 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
His death is a shock, but this article's still not "high" importance, sorry. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- (Provide reasons. This isn't a vote.) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- He's one of the most well known Australians abroad. Certainly more than any Aussie Prime Minister. Maybe not a "Top" like John Howard, but "High" seems justified. — ceejayoz talk 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- "covers a general area of knowledge"? In a year, two years, five years, will it still be high? Even cities are only mid--low! pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- From the assessment standards page: "Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." — ceejayoz talk 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I only count as one person, but I can attest to the fact he was very well-known. In fact, I, a resident of the Netherlands, don't know many other Australian besides Steve Irwin; Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson and Nicole Kidman being the only others I can come up with at the moment. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's because you're ignorant. The really important figures in Australian or any history are usually major political leaders whose actions have long-lasting and significant effects on the country. We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid, we don't rate Russell Crowe higher than someone like Robert Menzies just because more people might have heard of him because they get their information about the world from the celebrity-obsessed mass media. Steve Irwin was a famous and popular figure and obviously deserves an article, but he is not as high on the importance scale as you seem to think. 86.134.213.12 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No need to get angry. The problem with your statement is that notability isn't just something that's for students of Australia. See ceejayoz's comment. I'd say that the fact he was extremely well-known outweighs what is essentially your bias with which you say that other people are more notable than him, despite not being as well-known. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's because you're ignorant. The really important figures in Australian or any history are usually major political leaders whose actions have long-lasting and significant effects on the country. We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid, we don't rate Russell Crowe higher than someone like Robert Menzies just because more people might have heard of him because they get their information about the world from the celebrity-obsessed mass media. Steve Irwin was a famous and popular figure and obviously deserves an article, but he is not as high on the importance scale as you seem to think. 86.134.213.12 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I only count as one person, but I can attest to the fact he was very well-known. In fact, I, a resident of the Netherlands, don't know many other Australian besides Steve Irwin; Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson and Nicole Kidman being the only others I can come up with at the moment. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- From the assessment standards page: "Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." — ceejayoz talk 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- "covers a general area of knowledge"? In a year, two years, five years, will it still be high? Even cities are only mid--low! pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve Irwin was one of the most famous Australians in the world. This should be a high importance article. I'm not saying this due to the "shock of his death" or to "pay tribute". It's simply true that he was very popular. Aside from that, he was also very beneficial to Australia by constantly promoting it and its wildlife in modern culture. So yeah, in spite of the fact this isn't exactly a topic for scholars, I'd say that mid-level importance is a bit low. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (This comment retracted because the article is high importance now; not because I no longer feel it should be high importance.)
- Retracted comment; article is high importance now, like I believed it should be. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no reason why scholars would not be interested in Steve Irwin, it's just that a reasonably objective assessment (if such a thing were possible) would surely not place him in the upper reaches of importance among Australians. Mid-level is fine. It puts him between trivia and great importance, which is about right. 86.136.7.160 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that it was prominently featured on the news all over the world and that CNN has been showing repeats of his Larry King Live interview would contradict this statement. Do you have any reason to assess that his importance wasn't that great? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no reason why scholars would not be interested in Steve Irwin, it's just that a reasonably objective assessment (if such a thing were possible) would surely not place him in the upper reaches of importance among Australians. Mid-level is fine. It puts him between trivia and great importance, which is about right. 86.136.7.160 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason I gave it a "high" importance is because;
- All of the articles are not lumped together, but in strands - Steve Irwin is a High importance person, not a high importance place. * He's current, same as most living Australians. The bios of living people (or very recently deceased) need more attention than those of long dead people.
- And right now, he's about the most talked about Australian thing there is. In a couple of years, he can drop down to a mid, then a long time from now, a low.
- Steve deserves the high because of his popularity around the world, and that he is a well known and influential Australian.
I didn't give him a high because I got swept up in the whirlwind of sadess for him, but because he deserves it. If you disagree, feel free to take it up on the disputes page. Iorek85 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)