Talk:2009/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The "record" crowd at President Obama's Inauguration

This may have been the largest crowd at a US Presidential inauguration (as the citation asserts) but this page is not 2009 in the United States. Unless the crowd was the biggest for any country's presidential inauguration, which I doubt but it is possible, then it is only of relevance to the United States and has no notability for this page. Whether any "record" of this nature is more than trivia is also debatable. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This inauguration was anticipated internationally and was undoubtedly attended by a very international crowd. One could say that the attendance record is the practical culmination of this anticipation, and is therefore even more internationally notable than the fact that he's the first Black president, which is internationally notable enough (Africa + America) in its own right. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave up a long time ago arguing those points.

It will stay because it is a US piece of trivia. It does not matter that it is not a first, it does not matter if it is a common event, it does not matter that it is of no importance outside the US, it will stay. FFMG (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So it will stay because Americans think anything about them is automatically important to the rest of the world and no amout of logical reasoning will change that? No wonder wikipedia is going to the dogs! DerbyCountyinNZ 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Too US-centric. Needs to be taken out. Wrad (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other more trivial entries that need to be removed before this one. --Tocino 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Name them and we'll take them out. Trivial stuff shouldn't be here at all, I don't care what is taken out before or after anything else, personally. Wrad (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest most, if not all, the space flight entries, past and future; the astronomy entries; Flight 1549; the Icelandic finance-related entries; the Electronic System for Travel Authorization; Zimbabwean dollar; Dalai Lama; Khmer Rouge trial (maybe later, if he is found guilty); Darwin Day (see above, where I've already argued it's non-notability); in fact everything after the Australian bushfires (and the part about temperatures is the MOST trivial thing in this article!) except the Zimbabwe entry. Oh, and maybe half the January deaths. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that we should probably follow our own guideline and take out routine UN changes. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The ones that I would immediately remove are: Iceland police use tear gas; Zimbabwean dollar; Merkel criticizes Richard Williamson; Dalai Lama made honorary citizen of Paris; Darwin Day; Tamil Tigers attack Colombo. --Tocino 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like at least three of us agree with those (counting me), so go ahead and take them out for a start, Tocino. Wrad (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:2009#Darwin_Day. The rationale for removing Darwin Day did not strike me as particularly compelling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them. I may be supportive of deleting others, but I think we should wait a bit. --Tocino 19:15, 26 February 23 (UTC)

I've re-added Darwin Day due to the objection by Cosmic Latte. I think we need a greater consensus (more than just 3 vs. 1) for removing Darwin Day. --Tocino 19:20, 26 February 23 (UTC)

I agree on the items removed, (and Darwin Day Should go as well), but I think that flight 1549 should also be removed, bird strikes happen all the time and there is nothing really special/international about that one. FFMG (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Make it 4 to 1. Nothing happened on Darwin day this year to really change anything about anything. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Flight 1549 should definitely stay. Airliners don't normally land on the Hudson river right next to NYC. This event is very unique and notable. It's made Chesley Sullenberger into a house hold name. On the other hand, I am not sure if every plane crash should be listed. The one the crashed in Amsterdam is not particularly notable IMO. Why is the Amsterdam crash listed while the 2009 Manaus Aerotáxi crash is not? Not to sound heartless but the Amsterdam crash only killed 9 people compared to the 24 passengers who died in the Manaus Aerotáxi crash. --Tocino 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If it had happened in another country (maybe it already has!) and there had been no film coverage of the "landing" or immediately afterwards would it still be "notable"? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A turkish plane went down in similar fashion just this week. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my point exactly, it did happen [1], (but this time the pilot made it back to the runway), is that entry only in because the pilot could not turn around?

Bird strike happen [[all the time, every pilot trains for it, there is nothing special about that one. Granted, _where_ he landed/crashed might be interesting, but apart from that nothing special, and definitely nothing international.

For the record, he is not a house hold name in my country, and I'd wager that he is only a household name in the US, (and probably only in that state). FFMG (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well he's a house hold name in all 50 states and probably Canada too. And just a few days ago, Sullenberger's testimony to Congress was one of the lead stories on BBC World News and this is a month after the incident. The part that makes this crash unique is the ditched landing on the Hudson. Ditched landings for commercial airliners are extremely rare and this one is about a one in a million case considering the location. --Tocino 05:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still not sure he is such a household name, and in any case it looks like even if he is, he is only one in the US, (so maybe this entry should be in 2009 in the United States rather). As for the BBC showing it, I don't thinks it make him a household name, after all, they are the world largest broadcasters and it is US news, (hence the reason it was on BBC World Service).

Also, looking at the link you gave, it looks like water landings are not really 'one in a million' as you claim. There was Garuda Indonesia Flight 421, (in a river), in 1963 a Tupolev Tu-124 also landed in the river, while Eastern Air Lines Flight 375 landed in the Boston harbour. A few otehr planes successfully ditched in sea, so I guess you must agree that this particular incident is not a first, neither is it unique, (and it is not even a first in the US). FFMG (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read my previous post correctly. I said that the location of the ditch landing makes it a one in a million case. --Tocino 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, as well. Not too many planes crash in the middle of a metropolis, away from airports, with no fatalities. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes 1549 interesting isn't so much that it was a bird strike or a water landing, but that both of these things happened on a large, commercial flight and everyone survived. There were fatalities in both of the flights you linked. Furthermore, the fact that it happened to occur in the US means little when it could have happened in any place where airplanes, birds, and water coexist. That's a lot of places. So it's an important event in the history of a very widespread form of transportation, relevant to the activities of millions of people all around the world. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting isn't the same as notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, notable, fascinating, significant, spiffy, cool--whatever you want to call it. The word "notable" is tossed around a lot on here, but "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article", and it has already been established that US Airways Flight 1549 does. So the question isn't whether it's "notable," but whether it's WP:DUE--i.e., prominent and significant--and that is more along the lines of what I meant by "interesting." Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of articles which could be placed in 2009 just because they exist. If there were no other standard of notability other than having its own wiki article this page would reach 1000KB in no time. The point is that for this article more stringent criteria are needed to avoid this. That is why Year in Country and Year in Topic articles should be used for articles which are not sufficiently noatable for this page; to "spread the load" so to speak. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoud this go in?

• February_27 - Wheel airs it's 5000^th Episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkingt (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, never heard of 'Wheel airs', what is it? FFMG (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It has already been removed once for non-notability. Not to mention that it was neither wikilikned, nor cited, nor was it identified whether it was the 5000th episode in, I'm assuming, the US, or worldwide. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to removed edit, "Wheel" means "Wheel of Fortune", I guess. But it should not go in 2009, because TV programs entitled "Wheel of Fortune" are broadcasted in different countries such as Australia, France, Italy, Philippines, Poland, Russia, UK, USA. Each country has different version of WoF. Even if any one of those reaches its 5000th episode, it is nothing but a domestic event.--Belle Equipe (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a domestic event. It's a number with a five and three zeros. So what? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Sri Lankan cricket team attack

According to BBC radio (there is probably a web link somewhere) this is the first terrorist attack on a national sporting team since the 1972 Olympics. Does that make it sufficiently notable for this page? Is there even any other example of such an attack? DerbyCountyinNZ 21:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it qualifies. Wrad (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it qualifies, it made headlines here in S. Africa. FFMG (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RY actually addresses this sort of thing specifically. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is natural that it made headlines in South Africa because Cricket is one of major sports in Commonwealth or former Commonwealth nations, including S. Africa. But talking about notability, we should think about other countries, such as Brazil, China, Japan, US, etc.., in which Cricket is hardly reported on tv or by other news media.

I checked that this attack was reported on several different news websites in Chinese(e.g. Xinhua), Japanese (e.g.Yomiuri Shimbun), and Korean(e.g. Hankook Ilbo). It might be notable if this attack was specifically targeting the team or Sri Lankan nationals. But maybe not if it was an indiscriminate terror, because they were got involved by chance, unfortunately.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current version has far too much details. We should only mention the event and redirect the reader to the main article itself. FFMG (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Belle Equipe. Stuff blowing up in the Middle East is nothing new. Maybe if that region went for a day or two without something or other exploding, that might be worth mentioning. I'd omit this, but in any event I've cleaned up some of the unnecessary detail. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning is this:

1. International sports team attacked in another country by a third party
2. 8 killed
3. An event (deliberate attack on an international sports team) so rare it has not happened since 1972 and this may only be the second time ever.

For comparison another entry that has been allowed to stand in this article:

1. Domestic, no international implications
2. No deaths
3. Has happened on numerous (dozens, if not hundreds) occasions, though it is perhaps the largest.

If this entry does not belong then neither does the other. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your 1st and 3rd reasoning, we should find out if terrorists targeted this specific cricket team or any Sri Lankan (we'd better wait for a claim of responsibility). Otherwise, I do not think it is a notable terrorist attack, because there are several terrorist attacks in which more than dozens of people killed, but still not enlisted.--Belle Equipe (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict, still tending to agree with Belle Equipe] It may involve international parties, but it is not unheard of for foreigners to encounter violence in a violent area. People may have been killed, but that's not astonishing, either: that's what grenades are for (although I suppose it's a bit ironic that the attackers only ended up killing their own policemen). For it to be a sports team may be unusual, but if "the other" entry is Flight 1549, I've yet to hear of the "dozens, if not hundreds" of commercial planes that have crashed in urban rivers with no fatalities. But this entry might be worth keeping due to the international response that it received, so I suppose I won't contest it further. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Space flight?

What is/was the consensus about space flight? The Kepler Mission entry is not a first, (and has _far_ too much details in it). Normally I would just remove it, but I am sure that there is some amazing 'firsts' about that particular mission.

What about STS-119? Where is it a first, (seen that it is delivering a couple of fourth part apparently)? FFMG (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

STS-119 probably doesn't belong, and I've removed some of the Kepler details. True, it doesn't seem to be the first mission of its kind (that distinction goes to COROT), but it does appear to be the second. And, given the mission's vast and humbling scope (e.g., notable not only on an international scale, but potentially on an interplanetary one), I'd venture to say that a second and even a third of its kind are reasonably noteworthy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Day

The 200th anniversary of Darwin day does not have it's own article and there is not even a separate section for it on the main article. I therefore suggest that it is, so far, insufficiently notable for inclusion in this year article. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One could just as well say that, because it is notable, then there's an error of omission in the lack of its own article or in the lack of a section for it on Darwin Day. This highlights the absurdity of the nine-non-English thing for death entries: Does the lack of nine articles mean that a subject isn't notable, or does a subject's under-appreciated notability mean that nine articles need to be created? It's good that PseudoBot automatically reverts redlinked entries, because these are usually just vanity/vandalism--but for serious editors, WP probably isn't the best test of its own notability. IMHO, a major commemoration of one of the most important thinkers in the history of science is probably worth mentioning, both here and in other articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability for an event of this nature (a 200th anniversary, for admittedly something I had never heard of before...) should be established at least partially externally. The US Bicentennial was a notable 200th anniversary event, as an example. The 201st - well not so much, nor the 210th. Maybe the 250th might be - in 2026. Anyway - were there a good number of Darwin Day 200th anniversary celebrations and recognition events? Perhaps lots of local, national, and international press reports, with significant coverage of Darwin events in the major news and media? If so, perhaps it is a good candidate for inclusion. If not - well maybe not so much. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ. I remember a few years ago I put that it was the 30th anniversary Elvis's death (this was before we were trying to cut back on the amount of events) and even though the anniversary made the news, someone deleted it. I don't think we should make an exception for Darwin, because if we do then who else will we make an exception for? Hitler? Copernicus? etc. --Tocino 19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is now nearly a week after Darwin Day 2009. The Darwin Day page has no mention of any specific activities related to the 200th Anniversary and no references have been added. This suggests that the 200th Anniversary was less notable than expected. Unless there is consensus against its removal I suggest it be removed from this page (at least until its notability is convincingly established). DerbyCountyinNZ 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As soon as some sort of bicentenntial (or plane crash, or bushfire) is occuring every other day, then we can start cleaning up these sorts of entries, but until then they have a rather unique character to them. The day is well-sourced on 2009; the fact that it is given less treatment on Darwin Day suggests that the latter article is edited less heavily, not that the information in the former is not significant. I'm still amazed that Wikipedia is being used as a test of its own notability in anything other than a purely heuristic sense (e.g., the sense in which PseudoBot deletes redlinked entries, which is understandable because such entries can usually be assumed to be vandalism). Darwin would seem to demand something a little bit deeper than heuristics. One can probably count on at most 10 fingers the individuals who have revolutionized thinking in a field and are still taken seriously on a wide enough scale to commemorate. Some people who come to my mind are Darwin, Freud, Marx, Einstein, Galileo--take out Freud and Marx if you want to avoid those who remain highly controversial among academics, particularly among scientists. Of these, as far as I am aware, only Darwin has generated serious talk among the likes of Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick about creating an official holiday in his honour (see [2]). This is thus different than the 30th anniversary of Elvis's death on at least three levels: 1) it has a well-known quantitative name, "bicentenntial"; 2) it has a well-known qualitative name, "Darwin Day"; and 3) it has been seriously considered as a potential holiday. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do, however, question the necessity of entries such as this. Seems rather esoteric and coincidental. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, it's nothing but trivia. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that the 200th Darwin Day is notable and eventually that will be borne out by citations in wikipedia. My point is that even though it may deserve notability that has not been established by any citations and until it is it does not deserve to be included on this page. So far we have 2:1 against inclusion but as only 3 editors have commented that seems insufficient for consensus. I'm happy for the entry to remain at present but think this should be revisited in a month's time unless there is a clear consensus in the meantime. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Make that 4 to 1. Wrad (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the entry. There is nothing so far on the Darwin Day page to suggest that the celebrations were sufficiently more notable this year as to deserve inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia still does not cite Wikipedia as a determinant of notability. The sources are in this article. There was not sufficient consensus to remove it 12 days ago, and I don't see that it has magically sprouted anywhere in the absence of further discussion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think Darwin Day is notable enough to be listed in here. It is actually even less notable than 50th birthday of Barbie doll, which anniversary events were held around the world (although I do not have an intention to make it listed on this article). Darwin day is eligible if there is another subsection such as "Anniversary", otherwise...--Belle Equipe (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's 5 to 1 against inclusion. Wrad (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, if I find some good sources and get a chance to demonstrate the notability of this anniversary in Darwin Day, then perhaps I'll give it another go. But yes, all tallies aside, I'm aware that consensus is not yet in my favour here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone with plenty of respect for both science and religion, though, I do find it interesting that the annual celebration of a religious leader's birth is mentioned, whereas even the bicentenntial celebration of a scientific figure's birth is not (and even despite notable opinions that the latter should be an official holiday). Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

School shootings are notable especially when over 10 are killed?

I see that Tocino has re-added the shooting in Germany with the summary, re-added event... school shootings are notable especially when over 10 are killed. Is it a new rule that I am not aware of?

We know that it is not the first shooting in the world, not the first in Europe and probably not the first in Germany. It is not international as far as I know.

So, is the body count the only reason we include this event? FFMG (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what WP:RY says. Wrad (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"when over 10 are killed". Is that the reason why he did not add school shooting in Samson, Alabama, in which 10 people were killed?

I think it is either/or, include or exclude both cases.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that school shootings are more dramatic and noteworthy than a scenerio like the one in Samson. --Tocino 19:15 13 march 2009 (UTC)

So, what are we saying here, should it stay or not? FFMG (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely stay. It's been covered extensively on all the populated continents. --Tocino 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just a minimum requirement, though. WP:RY says it has to be especially significant, and it doesn't seem any different from the many others that happen every year. It hasn't generated the public outcry leading to legislation and change in school procedure that, say, the VT Massacre did. It's just not significant enough. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

From the WP article... "In the days following the event, some politicians called for legal consequences, ranging from a total prohibition of all shooting video games to a better monitoring of gun club members. Others dismissed these demands as "placebos".[26]" --Tocino 03:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

With VT it was nationwide changes. Is that happening here? Wrad (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Events such as this are, unfortunately, becoming increasingly common, this is not even the first in Germany. Unless this particular shooting becomes the direct cause of a significant law change in Germany the only other suitable criteria for inclusion would be the number of fatalaties. Personally I think a minimum of 10 would be too low. 15 might be ok but is a bit of a random figure. Perhaps 20 would be sufficiently rare to be notable? DerbyCountyinNZ 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this event is not any different from the many school shootings. And, (although it is very early days), it does not look like it will cause any changes, even in Germany.

If we include this particular shooting we would need to include a few others.

So, from what I can see the consensus seem to be 4-1 to remove it, is that right? FFMG (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It would appear so. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

January 7th?

Hello, I was reading the page, and saw that January 7th was Christmas in most Orthodox churches. Being Orthodox myself, I have to disagree. From my knowledge, the church that celebrated Christmas on January 7th is the Russian Orthodox church, because they follow the old calendar. The others celebrate it on December 25th, as the rest of the world. --Iliada 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this topic to agree or disagree, but I've modified the section to accord with what you said, anyway. Although discussion is always good, you're also welcome to WP:Be bold and make whatever (justifiable) changes to the article you feel are necessary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

North Korea reject US offer and France disagrees with the Pope.

Are those two events really notable? No doubt they are news, (probably not headlines in most countries), I am sure that many countries disagree with the pope and I also have no doubt that many governments disagree with many other religions, so why should this piece of news stay?
Any reasons why the French gov reaction to the pope is newsworthy?
As for North Korea, why is it notable that they did not accept food from the US? Is it a first? Did it make headlines? The summary says there is no 2009 in North Korea article, but that makes no sense at all. Are we supposed to add every news event in 2009 because no one has created an article for it?
I think that both entries should go. FFMG (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No. 2009 is not a dumping ground for entries which properly belong in a Year in Country article just because no-one has bothered to create those relevant Year in Country articles. The fact that an enormous number of such entries exist in earlier year articles is no excuse either. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The france thing defo needs to go as it lacks the notabiltiy to be placed here and the north korea thing, the page should be created and the sentence moved there. Pro66 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with the exclusionists this time (and I don't mean that in a derisive way; I generally identify as an exclusionist myself, although I've put on my inclusionist hat more often than usual for this article). "International" does not mean "internationally notable," and "internationally notable" does not mean "historically significant." Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jade Goody

It seems that she is one of famous celebrities in Europe. But I, living outside of Europe, never heard about her. I would like to ask all editors living outside of Europe, or Commonwealth that if she is really notable in your country. Because all of her non-English articles are written in European languages. --Belle Equipe (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

She is known in New Zealand (from the Shilpa Shetty incident) and her death was a leading news story here. But really it is only the manner of her death that makes her notable and if her illness and death hadn't been such a media circus she would probably have disappeared back into relative obscurity fairly quickly. I certainly wouldn't object to her removal from this page if that was the consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that British celebrities are so popular not only in NZ, but among almost all British Commonwealth countries. That is why I am asking editors "living outside of Europe, or Commonwealth", such as American, East Asian, or Arabic nations.--Belle Equipe (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the new restriction? What has Commonwealth/Europe got to do with it? She was famous in the UK, semi-famous in India, (Big Brother, she almost cause a diplomatic incident I think).

I am outside Europe, (Africa), she made headlines a few times, and her article has 14 foreign articles. We cannot start adding new rules over and above the current one, "9 non english articles, excluding simple-english, ... excluding all European only articles, ... excluding Commonwealth countries". FFMG (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How could you say that she is "semi-famous in India", although no article is created in any official language of India other than English?--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She is not notable in the United States. --Tocino 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well one country doesn't account for the entire world does it? Bias to the most! Argentium (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary notoriety and a tragic death are not sufficient grounds for notability. 9 non-english articles or not, this page is, or at least should be, for only the most notable deaths. The rest should go in Deaths in 2009, that's what that article is for! As usual news coverage is being misconstrued as notability. Really, she's just not internationally and historically important (though that could apply to a few others listed on this page). btw Wrestler Andrew Martin is another who can't really be considered notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that editors from US and Argentine?, in which British TV programs are hardly broadcasted, agreed with me, while editors from South Africa and NZ, in which British TV programs are popular to some degree, are saying she is notable.

How do you determine that her death was "historically important"? I understand that she IS famous and notable enough in UK because even British PM made a comment on her death. But unfortunately, things are different in non-British influenced countries. If she were as notable as Donald Bradman or Babe Ruth (each of them is well known in one cultural sphere but not known anywhere else), no one would question if she were notable. But I do not think she, and her death, are notable. --Belle Equipe (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get the obsession with the nationality of editors. This is the english Wikipedia so it is not unreasonable to expect a lot of english speaking editors from around the world. I agree, she was not exactly famous and maybe not as notable as some entries, but she has been in the news since her appearance on big brother and she did cause a bit of a stir in India with some of the comments she made.

Following your argument, we could also argue that Ron Silver should be removed as he was mostly unknown outside the US, or Alain Bashung as he was mostly unknown outside French speaking countries. FFMG (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As with other entries on this page a death should be about what they have achieved not where they come from. Idelly that person should be known outside the activity they are known for and outside their own country. I have always considered the 9 non-English articles an inadequate measure of notability but there doesn't seem to be an easy, all-encompassing alternative. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 80

I see that Belle_Equipe is making some wild accusation as to why I removed the entry about Fedex flight 80, (although I was not the only one who originally removed it). Can we come to a consensus as to why this particular crash should stay? Is it notable or is it news? Looking at the edit summaries it is apparently not the first in 13 years. I find it extremely hard to believe the claim that there has not be a single plane fatality in Japan in 13 years. So, should it stay? FFMG (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the first fatal crash of commercial airplane, excluding small aircrafts, since Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 crashed in Japan. And it IS very first fatal airplane crash at Narita International Airport since its opening in 1978, although they suffered some terrorist attacks by Japanese Red Army and its allies in its early era. Also, it is the first fatal crash for FedEx Express too. --Belle Equipe (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes it notable in Japan and possibly the US. Being a FedEx plane is only notable for FedEx. Crashes involving 2 deaths happen all the time, they are therefore not notable. Being a FedEx plane in Japan does not make it any more notable as far as this article is concerned. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Crashes involving 2 deaths happen all the time"

Can I tell you like "Sri Lankan Cricket team attack" ONLY killed 8 people, which is less number of fatality than other terrorist attacks, so should be excluded? (I still do not think it is included in here because no player was killed, although some of them were injured, and no claim of responsibility which specifies the team or any Sri Lankan as a target).

Which DerbyCountyinNZ mentioned sounds like "Cricket team incident was so notable to be listed in here because cricket is important among Commonwealth nations" but "FedEx incident should be excluded because it is US airplane and incident occured in Japan, outside of Europe or Commonwealth", to me.--Belle Equipe (talk)

I have explained further up this page why the bombing in Pakistan is notable. It has nothing to do with the sport or countries involved. This in an international page it should be the event that is notable not the country in which it happened. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not agree with you regarding notability of Pakistani terrorist attack, UNLESS claim of responsibility specifies the team or any Sri Lankan as a target, otherwise they were just got involved in one of terrorist attacks, which occurs in that area quite often, accidentally (it is wrong to handle Pakistani incident on the same footing as things like Munich massacre, which specifically targeted Israeli athletes). But it is still standing somehow. It seems some recent decisions regarding notability are biased, inclining to either European or Commonwealth POV.--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The attack on the cricket team had international--indeed, worldwide--political impact and repercussions. The plane crash, while undoubtably tragic to the family of the crew and inconveniencing to the travellers at Narita airport, was a simple accident that did not leave much in the way of ripples on international affairs short of that day's headlines. So yes, the former absolutely belongs and the latter doesn't. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What part of the "world" are you talking about? Cricketers incident was absolutely not notable at least in the Americas (probably ONLY except West Indies) and East Asia, in which almost NO ONE cares about CRICKET, which is one of the most important things in some editor's life. FedEx incident made headlines at least some countries, like cricketersz' incident did ONLY in Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries.--Belle Equipe (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

International Day of Grotowski

As stated in the polish wikipedia and other sources such as google.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.136.123 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

such as - http://www.wroclaw-life.com/news/news/139-Year_of_Grotowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.136.123 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a little esoteric, but a UNESCO declaration is internationally notable, so by all means it should be included. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. Source establishes significance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it again. This should have its own article before being added. This follows the precedent established for other "International Year of..." entries which have been removed previously. Surely creating a page would not be that difficult? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we even have a bot that removes red-linked pages. I am not sure why UNESCO has it listed and we don't have an article for it. Maybe it is known under another name? FFMG (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Year or of UNESCO in Jerzy Grotowski's article. Perhaps someone could translate his Polish language page? DerbyCountyinNZ 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is an article, although not from Wikipedia, which includes more information about the event http://blogs.meshcode.ca/influence/2009/01/01/unesco-year-of-jerzy-grotowski-2009/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.136.165 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 incident

At present this seems to be nothing more than a country firing a rocket and one or more other countries expressing concern about it. What is notable about that? If, as claimed, it is an experimental satellite then it is not particularly notable as it doesn't appear to be even sub-orbital. There is also no indication at present that it is an intercontinental ballistic missile, and even if it is that is not particularly notable either. Unless it is the direct precursor of an historically notable international incident it's just a rocket test and a media beat-up. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

POV again? It IS notable, although you think it was NOTHING for you, or NZ. But the UN Security council reacted immediately because NK violated UN Security Council Resolution 1718 by launching a missile. It is more notable and historical than whatever happened to cricket guys, AT LEAST. Belle Equipe (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paranoia about North Korea is nothing new, really, even if Cold War-era spookery has declined in popularity now that Islamic terrorism has become the new Dark Side of The Force. I would like to keep the entry, actually, because I think that spaceflight is pretty cool. But WP:COSMICLATTESPERSONALOPINION is not yet policy, and there's already a 2009 in spaceflight, so I guess it probably ought to be removed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the UN has expressed concern its notability is more in line with what is required for this page. I'm happy to leave it in at the moment, but if this all blows over without any further repercussions then it will probably end up being no more than a storm in a teacup and should probably be removed, maybe in a few months time. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Pirate incident

I have Repeatedly tried to add information on the Pirate standoff in Somalia and it keeps on being removed! Does wikipedia Not want people to know about whats going on? This is more or less a major incident this year and has garnered much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.139.229 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an international page. There have been numerous incidents of piracy not only off Somalia but around the world for a long time. Just because this incident involved the United States does not make it any more notable than countless others. It is covered in the appropriate Wikinews section and presumably 2009 in the United States; that is sufficient.DerbyCountyinNZ 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But this is probably what has brokent he straw on the camels back, this obviously a huge event as a World Leader was deeply involved in the ending of the situation as you read and was one of the first occurances of international outcry against the somali situation that has been largely overshadowed in the media by other events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.139.229 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama's involvement probably earns this incident a spot in the article. I do wonder, though, if the main "event" here isn't piracy per se, but rather the sudden virulence of the piracy meme in the news media. If it is the latter, then WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the pirate stuff should be included. It is a major, ongoing event of the year involving not just American troops, but troops from other countries as well. Wrad (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the involvement of the US president make this particular event international or any more notable than the +42 ships taken this year?

If we are going to include it, then why not include all the piracy events in Somalia or even better include the rescue by French forces of the Tanit only a couple of days earlier, (and then list the 2008 rescue as well, also by the French), the French president was probably directly involved with both events.

The somali forces should also be mentioned as they rescued 2 ships last year and arrested 15 odd pirates, (and killed 2 I think).

How is the US involvement any more notable?

FFMG (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing. We need more of this on this page, not less. Wrad (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. Do you want to include all acts of piracy? Just the ones off Somalia, or all the others worldwide (Bangladesh, Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Caribbean) too? Going back how many years? Seems like a LOT of work to me! DerbyCountyinNZ 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring it is not an option. This is an international issue. If the problem you're having is that we're focusing too much on the American stuff, add some non-American stuff. Wrad (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all those piracy attacks are somewhat international, (one could argue that the various rescues are not), but they are so common that it is very hard to choose what to include/exclude.

No matter how international the events might be, we also have to be realistic, we do not want the 2000's article to be a copy of "List of ships attacked by Somali pirates", (for Somalia alone). Maybe you could suggest the ones you would want to include for this year alone?

Or even, the criteria/limit for inclusion, (maybe something a little more international than "Obama's involvement probably earns this incident a spot in the article").

Personally I cannot see how any of those can be added, piracy is not new and at the current rate we would have a new piracy entry every week or so. FFMG (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just add something about the recent French attack. It really isn't as difficult as you all are chalking it up to be. Wrad (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And on what basis is it decided which attacks deserve an entry and which do not? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One might better argue on what basis do incidents which receive such wide-spread and extensive coverage do NOT deserve an entry? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The "basis" is the wide-spread news coverage. Wrad (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think piracy, (in Somalia or anywhere), needs to be added. No one seems to give as straight answer as to why on act of piracy should be added over another.

Piracy has been going on for years, so I don't see the value of adding it here. FFMG (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, we just gave a straight answer: because of the wide-spread news coverage. Wrad (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, terrorism has been around in its many forms just as much as piracy has been, we document every major even in these articles, i would say for piracy, this is a major event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.139.229 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a major event? The rescue by the Somali forces? the French, (twice)? or the US? Or all the +45 ships taken this year? FFMG (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New York fly over?

Is that incident really internationally notable? From what I can tell it is a domestic event and should be moves to 2009 in the United States. And I am really not sure about the size of the entry itself, it is way too long and has too much details. FFMG (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. I've removed it. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Expected and Scheduled Deaths?

Am i just crazy or could we use this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.147.79 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that you're not joking, that sort of thing could quickly turn into a WP:BLP nightmare, although there is a List of United States death row inmates. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Conjunctions of Jupiter and Neptune

In what way are these particularly notable? 3 in a calendar year might be significant for those interested in astronomy but will anyone else take much notice? Would the entries currently on this page be better placed in 2009 in science? In fact, shouldn't there be Year in astronomy pages for all such similar entries? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been one week and no-one has commented. Unless there are convincing arguments for their retention I'll remove them in 1 more week. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There being no apparent objections I have removed them. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korea Nuclear Weapon Test

I can't help to notice that it was removed from the article, are we not going to add it, or shall we wait until information is absolutely solid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.191.152 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The latter would be a good initial stance. A "claim" can indicate that an event has, in fact, occurred, or it can have consequences that are eventful enough on their own. But apart from its referents or repercussions, a claim just sort of floats in existence, whereas this article is aiming for more historical solidity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Martin resignation

Is this event (19 May) internationally notable enough for this article? I almost removed it as being no more significant than the Blagojevich impeachment vote, but only having misread 1695 as 1965. Three centuries are a fair amount of time, but do they make the event more qualitatively important than countless other political goings-on in the world? Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I also considered removing it as being a domestic rather than international event (as are some other entries still in this article). DerbyCountyinNZ 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to change rules

To me, it seems quite confusing how people such as Jade Goody can be included in the Deaths section, whereas some WORLD LEADERS are excluded. For example, Mamadou Dia, who died earlier this year was Senegal's first President, but he is not included in the article as he "only" has 8 other, non-english articles. However, he is more widely known than some of the individuals in the section. I'd like to request therefore that an exception be made to the current rule, whereby head of states can automatically be added upon death, regardless of how many articles they have. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of the rules can be overruled by consensus here. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that rule change, but I think Mamadou probably should be on here. Wrad (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think all state leaders should be included unless their term was so brief as to be barely significant to international history (consensus would apply). I never thought Jade Goody was sufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I shall add Mamadou Dia to the deaths section, seeing as he was the first president of a state for several years and has 8 non-English articles, I think he's more than notable enough. If nobody objects within the next week, I shall add him. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Gordon

Given the guideline for inclusion at Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths that "Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles." I don't believe that Lucy Gordon is sufficiently notable for this article. She has had mostly minor roles in not particularly notable films. Neither she not the films she has appeared in appear to have been nominated for any awards. Really she has only made the news because of the manner of her death. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, (she is only had minor roles and so forth), we chose the rule of 10 non-english articles so we have to stick to it.

Otherwise we could argue about a few other entries here that only have 11, 12 or more non-english articles, (as per Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths).

I don't know why she has so many foreign articles, maybe she is more famous than we think outside english speaking countries, I just don't know but we have to keep to the rules otherwise some would start to trim the current list because they felt that the person was not really as famous as the article count shows, and the whole thing would start to fall apart again.

Afar as I know, the articles were not created because of the way she died, they existed before. FFMG (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the rules we made specifically say that we don't have to stick to the 10 article stuff. That's just a minimum requirement, as WP:RY says in the section you're referring to, right after talking about the 10-article rule: "This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles." We can choose not to include her and still keep the rules. That's the whole point Derby's trying to make. Wrad (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But there should have been a discussion about it first rather than simply removing it, (and getting the small edit war that followed and is probably not over). As she met the 10 articles 'minimum' requirement I think there should have been a small, quick, discussion, (and a consensus), about keeping her entry or not.

"This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles.", does not mean that any editor can remove an entry he/she feels is not notable enough.

As as said, I agree in principle, but the way it was handled opened itself to a pointless, small, edit war that could have been resolved rather quickly, (as a few of us seem to agree that her entry is probably not notable enough). FFMG (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have, more than once, included in the edit summary my reasons for excluding this particular individual from this article. They are the same reasons as I have cited before for other persons of equally minor notability. The only reason this turned into an edit war is because a particular user has decided to ignore the part of the guidleines that mentions a minimum requirement (despite having been made aware of this on a previous occasion). Strictly speaking this could have been brought to the talk page immediately but it gets a bit tiresome bringing what are essentially minor issues because of one or two contrary editors (you'll notice the other editor in this case did not bother to bring the matter to the talk page, again). DerbyCountyinNZ 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have ignored nothing, other than your misplaced substitution of your personal prejudices for actual objective standards. She has the minimum number of non-English articles--a fairly strict standard, even stricter than necessary in my opinion and one you fought for, as I recall--and even then you immediately jettison it when it clashes with your particular prejudices. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And given your edit summary of Undid revision 292607627 by CalendarWatcher Despite what some people seem to think not everyone who dies belongs in a Year article, it's best not give false edit summaries when you've been told other-wise. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, by other users apart from myself, the 10 language articles is only a guide (it is actually a poor one but there seems to be nothing better which can be applied in genereal). It is not a "strict standard", it is a generallt accepted minimum. There is a case mentioned below which does not meet this guideline but the consensus is that that person should be included. In this case there is no consensus that Lucy Gordon is sufficiently notable (as far as I can tell so far it's 1 for, 1 against and 2 uncommitted). DerbyCountyinNZ 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Year of the blood donor

In Australia, it's year of the blood donor according to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. Please add this if you think it's relevant (or let me know). I'm pretty sure it doesn't meet the three-continent rule but it's worth a shot. Here's a link that you can cite if you decide that it's worthy: http://www.donateblood.com.au/page.aspx?IDDataTreeMenu=233 Uzimaster (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very specific to Australia, I think it would fit better in the article, 2009 in Australia. FFMG (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Omar Bongo

How is the death of a sitting world leader, especially one who's been in power for 42 years, not significant enough to be included in the main events section? I realize that he is mentioned in the deaths section, but if Barack Obama were to suddenly die, I'm sure people wouldn't be satisfied with just passing off his name in the deaths section without mentioning it as a significant event. Of course you could argue that Bongo isn't as "important" as Obama, but then I argue...why not? Not to mention the suicide of a former president of South Korea is included in events. Somehow that's more important? bob rulz (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Even stranger than that, Barack Obama walking down the street to take office is apparently internationally notable, when no other world leader is deemed worthy of having their inauguration, (let alone their elections), mentioned.

Omar Bongo can be added as he has a lot more than 9 non English articles. FFMG (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've argued that the suicide of the former president of South Korea is not sufficiently notable enough to be included in the events section. Deaths of state leaders should not be included in Events unless there are direct international consequences which did not result from either of these 2 cases. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg Page

Why is this former Heavyweight champion being deleted? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Recent years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

STS-125 (May 11)

Any reason what this even is particularly notable? Maybe when the telescope is decommissioned in a couple of years it will be notable, but a service is not really. I seem to remember there was a discussion about removing a lot of those space flights as they are not really firsts or that notable. Shouldn't that one be removed as well? FFMG (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree (no surprises there!). DerbyCountyinNZ 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the final servicing mission, almost cancelled due to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be no objections so I'll remove it. There a few more space flights of equally minimal notability which could go to but they can probably wait till the launch to see if they "become" more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Millvina Dean

And more trivia! As with the world's oldest people Millvina Dean's only claim to notability is really her age. Being the last survivor of a disaster is less an achivement than a matter of good fortune. So in what way is she sufficiently notable for this page? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Being the last survivor of one of the most famous disasters (perhaps the most famous disaster) of all time might not be a matter of "achievement", but it certainly is a matter of "notability", even "historical notability". If that is not enough, her recent financial struggles garnered her significant attention from the press as well as donations from James Cameron, Leonardo Dicaprio, Kate Winslet, and Celine Dion. And her seventeen non-English articles can't hurt, either. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the idiot suggesting that Dean was not notable at least sign his posts? Dean was certainly notable. She made the news in Britain practically every month and made international headlines before her death and before she became the last survivor. Before you jump to the conclusion that she "isn't notable enough", why don't you make an effort to search for articles of her across the net that pre-date her death? Dean was more than a survivor, she campaigned for a very long time (including the setting up of "The Millvina Fund") to preserve the history of the diasaster, often making newspaper headlines, so in her own right she was also an activist. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the sig, I must have been rushed while working and failed to notice. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down your remarks, as it's not nice to call someone an idiot. The editor in question is DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs), who is not an idiot but rather someone with a terribly misplaced sense of page ownership. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how could have ownership of a page I am not even watching. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but unless a change to the status quo is disputed then does not the status quo remain as is until the dispute is resolved? This applies to the removal of long-standing information and the addition of new information. Having disputed the addition of this entry I removed it. As this was contested and reverted with some vehemence I brought it to the talk page for discussion. As the consensus is that Mallvina Dean is sufficiently notable I won't contest her inclusion further (although I am still not entirely convinced, she's probably more notable than Jade Goody though). DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problems I have with the death section, (and the whole year article in fact), is that it is very US/UK centric. I bet you that if a Chinese film star kills herself we would not see her name here, (or even be having that discussion), if the last survivor of a Nigerian disaster dies no one would want it here, if the voice of a famous French cartoon dies after 79 years of work his name would be deleted in a heartbeat.

I was under the impression that this was the reason for the '9 non English' articles rule. FFMG (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand how Dean gained media attention or any notability. The Titanic sinking is notable, as are films made about it, but she didn't do or achieve anything of note. Most Wikipedia biographies exist due to the subject's work / achievements in film, television, art, theatre, science, politics, philosophy, inventions, medicine etc. All she did was happen to be one of hundreds rescued from a disaster in which hundreds of others died, and, of those rescued, was the last to die - so what? How does that make her special in any way? Correct & improve (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Allwine

I realize there have already been (I think) three or four discussions about including or excluding some deaths in particular, and while I hate to beat a dead horse, no pun intended, I'd like to ask that Wayne Allwine be included in the deaths section of this page, and not just the Deaths in 2009 page. I added him to the list a few days ago, but I noticed he's since been removed. For those that don't know, Mr. Allwine was the third and longest-serving voice of Mickey Mouse, and passed away on May 18th. I realize that he only has six non-english Wikipedia pages instead of the minimum nine, however I think that once again an exception needs to be made. This isn't some no-name actress that gained some fame by killing herself, this is the voice of Mickey Mouse we're talking about here! Since 1977, he voiced Mickey in countless cartoons, movies, albums, video games (probably every english video game featuring Mickey Mouse to date), talking toys, talking books, theme park-related voice tracks and more. His is the death of, literally, a Disney legend, he and his death will have a lasting impact on Disney, animation, and in my opinion, history itself. So let's screw the rules again for Wayne! Please? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So, should I be taking silence as an agreement here or what? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like. And I'll break the silence by saying that I, for one, agree with you. This isn't a case of lack of notability in a field--after all, he has been deemed a legend. It also is not a case of the field itself being too minor--this is, after all, Disney and Mickey Mouse we're talking about here. If voice actors were appreciated in proportion to the effects that they actually have on culture, people like Allwine would have plenty more than seven or ten articles about them. Although a difference of only three articles does not seem all that glaring in the first place. I'd say, as long as no one has seriously objected by the time you read this reply, then be bold and add his name back to the list. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that he is sufficiently notable to be included in this article. Unlike many voice actors (eg Mel Blanc) there is no immediate association with a particular character outside of those interested in such things. Would there actually be that many people who would recognise the name Wayne Allwine or know he was one of the voices of Mickey Mouse? I doubt it. I agree that he is more notable than Lucy Gordon or Jade Goody and possibly Mallvina Dean though. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He is nowhere near sufficiently notable to be included. The vast majority of people have never heard of him and would not recognise his face. Being one of the voices of a character does not make a person very notable. He received very little media coverage, and was not a celebrity. Unless a person has a particular interest in Mickey Mouse or writes obituaries or updates biographies on Wikipedia, they would not be interested in him; he simply wasn't famous. There is a very good reason why he does not have articles in more languages - 99% of people outside of the USA have never heard of him. Best name (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And, even then, I would bet that 99% of people inside the US itself probably don't know who he was. FFMG (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid argument when there have already been fights (and wins) over people that the vast majority of people in the world haven't heard of, either. (I'm STILL looking at you, Lucy Gordon.) Besides, you have to counter-balance that with how instantly recognizable Mickey Mouse's voice and image are to the ENTIRE world population. And I'd bet if people were scrolling through this article and read "voice of Mickey Mouse is dead", they'd probably care. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what 'fights' you are talking about, there has been discussions and a consensus was reached. I am not a big fan of Lucy Gordon been listed either, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a win/loose fight.

I still think that Wayne Allwine was mostly unknown, I admit that Mickey Mouse is famous, (and international), that Walt Disney is famous, but that did not make Wayne Allwine famous.

And, by 'ENTIRE world population' I am guessing you mean, some parts the english speaking world? FFMG (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite tha fact that no consensus was reached over the inclusion of Lucy Gordon (see above) she was added back in. There seems more than enough disagreement to have her removed, which would also remove some of the argument in favour of including Wayne Allwine. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "fight" wasn't the right word. Still, though. And I dare you to find one person, anywhere, with a brain and even passing knowledge of pop culture, that does not know Mickey Mouse. Wayne Allwine has made a lasting impact providing Mickey's voice, and that needs to be recognized. Perhaps my pleading won't do much now, especially since there's a vote now (see below), but I surely can't be the only one that feels this way. And I don't see how no clear consensus over Lucy Gordon takes away from any positive arguments over Wayne. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The only people, apart from his fans, that claim Allwine is a legend, is Disney, and they are extremely biased in his favor. I can't see why there is even a debate here, he was just a voice actor, with no other notability, whom very few people have heard of or care about. Very few people are interested in 'voice of Mickey Mouse dies', the vast majority reading that would think 'so what'! I agree that the rules for who should be in the Deaths list should be broken in the event of someone important enough having died whom does not have enough articles, but to suggest that is the case for Allwine is ridiculous. Look how short his article is! If he had even a cult following or significant number of fans, there would be a much longer article on him. Best name (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't hold water at all. There are those listed in the deaths section that have shorter articles than Wayne! Not to mention, they've probably done a lot less for the world than he did. Just scrolling down the list, I see that Pio Laghi, Ingemar Johansson, Eluana Englaro, Kamila Skolimowska, Sverre Fehn, Yukio Endo, the aforementioned Lucy Gordon, Millvina Dean and Jean Dausset all made less of an impact than THE VOICE OF MICKEY MOUSE. Did none of you watch Disney cartoons growing up? Good lord... 76.107.137.39 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's simple.

He only has 7 non-English articles.

All other people you named have at least 9 or more non-English atticles.

According to the rule applied on this page, he should not be included.--Belle Equipe (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So what!? You can have as many foreign-language articles as there are foreign-language Wikipedias, and while that's certainly a feat it doesn't necessarily make you notable. What did any of those people I listed do, aside from having more foreign Wikipedia pages, that is more notable that voicing the most iconic cartoon character in the world for 33 years? (Aside from being the last survivor of the Titanic, before you point that out.) This whole criteria for deaths inclusion system is broken, you need to weigh what the person did, not how many Wikipedia pages they have. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop generalizing so much, Mickey Mouse is _world_ famous, Mr Allwine was not.

Wayne Allwine was only the English voice, (maybe only the US voice as there could very well be other voice actors), of a world famous cartoon.

He was not famous, Mickey is and he certainly was not internationally world famous either. FFMG (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture for first part of Deaths section

Why was Ingemar Johansson chosen, rather that someone far more notable: Patrick McGoohan, Ricardo Montalban or John Updike? Why a boxer that few have heard of, whom retired decades ago, rather than a famous actor with a long career or a very successful writer? Correct & improve (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Many people who are more interested in sport than television or literature have probably heard of Johansson and not McGoohan, Montalban or Updike. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing some entries in Deaths section with less than nine foreign-language articles

Due to some recent events (see above) that have more than established that someone with less than nine foreign-language Wikipedia articles does not belong in the deaths section of this page, I have taken the liberty of going through the list, finding everyone with less than nine foreign-language articles, and removed them. They are (with the articles they do have in parenthesis):

• Nizar Rayan (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Português)
• Said Seyam (Françias, Nederlands, Português)
• Stephanos II Ghattas (Italiano, Nederlands)
• R. Venkataraman (Deutsch, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Risskiy, Română, Svenska)
• Eluana Englaro (Catalá, Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski)
• Manea Mănescu (Dansk, Deutsch, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Română, Slovenčia)
• Alain Bashung (Catalá, Deutsch, Español, Esperanto, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski)
• Abdellatif Filali (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Bahasa Indonesia, Nederlands, Polski, Suomi)
• Yukio Endo (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Suomi)
• Ken Annakin (Deutsch, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Japanese, Polski, Suomi, Svenska)
• Achille Compagnoni (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski, Suomi, Svenska)
• Peter Arundell (Catalá, Deutsch, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Português, Suomi, Svenska)

If anyone has a problem with any of these people being removed, then let's try and reach a consensus, but until then, you can thank me later. :-) 76.107.137.39 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewverted the deletions because the way wikipedia works is that to change the status quo (in this case long-standing entries) you get consensus first. If indeed these articles do not meet the 9 non-English articles requirement then there would need to be convincing arguments for their retention (which is fairly unlikely in most cases). It is surprising that so many have less than 9 non-English articles I thought someone was checking them. Oh well. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how come when it was discovered these people did not have 9 foreign-language articles, they're being kept, and yet when I added Wayne Allwine he was removed immediately? That's somewhat hypocritical. But if there needs to be consensus on the people I listed, in that event, I vote exclude on all counts. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that, unlike Wayne Allwine, these entries were not challenged at the time they were included. The 9 non-English(9nE!) articles is not the only criteria for inclusion. If someone is entered and no-one checks for 9nE and accepts that they are sufficiently notable then they stay until their notability is challenged, which is effectively what you are doing here. Because they have been allowed up to this point their removal can, and has been, challenged and therefore they should not be removed until consensus has been reached. In the case of Wayne Allwine his inclusion was challenged immediately and then brought to the talk page where it was rejected. Twice. The reasons for this were less than 9nE AND lack of notability. Even if he had more than 9nE he would likely still have been excluded (given the various user comments). By the way, I've never thought the 9nE criteria satisfactory, but there appears to be nothing else that would work. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is your aim to improve Wikipedia or is it simply to prove a point?

You are right, some of the people you listed should be removed, maybe even all of them should be, but your reason for wanting to remove them is not to help the article but purely because a consensus did not go your way. FFMG (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Yes, that debacle might have inspired my doing all of the research that resulted in this list, but it's more about consistency; these people do not have nine articles either, they should not be on the list according the the criteria that has been established. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You've miscounted the foreign articles it looks like. They have more than that. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of the people I listed have more articles than that? I searched all 100,000+ page Wikipedias and that's all I came up with. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to look at the left column of their articles. There all of their foreign articles are listed. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Of course they are. *sob* Forget I said anything. Pardon me while I go cry and feel like an idiot. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if you did so intentionally or unintentionally, but there is a critical problem with your way to count the numbers of non-English articles. You've never taken non-English and non-Alphabetical articles such as العربية=Arabic, Български=Bulgarian, فارسی=Persian, 中文=Chinese, עברית=Hebrew, 日本語=Japanese, Русский=Russian, 吴语=Wuu Chinese, into accounts. If articles in those languages are counted, each person you listed up has more than 9 or more non-English language articles.--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely now I am a bit curious how this anon user came up to those numbers. FFMG (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain myself, albeit somewhat belatedly. I didn't know that you could check how many foreign-language articles someone or something has by merely looking to the left of the page. So, what I did was go through every foreign Wikipedia with more than 100,000 pages, and write down everyone that had eight or less articles on them (or, at least, so I thought). Of course, not only was that a stupid way to go about things, but I ended up being completely wrong. I apologize for that... 76.107.137.39 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

North Korea image

On my screen, the "USGS image of the earthquake caused by the North Korean nuclear test" creates a huge gap between the heading and contents of 2009#June. Is this true for other users? If so, can someone fix that--if possible, without entirely removing the image? Page layout is not really my forte. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought (and upon further investigation), I've removed the picture. While it is sourced, its coordinates are imprecise, and it is not even among the images that that same source associates with the North Korean earthquake. More importantly, when it comes to making further associations between the quake and nuclear testing, even the source can only speculate about its meaning: "the USGS cannot positively identify the seismic event as a nuclear test". Although the image clearly passes WP:RS, it has issues fulfilling WP:V and has overtones of WP:OR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Move sportspeople's deaths to 2009 in sports?

Johansson, Skolimowska, Endo, Daly, Compagnoni and Arundell should be taken off this list and put on a Deaths section that should be created on 2009 in sports. None of those three are really deserving of being listed here. Any internationally famous sportspeople that die this year should be on the Deaths section of this article, but none of those six are important enough. Information yes (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ingemar Johansson, Kamila Skolimowska, Yukio Endo, Chuck Daly, Achille Compagnoni and Peter Arundell have 9 or more non-English articles, (and some a lot more than 9), so why should they not be listed because they are sportsmen/women? I am also not sure I agree with your view that they are not important enough. FFMG (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that all have enough articles, but in order for a person to be in the list of deaths for this article, they should also be internationally notable. As my comment above states, I'm not claiming that no sportspeople should ever be listed under the year's deaths on this article, only that all the sportspeople currently on this list (with the exception of Kemp, who is notable enough due to his political career) are not internationally notable, and hence should be excluded from the list on those grounds. All six names I suggested are almost unheard of outside their respective home countries. All their articles are short, apart from Daly's, and that is only because he was American and a very high proportion of Wikipedia editors are American. Another issue is the fact that there is no list of sportspeople that died in 2009 on the 2009 in sports article. 2009 in television has a death list, as does 2009 in film; 2009 in sports should do as well. Information yes (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be a Deaths section in all Year in sports pages. That is where any sports people not considered notable enough for a Year page belong. As for the six listed (in near enough descending order of notability):

1. Ingemar Johansson: Olympic medalist and famous as the boxer who defeated and then lost to Floyd Patterson, the first man to regain the Heavyweight Championship (when there was still only one and years before professional boxing descended into the near-farce it is these days).
2. Yukio Endo: 5 Olympic Gold medals (+ 2 silver). Not exactly insignificant!
3. Kamila Skolimowska: Olympic Champion in an inaugural event and at 17 years youngest individual athletics champion at 2000 Games. Likely to be the youngest hammer champion for the foreseeable future.
4. Chuck Daly: As a non-basketball follower even I recognise him as one of the most notable coaches in basketball.
5. Achille Compagnoni: First man to climb the world's second highest mountain. Not quite the same league as Ed Hillary but still quite notable.
6. Peter Arundell: Minor Formula One racing driver. I would certainly consider him insufficiently notable for this article, even with 10 non-English articles. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yemenia Flight 626

I added information about this earlier and noticed it was removed. Is this because of how early and sketchy information is at this time, or because it is not significant enough? If it is the first one, I completely agree...but if its the second, I absolutely disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude018219293 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that this is the way it is, a plane that crashes in a river, (also a common occurrence, after take-off BTW), is deemed news worthy, probably because it happens in the US.

A plane that crashes off the coast of South America is deemed "highly unusual circumstances", although we know nothing about the circumstances, probably because of who was in it and where it was going to.

But a plane that crashes off the coast of Africa is just common/normal, (although we also know nothing about the circumstances of that particular crash). FFMG (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an...interesting interpretation. Here, just for the record, is mine:

• US Airways Flight 1549: Ditching of a major commercial aircraft with no fatalities. Excluding a little case of the oopsie-daisies back in 1968, nothing comparable had happened in 45 years--and even the 1963 incident had only a single precedent in the history of aviation. And the 2009 ditching saved almost twice as many lives as the 1956 and 1963 ditchings combined.
• Air France Flight 447: A huge airplane, far into its flight, far away from land, far away from radar, apparently disintegrates about as far above the ocean surface as it can disintegrate, and apparently proceeds to wind up about as far below the ocean surface as it can wind up. All in all, things appear to be pretty far-out as an international mystery unfolds. Or, for short, the ordeal has got some "highly unusual circumstances".
• Yemenia Flight 626: An unsafe aircraft crashes shortly before landing, killing just about everyone on board. In other words, the type of airplane that is likely to crash, crashes in the time frame when an airplane is likely to crash. Nothing too extraordinary yet. But wait, somebody survives! Actually, what's remarkable is that so many people die. The crash kills considerably more than the average amount of occupants, just like so many other crashes that are never mentioned on these pages. As for Yemenia 626, the sole survivor makes the occasion plenty bittersweet, but not particularly unique; she exemplifies the rule, not the exception. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length already, (here and here), bird strikes are very common, airliners accidents are common.

The Japan Airlines Flight 2 you are quoting is only loosely related, but, in any case, water landings are not that uncommon either. FFMG (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It should remain in the Events section of this article due to: a) the large number of deaths; b) the intercontinental importance - many victims lived in Europe, plane was flying from Asia, to Africa; c) large amount of media coverage in many countries on multiple continents. Information yes (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat counterintuitively, the large number (or, rather, the large percentage) of deaths does make this crash unusual. It's probably too soon to know what "intercontinental importance" the event might have. Certainly, it has quite an international scope, insofar as a bunch of folks from Continent A were traveling from Continent B to an island off Continent C. The relationship between the media and plane crashes is an interesting one ([3]), and is one of the factors in the notability of US Airways Flight 1549 ([4]--not an American source, by the way). But that relationship is long and strong, and I don't (yet) see how it's particularly unusual in this case. Of course, all of this stuff eventually might add up to something (just as a bird strike and a ditching and a perfect rate of survivorship culminated in the notability of Flight 1549, regardless of how commonly each factor might appear in isolation). But we might do well to ask ourselves if we're not immediately latching onto the archetypal mystique of the sole survivor--onto the natural fascination with the one who stood out from the rest. (In contrast, I would argue that the archetypal attributes of Chesley Sullenberger add to the notability of Flight 1549. If archetypes are, by defition, universal, they can be elicited by potentially anyone. However, Sullenberger is a biographically notable individual who earned his standing as a hero. We don't really know much about the Yemenia 626 survivor, so we should use restraint whenever we might feel inclined to focus on her.) Honestly, though, I don't really mind the entry. I moved it to 2009 in aviation the other day; but if people want it here as well, I'm cool with that. I just want to suggest that these crashes can be judged on their own terms, and have not been viewed in light of some elitist and simplisitic attitude about the world. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this crash is notable enough to be on this article as well as 2009 in aviation, due to the reasons I stated in my previous comment, and regardless of there being one survivor. Most plane crashes are not notable, but it is not very often that a plane crashes with a death toll of well over a hundred. That there is a sole survivor should not be the focus of its coverage on an encyclopedia, even though the media have given that aspect of it undue weight. The survivor is simply lucky, not immortal or invulnerable to injury. Information yes (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are all fair points. My initial removal of the entry from this page probably stemmed in part from a knee jerk reaction to the newsy atmosphere of the event. (And it's not that the survivor couldn't become the next Juliane Köpcke, but rather that it's just too soon to tell.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)