Talk:2009/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

September 2, 2009 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 11:21, September 2, 2009 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

• August 17 – 2009 Sayano-Shushenskaya hydro accident, 71 people death by explosion disaster in Khakassia, Siberia, Russia.

That domestic Russian disaster is not internationally notable, and as such does not belong on this article. There should be a 2009 in Russia article, where it should be listed. Information yes (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia / Somalia

Is the Ethiopian military pulling out of Somalia in January notable enough for inclusion on this article? There is no article about the conflict linked in the Events section. Information yes (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ AM

I was told by an editor that DJ AM should not be included in the Deaths section because "his page is not available in more than 10 languages". First off, Adam Goldstein's death was very newsworthy. Not only was it included on the websites and newscasts of virtually all of the American news circuits, but also some international circuits. He was a very influential DJ, and I feel very strongly that he deserves one line of text on this page at the very least. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.228.81 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He should not be mentioned on this article because a) he has too few Wikipedia articles and b) he was never influential or well-known outside the United States. He is listed in the Deaths sections of 2009 in music and 2009 in the United States. Information yes (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ AM was hardly known outside of a small sect. Nowhee on the level of mega icons like Jackson and Fawcett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.80.148 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Are today's convictions and acquittals of those tried for terror offences in relation to the above important enough for this article, or only sufficient for 2009 in the United Kingdom? Information yes (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Those convicted were sentenced today. Are the convictions and sentencing in the UK for an international conspiracy a domestic UK event or an international event? Information yes (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation) & October 24, 2009

Hi. I would like to ask opinions of you folks about the following comment about my edit, removing the entry by 99.190.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), posted on my talk page.

What does "rm annual and certain "Day"" mean?

Regarding: (rm?) October 24 – International Climate Action Day, coordinated by 350 (organisation), named 350 for the level deemed be a safe upper limit in order to avoid a climate tipping point. [75] The current level, in parts per million (ppm), of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 389ppm. The pre-industrial revolution level was 278ppm. [1]; and (certain day?) October 24 – United Nations Day ? 99.155.156.28 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if the entry by 99.190.91.99 stands.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I see no credible claim that the date or organization is notable. No reason for the entry to stand here or in 350 (organization). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And United Nations Day is an annual event, which shouldn't be in year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary meant 'removing event that regularly takes place on this day each year'. Recent Year articles are only for very internationally notable events that are specific to that year and have a direct link to an article on English Wikipedia. There is no International Climate Action Day article, hence that should not be mentioned on this article. United Nations Day happens on the same day each year, which makes it a similar kind of thing to Christmas Day and New Year's Day, in that they are days that are noted by many, but which certainly do not belong on articles such as this one, as they are not specific to this year. Information yes (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If there were a separate article (other than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) reference) on the International Day of Climate Action, would you let its 24-October-2009 reference stand? 99.155.152.176 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

For my point of view, probably not, even if it were to survive AfD. It doesn't seem notable enough for a year article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by anyone else besides Arthur Rubin? 99.52.149.42 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Arthur Rubin and Information yes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for keeping this event of the future? 99.190.89.139 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the others, probably not notable enough for this article FFMG (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.184.228.56 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who did? I think the replies have been fairly civil, who do you think was rude or otherwise? FFMG (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, among others: On 350 (organisation) history "(remove these "associated organizations", also)". He added "also", sounds like retribution, not contribution, after questioning whether to add 24-October-2009 as a planned event (see 350.org) for International Day of Climate Action. Then all the links from all the 350 Prominent global figures [2], associated organizations to 350 [3], and 350 Athletes [4] were deleted (which referenced the 350 (organisation) connection. Almost all the names listed were cross-listed and referenced, most linked to Wikipedia articles, and all are listed on the Wikipedia webpage's subject's webpage (see previous 350.org). References to multilingual pages were also removed oddly, as Wikipedia is a multilingual endeavor. The native language interconnectedness is truly one of the uniquely great things about Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "Be Bold" is to bring new original content into the body of knowledge. The deletions & undos (etc), if they have any explanation at all, rarely explain why, and if they do are inaccurate. The "editors" do not check to see (or more likely care) if the links they break decrease the quality of encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia. Bots appear to be doing some of the deletions (perhaps Tony Sidaway, SpikeToronto, in some examples). For myself, I am not associated with 350.org, but it does appear to be a well connected organization striving towards a laudable goal, with clear metrics (measurable) on a extremely important topic: decreasing the destruction of wealth around us. 99.27.175.60 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "Also" refers to the removal of 2 other lists of loosely affiliated people or agencies (by other editors).
2. The misplaced #Internal links and/or #See also on various people or organization's articles are inappropriate unless the connection has some relevance to the individual or organization. There is no evidence of that, except in one case which I left.
3. Linking the number "350" to this organization is questionable at best, but I only deleted those paragraphs which were in only vaguely connected ecological articles.
4. I had nothing to do with the references to multi-lingual pages, although I don't see any need to references pages in other languages at http://350.org .
5. And I have not seen any evidence that 350.org is "well-connected", nor that it is anything but in favor of "the destruction of wealth around us." This last phrase has nothing to do with it's notability or suitibility for Wikipedia, so I shouldn't have commented about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is your Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV [5] Wikipedia:NPOV 99.155.148.137 (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is only required in article-space. Comments here need not be NPOV. On the other hand, as noted by multiple editors, almost all of the references in the article (at least, as of a few days ago) are either self-published (usually, by the organization), clearly not reliable, or mention the organization at most tangentially. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to VSmith and SpikeToronto for contribution attempts toward making 350 (organisation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation) a better Wikipedia article. They gave me hope that the better path (than Wikipedia stagnating under the crushing weigh of a random "editor" top-heavy organisation) per Andrew Lih's book. Kudos. 99.54.137.145 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation) only has one Wikipedia article, which is a stub. If it were really an influential org (rather than the little-known pressure group it actually is), it would have WP articles in many languages, some of which would be long. Therefore neither it, nor any supposed action day associated with it, come anywhere near to qualifying for inclusion on any year article. The 350 article does not indicate that it has ever actually achieved any change in the environment, nor in government policy or international agreements. Endorsement by some notable people does not make the org itself important; some people will put their names to various things they don't really care about, purely in order to advance their career / profile or to improve their image by making themselves look caring and benevolent. Information yes (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549

This has been readded on the basis that it was a rare occurrence and the largest number of people to survive a water landing. Even if those points are true, how is this event notable outside the United States? Information yes (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried searching Google News? The coverage on the European side of The Pond was massive, and I suspect the same was the case in other parts of the world. Also, though not legally binding, there are 25 non-English articles, which gives you an idea on the impact (pun not intended). Disasters (and narrow avoidance of same) are of global interest. Favonian (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The massive amount of media coverage in many countries was because it is the kind of story that the media love: 'Miracle' 'Hero saves everyone on board' etc. The large number of articles, and their length, is due to the huge amount of media coverage. Every week, events that are not really important receive a great deal of undeserved international media coverage, including the the case in Sudan where a man had sex with a goat and was subsequently forced to marry it. Such events gain their coverage because the media want to publicise it and lots of people want to read it. It doesn't make it important, nor does it mean it should be on a year article of an encyclopedia. For an event to be on this article, it should be internationally, historically important. This event does not fit that criteria. Rarity does not make something notable, nor does 'largest number of survivors'. In future years, is anyone, apart from those actually affected by the event, going to say: "I remember 2009 very well, that was the year of the Hudson plane ditching"? Are historians ever going to consider it to have been one of the major events of 2009? If this event had happened in Nigeria or China, would it be on this article? Information yes (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain previously this entry is not internationally and historically notable. It received international media coverage because happened to occur somewhere that had an enormous amount of on-the-spot media. If it had happened in a Third World country it would have barely been noticed. As a domestic flight it is only notable in the country in which it occurred. As a rare event in aviation it is notable in aviation. Therefore it belongs in 2009 in the United States and 2009 in aviation. In terms of world history it is nothing more than a footnote and does not belong in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I also mentioned it in two separate discussion that bird strike were very common occurrences around the world, but the argument was turned around because it was successful water landing, (although it is not a first either), or something to that extent.

This particular incident was not a first, in the US or around the world, so I don't see what it needs to stay. FFMG (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it happened to be a bird strike seems irrelevant, really. Even if it happened to be a meteorite strike (which would be notable for its own reasons), that would be beside the point here. The flight is famous for the pilot, not for the geese. The point is that, until Flight 1549, no entire commercial flight had survived a water landing in 45 years. As you can see in Water_landing#Survival_rates_of_passenger_plane_water_ditchings (obviously a fairly notable concept, insofar as article space is concerned), there really have been only two precedents: Pan Am Flight 6 in 1956 (31 on board) and a Tupolev 124 flight in 1963 (52 on board). Almost half a century later, 150 people (almost twice the combined amount from the prior two flights) survive US Airways Flight 1549. In other words, the point is that this is clearly the most successful, and perhaps the most significant, water landing ever to occur. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The pilot was unknown prior to this flight. That millions know his name after it is due to the media making a much bigger deal out of it than it should have been. Would that be the case if this incident had happened in rural Ghana or Ethiopia? Neither rarity, nor number of survivors, make an incident an important world event. A successful landing of a plane (in water or not) is not internationally, historically notable. It was just a media circus. This is an encyclopedia, not news - inclusion is based on actual importance, not how much attention it receives from the public or how many column inches it gains in newspapers and magazines. Are you honestly claiming that in the future, this flight will go down in the history books as one of the major world events of this year, as in '2008 known for being the year Obama won the US election', '2009 for a water landing'? Information yes (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point about the captain. Allow me to rephrase: "The flight is famous for the pilot's active invovlement, not for the geese's accidental presence." (But, to run with what you're saying anyway, obviously that particular pilot is considerably more notable than that particular flock of birds. This incident never really was about a bird strike, and only in a secondary sense was it about the captain per se; it was primarily about all of the events that followed a bird strike.) As for the media, I know it can get out of hand--even, one could say, dangerously out of hand. But even if the ditching had happened in Ghana, in Ethiopia (which, being a landlocked country, would be a particularly newsworthy location for a water landing!), or even beside that happy couple's home in Sudan, the incident still would have been noticed, because it was basically a commercial airline crash--albeit a controlled one--and these generally receive media attention no matter where they might occur. If a zero-fatality headline would be less morbid than usual, it would also be considerably rarer than usual because, as I said earlier, that sort of thing just doesn't happen very often. And no, I'm not making any claims about the future (if I ever had a crystal ball, I must have lost it long ago, and I certainly haven't found it here); I don't know how historians a century (or even a year) from now will look back upon 2008 or 2009. As it stands, however, this is the first perfect (i.e., no-fatality) commercial ditching in 45 years, the third of all time, and the most successful (in terms of survivorship) ever. As far as international significance goes, the Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River took place in the USSR--so commercial water landings are by no means an exclusively American phenomenon. Aviation is everywhere, and incidents in one corner of the globe may have some bearing on knowledge and procedure in another corner. And, not everybody on Flight 1549 was American in the first place. Thanks to one of the passengers, the ditching made a contribution to Australian music. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A water landing could happen in Ethiopia. Though it is (since Eritrea's independence) a landlocked nation, it has rivers and lakes. Yemenia Flight 626 gained media coverage due to the high death toll; had everyone survived that crash, few people would have heard of it. The Tupolev 124 ditching did not receive much media coverage, and only has three WP articles. This ditching gained an undeservedly large amount of attention due to the large amount of local media that could film it and who could quickly alert more journalists and crew to the scene. Disasters are notable, but how is a disaster averted internationally notable? Are any other 'narrowly avoided disasters' on Year articles? Information yes (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Baitullah Mehsud

He has enough articles; is he notable enough to be included? He was a high-ranking member of the Taliban, which is certainly an internationally notable organisation with considerable international effect. It looks like all his militant activities were in Pakistan, but he was killed by the U.S. Information yes (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SpaceX Dragon

How is this internationally notable enough to be present? It is in the Unknown dates subsection at the end of the Events section. Information yes (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If and when it becomes the next regular space vehicle it would probably deserve inclusion. At present the information on a possible launch date is so vague it should probably be removed from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite, Omid

Are the launches of satellites really major world events? Information yes (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change denial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial [6] In Japanese (nihongo)" http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/地球温暖化に対する懐疑論 [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.185.77 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like 350 (organisation); they deny scientific evidence that the number is, at best, +/- 50. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BITE Wikipedia:BITE : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 99.184.230.88 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not a newcomer, (although I can't be sure, as you post from a rotating IP address), and your replacement of English information by Japanese language text in this English language Wikipedia is not constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite has been readded on the basis that it is the first of its kind. I don't see how that makes it internationally, historically notable. If we add things based on them being the first, last, oldest, fastest, longest, heaviest etc., then articles such as this would be filled with loads of stuff that should not be there. Information yes (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Uniqueness does not automatically equate to notability. The notability of a first occurence can only be established subsequently, assuming subsequent occurences show a pattern of notability (ie multiple environmentally related sattelites have actual global consequences). The notability (for this article) of this singular launch has yet to be established. As far as biggest, oldest etc the reasons given would also justify the removal of the Barj Dubai and Oasis of the Seas. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

There is currently no picture for April Deaths. As Beatrice Arthur is the most well-known of all the people who died that month, I believe her pic should be there. Information yes (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the July pic should be Bobby Robson rather than Walter Cronkite, as Robson is known in more countries than Cronkite, and three of the Death section pics are of Americans. Information yes (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Burj Dubai

This is currently in Predicted and scheduled events under September. It is now due to be completed and opened in December, hence it should not be in its current position on this article. Should it be moved to December, or should it be removed from the article altogether due to lack of international notablity? Information yes (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed altogether. Along with the Oasis of the Seas I don't think the tallest, biggest, oldest "ever" should be in year events (unless they are subsequently deemed iconic eg Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Births

As per Talk:2008/Archive 2#Should births be dealt with this way? I have removed the births as they don't meet the agreed criteria (ie 9 non-English articles). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sergey Mikhalkov

His English WP article does not show him to have notabilty outside Russia. Information yes (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

26 non-English articles would suggest some international notability, although I haven't checked the articles for quality. I suspect this is a case of a poorly developed English article rather than actual non-notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Death-section comments

Largely in order to reduce reactance, I've reworded the invisible comments in the deaths section. This much is obvious from the article history, and shouldn't (I think) be controversial. But I should note that I've removed the part about Simple English not counting as one of the nine non-English articles. I'm not actually challenging the exception, but my reasoning is as follows: First, that was a classic bag of WP:BEANS. And second, it's not going to matter for most good-faith editors in the first place. Anybody who tries to argue that simple English is not English either is quite misguided or is simply having too much fun. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The new wording is an improvement on the previous. Before the minimum number of articles criteria was introduced, the Death sections of recent Year articles contained many people who are notable in only one country; many such people are still in those sections of 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 etc., despite the fact that the inclusion criteria for Deaths is retrospective. Information yes (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MS Oasis of the Seas

Is there any more to its notability than being the biggest? If not, how can its inclusion be justified? Information yes (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As with "the oldest peson" and "the last survivor" being "the biggest ship" or "the tallest building" is really only an incidental/transient notability and is insufficient for a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree, but would suggest that the article has different goals when dealing with future and past events. Once events have occurred, they can be placed/misplaced/concealed somewhere in history. But events can't really be historically notable or non-notable when their history hasn't even started. So, while critical assessments of historical notability might be great for past events, they can't precisely be made for future events. But they can be "in the ballpark", and I would suggest that the purpose of including future events is to provide a general sense of what can be anticipated, of what might pique readers' interest as the year progresses. And superlatives (biggest, best, tallest, brightest, worst, deadliest, etc.) might reasonably be said to flag those events that will pique most (indeed, another superlative) people's interest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion should not be based on what is most interesting to the largest number of people, it should be based on international notablity / importance. There are sites and books about the biggest, fastest, tallest etc. of various things for those interested. In any case, this ship has not gained a great deal of media coverage; its completion and launch cannot really be regarded as world events. Information yes (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Calendars

I believe the calendars for September and October should be added to the Events section; could someone please add them? Information yes (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Additionally, these months now have their own sections (October currently straddles the infinitesimal dividing line between past and future, whatever word you choose to call that . . . currently). This is for landing the redirects that will shortly be switched over to November 2009 and December 2009 pages in their own right (but not a moment sooner).

---Schweiwikist (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

September deaths

I don't think that Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, Jack Kramer, and Willy Ronis are internationally notable enough even though they each barely pass the 9 article mark. Thoughts? --Tocino 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reddy is notable enough for 2009 in India and 2009 in politics, but is not notable enough for this article. He was never of any relevance to any country other than India. Kramer won Wimbledon, which makes him notable outside the United States; he should be here, as well as on 2009 in sports and 2009 in the United States. Ronis was not notable outside France; he should be on 2009 in France but not here. Information yes (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Reddy should be excluded. Kramer should stay as per the reason Information yes gave. Ronis should also stay as his work was prominent throughout Europe, I live in the UK but i knew who he was before he died. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Exclude Reddy, not notable outside India. Include Kramer, multiple Grand Slam winner. Exclude (just) Ronis. Seems to have some international notability but probably insufficient for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't really explained in your post why he is "just" insignificant DerbyCountyinNZ. The fact that he's insignificant to you doesn't make him insignificant to the entire English-speaking world.--Jkaharper (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronis' article does not show significant enough notability outside France. Anyone who believes he did have substantial influence etc. in other countries, they need to assert that, with references, on his article. Details of work he did outside France would help to show he could fit the criteria for inclusion in this article. Information yes (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ronis' work was prominent throughout Europe, state that on his article. Information yes (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Juan Almeida Bosque

His article does not show any notablilty outside Cuba. He should be moved to 2009 in politics, unless someone can show substantial international notablity. Information yes (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

His article shows notability outside Cuba in the very first sentence. He was one of the leaders of the Cuban Revolution, which was of international interest from the very beginning, and which had some interesting international consequences. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if Almeida played a part in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Information yes (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Carroll

Author Jim Carroll should be added.

Carroll now has enough articles, having achieved the minimum number posthumously. The article does not show any international notability, which is a necessary criterium for inclusion here. He is on 2009 in the United States. Should he be on 2009 in literature and 2009 in music? Information yes (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Bongiorno

He does not appear, from his article, to be notable outside Italy. Information yes (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary Travers

Mary Tavers needs to be added. Peter, Paul and Mary were massively successful and popular in the 60's.

Was Mary Travers ever well known in many countries? If so, why does she have so few Wikipedia articles? She is on 2009 in music and 2009 in the United States. Information yes (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

At her death she failed to meet the WP:RY criteria for inclusion (9 non-English articles) and was removed from the Deaths section. She now has more than 9 non-English articles which would appear to satisfy the criteria (the argument that has been used to add her in again). However, several of those articles are extremely minimal stubs with no references at all. As such I would contend that she is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC

I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ. Just adding stubs to satisfy criteria does not make her notable. ttonyb (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But stuff like this does: "Their version of If I Had a Hammer became an anthem for racial equality, as did Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind, which they performed at the August 1963 March on Washington. Puff, the Magic Dragon is so well-known that it has entered American and British pop culture." (from her article). And so does having had "international hits" [8] [9]. Helping to propel John Denver to his own "international acclaim" [10] can't hurt. True, all of those links are about the trio as a whole. But when her death is "top news" [11] all the way in India, she very well might have been an important one-third of that internationally successful trio (or, as they say in Australia, [12] "one of folk music's most popular acts"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of Travers' articles were created after her death. She does not have much individual notablity, unless she was the main / sole composer of songs performed by her group which were international hits. The large majority of people do not recognise her name. If you were telling someone who she was, you would usually have to say "she was Mary from Peter, Paul and Mary", as 'Mary Travers' would be met with a blank expression. PP&M are internationally notable, but her article does not show that she is. If she is, please expand her article to show that to be the case. Information yes (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoshito Usui

Whilst he has enough articles, his stub does not show international notablity. Information yes (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He meets the WP:RY#Deaths criteria but prior to his death his article was barely a stub:

Yoshito Usui (臼井儀人, Usui Yoshito?, born 21 April 1958 in Shizuoka Prefecture) is a Japanese manga artist known for being the author of the popular Japanese manga Crayon Shin-chan.

Plus a short list of his works.

Most of his articles in other languages are of a similar size, even after his death, and most have no citations. This would seem to indicate that he is not particularly notable, and certainly insufficiently notable for this article. Yet another case of a person whose unusual/unexpected death is more notable than they themselves are/were. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors of mangas, animations, and/or cartoons does not necessarily have to make themselves known, but their opus. (for example, even though Dragon Ball has been watched and distributed worldwide, I do not think many people know the face of Akira Toriyama, the author.) Although his face itself is not well known even his native country, his opus, Crayon Shin-chan, has been broadcasted internationally, and it has articles in 20 different languages.--Belle Equipe (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Noordin Mohammad Top

He now has enough articles. He was a high-ranking member of an international terrorist group, and was wanted by the FBI. I believe that makes him notable enough to be included. Information yes (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of those listed in this section I would exclude Reddy, Ronis, Carroll, Bongiorno, Travers and Usui as they (still) do not seem to be sufficiently internationally notable for this article. Include Bosque and Top as thier articles reflect sufficent international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins

She is not notable outside the United States. Information yes (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Manson Family murders are internationally notable but I doubt too many people outside the US would have had any idea who Susan Atkins is/was until her death made the news. Even most people in the US would probably not have heard of her until her release from prison. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the murders being internationally notable makes everyone involved internationally notable. Since being convicted, Atkins received very little media coverage until she was diagnosed with brain cancer. Her death has received little media coverage outside the US. When people outside the US think about the Manson murders, it is Manson himself, and the most well-known victim, Sharon Tate, who come to mind. Most people outside the US either cannot remember her or have never heard of her in the first place. She was never released from prison after being incarcerated for her part in the murders; her requests to be released were refused due to the severity of her crimes; she died there. Information yes (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To put her notability in mathematical terms, I would suggest the following formula: A (the puppet master) + B (some string) + C (the puppet) = D (the show, i.e., the only reason people have ever heard of her). If the consensus is, as I take it, that people shouldn't be included unless they've notably--and clearly--done something of their own volition, then Puppet Master Manson would be included if he were to die; but in this case, A + B + C doesn't really seem to equal inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How about, E=Victims, F=The media, G=The public, H=The parents, I=whatever will make the formula balance, ... and so on.

I don't think we should oversimplify such a critical mathematical formula when talking about the death of people and improving this article. FFMG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was oversimplifying. If I'd said a little more, I could've run into one problem, and if I'd said a whole lot more, I might've run into an even bigger one. But my point was...well, the same as everybody else's, i.e., Atkins (much like the supercentenarians) is such a multifactorial case that she doesn't seem to have the "independent" sort of notability that other entries have, and which seems to be preferred by earlier consensus here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Manson was well known because of the Murders, Susan Atkins was not known. Personally I doubt many, (inside our outside the US), even knew who she was. Even Sharon Tate is probably unknown to most, (but, if at all, she is probably better known than Susan). FFMG (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove her. The consensus seems pretty clear and unanimous. I'll WP:1RR if anybody disagrees with me, but so far I don't see anybody advocating her inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Irving Kristol

He has enough articles. Is he sufficiently internationally notable to be included? Information yes (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

His english article seems to indicate no notability outside the US (only 1 non-US link which is from the UK) but most of the foreign language articles seem to include a local reference. I'd probably go for a weak exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Popovich

Is he notable outside his native Ukraine / (prior to Ukraine's independence) USSR? Information yes (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

20 non-English articles would seem to indicate that he was. Several of these are of course only stubs but many seem to have at least one reference in the local language. I think this indicates sufficient notability for him to remain in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is now well past the end of the month. Should those that are agreed to not be notable enough now be excluded? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoichi Nakagawa

Is he of sufficient notability outside Japan to warrant being included? Information yes (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 　

He was a Japanese Finance Minister and the Japanese delegate of G7 meeting held in February this year in Rome. Is it not enough to prove his notability?

It seems you are throwing doubt on notability of all people you do not know.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

His article has citations from numerous countries which would seem sufficient although I suspect this has more to do with his unexpected death and previous notoriety rather than genuine international notability. A marginal keep. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gately

I noticed that Stephen Gately has been added to the list of deaths. Though on the day he died, which was the 10 of October 2009, he did not have the ammount of non-English language Wikipedia articles that he currently has. He had fewer than 9. Maybe around 4 or 5. I've checked some of these articles and noticed that the new articles were all created on the 11th of October 2009, the day after Stephen Gately died. I assume someone did this just so Stephen Gately could qualify for the 2009 death list.

I don't think he should qualifiy for the main 2009 death list as he wasn't well known worldwide on his own. - User: Cool King, 12 October, 2009, 16:00 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool King (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree, some of the articles are stubs created soon after his death.

At the time of his death he only had 4 articles, (de, pl, fi, nl), and While one could argue that Boyzone is well known, I am not sure if he, himself, qualifies for inclusion here. FFMG (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

His group are very internationally notable, due the success of their albums and singles in many countries. He has very little individual notablity outside the British Isles. His death is receiving a great deal of mainstream media coverage in many countries. Information yes (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Boyzone is internationally notable. Of its members only Ronan Keating is internationally notable in his own right. Stephen Gately notability rests almost entirely on his membership of Boyzone not as a solo performer. The issue of how many non-English articles a person has at death and how this usually increases after death and whether this should be considered an indication of notability or not is one I have raised at the Wikipedia Recent years talk page, so far without success. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem sensible to exclude people who do not have individual international notabilty, even if they are part of a group which does have international notability. Do we have consensus on that? If so, both Gately and Mary Travers should be excluded. Information yes (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Vandenbroucke

He has enough articles. He has some international notablity, but is it sufficient to warrant his inclusion? He won events in his his native Belgium, as well as a major, long-distance French race, Paris-Nice. Information yes (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He did not win a major international event (ie Olympics/world champs, Tour de France or Giro d'Italia) which makes him just one of many professional cyclists who won events in their own country. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Paris-Nice takes place within one country, but is competed in and won by cyclists from various countries; it is a fairly important, internationally notable event, although nothing like as important as the Tour de France. Winning races in his own country as well as one in another country gives him some international notability, but perhaps not enough to warrant inclusion. Information yes (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He seems notable within the pro cycling community and I would guess that he is fairly well known within the Benelux and France. There's a lot of Google News hits about him at the moment and the actual WP article about him seems tidy. I think he belongs here. --Tocino 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Martino

Despite his (small) role in The Godfather, a string of successful hits in the 50s and early 60s, and barely passing the 9 limit, I don't think Al Martino is internationally notable enough to be listed. Thoughts? --Tocino 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He had a few top 10 singles in both the US and UK, which gives him substantial notability in two countries. His English article fails to show notability elsewhere, but his German article states one of his songs reached #3 in both Germany and Austria. Therefore he is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Information yes (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Information yes

Looks like the guy was permabanned for a bad case of sockpuppeting.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#7_current_accounts_with_same_user

--Tocino 03:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has been archived already [13]. FFMG (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. I haven't read the sockpuppetry case in detail, but as it stands, I respect the contribs he's made here. So, Information yes, if you read this, and if you would like to be unblocked but don't know how to make your case, see WP:AAB, especially section 7. Alternatively, if you would like me to present a case to ArbCom on your behalf, I would be willing to do so (but would recommend that you consider waiting a while), and you can send me a WP email about what you'd like to say to them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Death section discussion

DerbyCountyinNZ has made an interesting proposal regarding the death entries. Given my main article fixation, I sort of surprised myself by agreeing fully with the idea (albeit with one qualification that I made today). In any case, it might be good to reach consensus (one way or the other) fairly soon, so that the guideline can apply (or not apply) clearly as the 2010 article comes into focus. I would invite anyone who's interested to comment on the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Recent_years#Proposed_amendment_to_Deaths_criteria. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed McMahon

Johnny stole the spotlight in life and Farrah and Michael in death...but really I think Ed McMahon deserves a bow here (June 23). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.199.187 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:2009/Archive_3. Per policy, he is not eligible for inclusion because he does not have enough Wikipedia articles and is almost unheard of outside the United States. He is on 2009 in the United States, 2009 in American television and Deaths in 2009. Information yes (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is essentially run by three editors, who claim to speak for the entire planet. Although Ed McMahon is well-known outside of the United States, these three editors don't agree. As such, no reasonable discussion can be held. The only way to get someone listed is to violate Wikipedia rules by putting it to a vote. However, if an effort is made to contact knowledgeable editors in a neutral manner, you will be accused of canvassing. At that point, one or more of the three editors will post angry messages to talk pages telling people that they must come and vote to exclude people from being listed. Ultimately, if the result is to list someone, they will complain bitterly and claim that the "consensus" (vote) was flawed and invalid. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a technical point: WP:RY is actually a guideline, not a policy. In practice, the difference rarely matters (except where a policy and a guideline seem to conflict with one another), but the word "policy" carries an authoritative tone, and this might not come across to the WP:NOOBs as the most welcoming kind of tone. My point is subtle, and I'm not trying to say that anyone has done anything horribly wrong; I'm just throwing in my two cents' worth, in an effort to keep things moving along a de-escalatory path. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were at least 5 editors instrumental in developing the guidelines requiring 10 non-English language articles and some evidence of international notability. Neither is present in regard McMahon, although I think he's more notable than many of those listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that McMahon was ever well-known outside the US should at least name which countries they believe he was known in and / or show some evidence. In any country other than the US, it would be difficult to find people (other than American expatriates and dead pool devotees) who have even heard of him. Which people currently listed on this article does anyone believe are less notable than McMahon? Information yes (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada is certainly a country outside of the US. Of the 11,500 sources from Canada, a quick sampling shows a retrospective on his life in the Toronto Star, a Canadian Broadcasting Company story about him getting sued, a story from theCTV Television Network about the sale of his house, and, of course, a story from the Vancouver Sun about his death. The list goes on and on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is being known in two countries (US and Canada) sufficient for inclusion? Information yes (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No way! Definitely not sufficient. --Belle Equipe (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. In particular 2 neighbouring countries speaking the same language can hardly be an indication of notability sufficient for in a year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since we've played a game of "moving goalposts" with you two. I was starting to worry about you when you hadn't been around to make sure nobody had the nerve to edit your page in a while. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - McMahon fails the criteria in Wikipedia:Recent years – this has been discussed a length. What has changed? ttonyb (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If McMahon had a wide audience even in just the US, then there would be more WP articles than there actually are. He can't be popular or well-known among Hispanic Americans, as there is no Spanish article. It looks like he was never a major star. Information yes (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of being clueless? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary, lets play nice now.--WillC 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How are Ron Silver, Bea Arthur, Jack Kemp and Ted Kennedy known more than Ed McMahon? Ted Kennedy wasn't even that well known outside of Mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.169.248 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Wiseman

He meets the criteria of 9 non-English articles but most of those articles are clones of the same one (not the enlish one) or (in some cases very) small stubs with no citations or merely IMDB. He was noted for one role only (villain in Dr No) so can't really have been said to have a sufficiently notable career for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Wiseman. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! (More haste, less speed). Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on WP:RY

As a heads-up: Quantitatively speaking, I've just written about 2/3 of WP:RY (biggest diffs are [14], [15], and [16]). I WP:BOLDly did this without "warning" because, qualitatively speaking, these edits should be pretty elementary and uncontroversial--a faithful representation of the consensus and precedent that simply had yet to be noted on the guideline. If I am wrong about any of that, however, please feel free to let me know, or to revert or modify my changes. (I apologize if any responses of mine are unusually delayed; I've lost count of the power outages my area has had today.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

September Deaths - Willy Ronis, Mary Travers

In the section above on September deaths there are 2 people who the consensus (although votes were minimal) would indicate are regarded as not notable enough to remain in this article. The votes so far are:

• Willy Ronis - Exclude 2 Include 1
• Mary Travers - Exclude 3 Include 1

Interested users may have missed the discussion so unless there is a change in consensus in the next week I'll go ahead and remove them . Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week with no further objections so I'll remove them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

East African Shilling

Currently listed on this page, under the unknown section for future events. It's almost certainly not going to be introduced this year, and I don't think any of the governments of East Africa are saying otherwise. It should be removed from this page. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I disagree with Michael Jackson being used as the featured picture in the June deaths section. While he was, undoubtedly, a major force in the music world from the 60's to the early 90's his decline since then, the constant controversy (including the manner and timing of his death*) and his descent into perceived infantilism (having the mind of a child) should disclude him from being lauded especially when there are other important candidates who, at least in the past 20 years, have had more of a positive impact on people's lives: David Carradine (although questions remain over the circumstances of his death) David Eddings - World famous author of one of the most read fantasy series after Lord of the Rings. Farrah Fawcett - Ever present on screen and stage.

There are those who believe that Jackson's death was staged - with or without his knowledge - to create a final act in his life that would have people remember him in an Elvis-like fashion. The evidence for this (such as the increasing dosages of painkillers) is, however, circumstancial, yet questions remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There are different people who think a lot of different things about a lot of different topics. Regardless, the death of Michael Jackson was a major, international event, and Jackson himself was a prominent, internationally known figure. The article is neither glorifying him nor vilifying him; this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial or a soapbox. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

The consensus in Recent Year articles has been that anniversaries not be included. While this event has been reported widely it does not have its own wiki article and would therefore seem to be insuffuiciently notable for making an exception for this anniversary to be included in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree...should be removed. ttonyb (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Even if it is internationally notable, it's not exactly unpredictable; it's sort of a given that folks will commemorate a major event as soon as various multiples of five or ten years have passed since the event. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I have always found the double standard of this page amazing, the blindingly predictable inauguration, (and election a few month before), of the president of one country is deemed important enough to be listed here every 4 years like clockwork, but the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall is considered "not exactly unpredictable". FFMG (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I for one have always argued that neither the election nor the inauguration of a US president should be an exception to the consensus that electionsa do not belong in Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where was there such a consensus? That both the (re)election and (re)inauguration of the US president, (but of no other presidents in the world), would be listed?

I recall there was some discussion about this current president, but I cannot recall a general consensus been reached. FFMG (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RY (I can't find the discussion, but haven't looked that hard, no-one has disagreeed particularly strongly about any other election bar that of Obama since WP:RY was started) "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election)." Obama's election does not represent a significant change in the US. There is also this :"Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources." It has been deemed that Obama being the first African-American President of the US fulfills this criteria. I disagree. Also as far as I am aware no other inauguration has been considered worthy of inclusion bar this one. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd list the inauguration of every U.S. president. In fact, I'm not sure I'd list anyone's but Obama's, considering the massive international attention and viewership that the inauguration of the first post-Bush and first African-American president received. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I wouldn't quite call this a "double standard": The US has a tendency to thank itself for the fall of the Berlin Wall, and to frame the event as part of its "victory" against the evil Other, the USSR. This kind of rhetoric has pervaded American politics for quite some time. So I'd think a biased American editor would want to show off both events. I'm inclined to think that only those occurrences that do become significant international events should be included. Obama's inauguration was indeed an event, because it turned him into the president. But, as far as the Wall goes, is an actual event taking place 20 years after the fact? Is something actually occurring, or is an occurrence simply being remembered? Also, Obama's inauguration was a necessary consequence of his election, and his election was by no means a given just two years ago, let alone twenty. Granted, the Wall's fall wasn't quite predictable either, but that event is long in the past, and bears no substantive relation to the fact that people like to remember things once a nice-looking number of years has passed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A biased American? That seems a little demeaning. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I don't contribute well. Granted I post many things in the 2009 in the United States page (I'm guessing where you want me and other Americans to stay), but I am in no way US-centric. I do not like American Imperialism, the Iraq War, or the Americanization of Wikipedia. If you wish to view a deformed, americanized version of Wikipedia, just look at Conservapedia - such a haven for biased, ultra-right, American fascist babble. I'm in the same fight you are, so don't attack your allies. (Tigerghost (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Who are you replying to? Because either you or I missed a reply somewhere. FFMG (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd venture a guess that, since both Tigerghost's comment and mine include the words "a biased American", he at least had something I said in the back of his mind. Apart from that, I haven't a clue what Tigerghost is going on about. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I gathered it might have something you said, but as it makes no sense I was wondering if maybe I was the one who missed something. FFMG (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it we have consensus to remove this? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. Perhaps Tigerghost will explain his comment later on. But, apart from his digression, the overall atmosphere of this thread strikes me as at least a bit more against inclusion than for it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Annual summits

Any thoughts on removing entries like those for the Asia Cooperation Dialogue and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (note that the summit itself does not appear to have an article)? These are annual events. Now, I'm perfectly fine with including World Cups or Olympics every four years. First of all, their outcomes can't be scheduled in advance; one country wins the final football match or takes home the most Olympic gold. Unless these summits have a similarly outstanding outcome, they don't seem particularly unique to a given year. Plus, it seems counterintuitive to mention annual occurrences unless they're so internationally notable (e.g., Nobel Prizes, religious holidays) that they have a section of their own. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And, um, nothing against Asia here--I just noticed that similarity now, but what I'm saying is directed at all annual-summit entries. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If they are annual (or even biannual) and nothing international results from them then they can't be particularly notable. That they are not deemed worthy of their own article reinforces this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Add International Day of Climate Action 24 October

Add International Day of Climate Action 24 October. 99.155.153.201 (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This event was not a major news event indicating that it was not particularly notable. It is also (so far) insufficiently notable to have its own article. The parent article still seems a little to WP:soapbox as evidenced by your (under one of your other Grand Rapids IPs) of external links to twitter, facebook and myspace, which hardly enhance its credibility let alone notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ft. Hood shooting on the 2009 page

I beg to differ that it doesn't involve inclusion. It was documented by many international news organisations (which is a major criteria of inclusion in the article). And if the standard has changed, shouldn't all incidents similar be excluded as well. What about the major event on March 3 of 2009 where less people were killed, but it occured in the middle-east so its okay. Or what about the Columbine high school massacre in 1999. Will you exclude that as well? I'm not the most US-centric person, but you shouldn't exclude major events like that just because they take place in the United States. (Tigerghost (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

It may be internationally known, but is it internationally important? I'm willing to guess that the Colorado balloon incident received some coverage in more than one nation, but does this coverage really matter for those countries? Of course, a mass murder is immeasurably more serious than some goofy hoax, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more relevant to other countries or to history. Perhaps the incident will turn out to have some bearing on relations between Islamic nations and the West. If things pan out this way, then it might merit inclusion. But, I think, only time will tell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The event on 3 March to which you refer was a terrorist attack on international sports team in another country, the first attack of this type since 1972. Thus it is not only a multinational event but a very rare one. Domestic multiple shootings of the Ft Hood type are now relatively frequent; there have been several others this year in various countries. Because this one involved the military (and the dubious terrorist associtaion that has been implied by some) does not make it more notable than any of those others which have not been included in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A shooting spree on a US military base that left this many people dead is a lot more significant than you seem to be willing to admit. A gunman, of Palestinian descent, shooting 43 American soldiers while shouting what has unfortunately become adopted as a terrorist mantra in the midst of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is most definitely an international event, regardless of where it happened. It's simply reprehensible that, due to an obvious anti-US bias, you would argue against its inclusion on a page that includes such other Earth-shaking events as that Family Matters episode where Carl Winslow had a nightmare. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to bring personal viewpoints into it what I am is anti the pro-American bias which is prevalent over an enormous number of Year articles. This was in part due to the fact that, despite there presumably being more US users than any other country in English wiki, there were hardly any Year in US articles. Fortunately this has been remedied recently by a user who has created all of them! So eventually all the foundations of sororities and fraternities, the births and deaths of minor members of Laura Ingalls-Wilder's family and the foundation of the first school in a small county in a particular state can now be included somewhere more appropriate. As for this case a US citizen shot some other US citizens. This is not unique. If there was convincing evidence that there were any international terrorist links then it would certainly be a candidate for inclusion. At present, despite some authorities calling it a terrorist activity, it appears to be nothing more than a single individual going postal who happens to be of Middle Eastern heritage and belongs to the Islamic faith, which has, not surprisingly, been seized upon by the US media as indicative of some sort of prerequisite for terrorist activity. And, in case you hadn't noticed, at least one US user agrees with exclusion which I hope shows that users interested in Year pages are actually capable of objectively assessing what should and should not be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays

why is billy mays not included under deaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.136.24 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed at great length. The archived discussion may be seen here. Favonian (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, although I favoured his inclusion before, I no longer do; I can't think of a non-convoluted argument for mentioning him in this international article (in fact, looking back on what I said in that debate, I hardly can believe I even said it), and I see that even nearly half a year after he died, he has only six non-English articles. I can see how the omission might seem counterintuitive to some Americans (myself included), for whom Billy Mays has become a household name; but, looking back on things, I have to agree that the omission was appropriate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Colin Sharp and Eric Woolfson

In 2009 UK music lost two representants: Colin Sharp (ex singer of post-punk band The Durutti Column) and Eric Woolfson of Alan Parsons Project.Francodamned (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sharp has been removed for failing to meet the criteria as per WP:RY. Woolfson meets the minimum criteria but he is really only known as a memeber of the Alan Parson Project, his individual work is not particularly notable. The majority of his articles are clones of the English one using the same English references. This does not indicate he is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, so I'm going to remove him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vyacheslav Tikhonov

While he has more than the minimum articles required as per WP:RY he does not seem to be sufficiently internationally notable. All his films were made in the Soviet Union/Russia and even though one won an Oscar, I doubt too many people outside the film industry have ever heard of him (unlike Richard Todd who also just died but hasn't yet been included in this article!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm an American and I've heard of Tikhonov before his death and I'm no film buff, and I've never heard of Richard Todd either. Tikhonov was one of the most famous actors during Soviet times and elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc. His character Stirlitz is a still quoted frequently in Russia and other former Soviet republics. --Tocino 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. Tikhonov easily passes the 9 mark. He has 23 articles (24, counting the old Belarusian language). --Tocino 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard the Soviet bloc as truly representative of international notability. Appearing in an Oscar winning film isn't particularly rare, being nominated for a Best Actor Oscar is. Todd was also one of the first to parachute into Normandy on D-Day which would probably be enough for a wiki article on its own. I'm not too fussed, but this is a good example of the disparity in foreign-language articles which I think highlights a problem with using it as a criteria for inclusion (though there's nothing better to replace it with). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the average American has heard of Richard Todd before. He might be well known in England and a few other Commonwealth nations (I doubt this though), however Tikhonov is without a doubt a household name in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, etc. I've even found a few Vietnamese articles about his death [17] [18] --Tocino 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tocino! James Michael 1 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, New Zealand's largest daily newspaper has a weekly obituaries page on saturday. Todd's was the leading obituary, Tikhonov is not mentioned at all. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Roy E. Disney

He's got enough non-English pages now, but I didn't add him when he died because, back then, he had only six. Of course, the Disney name and company are known around the globe, but I'm not sure if Roy was very familiar to people outside the U.S. Somebody did add him to the list, but I'm not sure if he should stay there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that he shouldn't be included if my propsed amendment to WP:RY Deaths was being used as the criteria. However his article seems to indicate a reasonable level of notability and I would put his notability ahead of several others who have been included. As a comparison New Zealand's largest daily newspaper gave Disney the same amount of space (about 2 column inches) in its weekly obituaries as Gaidar, Samuelson and Oral Roberts (though it's irrelevant he is the only one of the four I have heard of). If there is consensus to remove I would have no objections. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of head-of-state on Deaths

According to the discussion made in the end of May regarding inclusion of Mamadou Dia, it does not seem anyone objected the idea to include head-of-state although each applicable person has less than 9 non-English articles "unless their term was so brief as to be barely significant to international history", which User:DerbyCountyinNZ mentioned. Therefore, I added two of former Central-American Presidents on Deaths section. But User:Arthur Rubin objected it. I would like to ask opinions of other editors. --Belle Equipe (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for the rule change there; the "vote" on the general addition of heads of states is 1-1, with consensus only to add that particular head of state. Perhaps (further) discussion on WT:Recent years, and discussion of these particular heads of state here, would be in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:SILENCE,

"Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident"

I do not see any "voiced disagreement" to the proposal by DerbyCountyinNZ.--Belle Equipe (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting that talk page

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)

It's before DerbyCountyinNZ's comment in favor of Jkaharper's proposal, but it certainly appears to be in opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As neither leader meets the minimum criteria and their inclusion is disputed the case needs to be made in favour of their inclusion (as it was for Mamamou Dia). As it is a relatively rare occurence they can probably be treated on a case-by-case basis.

1. Garcia was president for 4 years. During his term Guatemala had a political fallout with the US, disputes with Belize and began to receive military aid from at least 6 countries on 2 continents. I would consider this sufficient indication of international notability.
2. Carazo was also president for 4 years. During his term his country was heavily involved in the Sandanista movement aginst Nicaragua, broke of relations with Cuba, ignored IMF advice which lead to a still-ongoing national debt and campaigned "vigorously" against CAFTA. Again I would consider this a sufficient indication of international notability.

In both cases I think the English article inadequately indicates the significance of the individual although articles in other languages are more substantial. I still think that state leaders in general should be included in Year article Deaths unless their term is/was so short as to have NO international impact. It is unfortunate that the state leaders of smaller countries are given such limited coverage in wikipedia and news outlets while minor entertainers and sportspeople receive so much but I suppose as editors it would be POV to distinguish between significance and notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably include heads of state by default. Some of them will receive better coverage simply because their countries have either better media access or a larger population to report on things. But (perhaps with the rare exception), half the job of being head-of-state is to represent one nation when dealing with other nations, so I'd say that international importance probably can be assumed until someone presents evidence to the contrary (sort of a WP:IAR on WP:BURDEN, I know, but one that's probably justified in this case). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Colgan Air Flight 3407

I thought that Colgan Air Flight 3407 (Feb.) had been removed a long time ago, but I just noticed that it's still there. This was a domestic flight, and I'm not aware of any international repercussions. Then again, it does have articles in 19 other languages. My own feelings about including this are neutral-to-negative (yes, my inclusionism has decreased substantially over the course of working with this article); what do others think? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exclude. Domestic. I still think there should be minimum numbers for different types of domestic/international disasters. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exclude, this is definitely a domestic event and not really a first in most countries. Like you, I am surprised to see this event having so many articles. FFMG (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

President Obama signed an order...

Isn't it it time that we remove the entry "January 22 – President Obama signs an order to close within a year the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, where the US had held non-citizens whom it accused of terrorism".

This is almost certainly not going to happen and I still fail to see where/how this is an international event, (this is not a discussion about prisoners of war vs other prisoners), many countries have foreigners in their prisons, we don't list it here every time a politician makes a promise to do something about with them.

Shall we remove it or rephrase it a bit to show it will not happen regardless of the media hype that surrounded this domestic event. FFMG (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it essentially a domestic event (despite involving citizens of other countries and some international disapproval). There are many countries who hold prisoners under similar situations, that one of them has decided to close a detention camp (prison) is notable in that country but not internationally. The signing of an order to do so is most certainly of domestic notability only (after all things may change and it may not close at all!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd classify Guantanamo as "domestic", considering the international notoriety of that particular prison. However, domestic or not, the entry describes more of an announcement of an upcoming event than an event in its own right, and probably shouldn't be in a timeline of "events" unless it had had some significant consequences within a fairly short amount of time. So I'd also exclude it (albeit for a somewhat different reason). Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would probably be happier if the entry was referring to the actual closure of the prison, (but the prisoners are just going to be moved to new facilities so that would not really be the end of it).

But listing promises made, (even if made to look like a law/order), by one president doesn't make sense in an international page. I'll go ahead an remove it. FFMG (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese general election, 2009

• • Japanese voters go to the polls, with official result to The Democratic Party of Japan win 308 seats in the 480 seat House of Representatives, ending nearly 50 years of control by the Liberal Democratic Party. Opposition leader Yukio Hatoyama is expected to be confirmed as the next Prime Minister.

Elections belong in eg Electoral calendar 2009 not in Year articles (unless historically AND internationally significant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead not specifically set in 2009

Back in 2008 all the dates displayed 2008. The game just updates itself depending on the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.226.67 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Gibson

Well Known Actor Henry Gibson who stared in such films as Wedding Crashers and The Blues Brothers died in 2009 and just like Billy Mays wasnt included in the deaths of 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.23.24 (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is because he, like Billy Mays, does not meet the mimimum criteria for inclusion as per WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 attempted terrorist attack

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581153,00.html

is this worth noting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.46.91 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really, what is notable about that particular event? FFMG (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that an attempt to take 275 lives onboard an airliner is “notable.” Richard Reid’s December 2001 failed attempt to detonate a “shoe bomb” on an airplane did make it on the 2001 Wikipedia page. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

People "attempt" to do naughty things all the time. If the news is any reflection of the truth, it seems that somebody is blowing up or trying to blow something up every other day. What this guy "succeeded" at was making a scene and heightening irrational domestic fears of omnipresent, never-ending "terror". While the incident may turn out to have some bearing on international airline security procedures (it was, after all, a flight from one country to another, and the attacker was from yet a third nation), it seems at the moment to have been a classic case of somebody going, "Boo!", successfully scaring people but not, ultimately, doing a whole lot else. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. The flight was from Europe to North America, and the attacker was from Africa. And apparently al-Qaeda (Asia) is now claiming responsibility (although that might not come as much of a surprise). So there's definitely something international, even intercontinental, about the whole incident. The same could be said, albeit to a lesser degree, about Roman Polanski's arrest, which is mentioned in the article. But since the attack failed, it seems like more of a "non-event" or an "almost-event" than an event. So while I'm still leaning towards exclusion, I probably wouldn't object if others wanted to A) include this or B) exclude both this and the Polanski arrest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first and second comment, the fact that the US tightened security after an attempted bombing does not make the even any more significant.

Flying to and from many countries, (Israel for example), is subject to extraordinary security restrictions, we don't list those here every time the security level changes.

Someone claiming to be a member of one group or another tried to do something on a flight between two countries. This is not a first and will probably not be the last time.

I also think Polanski should be removed, it is a domestic event, (albeit with a few countries involved). FFMG (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Exclude this and Polanski. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It meets the three-continent ruleNorth America (CBC)Europe (Guardian)Africa (News24) and would help expand the December section, which currently presents the month of December 2009 having three significant international events. It is indisputably an international event: starting in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, the incident occuring in Romulus, and the flight landing in Detroit, United States, the incident caused the American, French, and British embassies to close, in Yemen, while the embassies of Spain, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the Czech Republic imposed strong safety restrictions on their embassies. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no denying that the event was widely reported in the media, probably because it involved the US, maybe because of the time of the year it happened.

But to say that that this single event caused some embassies in Yemen to close is simply not true, while the UK routinely follows what the US does, the same cannot be said about France and Spain, they chose to close their embassies for very different reasons than an attempted bombing on a flight. My own _guess_ would be that this was one one of many terrorist attacks planned from Yemen, (again, probably because that time of year sees a lot more terrorist activity), and the various countries shared their intelligence reports and came to their own conclusions.

So in the end, an attempted bombing on a flight is not such a notable event, we need to be careful when trying to link other events to this one. FFMG (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)