This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
For earlier discussions of this topic, see archive1, archive2, and archive3, as well as the talk archive at Deaths in 2005.
I just want to know why the Bobby Glen Wilcher entry that I put here was deleted. He was a death row inmate from Mississippi who was executed on October 18. And now an entry on Jeffrey Lundgren is here. That's not fair! Southerngyrl20 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
An "overstimulating game of chess?" Survived by "13 children?" All right, I admit I'm laughing, but this is not the right time of the year for April Fool's jokes.
(If, by chance, this is real, the poster needs to provide documentation. In the meantime, it should be removed.)
As I am a novice at this, but a frequent lurker, I have a question.
What documentation of death is required? The article on Jason DiEmilio references pitchforkmedia.com, which references philebrity.com.
Philebrity.com states
"We are saddened to hear today that Jason DiEmilio — known to many music fans here and around the world as the man behind the psychedelic/post-rock outfit Azusa Plane — has passed on."
And then later in the article:
"As of this writing, no proper obituary is available, but we promise to get that, as well as info on any services in his honor, to you the moment we’re made aware of them."
What worries me is that there is no independent confirmation of death here, and this may be all rumor.
Somebody set me straight on this please.
Thanks,
Bill
Why was he made a seperate article? Essentially he IS the Azusa Plane, I guess sometimes live he would have others on stage, but Azusa Plane IS Jason DiEmio. Wouldn;t a redirect to the band be better than a seperate article that would probably end up eventually being merged? - FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The citation says that John Howard heard on the 6th that Fairhall had died. It doesn't say he died on the 6th. I strongly suspect he would have died at least a day earlier than this, but there's nothing else on Google that I could find. When another citation becomes available, we will need to check his actual date of death. JackofOz 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is Bellinda Emmett listed as dying on the eleventh? In all time zones i know of, it is still the tenth. Right now it's 10:30 Central united states. Didn't want to change iincase it's supposed to be that.
Mick Jagger's father dies at 93 CNN Google offers: all 256 news articles » I added Basil Jagger and it was deleted as not-notable. Yet it made the network radio news in USA. Hours later the horsey death Desert Orchid is still there. Hrothgar 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongly in favour of famous animals, strongly against celebrity's family members - would you count their sisters? Cousins? Best friends? We really need to make a policy about this question, since it comes up frequently Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
While I don't really care whether Joe Jagger is in or out, I note that this section is described as "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". Might I suggest that Joe's death is notable because he is Mick's father? Kevin
Not notable enough to have a Google page (or as a supermodel, image on Google.) - Should she be here? On the flipside, junior football players make it here all the time. So it's a toss-up Ade1982 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, without even a single googlefinding, she is not noteworthy. -- Lordz 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a Reuters (via CNN) story [1]
Whoa! 23.000 googlepages since yesterday... though most apparently concerns her death.
82.192.146.25
15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is certainly a notable event that should make our news section, I'd assume?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I note that poor old Joe Jagger has been buried and dug up regularly by bickering Wikipedians. However, if Joe fails the notability test, then why not also Ms Tullis (d. 11 November)? Her only claim to fame was giving birth to "Rocky" Dennis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.212.210 ( talk • contribs) .
I changed 'leukemia' to 'complications of cancer' since I haven't found anywhere where it specifically states leukemia. Both CNN, NY Times and The Times says cancer in general. DannyBoy2k
Is there a reason why the term 'cause unconfirmed' has been added to several deceased persons? Is it a necessity or should the person be listed without noting cause of death if it is unknown? SailorAlphaCentauri 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The page should make it clear at the very beginning that the dates shown are for December 2006 deaths. Misterdoe 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since this is the page for "Deaths in 2006" ALL the deaths for December should be worked into a separate entry for Deaths in December 2006 in keeping with the layout established for Deaths in 2005. And has the Category been created yet? (my connection is very slow tonight and I've given up on the main page reloading as I need to go) RoyBatty42 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have issue with Jared Nathan being considered notable. If I'm correct, an actor needs at least three credits to be considered notable and Nathan only has one. Why is he suddenly notable because he died in a car accident? I'm going to remove with a note in the edit summary that I discussed it on the talk page. Please respond here with justification before reinstating. - FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Today's article about Saddams execution has been amended a number of times from the "Former President" to "President of Iraq".
Factually, this is incorrect as he was, at the time of his death the Former President and I feel it should be cited as such.
Is there a consensus on this issue?
Cjohnson103 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to this discussion, the Wikipedia front page refers to him as "Former" as do the BBC. It is a minor change but think its important to get the facts right. I'm going to revert it pending further discussion. Cjohnson103 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a general convention in Notable Deaths to avoid use of the word "former", since every person listed no longer holds any position. Hence the word could be applied to every listing. The inclusion of Saddam's term of office, 1979-2003, in the entry makes it clear that he was not in office at the time of his execution, and makes the use of the word "former" now redundant. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether the word stays or goes for now, but I am sure it will be changed at some time in the future by one of the wikipedians who regularly tend this page. WWGB 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point but take the view that I was once a schoolboy (many moons ago) and if I were to drop dead tomorrow, someone could quite easily place an entry saying schoolboy, 19xx - 19xx even though that had nothing whatsoever to do with my later life! The arguement stems from what his "occupation" (for want of a better word) was at the time of his death. Cjohnson103 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
On this page we tend to use dates to avoid the unwieldy use of "former", which is a slippery slope which, as you rightly say, could be applied to any facet of someone's life whether or not it had any relevance to the rest of it. W guice 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
For earlier discussions of this topic, see archive1, archive2, and archive3, as well as the talk archive at Deaths in 2005.
I just want to know why the Bobby Glen Wilcher entry that I put here was deleted. He was a death row inmate from Mississippi who was executed on October 18. And now an entry on Jeffrey Lundgren is here. That's not fair! Southerngyrl20 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
An "overstimulating game of chess?" Survived by "13 children?" All right, I admit I'm laughing, but this is not the right time of the year for April Fool's jokes.
(If, by chance, this is real, the poster needs to provide documentation. In the meantime, it should be removed.)
As I am a novice at this, but a frequent lurker, I have a question.
What documentation of death is required? The article on Jason DiEmilio references pitchforkmedia.com, which references philebrity.com.
Philebrity.com states
"We are saddened to hear today that Jason DiEmilio — known to many music fans here and around the world as the man behind the psychedelic/post-rock outfit Azusa Plane — has passed on."
And then later in the article:
"As of this writing, no proper obituary is available, but we promise to get that, as well as info on any services in his honor, to you the moment we’re made aware of them."
What worries me is that there is no independent confirmation of death here, and this may be all rumor.
Somebody set me straight on this please.
Thanks,
Bill
Why was he made a seperate article? Essentially he IS the Azusa Plane, I guess sometimes live he would have others on stage, but Azusa Plane IS Jason DiEmio. Wouldn;t a redirect to the band be better than a seperate article that would probably end up eventually being merged? - FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The citation says that John Howard heard on the 6th that Fairhall had died. It doesn't say he died on the 6th. I strongly suspect he would have died at least a day earlier than this, but there's nothing else on Google that I could find. When another citation becomes available, we will need to check his actual date of death. JackofOz 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is Bellinda Emmett listed as dying on the eleventh? In all time zones i know of, it is still the tenth. Right now it's 10:30 Central united states. Didn't want to change iincase it's supposed to be that.
Mick Jagger's father dies at 93 CNN Google offers: all 256 news articles » I added Basil Jagger and it was deleted as not-notable. Yet it made the network radio news in USA. Hours later the horsey death Desert Orchid is still there. Hrothgar 23:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Strongly in favour of famous animals, strongly against celebrity's family members - would you count their sisters? Cousins? Best friends? We really need to make a policy about this question, since it comes up frequently Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
While I don't really care whether Joe Jagger is in or out, I note that this section is described as "notable deaths" rather than "deaths of notable people". Might I suggest that Joe's death is notable because he is Mick's father? Kevin
Not notable enough to have a Google page (or as a supermodel, image on Google.) - Should she be here? On the flipside, junior football players make it here all the time. So it's a toss-up Ade1982 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, without even a single googlefinding, she is not noteworthy. -- Lordz 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a Reuters (via CNN) story [1]
Whoa! 23.000 googlepages since yesterday... though most apparently concerns her death.
82.192.146.25
15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is certainly a notable event that should make our news section, I'd assume?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I note that poor old Joe Jagger has been buried and dug up regularly by bickering Wikipedians. However, if Joe fails the notability test, then why not also Ms Tullis (d. 11 November)? Her only claim to fame was giving birth to "Rocky" Dennis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.212.210 ( talk • contribs) .
I changed 'leukemia' to 'complications of cancer' since I haven't found anywhere where it specifically states leukemia. Both CNN, NY Times and The Times says cancer in general. DannyBoy2k
Is there a reason why the term 'cause unconfirmed' has been added to several deceased persons? Is it a necessity or should the person be listed without noting cause of death if it is unknown? SailorAlphaCentauri 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The page should make it clear at the very beginning that the dates shown are for December 2006 deaths. Misterdoe 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since this is the page for "Deaths in 2006" ALL the deaths for December should be worked into a separate entry for Deaths in December 2006 in keeping with the layout established for Deaths in 2005. And has the Category been created yet? (my connection is very slow tonight and I've given up on the main page reloading as I need to go) RoyBatty42 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have issue with Jared Nathan being considered notable. If I'm correct, an actor needs at least three credits to be considered notable and Nathan only has one. Why is he suddenly notable because he died in a car accident? I'm going to remove with a note in the edit summary that I discussed it on the talk page. Please respond here with justification before reinstating. - FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 01:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Today's article about Saddams execution has been amended a number of times from the "Former President" to "President of Iraq".
Factually, this is incorrect as he was, at the time of his death the Former President and I feel it should be cited as such.
Is there a consensus on this issue?
Cjohnson103 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to this discussion, the Wikipedia front page refers to him as "Former" as do the BBC. It is a minor change but think its important to get the facts right. I'm going to revert it pending further discussion. Cjohnson103 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a general convention in Notable Deaths to avoid use of the word "former", since every person listed no longer holds any position. Hence the word could be applied to every listing. The inclusion of Saddam's term of office, 1979-2003, in the entry makes it clear that he was not in office at the time of his execution, and makes the use of the word "former" now redundant. I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether the word stays or goes for now, but I am sure it will be changed at some time in the future by one of the wikipedians who regularly tend this page. WWGB 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point but take the view that I was once a schoolboy (many moons ago) and if I were to drop dead tomorrow, someone could quite easily place an entry saying schoolboy, 19xx - 19xx even though that had nothing whatsoever to do with my later life! The arguement stems from what his "occupation" (for want of a better word) was at the time of his death. Cjohnson103 12:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
On this page we tend to use dates to avoid the unwieldy use of "former", which is a slippery slope which, as you rightly say, could be applied to any facet of someone's life whether or not it had any relevance to the rest of it. W guice 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)