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. |
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)
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)
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)
My reasoning is this:
For comparison another entry that has been allowed to stand in this article:
If this entry does not belong then neither does the other. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this former Heavyweight champion being deleted? GoodDay ( talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
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)
My reasoning is this:
For comparison another entry that has been allowed to stand in this article:
If this entry does not belong then neither does the other. DerbyCountyinNZ 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this former Heavyweight champion being deleted? GoodDay ( talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)