Talk:Deaths in April 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terms in office ended by death.[edit]

  • I rather thought the practice was for the wording "[start year]-[end year]" for terms of office that already finished in the year a subject had died, as distinguished from "from [start year]" for terms that were still ongoing at time of death. Thoughts? tomasz. 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support this based on your articulating your point well. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if you look back, 'since' is has not been used longterm on the deaths page. It wouldn't be fitting if the Deaths in 1901 section said "President X, XX, President of X since X. Using 'since' gives the impression that the person is still alive. Star Garnet (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing these pages since they were Deaths in 2006, and as i say, i was under the impression that that was how we'd been doing it long-term. Also, i don't think there's much danger of "since 200x" being interpreted as meaning that the subject is still alive on a page named "Deaths in 2008". tomasz. 19:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is better, then it would be best to unify the standard, going back infinitely. Star Garnet (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) while i'm sure quite a lot of them will already be in these terms, i am definitely prepared to do this; i just thought i'd seek opinions before doing it first as it would be a fairly rigorous set of checks. tomasz. 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Heston[edit]

One source says he was 84, but another source says he was 83. Is there a proper procedure for dealing with age discrepancies? DandyDan2007 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica article shows he was 83. (At least now they can take the rifle from his "cold dead hands"). WWGB (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question; it just adds yet another citation to the already bulging pile. There are about 3 separate threads on his talk page that debate his true year of birth. I'm sure the article will change frequently as new information arrives. As to your general question, we need to show the subject's age consistently, on this list and their own article. If one changes for good reasons, so should the other. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should be listed as 83, since he hadn't celebrated his 84th birthday yet; his b-day's not until October. - Cubs Fan (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


John Button[edit]

Someone has changed him from 8 April to 7 April yet the cite does not support this. Further, his article, which I made say merely "April 2008", now says 8 April. As far as I can tell, we have NO information as to when he actually died. He may have died on Saturday for all we know. It was announced today; that's all we know at this stage. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources [1] [2] [3] refer to his death "overnight" which narrows it to 7/8 April. Nothing appears to be more accurate than that at present. WWGB (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's resolved now, see his talk page for details. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Frank Little[edit]

Please see Talk:Frank Little (priest) for a problem with Little's date of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kamel[edit]

WHAT THE HELL!?! I FOUND OUT HIS DEATH, EVEN SUPPLIED A CITATION - AND HIS OBIT WAS DELETED!?! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FANS OF MONK!?! DOESN'T HIS FANS DESERVE THE HONOR OF HIS PASSING!?! Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, take a chill pill and stop shouting. The notice is still there on 8 April: see this link. You originally posted the date of death as 10 April, which was wrong. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Okay, thanks! Elwin Blaine Coldiron (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Speight[edit]

When the body's been found, it means he's dead. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Children's TV presenter Mark Speight found dead in station" - unambiguous. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A body believed to be that of missing children's TV presenter Mark Speight has been found in Paddington Station in London." - yeah, real unambiguous..... One Night In Hackney303 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until they officially confirm it's him, he can't be posted on here. Steveweiser (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't know the exact date of death either, so we can't put it under a particular date yet.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's papers say it's him, and that he's been dead since 7 April. Steveweiser (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, tear up policy. Put what you like in. I've now had eight hours of this. It's an encyclopedia, not a blog. It can wait. Meanwhile, articles have not been written, other things have had to wait. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After checking FIVE different sources the death remains UNVERIFIED, removed latest inclusion of his death on this page. See discussion on Mark Speight page, we owe accuracy the few hours till proper ID OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here are just some of the "reliable, third-party published sources " that refer to Speight's death. So let's just all sit on our hands and do nothing because, um, he may just be alive. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] WWGB (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the papers say he's dead (which he is, we know that, but hey, who cares that the body has yet to be identified...). That aside, we do not know the date of death, therefore how on Earth can we add him to this list? We could add him on the date he sadly went missing, or the date his body was found, but there's absolutely nothing to state he died on either of these days. Wikipedia has no deadline, nor are we a news source clammering to 'out-scoop' the rest, so just be patient, for crying out loud. TalkIslander 09:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can we add him to the list? By doing what we have been doing here for years - placing an entry on the date last seen alive. See, for example, the entry for Steve Fossett on 3 Sep 2007. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just bloody put him on the list. Half the other people on there haven't had postmortems, etc., for all we know! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People look at this list because it is kept very up-to-date (don't they?). I often look here for the latest news links on fluid situations. It is bound to be corrected as and when needed. Not putting things in - even though the evidence is overwhelming - just because of the bare possibility of correction is UNHELPFUL. By the way, if someone is known to have died between two dates, but no one knows precisely when, what is the legal date of death? Does the coroner decide a most probable date/time of death for testamentary, insurance (& other legal) purposes? Jagdfeld (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His obituary is in the newspaper, yet Mr. Speight lives on in the pages of Wikipedia. Is there some sort of conspiracy at work to keep him alive. Perhaps the good editors of Wikipedia know more than the rest of us... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do, it's called policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But "policy" on wikipedia too often means do-gooding stupidity. Numbskull "policy" is strangling it (and the goodwill of bona-fide editors) as much as vandalism. Wherever possible "policy" should be made by the consensus of editors of the article it is being applied to. They know what is useful. Jagdfeld (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may know what is "useful". But not what is permitted. That's why we have Admins; and, if necessary, lawyers. Every editor should be aware of policy, and if they don't, they are likely to learn it the hard way. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not a news service. Please try to get used to that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake GROW UP. Rodhullandemu, did you ever stop and think for a moment that an actual, real person has died in tragic circumstances? You seem more concerned that his death - confirmed by sources far more reliable than the average Wikipedia poster - might have been announced here too early, or listed under the wrong date, than you do about the fact it actually happened. Maybe you should live in the real world for a bit instead of at a PC. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Please don't try and deny people their opinion. It's childish and unnecessary. I'm sure people reading can make up their own minds on whether they agree with you or me. Smurfmeister (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, it is an abuse of your position as admin to act as judge, jury and executioner in your own case. It is against the spirit of wikipedia and the rules of natural justice. It is a depressing thing when you have only been as admininstrator for a couple of months to find that you are using it to bully other people in your own edit wars, especially when 1) you are in a minority of one, 2) you are misapplying rules, 3) you are getting up everyone's nose. STOP IT. 62.64.213.157 (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat strangely, nobody else seems to care that much. If you think the rules of natural justice prevail here, you are mistaken. I have better things to do than bandy words with someone who won't let go THREE DAYS after the events in question. And if you think I am in a minority of one, I believe on that point the evidence, on balance, is against you. And I don't need to resort to sockpuppetry. I recommend you move on. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no 'sockpuppetry' here - someone just happens to agree with me. I realise that doesn't fit in with your blinkered view of things, but that's the way it is. If you like, I will log out and post anonymously so you can see the IP address of this PC. But of course you don't want me to do that, do you, as you 'have better things to do'? (Yet somehow keep finding time to respond...) Smurfmeister (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important of living people[edit]

WP:ITN/C is a forum for proposing and developing a consensus on which news items should be included on the ITN template. Because of repeated disputes about objectively assessing the importance of a recently deceased person (specifically the non-inclusion of Edmund Hillary, Pavarotti, Arthur C. Clarke, Bobby Fischer) in light of the limits imposed by existing criteria, we are attempting to compile a reasonably authoritative list of important living people in connection with revising the criteria. The proposal is that if someone on the list died, that would warrant an automatic nomination at the very least. The list does not have a hard ceiling on size, but it is anticipated that, unlike recent deaths, there would be no more than on the order of 1 name per week (yes, it's morbid); thus importance might be calibrated to the 50 most important people who died in 2007. Given your experience with making evaluations on importance, your contributions and feedback to this list and its criteria would be much appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that they don't all die at once, I'd say the 500 highest-traffic articles for living persons would be a good starting place. If we only do one a week, and the Pope and the Dalai Lama both die on the same day, who is listed? I'd submit that an important death is an important death, and should probably be listed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could produce a number of biases. People whose greatest success has been in recent years are more likely to have had more views in the past year or so, as are people who have been missing, or have been involved in controversies in the months leading up to their death. Is Mark Speight more important than Charlton Heston, even though his page views will have been higher? --MartinUK (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Colledge[edit]

I was surprised to read Ceceilia Colledge had died without being reported anywhere but in Wiki-Deaths. I checked the reference source, a website called icenetwork.com, and have no reason to doubt their reliability, however, I am concerned that I can find no other reference to her death anywhere. Five different search engines, both news oriented and otherwise all had nothing to support her passing, including the BBC (she was born in and will be buried in England) and the Boston Herald (she lived and reportedly died in Boston) Even the Olympic Games Official Website seems to indicate she may be alive (date of birth listed but no date of death) I am not sure how this sort of thing is handled or addressed but would like to know for future knowledge. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Obituary in The Times. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And a good example why it can be prudent to avoid the "delete first and ask questions later" approach. Thanks again! OneHappyHusky (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bomb attack[edit]

Example: "Lakshman de Alwis, 68, Sri Lankan national athletics coach, suicide bomb attack."

Does this not imply he was the suicide bomber? Could it be reworded a little less ambiguously?

What would you propose having instead. Personally i don't see it how you see it but, i don't see that much harm in rewording it if it is appropriate. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paw Paw[edit]

I think it should go in, the page isn't human deaths. RIP Paw Paw. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly removed earlier by several different editors. I take that to imply that consensus is against it being a notable death. If you think you can argue notability, fine. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's also being included by several different editors. Animals are included in the list,as has been done in the past. Lots of google results... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
Including this one? This is the English Wikipedia, not the Korean. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh... That wasn't cool. --Elliskev 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out on the GIGO principle that Google may not be as reliable as you'd think for establishing notability. This was the second hit in the above search. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the Korean comment was just a mistake? --Elliskev 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an ironic jibe at a stereotype. Easily missed, obviously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. It wasn't really ironic, and it was pretty transparent. --Elliskev 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no separate decision to be made here. At this time, Paw, Paw has a mainspace article, so by long-standing convention the death is noted here. As the article is nominated for speedy deletion or merge, then removal of the article would see the death entry removed from here. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a separate decision. Sometimes, when the subject of an article is so blatantly non-notable, there's no need to wait around for the subject to get deleted. Certainly, when people create imaginary albums, I don't wait for the imaginary album to get deleted before I take all the links out of the artist's articles, templates, and discographies. This is the same thing.Kww (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article redirects to Martha Stewart so this argument doesn't apply now. The pooch is NN.Be best (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O-bitch-uary: Poor Paw Paw, 13, Chow chow bow-wow Annatto (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

professional athletes[edit]

When a professional athlete dies, is it sufficient to say they were a player, or is it necessary to list what position they played? I have noticed whenever a baseball pitcher dies, he is almost invariably listed as a pitcher, but when a non-pitcher dies, he is a player. I have seen that pattern in other sports as well. DandyDan2007 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be uniform, at least within each sport. I can see American Football just being listed as "American Football Player", and Basketball being similar. I think Baseball should be just "Baseball Player", but soccer makes more sense with positions, thus:
We could also use this format:
Do we have a style guide for entries on this list? Should we? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using positions for Soccer would also avoid the problem of listing American Football players born in America as "American American Football Players", which is how the above example would read had the link not been piped. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could also use the term footballer in describing a soccer player. Many articles which have to be disambiguated list players as footballers. Of course, if an American soccer player died, they could be soccer players. DandyDan2007 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians are from Belgium and the Dutch are from the Netherlands.[edit]

Please stop reverting the parenthetical, and unnecessary, "(Dutch)" after Constant Vanden Stock's entry. He was Belgian, which is the correct demonym for people from Belgium. The demonym Dutch would refer to someone from the Netherlands. --Mapsandlegends (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that Constant van den Stock is Dutch ... they are saying that the article used as a source for his death is in Dutch, which it is.Kww (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol. The perils of digging out the big-word book before knowing what you're on about. tomasz. 09:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since most references (and cite templates) use the Language icons to indicate when a source is non-english, I've replaced all regular parenthetical references to language with the appropriate icon. Revert me if it sucks, but I thought this page should match other non-english sources insofar as formatting is concerned. For example, I replaced (Portuguese) with (in Portuguese), using {{pt icon}}. Other languages were amended in the same fashion. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it is inappropriate to make significant changes to a page format that has existed for many years, especially without discussing it here first. The regular contributors here have all abided by that format for a long time. Until there is more agreement than one editor, I have reverted the changes. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I read the above discussion as a discussion on this very topic, and - per WP:BOLD - made the format change to see how it would look, and to solicit input. I saw this as a very, very minor change, which would not (and did not) break the page. Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion, or went beyond its scope - but my very specific intent, as I noted, was to further an ongoing discussion regarding the list's format. I strongly disagree that "It's been that way for a long time" is a valid reason to keep a particular format, nor do I think that "Regular Contributors" should get a veto on proposed changes, as you seem to indicate. I note, also, that you did not address the merits of the proposal - do you believe it should be reverted because it was not properly discussed first, or because it sucks in some way? I'm not particularly annoyed by the revert - I explicitly invited it. - but it's always thrilling to be spanked like a newbie. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teala Loring[edit]

  • It is possible that Loring has died, either in February 2007 or April 2008, but there is not a reliable source on this issue.

Unreliable: [20] [21] Star Garnet (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma, anyone?[edit]

The discussion above about athletes that mentions the rather confusing construction "American American Football Player" has me thinking about something that every one of these death notices needs - a comma after the nationality of the deceased. It would solve the problem of the "American Academy Award winner" (what is the American Academy?), the "British Academy Award winner" (the British Academy is the royally-chartered national [British] academy for the humanities and the social sciences, and yes, it gives awards ), the "British Harvard University dean" (which is how Jeremy Knowles was listed on April 3 before the creation of the awkward "British-born Harvard University dean" - which, while better than making me wonder about a "British Harvard", still does not make clear his nationality at the time of his death), the hitherto unheard of British Holocaust survivor (a British Holocaust? REALLY?- see Greenman, March 7), and the "Jamaican mother of Bob Marley" (how many did he have? - see Booker, April 8). The much-needed comma would, for better or for worse, prevent a score of funny, entertaining and, occasionally, confusing entries. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different constructs under discussion here: the demonym (a noun) such as George Bush is American, and the adjective, George Bush is the American President. By convention, the adjectival form has been used in these listings. Sure, there are countless seemingly ambiguous statements in the English language. (Ban Ki-moon is the South Korean Secretary-General of the UN. Oh, is there one for every country?) That's a legacy of the English language structure and Wikipedia certainly isn't able to change that. As for American American football player, I have never seen that used here, nor have I seen Australian Australian football player, British British Bulldog breeder, Chinese Chinese food chef etc. WWGB (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB: I agree with everything you say (with the possible exception of your grammar points illustrating the demonym and the adjective - have you reversed the examples, or am I misreading them?). You are right; using the adjective form of a person’s nationality has been the convention in these listings for some years – but has not always been so. You are also right that the legacy of English language structure can lead to countless, seemingly ambiguous statements in English and that Wikipedia isn’t able to change that; but the point that I was trying, I guess unsuccessfully, to make was that Wikipedia, unlike English grammar, CAN be changed to make ambiguous statements clearer. Indeed, its flexibility is one of the most beautiful things about Wikipedia.
These one-line entries are not sentences and don’t need to roll trippingly off the tongue. What they should be, however, is to be made as clear as possible. The adjectival form of the deceased’s nationality needn’t be changed to achieve this; for the want of a comma after the nationality, entries like:
Julius Paltiel, 83, Norwegian Holocaust survivor.
and
Elfriede Kaun, 93, German 1936 Olympic bronze medalist in the high jump.
could be made far less ambiguous. Both of these examples, and the ones in my previous post, can, reasonably I think, be read with more than one meaning. If a simple solution exists to help the reader understand a statement’s true meaning, we would be failing as editors by not employing it.
These Notable Deaths entries are not immune to the use of commas to help make meaning clear - indeed, commas are a long-standing convention; what purpose does the comma after the name and after the age serve – except to make the meaning less ambiguous?
At work today they called me a pedant for worrying about such things. Is it pedantic to worry about making communications clearer, and thereby, more effective?--Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I concur, but it would turn grammar on its head. In the above example, "American" and "American Football" both modify "Player", as they describe the specific type of player that the individual was. The more precise way to accomplish this would be to format entries with the nation, not the nationality. So, the examples would run something like this:
It does end up making entrys longer, though, and it doesn't really flow as well - but it would simplify the odd entries like the "American American Football Players". Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of 'notable deaths'...[edit]

Is it just me or does that sound odd. Passing away in your sleep is not a 'notable' way to die - but may be the death of a notable person, or animal. I would consider being pecked to death by a flock of cloned dodo's to be a 'notable death', even if it happened to completely non-notable person.

Anyway, I came here to argue against User:Davidwr's edit, but got carried away when I noticed that both header styles use 'notable deaths' rather than something like, eh, 'notable persons or living entities that have died this month'. Mmmm, maybe it is just me. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Cunanan[edit]

Is there a better way to list Lucia Cunanan's death other than by homicide (battery)? Since the use of parentheses is usually for descriptors of the person's life, I'd like suggestion as to how to reword this so that it flows better. SailorAlphaCentauri (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homicidal battery? Homicide by battery? Homicide? Battery? Battery alone would imply homicide since suicidal battery is so rare. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homicidal battery makes it sound like she was beaten to death by the Duracell bunny. Leave it as it is. Smurfmeister (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Ling[edit]

Dear User:24.222.45.34. Regarding [22] and [23], Ling Ling the giant panda has a Wikipedia article; this suggests that he is regarded as notable by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Being non-human is irrelevant on the death pages; this has also been agreed by consensus. W guice's edit summary was identical to your's in explanation, so I'm not sure what your shouting about. Typing whole sentences in capitals is regarded as having a hysterical tantrum, please calm down. Mannafredo (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Antal[edit]

Fame may have geographical boundries, notability does not. This man has a sizeable entry in the IMDB and is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. As such, he must be considered to be notable on a global scale. Having few or no articles about him in written in particular language is irrelevant. Please do not revert without seeking clarification on this point from an administrator. I will abide by their judgement. Mannafredo (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all speculation until such time as an article is written for the English Wikipedia and notability is established. Once an article is written it may be tested under speedy deletion, proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Otherwise it would just roll around as a red link forever. If you feel so strongly that this person is notable then you should write the article yourself. WWGB (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I have written is speculation. Not having an article on English Wikipedia has never and will never be a be a basis for establishing a person's notability. We are not here to determine notability, but acknowledge it and reflect it if it is there. There are lots of red links 'rolling around' and there always will be; deleting some solely because they do not have an English article or many English references is unjustifiable. English Wikipedia is for speakers of that language, not a Wikipedia whose content is slanted towards speakers of that language. I have no intention of writing an article about this guy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve one. Mannafredo (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't difficult to write the article. It's a pity more people don't make the effort. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. Mannafredo (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote in your first entry was speculation. This policy has been established for several years. 207.170.238.132 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; IMDB = fact, WP article = fact. The rest is opinion. If you want to argue, please be more specific. What policy? Mannafredo (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Deaths in April 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in April 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Deaths in April 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Deaths in April 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_April_2008&oldid=1204915905"