Talk:2009

STS-125 (May 11)

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)

I agree (no surprises there!). DerbyCountyinNZ 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the final servicing mission, almost cancelled due to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:53, 13 June 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)

Millvina Dean

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)

Being the last survivor of one of the most famous disasters (perhaps the most famous disaster) of all time might not be a matter of "achievement", but it certainly is a matter of "notability", even "historical notability". If that is not enough, her recent financial struggles garnered her significant attention from the press as well as donations from James Cameron, Leonardo Dicaprio, Kate Winslet, and Celine Dion. And her seventeen non-English articles can't hurt, either. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the idiot suggesting that Dean was not notable at least sign his posts? Dean was certainly notable. She made the news in Britain practically every month and made international headlines before her death and before she became the last survivor. Before you jump to the conclusion that she "isn't notable enough", why don't you make an effort to search for articles of her across the net that pre-date her death? Dean was more than a survivor, she campaigned for a very long time (including the setting up of "The Millvina Fund") to preserve the history of the diasaster, often making newspaper headlines, so in her own right she was also an activist. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the sig, I must have been rushed while working and failed to notice. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down your remarks, as it's not nice to call someone an idiot. The editor in question is DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs), who is not an idiot but rather someone with a terribly misplaced sense of page ownership. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how could have ownership of a page I am not even watching. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:12, 3 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)

The problems I have with the death section, (and the whole year article in fact), is that it is very US/UK centric. I bet you that if a Chinese film star kills herself we would not see her name here, (or even be having that discussion), if the last survivor of a Nigerian disaster dies no one would want it here, if the voice of a famous French cartoon dies after 79 years of work his name would be deleted in a heartbeat.

I was under the impression that this was the reason for the '9 non English' articles rule. FFMG (talk) 07:59, 4 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)

Wayne Allwine

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)

So, should I be taking silence as an agreement here or what? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like. And I'll break the silence by saying that I, for one, agree with you. This isn't a case of lack of notability in a field--after all, he has been deemed a legend. It also is not a case of the field itself being too minor--this is, after all, Disney and Mickey Mouse we're talking about here. If voice actors were appreciated in proportion to the effects that they actually have on culture, people like Allwine would have plenty more than seven or ten articles about them. Although a difference of only three articles does not seem all that glaring in the first place. I'd say, as long as no one has seriously objected by the time you read this reply, then be bold and add his name back to the list. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 7 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)

And, even then, I would bet that 99% of people inside the US itself probably don't know who he was. FFMG (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid argument when there have already been fights (and wins) over people that the vast majority of people in the world haven't heard of, either. (I'm STILL looking at you, Lucy Gordon.) Besides, you have to counter-balance that with how instantly recognizable Mickey Mouse's voice and image are to the ENTIRE world population. And I'd bet if people were scrolling through this article and read "voice of Mickey Mouse is dead", they'd probably care. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what 'fights' you are talking about, there has been discussions and a consensus was reached. I am not a big fan of Lucy Gordon been listed either, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a win/loose fight.

I still think that Wayne Allwine was mostly unknown, I admit that Mickey Mouse is famous, (and international), that Walt Disney is famous, but that did not make Wayne Allwine famous.

And, by 'ENTIRE world population' I am guessing you mean, some parts the english speaking world? FFMG (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite tha fact that no consensus was reached over the inclusion of Lucy Gordon (see above) she was added back in. There seems more than enough disagreement to have her removed, which would also remove some of the argument in favour of including Wayne Allwine. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "fight" wasn't the right word. Still, though. And I dare you to find one person, anywhere, with a brain and even passing knowledge of pop culture, that does not know Mickey Mouse. Wayne Allwine has made a lasting impact providing Mickey's voice, and that needs to be recognized. Perhaps my pleading won't do much now, especially since there's a vote now (see below), but I surely can't be the only one that feels this way. And I don't see how no clear consensus over Lucy Gordon takes away from any positive arguments over Wayne. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 18:27, 13 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)

Your argument doesn't hold water at all. There are those listed in the deaths section that have shorter articles than Wayne! Not to mention, they've probably done a lot less for the world than he did. Just scrolling down the list, I see that Pio Laghi, Ingemar Johansson, Eluana Englaro, Kamila Skolimowska, Sverre Fehn, Yukio Endo, the aforementioned Lucy Gordon, Millvina Dean and Jean Dausset all made less of an impact than THE VOICE OF MICKEY MOUSE. Did none of you watch Disney cartoons growing up? Good lord... 76.107.137.39 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's simple.

He only has 7 non-English articles.

All other people you named have at least 9 or more non-English atticles.

According to the rule applied on this page, he should not be included.--Belle Equipe (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So what!? You can have as many foreign-language articles as there are foreign-language Wikipedias, and while that's certainly a feat it doesn't necessarily make you notable. What did any of those people I listed do, aside from having more foreign Wikipedia pages, that is more notable that voicing the most iconic cartoon character in the world for 33 years? (Aside from being the last survivor of the Titanic, before you point that out.) This whole criteria for deaths inclusion system is broken, you need to weigh what the person did, not how many Wikipedia pages they have. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop generalizing so much, Mickey Mouse is _world_ famous, Mr Allwine was not.

Wayne Allwine was only the English voice, (maybe only the US voice as there could very well be other voice actors), of a world famous cartoon.

He was not famous, Mickey is and he certainly was not internationally world famous either. FFMG (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on some entries in Deaths

Given the discussion on Wayne Allwine and reference to other entries which people seem to feel should not be included I suggest a simple poll on the inclusion or exclusion of the following people:

• Jade Goody
• Lucy Gordon
• Wayne Allwine

After one week there should be fairly clear consensus on who should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

• Jade Goody: Exclude
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude

• Jade Goody: Include, (she was semi-famous and did a few things outside the UK and outside acting in general).
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude

FFMG (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jade Goody: Include
• Lucy Gordon: Exclude
• Wayne Allwine: Include (Seriously people, voice of Mickey Mouse.)

76.107.137.39 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jade Goody: Include
• Lucy Gordon: lean toward include, but I wouldn't add her to the list.
• Wayne Allwine: Exclude (seriously, people, only 5 foreign language articles)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week and the consensus is:

• Jade Goody: In
• Lucy Gordon: Out
• Wayne Allwine: Out

I'll remove Lucy Gordon. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute here; I'm as happy to see Lucy go as you (presumably), but only four people voted! Can that really be considered a clear consensus? 76.107.137.39 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A week is plenty of time; 3-1 is sufficient consensus (and given previous comments it could easily have been more convincing). DerbyCountyinNZ 05:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should billy mays be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.166.217 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Omar Bongo

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)

Even stranger than that, Barack Obama walking down the street to take office is apparently internationally notable, when no other world leader is deemed worthy of having their inauguration, (let alone their elections), mentioned.

Omar Bongo can be added as he has a lot more than 9 non English articles. FFMG (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've argued that the suicide of the former president of South Korea is not sufficiently notable enough to be included in the events section. Deaths of state leaders should not be included in Events unless there are direct international consequences which did not result from either of these 2 cases. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg Page

Why is this former Heavyweight champion being deleted? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Recent years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture for first part of Deaths section

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)

Many people who are more interested in sport than television or literature have probably heard of Johansson and not McGoohan, Montalban or Updike. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing some entries in Deaths section with less than nine foreign-language articles

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):

• Nizar Rayan (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Português)
• Said Seyam (Françias, Nederlands, Português)
• Stephanos II Ghattas (Italiano, Nederlands)
• R. Venkataraman (Deutsch, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Risskiy, Română, Svenska)
• Eluana Englaro (Catalá, Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski)
• Manea Mănescu (Dansk, Deutsch, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Română, Slovenčia)
• Alain Bashung (Catalá, Deutsch, Español, Esperanto, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski)
• Abdellatif Filali (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Bahasa Indonesia, Nederlands, Polski, Suomi)
• Yukio Endo (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Nederlands, Polski, Português, Suomi)
• Ken Annakin (Deutsch, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Japanese, Polski, Suomi, Svenska)
• Achille Compagnoni (Deutsch, Español, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski, Suomi, Svenska)
• Peter Arundell (Catalá, Deutsch, Françias, Italiano, Nederlands, Português, Suomi, Svenska)

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)

I've rewverted the deletions because the way wikipedia works is that to change the status quo (in this case long-standing entries) you get consensus first. If indeed these articles do not meet the 9 non-English articles requirement then there would need to be convincing arguments for their retention (which is fairly unlikely in most cases). It is surprising that so many have less than 9 non-English articles I thought someone was checking them. Oh well. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how come when it was discovered these people did not have 9 foreign-language articles, they're being kept, and yet when I added Wayne Allwine he was removed immediately? That's somewhat hypocritical. But if there needs to be consensus on the people I listed, in that event, I vote exclude on all counts. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that, unlike Wayne Allwine, these entries were not challenged at the time they were included. The 9 non-English(9nE!) articles is not the only criteria for inclusion. If someone is entered and no-one checks for 9nE and accepts that they are sufficiently notable then they stay until their notability is challenged, which is effectively what you are doing here. Because they have been allowed up to this point their removal can, and has been, challenged and therefore they should not be removed until consensus has been reached. In the case of Wayne Allwine his inclusion was challenged immediately and then brought to the talk page where it was rejected. Twice. The reasons for this were less than 9nE AND lack of notability. Even if he had more than 9nE he would likely still have been excluded (given the various user comments). By the way, I've never thought the 9nE criteria satisfactory, but there appears to be nothing else that would work. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is your aim to improve Wikipedia or is it simply to prove a point?

You are right, some of the people you listed should be removed, maybe even all of them should be, but your reason for wanting to remove them is not to help the article but purely because a consensus did not go your way. FFMG (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Yes, that debacle might have inspired my doing all of the research that resulted in this list, but it's more about consistency; these people do not have nine articles either, they should not be on the list according the the criteria that has been established. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You've miscounted the foreign articles it looks like. They have more than that. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of the people I listed have more articles than that? I searched all 100,000+ page Wikipedias and that's all I came up with. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to look at the left column of their articles. There all of their foreign articles are listed. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...Of course they are. *sob* Forget I said anything. Pardon me while I go cry and feel like an idiot. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if you did so intentionally or unintentionally, but there is a critical problem with your way to count the numbers of non-English articles. You've never taken non-English and non-Alphabetical articles such as العربية=Arabic, Български=Bulgarian, فارسی=Persian, 中文=Chinese, עברית=Hebrew, 日本語=Japanese, Русский=Russian, 吴语=Wuu Chinese, into accounts. If articles in those languages are counted, each person you listed up has more than 9 or more non-English language articles.--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely now I am a bit curious how this anon user came up to those numbers. FFMG (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain myself, albeit somewhat belatedly. I didn't know that you could check how many foreign-language articles someone or something has by merely looking to the left of the page. So, what I did was go through every foreign Wikipedia with more than 100,000 pages, and write down everyone that had eight or less articles on them (or, at least, so I thought). Of course, not only was that a stupid way to go about things, but I ended up being completely wrong. I apologize for that... 76.107.137.39 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

North Korea image

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)

Ed McMahon

Please discuss here instead of edit-warring back and forth. I'm regretting my decision to drop this to semi-protection. Enigma^msg 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The minimum criteria for inclusion in the Deaths section of this article is 9 non-English articles. At present Ed McMahon has (perhaps surprisingly) only 6 non-English articles. He may well get to 9 eventually but in the mean time I don't see sufficient grounds to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I suggest someone place a hidden note in the place where Ed McMahon's entry would be, advising editors of the criteria. Enigma^msg 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If asked, I'd lean toward inclusion. He probably is internationally known. But we should leave him out until consensus is established that he is an exception or the non-English articles appear. As for the hidden note, they seemed to assist keeping the 10th anniversary of 9/11 out of 2011, the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic out of 2012, and the 1000th anniversary of the founding of the United States out of 28th century, but it's worth a try. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside of North America, he's failry unknown and I think it's a hypocrisy to even consider making him an exception to the rule. Tobythegreat (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He was only an American game show host, nothing really international at all. I am actually surprised it has so many articles, I don't think we should list any TV personalities as they are very specific to their country. FFMG (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[moved from top of page] I noticed this is missing from the list and cannot add. Can someone please do so? 72.187.66.48 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the preceding entry from the top of the talk page. Relevant discussion above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FFMG. I used to live in Japan but he and his program are hardly known among them, although he has a Japanese Wiki article. Especially among non-English speaking countries, there is no reason for them to broadcast his program except on AFN, which programs are watched only by Americans living in those countries.--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe that there is a dispute about whether to add Ed McMahon to the list of deaths in 2009. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of FACTUAL information, there is no question that he died on June 23 of this year. Yet I understand that the consensus is not to add him. I will respect the wishes of the other editors here, and not get into an edit war by trying to add him again, but any discussion about his status as a celebrity would be more appropriate on his talk page. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is any question that Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable (not factual-I know, I am being picky) information. The question here is correct clasification of the item and if he belongs here or perhaps in 2009 in the United States. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I added him before I realized that there is specific criteria for whose deaths are notable, and whose are not. After reading the discussions above, I now understand why Ed McMahon is being excluded, though I still think it's ridiculous to base it on the number of international articles. I will leave it for someone else to add him, after he has met the minimum number. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know he is famous in the US (I live in a part of US, anyway). But I think he is famous (I should say) only among English-speaking Americans, because he does not have an article written in Spanish, which is spoken by (so called) Hispanic and Latino Americans, which consist of 15% of US population.--Belle Equipe (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the inclusion criteria is 9 non-English articles, then McMahon can't be included. If we try to make him an exception? accusations of pro-Americanism could arise. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite him being a household name for decades in the US, he was virtually unknown in the rest of the world, apart from among American expatriates. His death was hardly reported by the non-US media. The fact he does not have an article is Spanish shows that he was not well-known among Latin-Americans & Hispanics. That there is no article in German shows that he is little known among people of German extraction (who include many millions of the US population), which means he was not even popular among Americans generally. He is listed in the Deaths section of 2009 in the United States, but someone who was only famous to some Americans, and was never really a star, not at the top of his game, is certainly not someone we should break the rules for. Information yes (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind... That's what I get for not reading the guidelines more carefully, that's 10 languages for wikipedia articles. However, I did make the point that many people do not know who Ed McMahon is, but they know the phrase "Heeeere's Johnny" that he made famous. Try it with your non-native English speaking friends. I'm not sure if that's enough for an exception here, but it's something to consider. RandyKaelber (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough for an exception. The fact his death was, outside the US, reported as 'man who coined 'Heeeeeere's Johnny' dies' and 'US TV host dies' shows they did that because if they said 'Ed McMahon dies', 99% of the readers wouldn't recognise the name and hence would not read the article. The catchphrase is well known in many countries, but only because of its memorable use in The Shining, a film seen by many millions of people in dozens of countries. The catchphrase is well known outside the US, but McMahon never was. There must be millions of people who know of the catchphrase, but assign its use to Jack Nicholson and have never heard of McMahon, let alone know it was his catchprase for years prior to, and years after that. Information yes (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :-) As a counterexample, I saw many foreign language articles titled along the lines of "Ed McMahon <foreign language word for 'dead' or 'dies'>", but that's neither here nor there. Certainly there is no consensus to add Ed McMahon, and the standard rules for inclusion of a death here are not met in his case, so I agree that McMahon should be kept off the list on this page. RandyKaelber (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is also a fact: if you want to get on the concensus that Ed McMahon is virtually unknown outside of the United States then about half of the people listed as being dead or that have died should be ultimately removed. Do we in the US or most countries know these odd leaders and random people who have died? No. People such as that are as follows: Velupillai Prabhakaran, Yukio Endo, Alain Bashung. How many people outside of their countries know them? The fact standing is that Ed McMahon is an icon, he's been extremely famous for more than 47 years. We never heard of half of these people in the news. I greatly suggest that Ed McMahon's death be added to this list until at least it has been cleaned up. And as was stated in the previous statements in this article, those fine people who died were not reported in the United States or mostly elsewhere in fact. 99% of our readers in the United States, which totals more than 300 million people would not give a damn about those people. So just because he is only 3-4 pages away you do not include him? The Tonight Show is a worldwide shown talkshow. I would like a real answer, because as it is right now, your dancing in circles around this situation. This does not make sense. An Icon is an ICON. Just because the people who saw the show in the 60's-90's aren't adding pages on him does not mean anything. And, if we need to, we can make a whole new article on several things about him, such his financial troubles, his wife etc. etc. Himfan2006 (talk) 4:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody else understand that he is famous, or an icon, in the United States, as you said.

But at the same time, quite a few editors from outside of US says that almost no one knows him in their countries. It is also proven by the number of non-English articles he has.

Even one person is somebody known by everybody in his/her country, it does not give the person a merit for inclusion on year's page, because it is regarded as a domestic issue.

It is natural to include him on 2009 in the United States, but you should understand that what WP:RY states. Year pages are not designated for any specific country. --Belle Equipe (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The death of person known only or primarily in one country does not belong on this article. McMahon is included in the Deaths section of 2009 in the United States - no-one is trying to delete him from that article. He is also in Deaths in 2009, 2009 in television and the Recent deaths sidebar of Portal:Current events. It is surprising that he has an article is six foreign languages. It is probably the case that, for example, the Polish article was written primarily by people of Polish origin living in the US. No Spanish article, when there are 45m+ Hispanics in the US, shows he was not even popular among all demographic groups in the US, let alone abroad. Most of the other people in the Deaths section of this article are internationally notable, despite the fact many of them were not famous in most of the world and their deaths did not receive much media coverage outside their home nations. There is a real case for removing a few from the Deaths section of this article, but no justification for adding McMahon. The Tonight Show is not shown worldwide - very few people outside the US have watched even one episode. Information yes (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Prabhakaran is definitely internationally notable enough to be included - he was the leader of a long-standing major terrorist group whose actions received a lot of media coverage throughout the world. Whilst many people have difficulty pronouncing his name, the Tamil Tigers are known across the world for their notoriety and carnage. I would support removing Endo - I don't know why he's on the list. Information yes (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays

Billy Mays died today, June 28, 2009. He's not exactly known the world over, but he was a pretty famous TV personality. Should he be added to notable deaths, or am I way off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.116.35 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He should definitely not be added to this article, as he was nowhere near important enough. However, everyone who has an article on English Wikipedia and whose death took place this year should be on Deaths in 2009, where he is listed. Information yes (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Even with his recent television show? Lenerd (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a US based show that I suspect did not have international distribution. See the comments above concerning Ed McMahon. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If Ed McMahon isn't notable/world famous enough for inclusion here, then Billy Mays certainly isn't.RandyKaelber (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How disrespectful! Both McMahon and Mays should be and deserve to be on here! How dare you say hes not important enough! You should be ashamed of yourself. I know when you die you sure as hell wont be on here!  Sub!  19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing disrespectful about not including someone on this page or indicating they are fail the notability criteria to be on this page. I suggest you re-read the comments for McMahon and Mays on this page. Additionally, I suggest you read the section civility. Comments as you made to RandyKaelber serve no purpose in the Wikisphere and are not appreciated. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing that says someone has to be "popular" to be listed. There are people listed that I have no idea who they are. List him, he was a t.v. personality.jjdiascro {talk} 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He was virtually unknown outside the US; the Deaths section of this article is for people who are notable in many countries. He only has two Wikipedia articles, the minimum requirement for this list is 10. Information yes (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability, not popularity. This is a general article on the year 2009 and the criteria for including a death here is high. There is a separate page for deaths in 2009 and McMahon and Mays are both notable enough for inclusion there.RandyKaelber (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting inclusion of a person whose only notability is as a salesman in commericals (he wasn't even on TV programmes) - is taking the piss. Information yes (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And you are talking bull shit. He just started a new television programm this year titled Pitchmen. --Derek Yoda's friend (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, he still does not meet the criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might consider that more people have probably heard about Billy Mays than half the people on this list. Kamila Skolimowska? Who is that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.210 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the criteria and remember the article is specifically designed not to be U.S. centric. For that there is 2009 in the United States ttonyb1 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays has a bigger wikipedia page then alot of the people that are up there. For example, Neda Agha-Soltan is an Iranian Photojournalist. That is one country while Billy Mays was know way more than her. Therefore he should be on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassosman (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Apparently, Billy Mays continues to get re-added. He shouldn't be included, as he fails the inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a degree of relativism might be warranted here. Consider, if you would, my obscenely amateur and simplistic summary of human activity (but if you'd rather spare yourself the two-cent history lesson, then just skip down to the main point, which I'll underline): For as long as--and as far as--human society has existed, it has been bartering, buying, and selling stuff. Okay, so trade is about as international as anything can ever be. Then, about half a millennium ago, this one German guy created this one thing that set the stage ([1], p. 40; [2]) for associating individuals with the items that they invent. Then, about half a century later, this other German guy did this other thing that set in motion a trend to associate individuals with the items that they sell or manufacture. And then, once this trend had gotten reasonably underway, yet another German guy said that things weren't quite as simple as that trend might make things seem to be, but he couldn't stop the overall trend from extending well beyond Germany and even beyond Europe--to America, where, a century later, people like Billy Mays and Vince Shlomi complicated things further, by showing that individuals could become associated with items that they have not invented, have not manufactured, and have not sold, but rather have promoted. So, if we are to determine whether Mays is historically significant on an international scale--and if we can agree that his contributions have been to an historically and internationally important field--then we might do well to ask ourselves if he has international counterparts (apart from Israeli-born Shlomi). In other words, have people in other countries reached comparable fame as pitchmen? Are other individuals known to 300 million people (or at least to a substantial collectivity) solely for promoting products? If so, then Mays's notability might be tempered by his domestic fame. If not, then his international obscurity could be counterbalanced by his overall uniqueness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respects, are you seriously comparing Gutenberg, Martin Luther and Karl Marx to Billy Mays?

Even if you are been serious, if Wikipedia had been around in 1468 we probably would have moved his death entry to 1468 in Germany, because in 1468 he was probably not notable enough, (although Gutenberg was well known in Europe and that was pretty much most the world back then).

If Billy Mays ever has roads, museums, books or even just articles published outside the US as a pioneering salesman/pitch man then we might want to revisit the decision not to add his name here. Only time will tell if he had such an impact on international society, who knows, maybe my daughter will learn about him in her history classes.

If, as you claim, ('cause I don't know him at all), he was known by 300 million non Spanish speaking Americans, then it reinforces the need to have his name listed in 2009 in the United States rather than here. If I was American this is where I would look, not here. FFMG (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to compare anyone (although I would suggest that the possibilities are endless), except to point out that Mays may lack either historical precedent or international counterparts, and yet may have both historical and international importance. I don't mean that his impact or his fame has spanned the globe (or even has reached 300 million people, as I indicated in an overstated attempt to point out that he became something of a household name and even a pop-culture icon in America). Rather, if he was made unique by being one of only few people in the world to have achieved iconic status solely for promoting products, then he might merit the attention of international observers. Indeed, he might be "internationally notable" if we take "notable" to mean that "a topic merits its own article" (Mays already has one here), and if we have reason to believe that this topic merits more than only one (Mays had had no others prior to his death, but now has eins, dos, trois, patru). He doesn't have ten articles yet, although he's halfway there. I'm simply wondering if we might substitute for the other half with the assumption that Mays would be a primary contender for the international recognition of a pitchman. If it turns out that Mr. X is already known for that in Country A, and that Mr. Y is a famous pitchman in Country B, then Mays could become the slippery slope that WP:RY is, I think, trying to avoid. But if Mays is pretty much the only one (and as long as other nations retain their interest in the art of commerce), then he wouldn't seem to pose a risk of including everybody (or of biasing things toward anybody). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that both the third and fourth foreign language pages Cosmic Latte has mentioned are clearly extremely minimal, basic translations (good old google translator) by the same English-speaking user, a cynic such as myself would suggest that it is someone's poor attempt at boosting his foreign language article numbers to try and prove sufficient notability for this page. If the regular users of those particular foreign language wikis are as attentive at Afd nomination it wouldn't surprise me if those articles disappeared in a few days. DerbyCountyinNZ 11:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

True, I looked at the French article, fr:Billy Mays and the entire article is, "Billy Mays (né le 20 juin 1958 à McKees Rocks en Pennsylvanie, États-Unis et mort d'hypertension artérielle le 28 juin 2009 à Odessa, Floride) était un animateur de télé-achat à la télévision américaine." or translated back to English, "Billy Mays (born 20 June 1958 at McKees Rocks Pennsylvania, United State and dead of arterial hypertension the 28th of June 199, Odessa, Florida), was an American direct response presenter", this is it, nothing more about him, only the first line of the English article.

The summary left by the editor [3], is I don't speak French very well but ... please accept this article... he is NOTABLE. I am surprised that editors accepted this very, very, badly translated first sentence of the English article.

I suspect that if Billy Mays could see this he would not want to have any part of this behaviour on his behalf. FFMG (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly the sort of thing that made me skeptical about the foreign-language-article approach from the beginning. Still, I wonder if anyone can think of international counterparts to Mays--folks who became famous solely for promoting products? I have no vested interest in including him, and won't complain if the consensus remains not to do so; I just wonder if something of a "salience-as-significance" criterion might be applied in the deaths sections, to those whose notability is unique, if limited. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be something that has been discussed already; I didn't read all of the above, but if a person is notable enough to gain a page on Wikipedia or an article on the Yahoo! homepage, should they not at least get one line on this page? Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also (at least where I'm from), Mays is a common household name. Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment In defense of the particular Frenchman who created the article, translations back to English from French generally do not read very well. I haven't looked into it much, but it may read better to a French person. Kevinbrogers (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(moved comment to bottom otherwise it breaks archiving)

It wasn't a Frenchman/woman who created the French article, that's the whole point, the first line of the English article was, (badly), translated into French only to boost the article count. The summary given by the first editor states that he does not speak French.

As for Yahoo! I am not sure what it has to do with Wikipedia, why would a page on one website influence what is done here? I am also guessing that you are referring to the US Yahoo! not uk.yahoo.com, au.yahoo.com or fr.yahoo.com. FFMG (talk)

The editor who created the French article has never edited any other French WP article. If everyone who died this year and has a WP article or a mention on Yahoo's frontpage was included on here, there would be many hundreds of names in the Deaths section of this article. The point of this article is for it to only contain internationally notable events, deaths etc. There is a much longer article that gives a fuller list of deaths: Deaths in 2009. Information yes (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He's known for many commercials,"Oxi Clean, Orange Glo, Mighty Putty", etc. His new show on Discovery. He's the world's best pitchman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunguy222jr (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If Billy Mays does not deserve to be listed here, then so do 90% of the people on this list. I haven't heard of ANYONE on the July list! Put Billy on the list! I mean, honestly, if it takes him having his own page, someone create the flipping page! (Same goes for Ed McMahon). AWNowlin (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths for the criteria. Both already have an English language page. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Move sportspeople's deaths to 2009 in sports?

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)

Ingemar Johansson, Kamila Skolimowska, Yukio Endo, Chuck Daly, Achille Compagnoni and Peter Arundell have 9 or more non-English articles, (and some a lot more than 9), so why should they not be listed because they are sportsmen/women? I am also not sure I agree with your view that they are not important enough. FFMG (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that all have enough articles, but in order for a person to be in the list of deaths for this article, they should also be internationally notable. As my comment above states, I'm not claiming that no sportspeople should ever be listed under the year's deaths on this article, only that all the sportspeople currently on this list (with the exception of Kemp, who is notable enough due to his political career) are not internationally notable, and hence should be excluded from the list on those grounds. All six names I suggested are almost unheard of outside their respective home countries. All their articles are short, apart from Daly's, and that is only because he was American and a very high proportion of Wikipedia editors are American. Another issue is the fact that there is no list of sportspeople that died in 2009 on the 2009 in sports article. 2009 in television has a death list, as does 2009 in film; 2009 in sports should do as well. Information yes (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be a Deaths section in all Year in sports pages. That is where any sports people not considered notable enough for a Year page belong. As for the six listed (in near enough descending order of notability):

1. Ingemar Johansson: Olympic medalist and famous as the boxer who defeated and then lost to Floyd Patterson, the first man to regain the Heavyweight Championship (when there was still only one and years before professional boxing descended into the near-farce it is these days).
2. Yukio Endo: 5 Olympic Gold medals (+ 2 silver). Not exactly insignificant!
3. Kamila Skolimowska: Olympic Champion in an inaugural event and at 17 years youngest individual athletics champion at 2000 Games. Likely to be the youngest hammer champion for the foreseeable future.
4. Chuck Daly: As a non-basketball follower even I recognise him as one of the most notable coaches in basketball.
5. Achille Compagnoni: First man to climb the world's second highest mountain. Not quite the same league as Ed Hillary but still quite notable.
6. Peter Arundell: Minor Formula One racing driver. I would certainly consider him insufficiently notable for this article, even with 10 non-English articles. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yemenia Flight 626

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)

I am afraid that this is the way it is, a plane that crashes in a river, (also a common occurrence, after take-off BTW), is deemed news worthy, probably because it happens in the US.

A plane that crashes off the coast of South America is deemed "highly unusual circumstances", although we know nothing about the circumstances, probably because of who was in it and where it was going to.

But a plane that crashes off the coast of Africa is just common/normal, (although we also know nothing about the circumstances of that particular crash). FFMG (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an...interesting interpretation. Here, just for the record, is mine:

• US Airways Flight 1549: Ditching of a major commercial aircraft with no fatalities. Excluding a little case of the oopsie-daisies back in 1968, nothing comparable had happened in 45 years--and even the 1963 incident had only a single precedent in the history of aviation. And the 2009 ditching saved almost twice as many lives as the 1956 and 1963 ditchings combined.
• Air France Flight 447: A huge airplane, far into its flight, far away from land, far away from radar, apparently disintegrates about as far above the ocean surface as it can disintegrate, and apparently proceeds to wind up about as far below the ocean surface as it can wind up. All in all, things appear to be pretty far-out as an international mystery unfolds. Or, for short, the ordeal has got some "highly unusual circumstances".
• Yemenia Flight 626: An unsafe aircraft crashes shortly before landing, killing just about everyone on board. In other words, the type of airplane that is likely to crash, crashes in the time frame when an airplane is likely to crash. Nothing too extraordinary yet. But wait, somebody survives! Actually, what's remarkable is that so many people die. The crash kills considerably more than the average amount of occupants, just like so many other crashes that are never mentioned on these pages. As for Yemenia 626, the sole survivor makes the occasion plenty bittersweet, but not particularly unique; she exemplifies the rule, not the exception. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length already, (here and here), bird strikes are very common, airliners accidents are common.

The Japan Airlines Flight 2 you are quoting is only loosely related, but, in any case, water landings are not that uncommon either. FFMG (talk) 11:01, 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)

Somewhat counterintuitively, the large number (or, rather, the large percentage) of deaths does make this crash unusual. It's probably too soon to know what "intercontinental importance" the event might have. Certainly, it has quite an international scope, insofar as a bunch of folks from Continent A were traveling from Continent B to an island off Continent C. The relationship between the media and plane crashes is an interesting one ([4]), and is one of the factors in the notability of US Airways Flight 1549 ([5]--not an American source, by the way). But that relationship is long and strong, and I don't (yet) see how it's particularly unusual in this case. Of course, all of this stuff eventually might add up to something (just as a bird strike and a ditching and a perfect rate of survivorship culminated in the notability of Flight 1549, regardless of how commonly each factor might appear in isolation). But we might do well to ask ourselves if we're not immediately latching onto the archetypal mystique of the sole survivor--onto the natural fascination with the one who stood out from the rest. (In contrast, I would argue that the archetypal attributes of Chesley Sullenberger add to the notability of Flight 1549. If archetypes are, by defition, universal, they can be elicited by potentially anyone. However, Sullenberger is a biographically notable individual who earned his standing as a hero. We don't really know much about the Yemenia 626 survivor, so we should use restraint whenever we might feel inclined to focus on her.) Honestly, though, I don't really mind the entry. I moved it to 2009 in aviation the other day; but if people want it here as well, I'm cool with that. I just want to suggest that these crashes can be judged on their own terms, and have not been viewed in light of some elitist and simplisitic attitude about the world. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely this crash is notable enough to be on this article as well as 2009 in aviation, due to the reasons I stated in my previous comment, and regardless of there being one survivor. Most plane crashes are not notable, but it is not very often that a plane crashes with a death toll of well over a hundred. That there is a sole survivor should not be the focus of its coverage on an encyclopedia, even though the media have given that aspect of it undue weight. The survivor is simply lucky, not immortal or invulnerable to injury. Information yes (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are all fair points. My initial removal of the entry from this page probably stemmed in part from a knee jerk reaction to the newsy atmosphere of the event. (And it's not that the survivor couldn't become the next Juliane Köpcke, but rather that it's just too soon to tell.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9 non-English articles

Can someone point me out to this most absurd Wiki-law? I'm seeing it used a lot and have never heard of it. Where is it policy that this has to be followed? I'm on the fence about adding Billy Mays but to not have Ed McMahon and Steve McNair in this list is absolutely and utterly absurd. I want to see the policy, please. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years#Deaths. There is actually nothing "absurd" about it as this is an international page not 2009 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a guideline and not a policy. The very first entry says it can be over-ridden by consensus and I'd say consensus has been shown just by the number of additions and reverts. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in what regard? DerbyCountyinNZ 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. There certainly isn't a consensus for inclusion. (Who is Steve McNair?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a consensus in the number of people that keep adding the entries to the list. I also see a lot of WP:OWN issues with the list. Absolute absurdity to not have 2 people that are famous all over the world just because they don't have an article on WikiWhatsMyLanguage. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of "consensus"; it certainly doesn't resemble WP:CONSENSUS, but I don't see that fitting any of the Wiktionary definitions wikt:consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't "famous all over the world", that's the point. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I have to look many of the people on the death list up - either because they are obscure or old. Whether or not they are famous internationally shouldn't necessarily be the point. Their IMPACT, especially if they were groundbreakers, regardless of which country they lived in, should be the consideration. Regardless it is ALL opinion. Tahutton (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point I think, Ed McMahon and Steve McNair had little or no impact, probably less than some of the other entries you are referring to. It is not because you don't personally know some of them that they should not be listed.

And the opposite is also true for inclusion, because a person had a huge impact on your life does not mean that they should automatically be included.

But even if we put all that aside, Ed McMahon and Steve McNair clearly only had an impact in America, so it is logical they they should be in 2009 in the United States. As they had little or no impact outside the US it would seem odd to list them here. FFMG (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we can't make exceptions for American entries. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always found this rule a bit peculiar (IMHO, it's just too easy to abuse; it could be seen as allowing Wikipedia to treat itself as its own WP:RS; and while it might be an efficient rule of thumb, it can start to look like a golden hammer and preempt more nuanced debate), but I'd offer the following as a devil's advocate defense: A) "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." B) If a given topic has its own article, then that topic can be presumed to be notable until someone breaks the WP:SILENCE and attains WP:CONSENSUS against notability. C) Contributions to foreign-language versions of Wikipedia probably reflect international engagement with the project. Therefore, D) foreign-language articles about a topic are indicative of international consensus among Wikipedians as to the topic's notability. As for the "nine-ness" of it all, I dunno. Add the English article to the nine, and you've got a fairly popular number. It's just easy to get carried away and to treat the number as if it were half-magical. Perhaps it could be to WP:RY's benefit to emphasize the following: In order for a person to be listed under deaths, that person ought to have received significant international attention (i.e., as the non-English articles for that person would imply). If the person has not received such attention, then that person should be excluded without a compelling argument as to why that person could or should become the recipient of such attention. In other words, the rule can still be grounded by the quantitative bit (i.e., nine non-English articles), but it could use some qualitative colouring. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that this is not a perfect solution, we have to have some sort of impartial way to help us decide if a person should be added or not.

But this is only a tool to help us, not a law that has to be followed at all cost, if you still want someone listed, (or removed), start a discussion here and a consensus will be reached on whether to add a person or not.

I still don't see the fascination of having a person listed here rather than on their country page. Surely it is common sense that an American football player that had no international impact should be listed in 2009 in the United States. FFMG (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mays, McMahon and McNair are all virtually unknown outside the US. Fans wrongly adding them need to understand that this article is for people of international importance only. People important in the United States only should be on 2009 in the United States. Mays and McMahon are also on 2009 in television; McNair is also on 2009 in sports. Just because many Americans love a particular person, it does not make them internationally notable. Politics a (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, this is the English Wikipedia. Imagine that. The irony that people dear to, allegedly, only Americans, not being allowed on the mostly American Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And since the criteria inclusion is also world-wide notability, Allen Klein, Vasily Aksyonov and Robert McNamara should be removed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2009 in the United States were on my watchlist, I'd argue against Steve McNair there, as well. However, I wouldn't summarily delete the entry. You also deleted Karl Malden, who is internationally known. Now, that may have been a mistake.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

McNamara was President of the World Bank for over 13 years; he was also a major figure in the Vietnam War and as Secretary of State for Defense he had major dealings with many countries. That gives him worldwide notability. Karl Malden was a famous actor known across dozens of countries through his films. He doesn't lose notability because of his age or amount of time having passed since his career peak. McNamara and Malden both have plenty of articles. Mays, McNair and McMahon never did, because very few non-Americans ever heard of them. Outside the US, so few people have heard of McNair that not only has there been little reporting of his death, but it has been reported as 'American footballer shot dead' not 'McNair shot dead'. Politics a (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue of deleting internationally notable people just because someone a user likes is correctly deleted because he is not notable outside his own country is a repeat of the Wayne Allwine situation, when one fan added him and then repeatedly tried to assert that he was a worldwide star. When several editors pointed out that he was barely known even in the US let alone outside it, he removed many people using fake reasoning. This English language encyclopedia is viewed and edited by people from dozens of countries. The deaths section of this article should contain only internationally notable people, not people who are little known in the rest of the world. Politics a (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that argues Ed McMahon isn't known internationally, is living under a rock. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an intuition that you may be right; but I would have to say, with all due respect, WP:PROVEIT... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Which countries other than the US are you claiming that McMahon was known in? Information yes (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article suggestion

I am suggesting this due to recent conflicts with placing deaths, etc. on the article.

I feel that since 2009 is the current year, that the article should be separated and that only the introduction, major religious, holidays, awards, and 2009 in fiction should exist on this page, while all events, predicted events, and deaths should exist in separate articles. This would be similar to how our current decade's article looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.179.180 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better as it is. People arguing about which people to include in the Deaths section is no reason to remove the whole section. Politics a (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion might make a decent last resort before full protection. So far, though, discussions about individual entries have been civil and brief enough that they haven't even put page protection on the horizon. And if events or deaths gain or lose notability in retrospect, then they can always be added or removed accordingly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. vs. American

With some discomfort I made this change from "U.S." to "American" in the deaths section. But mightn't it be better to use "U.S." to indicate the United States? "American" is pretty clear in the vernacular, but since it can technically refer to not one but two continents (whereas "U.S." is specific to one nation), "American" might not be the ideal adjective. (Well, "U.S. American" might be clearer than anything--but let's not go there.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think that we all know what 'American' means, but we also know that it is not technically correct. Changing it to U.S., (or maybe even US?), would make more sense. FFMG (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

US seems good (without periods, like UK), and I've gone ahead and made the change. I just noticed that the change also helps the article to avoid using "American" in contradictory ways; it links to American Capital of Culture and Organization of American States, but in neither case is it using "American" (or "states", for that matter) in the USA sense of the term. I did, however, leave African American and Iranian American as they are, since those terms are linked to articles that specify the national rather than continental denotations of "American". Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to go around to every American article (not to mention all other year articles) and change American to US too? There is no need for this. In the English speaking world, American means a person from the United States. --Tocino 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, (see America as well). FFMG (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I just pointed to two instances (make it three, with General Assembly of the Organization of American States) in this article where "American" does not refer to the United States. Come to think of it, nevermind "the English speaking world"; in the USA itself, "US" is preferred in formal designations. For example, Robert McNamara, who is now listed as "American Secretary of Defense", never held such a title. His title was, in fact, U.S. Secretary of Defense. And he was not in charge of the "American" anything, but rather headed the US Department of Defense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions, such as U.S. Secretary of State, as that's his formal title, but in the English language there is no other widely accepted way to refer to citizens of the United States other than "Americans". United Statesians? Exists in Spainish and Portuguese but not English. Using just U.S. is also grammatically incorrect (U.S. without the periods, US, is British spelling as well). For example, Pat Hingle, U.S. actor is gramatically incorrect. He's not physically part of the United States, he's an actor. American serves as an adjective for what he is, an actor. --Tocino 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Arundell, Pina Bausch

Whilst both of these June deaths have enough articles, I can't see how either is sufficiently internationally notable to be on this article. Arundell never won; Bausch was little known outside her native Germany. Information yes (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removing Arundell. I'm slightly less certain about Bausch, she doesn't seem, from her article, to be particularly notable internationally but 20 non-English articles suggests that she might be. Happy to go with removal if that's the consensus though. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Arturo Gatti

I see that a figure must have nine non-English articles to be included in the deaths section, but I would be remiss if I did not at least request that an exception be made for famous boxer Arturo Gatti. I believe he is significant enough to be included.-7/11/09