthewiki 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the deaths that happen at the end of a month remain on the "main" recent deaths page (and by that I mean the one you get to from the very top English Wikipedia page). It can sometimes take several days for a death to make it onto the page, or for me to get around to looking at the recent deaths page (which is how I find out about a lot of deaths). If somebody dies in the last days of the month, I'm likely to miss them because they've been filed away at the stroke of midnight. Five days would be enough. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we do need to keep a list of redlinks that have been removed from this page. Here is a list of redlinks that have appeared on this page and various archive pages as per revisions on the first of the following month - the earliest threshold at which the names would be deleted:

Recent deaths

February Hans Roth | Robert Luly | Joan Eikelboom | Ralph White | Boris Nebieridze Deiter Noll | George Hekkers | Kunal Singh | Helen Mayer | Sławomir Kulpowicz John Dillenberger | Frank Dixon | Gene Knutson | Vumile Dladla | Stephane Peru Edward McDonough | Sergio Angeletti | Mark Stenberg | Rick Selvin | Alexander Samarskiy Raúl Salinas | Neville Holt | S. M. Aslam Talukder | Miguel Zanetti | Yelena Sabitova Raymond Kennedy | Thawa | Arakem Peixoto | Souheil Idriss | Dorothy Wood Felton Giuseppe Bicocchi | Arun Kale | Piet Dam | Billy Jack Murphy | Johnny Vadnal Vladimir Troshin | Artur Eizen | Mira Alečković | Gary Rowe | Lloyd Mumba Barry Galton

Similarly, all the undeleted redlinks from January's page are accessible via this link. Anyone fancy doing any of those? Bobo. 11:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather thought the practice was for the wording "[start year]-[end year]" for terms of office that already finished in the year a subject had died, as distinguished from "from [start year]" for terms that were still ongoing at time of death. Thoughts? tomasz. 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support this based on your articulating your point well. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look back, 'since' is has not been used longterm on the deaths page. It wouldn't be fitting if the Deaths in 1901 section said "President X, XX, President of X since X. Using 'since' gives the impression that the person is still alive. Star Garnet (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing these pages since they were Deaths in 2006, and as i say, i was under the impression that that was how we'd been doing it long-term. Also, i don't think there's much danger of "since 200x" being interpreted as meaning that the subject is still alive on a page named "Deaths in 2008". tomasz. 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is better, then it would be best to unify the standard, going back infinitely. Star Garnet (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) while i'm sure quite a lot of them will already be in these terms, i am definitely prepared to do this; i just thought i'd seek opinions before doing it first as it would be a fairly rigorous set of checks. tomasz. 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source says he was 84, but another source says he was 83. Is there a proper procedure for dealing with age discrepancies? DandyDan2007 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica article shows he was 83. (At least now they can take the rifle from his "cold dead hands"). WWGB (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question; it just adds yet another citation to the already bulging pile. There are about 3 separate threads on his talk page that debate his true year of birth. I'm sure the article will change frequently as new information arrives. As to your general question, we need to show the subject's age consistently, on this list and their own article. If one changes for good reasons, so should the other. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be listed as 83, since he hadn't celebrated his 84th birthday yet; his b-day's not until October. - Cubs Fan (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changed him from 8 April to 7 April yet the cite does not support this. Further, his article, which I made say merely "April 2008", now says 8 April. As far as I can tell, we have NO information as to when he actually died. He may have died on Saturday for all we know. It was announced today; that's all we know at this stage. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources [7] [8] [9] refer to his death "overnight" which narrows it to 7/8 April. Nothing appears to be more accurate than that at present. WWGB (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved now, see his talk page for details. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Frank Little (priest) for a problem with Little's date of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE HELL!?! I FOUND OUT HIS DEATH, EVEN SUPPLIED A CITATION - AND HIS OBIT WAS DELETED!?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FANS OF MONK!?! DOESN'T HIS FANS DESERVE THE HONOR OF HIS PASSING!?! Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, take a chill pill and stop shouting. The notice is still there on 8 April: see Deaths in 2008#8. You originally posted the date of death as 10 April, which was wrong. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay, thanks! Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the red links of February i am creating one for January & March. I will delete of if they get created. I have added what they are notable for. I have also added notability for February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs)

Deaths
January 2008 O. G. Style - Rapper | Jana Shearer - Murder Victim | Yosef Nachmias - Commissioner of Police | Lynn Demarest - Photographer | Manuel Padilla, Jr. - Actor Leszek Owsiany - WWII Pilot | Jack D. Johnson - Country Music Manager | Mark Schwed - TV Critic | John W. Myers - WWII Pilot

Deaths

February 2008 Hans Roth - Entrepreneur | Robert Luly - Guitarist | Joan Eikelboom - Equestrian | Ralph White - Cinematographer | Boris Nebieridze - Director Deiter Noll - Author | George Hekkers - NFL Player | Kunal Singh - Actor | Helen Mayer - Politician | Sławomir Kulpowicz - Pianist John Dillenberger - Hartford Seminary President | Frank Dixon - Biologist | Gene Knutson - NFL Player | Vumile Dladla - Football Player | Stephane Peru - Colorist Edward McDonough - Healing Priest | Sergio Angeletti - Cartoonist | Mark Stenberg - Rapper | Rick Selvin - Editor | Alexander Samarskiy - Mathematician Raúl Salinas - Poet | Neville Holt - Sport Shooter | S. M. Aslam Talukder - Actor | Miguel Zanetti - Musician | Yelena Sabitova - Boxer Raymond Kennedy - Novelist | Thawa - Photographer | Arakem Peixoto - Musician | Souheil Idriss - Writer | Dorothy Wood Felton - Politician Giuseppe Bicocchi - Politician | Basavarajeshwari - Politician | Arun Kale - Poet | Piet Dam - Rallycross Driver | Billy Jack Murphy - College Football Coach | Johnny Vadnal - Polka Bandleader Vladimir Troshin - Actor | Artur Eizen - Opera Singer | Mira Alečković - Poet | Gary Rowe - Tennessee Representative | Lloyd Mumba - Footballer Barry Galton - Journalist | Maria Adelaide Aboim Inglez - Anti-Fascist Resistant

Deaths

March 2008 Stella Bruce - Writer | William Brice - Artist | Enrico Job - Scenographer | Erwin Ballabio - Footballer | Joel Serrão - Historian Jimmy Faulkner - Guitarist | John Callaghan - Sportscaster | Erica Jesselson - Benefactor | Cliff Thomas - Songwriter | Miguel Lemos - Journalist Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud - Saudi Sister | Bill Hayward - Producer | Harriet Casdin-Silver - Artist | Rogério Ribeiro - Painter | Lee Ho-seong - Baseball Player Marianne Gullestad - Social Anthropologist | Richard Burke - Bicycle Maker | Zakaria Md Deros - Politician | David Mwenje - Politician | Scarlet Garcia - Model Bill Bolick - Music Performer | Gary Binfield - Swimmer | Kjell Swanberg - Columnist | Rodrigues Maximiano - Magistrate | Živojin Žika Milenković - Actor Aaron Asher - Editor | Miguel Cidras - Maestro | Robert Dyk - Reporter | Georgy Gachev - Philosopher | Hugo Correa - Sci Fi Writer Rune Borg - Entrepreneur | Rajbir Singh - Police Commissioner | Ivan Toms - Physician | Sérgio de Souza - Journalist | Sergey Kramarenko - Goalkeeper William Hyland - National Security Advisor | Jean Davies - Judge | Erwin Wickert - Writer | Jayci Yaeger - Cancer Patient | Beverly Broadman - Broadcaster Bill Sterner - CEO | Myint Thein - Spokesman | Raul Donazar Calvet - Footballer | Chris "Punch" Andrews - Broadcaster

Can someone please explain the significance of this information? None of these people have Wikipedia articles, hence their notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of "stuff". I also believe that this material breaches Wikipedia guidelines as it introduces article content inappropriately into a talk page. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Serrão has an article in the PT wikipedia, I'm sure there's more. Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud wasn't just any Saudi sister, she was a princess. Just because someone doesn't have an article in Wikipedia does not mean they are not notable; rather, no one has given a damn to start one. Editorofthewiki 01:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is, or was, notable enough to rate a Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia article will eventually be created about them without this goading. Why are we being urged to create an article about Al-Bandari bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud (or anybody else) at this precise point? If she is, or was, notable, why wasn't an article created about her in her lifetime? Her death has not propelled her to notability. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologise (or, apologize) for using the word 'goading' in my last comment; there was a touch of the pejorative about it, without which we could all do. 'Encouragement' would have been a better choice. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the body's been found, it means he's dead. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Children's TV presenter Mark Speight found dead in station" - unambiguous. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A body believed to be that of missing children's TV presenter Mark Speight has been found in Paddington Station in London." - yeah, real unambiguous..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until they officially confirm it's him, he can't be posted on here. Steveweiser (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we don't know the exact date of death either, so we can't put it under a particular date yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's papers say it's him, and that he's been dead since 7 April. Steveweiser (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tear up policy. Put what you like in. I've now had eight hours of this. It's an encyclopedia, not a blog. It can wait. Meanwhile, articles have not been written, other things have had to wait. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After checking FIVE different sources the death remains UNVERIFIED, removed latest inclusion of his death on this page. See discussion on Mark Speight page, we owe accuracy the few hours till proper ID OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here are just some of the "reliable, third-party published sources " that refer to Speight's death. So let's just all sit on our hands and do nothing because, um, he may just be alive. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] WWGB (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the papers say he's dead (which he is, we know that, but hey, who cares that the body has yet to be identified...). That aside, we do not know the date of death, therefore how on Earth can we add him to this list? We could add him on the date he sadly went missing, or the date his body was found, but there's absolutely nothing to state he died on either of these days. Wikipedia has no deadline, nor are we a news source clammering to 'out-scoop' the rest, so just be patient, for crying out loud. _TalkIslander 09:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we add him to the list? By doing what we have been doing here for years - placing an entry on the date last seen alive. See, for example, the entry for Steve Fossett on 3 Sep 2007. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just bloody put him on the list. Half the other people on there haven't had postmortems, etc., for all we know! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People look at this list because it is kept very up-to-date (don't they?). I often look here for the latest news links on fluid situations. It is bound to be corrected as and when needed. Not putting things in - even though the evidence is overwhelming - just because of the bare possibility of correction is UNHELPFUL. By the way, if someone is known to have died between two dates, but no one knows precisely when, what is the legal date of death? Does the coroner decide a most probable date/time of death for testamentary, insurance (& other legal) purposes? Jagdfeld (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His obituary is in the newspaper, yet Mr. Speight lives on in the pages of Wikipedia. Is there some sort of conspiracy at work to keep him alive. Perhaps the good editors of Wikipedia know more than the rest of us... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do, it's called policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "policy" on wikipedia too often means do-gooding stupidity. Numbskull "policy" is strangling it (and the goodwill of bona-fide editors) as much as vandalism. Wherever possible "policy" should be made by the consensus of editors of the article it is being applied to. They know what is useful. Jagdfeld (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may know what is "useful". But not what is permitted. That's why we have Admins; and, if necessary, lawyers. Every editor should be aware of policy, and if they don't, they are likely to learn it the hard way. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not a news service. Please try to get used to that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITN/C is a forum for proposing and developing a consensus on which news items should be included on the ITN template. Because of repeated disputes about objectively assessing the importance of a recently deceased person (specifically the non-inclusion of Edmund Hillary, Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Bobby Fischer) in light of the limits imposed by existing criteria, we are attempting to compile a reasonably authoritative list of important living people in connection with revising the criteria. The proposal is that if someone on the list died, that would warrant an automatic nomination at the very least. The list does not have a hard ceiling on size, but it is anticipated that, unlike recent deaths, there would be no more than on the order of 1 name per week (yes, it's morbid); thus importance might be calibrated to the 50 most important people who died in 2007. Given your experience with making evaluations on importance, your contributions and feedback to this list and its criteria would be much appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to read Ceceilia Colledge had died without being reported anywhere but in Wiki-Deaths. I checked the reference source, a website called icenetwork.com, and have no reason to doubt their reliability, however, I am concerned that I can find no other reference to her death anywhere. Five different search engines, both news oriented and otherwise all had nothing to support her passing, including the BBC (she was born in and will be buried in England) and the Boston Herald (she lived and reportedly died in Boston) Even the Olympic Games Official Website seems to indicate she may be alive (date of birth listed but no date of death) I am not sure how this sort of thing is handled or addressed but would like to know for future knowledge. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Obituary in The Times. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And a good example why it can be prudent to avoid the "delete first and ask questions later" approach. Thanks again! OneHappyHusky (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]