Talk:Deaths in 2008

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Years This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Death This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009.

Archives

January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008

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:

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]

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)

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]

I think it is a good idea to remove the red links from the Deaths in 2008 article and have these links ( maybe they are not always to be red links, but can become blue and ckickable links) placed here in template boxes. This way we can check out people who have died but have not yet being given an article in Wikipedia, and then anybody who is prepared to do reseach can create an article about a person who is recently deceased .No harm then in having such red link reference boyes here in the talk page 217.83.163.172 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather a good idea to have a list of red links for this article, simply so that it shows at a glance how many entries are still article-less after a given period of time, and can be deleted from the main list. Several of the red links in the boxes above have gone blue, so they were deemed notable enough to have articles written about them. Just because someone doesn't have an article written about them, it does not necessarily mean they are not notable. I think some of the comments made about the boxes above are rather negative and mealy-mouthed. Inappropriate use of a talk page? Wow... the guy was only trying to help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This obsessional hatred that some editors display for capital letters is very grating. Firstly, please note that no-one has disputed the correct application of the Manual of Style on this issue. Secondly, this page is part of a wider encyclopaedia and should be in line with usage on other pages which does not have such a detestation. Thirdly, as a matter of common sense, usage should be in line with what is used in the outside world; if the Chancellor of Austria is given capital letters within Austria, then he should have capital letters here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had several strong debates with Jagdfeld concerning this matter. While I may not agree with his position, I acknowledge his consistency and persistence. As editors, we should be guided on this matter by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles, which states in part that the correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. So far so good.

It goes on to state "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. This I find quite bizarre. Surely the King is the King regardless of the structure of a particular sentence.

As examples of what I believe should be correct use of capitals, I list the following selected deaths from late July 2008 as they currently appear:

• Falani Aukuso, Tokelauan politician, deputy director general of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. [1]
• Anne Armstrong, 80, American diplomat and politician, ambassador to the United Kingdom (1976–1977), cancer. [2]
• Eric Varley, Baron Varley, 75, British politician, secretary of state for Industry (1975–1979), cancer. [3]
• Anatoliy Tyazhlov, 66, Russian politician, governor of Moscow Oblast (1991–2000). [4] (Russian)
• Julius B. Richmond, 91, American vice admiral, surgeon general (1977–1981), cancer. [5]

which I believe should be written as follows, being titles or ranks:

• Falani Aukuso, Tokelauan politician, Deputy Director General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. [6]
• Anne Armstrong, 80, American diplomat and politician, Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1976–1977), cancer. [7]
• Eric Varley, Baron Varley, 75, British politician, Secretary of State for Industry (1975–1979), cancer. [8]
• Anatoliy Tyazhlov, 66, Russian politician, Governor of Moscow Oblast (1991–2000). [9] (Russian)
• Julius B. Richmond, 91, American Vice Admiral, Surgeon General (1977–1981), cancer. [10]

WWGB (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

The purpose of a Wikilink is to link to another article on Wikipedia (or at least a redirect). If there is nothing to link to, there shouldn't be a link. So many people on this page are added that don't have an article, it seems that this is done merely for cosmetic reasons, or worse, because some editors don't understand the purpose of the link.

Unless someone says otherwise, if I click on a link and it leads nowhere, I will remove it.Ryoung122 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles here have redlinks to topics which have not yet had articles written about them, including people listed here. It's often the case, in my experience, that someone will come along and create the article, even if it's only a stub. In the case of this page, it seems customary to leave redlinks for about a month to see if the article is created; it would therefore seem contrary to prevailing consensus just to remove them, because then the chance of articles being created is reduced, because the need is no longer visible. Different considerations apply if the person is unlikely ever to be notable, but then if that is the case, they won't be listed here. --Rodhullandemu 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tend to see the opposite: if someone notices there is no article, they are more likely to create one. Creating false links leads people to think that the article has already been made.Ryoung122 08:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think red/blue colour-blindess is that prevalent in the population that such a basic error would be made. Seriously, though, I think we agree on the point, but I'm not sure what you mean by a "false link". If you mean wikilinking to the wrong person, that's not uncommon, and those who keep an eye on this page will spot it soon enough and create a proper DABlink. --Rodhullandemu 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the policy of leaving redlinks on for a month works fine, but the case of Brian Smith is no different than any other criminal. There has long been a consensus for that if a criminal is a redlink, they have no significance and should be removed immediately. Star Garnet (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we currently have no way of knowing that. And he is not just an alleged criminal, he is an alleged criminal, and a serious criminal, who happened to be a police officer. Perhaps not so unusual these days, but I would prefer to leave something in place on which to hang an encyclopedic treatment, because otherwise it's all to easy to forget it. Redlinks should act as clue to "is it worth developing?", and because of the way deaths are cursorily reported here, all too often editors don't see fit to take the time to pursue even a cursory investigation into notability. Sure, an Archbishop in the Phillippines is inherently notable, but I don't see those entries being deleted simply because nobody cares to put flesh on the bones. --Rodhullandemu 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought that people whose only significant act should be included, or for that matter, have their own article. That actually goes against Wikipedia policy. He may have gained significance at a trial, but now that he's dead, there is no chance of that. It's the same repeated argument that a person is significant simply for having been murdered. Should every Iraqi militant who was a colonel under Hussein be added when they are killed? Star Garnet (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well neither have I. But if it turns out that prior to going off the rails, this guy was notable in some other way of which nobody has seen fit to create an article here, because they were unaware of it, we lose that opportunity by deleting a one-line report here because then it simply won't be picked up. In this case, it's early days because all the press reports have is his death. OK, if he turns out to be just another bent copper, kick him into touch; but it's too early to assess that, and we can't trust initial press reports to perform due diligence in their investigations. That, as I see it, is the reason we allow a month for redlinks to be developed if it is appropriate so to do. But to take a value-judgement this early without the full picture has got to be a breach of WP:NPOV. "Nil nisi bonum", etc. --Rodhullandemu 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]