Jump to content

Talk:2009/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Eunice Kennedy Shriver

I think Eunice Kennedy should be added for the amazing work she has done for this country. Cabbagetheaterisawesome (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Special Olympics is 'international'. Therefore the founder (Eunice Shriver) should be included. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
At present she fails the 9 non-English articles minimum as per WP:Recent Years#Deaths. There would need to be extremely convincing arguments that she is sufficiently internationally notable for her to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Her international significance seems sort of obvious to me. She founded the Special Olympics (14 foreign articles), which has an international competition that has been hosted on three continents. Regardless of what overall merit there might (or might not) be to tallying biographies, this seems like one of those occasions when a more substantive gauge of notability is clear. Nobody is denying that she passes WP:GNG with flying colours, so it's just a matter of time and effort until the bio-tallies catch up with the international recognition of her achievements. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No-one is disputing she is easily notable enough to have a Wikipedia article; the question is whether she is notable enough to deserve a place on this article. Is the Special Olympics important enough? If so, is what she personally did important enough? Due to her being from a very famous family, she has a higher profile that she otherwise would have. She shouldn't gain extra notablility because of famous family members. Information yes (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with 'exclusion', now. The 9 non-English articles criteria must have 'no' exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the 9 non-English articles minimum can be over-ruled by consensus. So far this has happened on only one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The one exception on this article is Mamadou Dia. His article count is one short; he was added due to the fact that he was head of government of his country for over five years; there have been no objections to his inclusion in over six months since he died. He is little known due to the fact that his term ended over four-and-a-half decades ago, and his country is minor. However, a country's most important politician is internationally notable due to his influence / effect on other countries through policies he implements and the meetings / deals of his with other national leaders. Information yes (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

She now has enough articles; the issue now is whether or not she is internationally notable enough. Let's face it, most of those who would recognise her name would only know that 'she was one of JFK's sisters' or just 'she was a member of the Kennedy family'. To be included, a person needs individual (not family) notablity; if she did not have famous relatives, she would not have anywhere near as many articles. Information yes (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh COME ON! She only founded the Special Olympics.. what does somebody need to do for them to be notable enough for you Information yes? --Jkaharper (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I know Jka! Information yes and DerbyCountyinNZ think that nobody's notable at all and refuse to include nearly everybody. What, do you want them to save the world?! Is that the minimum notability you require?! --ScythreTalkContribs 07:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jkaharper and Scythre - Eunice Kennedy Shriver is indeed notable enough for inclusion. After she died, she was featured on the front page on LA Times, NY Times, BBC News and Sky News (so British and American alike) and all of them had titles of the likes "Special Olympics" founder dies. Thank you--86.149.238.150 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I lean toward inclusion, even if the "9 articles at time of death" modification is accepted. Founding the Special Olympics seems adequately notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually she has 9 non-English articles now! :) I will add her in 24 hours time to give people a chance to comment if they wish to. Cheers--Jkaharper (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not going to object to her inclusion I would point out that outside the US and those closely associated with the Special Olympics she is most likely to be known (if at all) as "a Kennedy" and/or possibly "Arnie's mother-in-law" than as the founder of the Special Olympics. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Willy DeVille

Is his music popular / influential enough for him to be included on this article? His article doesn't make it clear enough how relevant he was in Europe, or how many countries his popularity in that continent extended to. Information yes (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his article, it says he helped spark the roots revival of classic New Orleans R&B. I don't feel thats notable enough; if he helped spark the revival of R&B in itself, then yes. But I don't feel he's relevant enough to be included here. Scythre (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously he didn't spark revival in R&B in general; if he had of, he would be world famous. His article claims he was more popular in Europe than in his native US. Unless someone can show his European success to have been great and in many countries, he should be removed. He is not on 2009 in the United States - should he be on that article? Information yes (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if he would be considered notable enough and was mildly surprised to find that he had 9 non-English articles. Going solely by his article he would certainly seem to be more notable than many who are currently on the list (or who some people want/ed to include) such as Martin, Misawa, Dean, Goody, Mays, McMahon. I would not be concerned if he was left out, as long as all those I just mentioned are out as well. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Two of those articles were created after his death. He has a following in a few countries, but something would need to be added to his article to show some real significance in Europe, which, presently, is only vaguely described - probably because it isn't that significant. Information yes (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamila Skolimowska

A few people have said she should not be on this article. She was very little known outside her native Poland; her sport, hammer throwing, is rather obscure. She only gained one Olympic medal, and I don't see that her being very young when she won her medal increases her notabilty significantly. That she won her medal at the first Olympics at which women could compete in the event does not make her medal a greater achievement; it was just lucky for her that she had her opportunity to win at the time she became very good at what she did. Whilst her death is tragic, dying suddenly at a young age does not increase notablity. Information yes (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if she's not known outside her native Poland has only won one medal, she shouldnt be included. Scythre (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It is rather inaccurate to say that her "sport" is rather obscure. For one thing the sport is athletics the event is hammer throwing. Athletics is most certainly not an obscure sport and I suspect hammer throwing is practised in more countries than not (and any college in the US with a throwing programme has probably heard of her!). As you can see from her article she is in fact notable in 18 other langauges which suggests she is in fact well known outside her native Poland. However, as I consider myself extremely knowledgeable regarding both athletics and the Olympics I am probably too biased to give a neutral POV in this case so I won't dispute any consensus to remove (again as long as other supposed "sportspeople" are also left out). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I should have said event rather than sport; of course athletics is very popular the world over. I maintain that hammer throwing is obscure, and that few people practice it at all, let alone competitively. I don't know how many colleges (or other places) are involved in professional (or even amateur) hammer throwing, but I would think it is very few. Even in those colleges in the US, or elsewhere outside Poland, that have hammer throwing programmes may have some people who know of Skolimowska, it would only be those involved in it that know her. Her name would be unheard of by most of the students. Having many stub articles does not really prove significant international notability - merely that there is some interest in many countries. That is not surprising, as sports fans tend to be dedicated to their sport and its people. Skolimowska's obscurity seems to be confirmed by the fact that only a tiny number of people have ever heard of her, despite the fact that 'olympic medallist dies suddenly aged 26' is the kind of story that the media love. No-one on this talk page or archive has stated that they had even heard of her when she was alive. Information yes (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Typhoon Morakot

This caused a natural disaster that only affected three countries, all of them in Asia. Unless people from other continents died (which is highly unlikely, and has not been reported), it fails the criteria for inclusion on this article. For an event to be included here, it has to be intercontinental. Information yes (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"This caused a natural disaster that only affected three countries, all of them in Asia": And Hurricane Katrina is known for "affecting" a single city, but it's known worldwide for having done so. Skipping momentarily to "For an event to be included here, it has to be intercontinental": That's true if "it" means something like "the coverage or historical significance of the event". That's not true, however, if "it" means the physical event itself--like a typhoon, which (by definition) can occur only in or around east Asia. Now back to "Unless people from other continents died (which is highly unlikely, and has not been reported)": I'm not sure why this is so unlikely (is it that folks just aren't visiting Asia nowadays, or do non-Asians have some sort of storm-defying superpowers?). But, as crazy as it may seem, it's true. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no guideline anywhere saying that "For an event to be included here, it has to be intercontinental". It can be added unless we specifically decide on this talk page not to add it. Wrad (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The entry as it stands does not indicate ANY international notability. Being the biggest of a particular type of natural disaster in one country should not be on a year page (although I think excceptions could be made if the deaths were a couple of orders of magnitude greater). I would have said its world record rainfall total might have increased its notability but that has been recanted in the last 24 hours. As such I think it should be excluded from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At least 100 dead with hundreds more trapped or missing. Worst flooding in decades. Taiwan is begging for international help. This is not a notable event in your eyes? Is Hurricane Katrina not notable either? --Tocino 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that death toll in Taiwan will rise to 300.[1].
Then, following entry has been standing although it is occured ONLY IN EUROPE.
April 6 – A 6.3 magnitude earthquake strikes near L'Aquila, Italy, killing nearly 300 and injuring more than 1,500.
I could not find any convincing reasoning why huge disaster in Asia is not allowed to stand while something occured only in Italy stands without doubt.--Belle Equipe (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not mention any foreigners being killed, hence why I thought it unlikely. I'm not sure that the deaths of three foreigners, all from the same country (France) is enough for it to be included on this article. Media coverage in, and aid from, other countries and continents often happens after a major disaster; it doesn't make it a world event. It was an Asian event; there should be a 2009 in Asia article, and it moved there. Information yes (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "2009 in Asia" article. (I am not sure if any "in Asia" article has ever been created)
If inclusion of L'Aquila earthquake is because of some foreign victims involved, it should be mentioned in the description. At the same time, collision of a helicopter and a cessna over Hudson river may be included because of the involvement of Italian tourists in the accident.
Regarding the disasters caused by Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou asked for international aid, although government initially declined to ask, then they already received financial aid from the United States and other Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, and Mainland China, according to The Wall Street Journal. It is also reported in UK by BBC and in Australia by The Age--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a 2009 in Asia article, as there should be a 2009 in Europe article. A disaster is only worth considering for inclusion if foreigners are killed, not merely involved. International aid is often offered and received after disasters, I don't see how that could make an incident qualify. Information yes (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 12 non-English articles about this typhoon and damages caused created. It seems it is notable enough to include.--Belle Equipe (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 L'Aquila earthquake

It was confined to one country, although people from 10 countries on 3 continents were killed. It is on 2009 in Italy; should it still be here as well? Information yes (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Doesn't seem like it was mentioned in the mainstream prominently in outside countries.--WillC 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
A Google News search reveals that it received media coverage on three continents, which should appease the three-continent rule. Though it may not be a legally valid argument, there are Wikipedia articles in 30+ languages. Favonian (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

July 2009 Urumqi riots

These were contained within one country, and I don't believe any foreigners were involved. Can anyone justify the presence of this event on this international article? Politicians from many other countries gave their opinions and condemnations of the rioters / Chinese authorities, but none of them actually did anything about it. Therefore it was a domestic Chinese incident. Information yes (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Even Chinese Communist government, which tends to conceal truth, had to admit that at least 197 people, most of those were civilians, were killed in the riots.[2] (Some news sources guessed that more than thousands killed)
Although it is politically domestic, the riots can be regarded as religious and ethnic confrontation between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese, almost all of those are irreligionist, as well as the outburst of long standing territorial row and hatred between Communist China and East Turkistan.--Belle Equipe (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that User:Information yes's quest to get notable events deleted is all just an attempt at irony. --Tocino 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi

Is his release worth noting in events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.34.160 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I added it, then it was removed minutes later as insufficiently notable. He is the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, in which people from 21 countries were killed, and the release is an intercontinental event that has received a great deal of media coverage in many countries. That is why I thought it correct to add it; it easily meets the Three-Continent Rule. However, can a prisoner being released ever be considered notable enough for an article such as this? There doesn't seem to be any clear answer to that on WP:RY. Crime researcher (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this should be added as an entry like this already included

# August 4 – North Korean leader Kim Jong-il pardons two American journalists, who had been arrested and imprisoned for illegal entry earlier in the year, after former U.S. President Bill Clinton meets with Kim in North Korea.[70]

If this is a notable event, I firmly believe that this event should be included as it has drawn much criticism from most of the Anti-Terrorist nations and organizations abroad. His exit off the plane is being featured in countless news reports and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.34.160 (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Both these cases are very high-profile, intercontinental prisoner releases. Megrahi's release is a more important world event due to the media coverage about it and because of so much opposition to it. In comparison, very few people have claimed that the journalists should not have been freed from N Korea. If the uncontroversial release of the journalists being freed is included on the article, I cannot see why Megrahi's release should not be included. Megrahi is far more notable than the two US journalists put together. Megrahi's release has received considerable media coverage in more countries that the journalists'. In what way is Megrahi's release less notable than the journalists' release? Information yes (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years - New proposals to amend the criteria for inclusion

There are currently two proposals to change the criteria in Wikipedia:Recent years. Both amendments are listed in Wikipedia talk:Recent years. The first - #1, would amend the number of articles in Deaths to be as of the date of death; the second - #2, would amend the "Deaths" section to include births in the criteria requiring 9 articles for inclusion to births in the year.

Comments, discussions, and disagreements would be appreciated in Wikipedia talk:Recent years. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A quota for the Deaths section would be ridiculous. If you did it by country and / or profession, and George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter die the same month, you would have to exclude one of them, as the quota would forbid the inclusion of two people from the same country and the same profession in the same month. A quota by number of people per day would mean having to exclude either Fawcett or Jackson. If the quota was by month it would mean having to add a load of insufficiently notable people to February, as very few internationally notable people died that month. Information yes (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pio Laghi

Is his place in the January section of Deaths justified? Most Catholics, let alone the rest of the world, have never heard of him. I can't see how someone known only to people who know about the RC hierarchy should be included. Popes should be included, as they are world figures, but how was Laghi ever of influence to the masses? Information yes (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Why have the pics of Bea Arthur and Bobby Robson been removed from the Deaths section? She is the most notable person that died in April; he is the most notable person that died in July. Information yes (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Martin, Mitsuharu Misawa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These wrestlers have been added and removed a few times. They now both have enough articles, but it seems both are little known outside wrestling and their respective countries. Information yes (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to reach a consensus on those so we know what to do in future. Some editors are reverting it because there are 9 non-English articles, the 9 non-English rule is only a guideline that is not set in stone and can be set aside if a consensus is reached.
So, I vote to exclude both wrestlers as they are not well know outside their respective countries. FFMG (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the people listed aren't well known in their own country, let alone outside it. Their exlusion isn't because of how well known they are around the world, its because of a bias against professional wrestling. True if you walk up to a random person and ask them who Andrew Martin or Mitsuharu Misawa are they won't be able to tell you, but if you ask them who Sverre Fehn, Kamila Skolimowska, Alain Bashung, Yukio Endo or Marilyn Chambers are they probably won't know either. Oh, and [3], [4], [5], [6]. PepsiPlunge (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Martin, while using the Test character, was featured prominently during what's known as the Attitude Era when wrestling was part of the zeitgeist, when so many people knew who Rock & Austin were and people were saying "Suck It" all over the place while crotch-chopping. Conversely he wasn't famous all that long even though he was involved in some big storylines. Misawa on the other hand had been wrestling for 28 years in Japan where wrestling is taken more seriously than it is in the West. Also he started his own promotion in 2000 to rival the big two in Japan and rather than flounder as most new promotions do, it has quickly become one of the most recognised and respected around the world. Obviously I have some bias because I'm a wrestling fan but I don't follow Japanese wrestling at all; I could probably name you five Japanese wrestlers at a push but top of the list would be Misawa (or the Great Muta). If Ekaterina Maximova and Yukio Endo are on here, I see no reason for why Misawa who not only excelled in his craft but also founded a company which has enough acclaim to have toured internationally. Tony2Times (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
to PepsiPlunge - You'd better read through this page from the beginning before bringing up an issue about inclusion of those people you listed up. Concensus is made already.
Regarding professional wrestlers, each of them are not a household name even in their own countries. (I know Misawa's case was reported widely in Japan because of his accidental and shocking death during his match. but he was comparably not known by non-puroresu fans until his death was reported). How can they be "internationally" notable?
There are some people who are well-known outside of their respective countries than their own. But I do not think they are.--Belle Equipe (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Andrew Martin not being included. That would obviously just open the floodgates for every professional wrestler who dies to be added. Mitsuharu Misawa is a different case, though. He founded Pro Wrestling Noah, which is a major company. He founded the Global Professional Wrestling Alliance to work across borders. As noted above, he wrestled for 28 years. During that time, he held 8 world championships (note: I recognize that professional wrestling has pre-determined outcomes and that titles aren't won in legitimate athletic competitions; however, the fact that major promotions saw enough notability, drawing power, and ability in him to let him hold their top championships does speak to his importance), was rated Wrestler of the Year three times by a major American wrestling newsletter (Wrestling Observer), and was ranked #6 in the world for the years 1991-2003 by another major American wrestling magazine (Pro Wrestling Illustrated). I don't see how anyone can question the fact that he deserves to be listed alongside mountain climber Achille Compagnoni, boxer Ingemar Johansson, and hammer thrower Kamila Skolimowska, who have similar (although, to be honest, probably less impressive) claims to fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin and Misawa's deaths received a significant amount of coverage because, when they died: they were still competing, their deaths were sudden, from unnatural causes, and were well under 50. However, they were both little known outside wrestling and their home countries. Wrestling isn't taken seriously as a competitive sport in the way that football, tennis, golf etc. are. Very few people have heard of Endo outside his native Japan. Gymnasts rarely achieve real fame; his notablity is solely due to the number of Olympic medals he won. Skolimowska is little known outside her native Poland due to the fact that very few people are interested in hammer throwing. I don't see that her career is substantial enough for inclusion on this article. Being young when she won her Olympic medal, then dying young, does not really increase her notability. Information yes (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"they were both little known outside wrestling and their home countries" - Is there anything to back that up beyond IDONTLIKEIT? Misawa was well-known internationally; he was rated at the top of his profession in the world for three different years. He founded a global organization that brought together major wrestling organizations in three continents. Nobody is claiming that wrestling is a legitimate competitive sport, but it is an athletic event nonetheless (and quite a popular one worldwide, I might add). And I fail to see how athletes in other sports are notable outside their sports. Clearly, the notability criteria don't mean that the people need to be famous for something outside their profession. Larry Bird is famous as a basketball player; he wouldn't be excluded simply because he isn't also a chess champion, state governor, or pirate. This is clearly a case of misrepresenting the criteria, without anything to support your opinion other than parroting "not notable, even though I can't back it up". GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrestlers' 'fame' is limited to the niche audience that is interested in that sport. To compare with the last three people on the Deaths list: Robson is known of by hundreds of millions of people, including millions who don't care about football, because he was such an important figure in a very popular sport with a large, mainstream audience. Thereby he is an important historical and sporting figure. Aquino was head of a fairly major country, and thereby had major dealings with many countries, and remains an important historical figure, and will do for decades more. Her influence stretches way beyond her own country. Hughes' films have been seen by hundreds of millions of people in many countries. His influence is not limited to film, as he is a major part of 1980s history and of white, suburban, heterosexual teenage culture, not just in the US, but across many Western nations, if not further. His influence is still strong; every year, many thousands of teenagers see his 1980s films for the first time and identify with one or more of the characters. That's the difference between important, internationally notable and influential Robson, Aquino and Hughes, compared to Martin and Misawa, who only fans of wrestling are interested in. Information yes (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say both Misawa and Test were pretty well known in the United States, outside of their own country (Japan & Canada) and yes wrestling is a "niche" but so is gymnastics, swimming or any other number of sports, sciences etc. if you're not interested in a subject chances are you don't know them - so? Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. I have not heard a single argument for why these two should be removed that actually has anything other than "I don't like wrestlers" to back them up, and that is a pretty sad argument.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
@Information yes: I fail to see how professional wrestling is any more of a "niche" market than basketball or English football. All three appeal to fans of the sport and not to people outside of the sport. Do you have anything to support the comment that millions of non-fans care about footballers but not about professional wrestlers? I've certainly don't know anything about Robson, and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in world affairs. I certainly wouldn't argue against the inclusion of Aquino or Hughes, however; they clearly fit the criteria for inclusion. Even if you claim that it is a "niche" market, professional wrestling is popular among many millions of people worldwide (forgive me for not also tossing out an unverifiable "hundreds of millions"). People from all over the world knew who Misawa was, and he meets all of the criteria for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't seriously be comparing the international interest in Pro wrestling with that of football? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That's your idea of contributing to a discussion on consensus??? You keep saying "Discuss it on the talk page, discuss it on the talk page, discuss it on the talk page", and that is what you have to add to the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes pro-wrestling can't be compared to famous footballers like Beckham or Pele but that's an unfair comparison because it's the most popular sport in the world. However, there is no way that a Russian ballerina has any more acclaim, domestically or internationally (and I doubt that the majority of people inside her country really knew her let alone outwith) than Mitsahara Misawa. He's not only a wrestler, he's a founder of a major wrestling company, admittedly it's still in the field but owning and running a promotion makes him doubly as notable as any other wrestler and that company came here to England last year and sold out the Coventry Skydome and went to Germany. He wrestled at least in Japan, England, Scotland, Germany and America which I would say is international. But hey, he never performed The Nutcracker, because we all know the masses lap up that(!). Tony2Times (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Really I see no reason to not add Misawa. Test I see a reason not too because he wasn't a big big name, but Misawa's death caused many around the world, not only in Japan, but in America as well, to mourn. A man who started a major Japanese promotion which has visited multiple countries and known world-wide. A man who defended the GHC Heavyweight Championship against Samoa Joe in Philly for Ring of Honor, the third top wrestling promotion today which tours nationally and world-wide. Misawa is clearly known not only in Japan but in America. I'm seeing bias in not including him.--WillC 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Misawa's article has 4 citations, 3 are from wrestling sites and 1 is a dead link from a Japanese newspaper. The 2 external links are both wrestling sites. Several of the foreign language articles have a single external link (one of the wrestling sites) and no inline citations and appear to have been largely copied straight from the English article. This does not suggest any notability outside the wrestling community. And by the way, I agree that Jade Goody and Marilyn Chambers are not sufficiently notable for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the latest in the series of moving goalposts. Well, I'll bite. The article now has 18 sources, which come from three different continents and are made up of a combination of wrestling articles and mainstream media reports (it should be noted that SLAM! Wrestling is a division of Canadian Online Explorer, not a "wrestling site". Problem solved.GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Basing the objection to not include Misawa on the fact no one has worked on his article is completely wrong. WP:PW only has about 10 users who even expand articles. Out of 4247 articles we have 11 FAs, all of which the most recent ones in the pasted two years have been PPVs, 49 FLs, on various subjects, and 146 GAs on various subjects (mostly PPVs). So that is completely idiotic. If I wanted to at this very moment, I could expand his article enough that it would pass the GA criteria and possibly even FA with extra work.--WillC 06:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding notability of Misawa, if compared with other Japanese sportspeople, I do not think he is known better than
Even comparing with other domestically-notable people, he is less notable than following "household names"
Although he is the founder of Pro Wrestling Noah, he is not as famous as Son Goku of Dragon Ball on outside of Japan.--Belle Equipe (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Robson's notability is many times that of Martin and Misawa combined. Robson was a major figure in world sport for decades. He played for the England national team, along with teams in England and Canada. He then managed the England national team and teams in five countries. His name is one of the most famous in world sport. Wrestling is a niche due to the fact that only a small minority of people are interested in it. Association football has a massive, worldwide, mainstream audience; unlike wrestling, it is taken seriously. Look at the huge number of different mainstream media sources about Robson, in comparison to Martin and Misawa, whose coverage is nearly all from wrestling organisations. Robson's death was covered prominently by many national news organisations in many countries. That backs the point I made earlier in this section. Very few people, other than wrestling fans and people involved in wrestling, have ever heard of Martin or Misawa, despite the unfortunate circumstances and details of their recent deaths, which are the kinds of things that the media love to sensationalise to increase their profit. However, for years, it has been the case that millions of people who haven't the slightest interest in soccer know that Robson was a very successful footballer, football manager and that he had cancer. If you asked a cross section of 100 people at random to tell you what they know about Martin or Misawa, and about 99 of them would say "who?". On the other hand, most of them, including some with little or no interest in football, could readily tell you the basic facts about Robson that I've mentioned above. Information yes (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation doesn't help your case. Do you have a reference for only 1% of the population knowing who Misawa is? Or for more than 50% of any given international sample knowing who Robson is? Or for millions of people who don't follow soccer knowing who Robson is? If all it takes to prove a point is unverifiable statistics, then I would like to remind you that over 70% of African and South American accountants would undoubtedly name Mitsuharu Misawa as their favorite athlete of all time. On a serious note, though, I would bet a good sum of money that, if I asked a group of people around here to name five people involved with football, they'd come up with David Beckham, Pele...maybe Victoria Beckham...there's a slight chance that someone would bring up Maradona or Ronaldo...perhaps someone would say, "Oh, yeah...that French headbutting guy." But no more than that. Obviously, taking local interest in a sport and extrapolating to say that the entire world feels the same way isn't a useful method of discussion. 15 sources were added to the article today, which include several articles from the mainstream media and publications from three continents. I fully agree with you that this page should be reserved for people who made a large contribution in an important area, and that the vast majority of professional wrestlers don't belong on a page like this (and I definitely include Andrew Martin in the group that doesn't belong on this page, so let's drop that part of the discussion). Misawa is one of the very few that I feel makes the cut. He meets the criteria, he was at the top of an area of entertainment with a strong worldwide popularity, the article has been improved in response to a concern mentioned above, the mainstream media coverage from three different continents debunks the unsubstantiated theory of nobody outside of Japan or the the wrestling community knowing who he is...every objection has been addressed. Can I assume, therefore, that you are willing to reconsider your earlier opinion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Robson's popularity is across all ages, due to his long and successful national and international career as a player and manager. He would be high up on a list of best-known and most popular sportspeople. Even if you are not interested in sport, you'd have to be living somewhere remote, and without access to the media to not have heard of Robson. When he died, the media very quickly found many people - members of the public and people actually competing in and reporting on football - of all ages who spoke about how important he was to their lives. They not only spoke of his ability and achiements as a player nad manager, but about how likeable he was as a person, not just as a sportsman. Within hours of his death being announced, Many hundreds of people, from children through all ages to the elderly, left flowers scarves etc outside the football stadium in Newcastle-upon-Tyne that he is most associated with. Misawa did not have such a response. Misawa only reached the minimum number of articles on 27 July - a week-and-a-half-ago. His international notability is disputed on this article and talk page; it seems that most or all of those arguing for his inclusion are wrestling fans, who are, by definition, biased. Can anyone outside Japan, whom does not follow wrestling, honestly say that Misawa was ever well known in their country? Information yes (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I've never heard of Robson, honestly. I live in a middle-class Southern American town in the middle of Kentucky and all I do all day is read books, get on the Internet, and watch TV. Not once have I ever heard of him. While on the other hand, I have heard of Misawa and I don't even watch Noah, New Japan, All Japan, etc. I stay focused on World Wrestling Entertainment, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, and Ring of Honor here in the states. Plenty of times I've read articles on Slam Sports, among other places, that have spoke of Misawa. While you speak of the heart break which occurred after Ronson's death, many wrestlers, fans, etc showed just as much emotion. ROH even has a video on Youtube where they did a ten bell solute to Misawa where many wrestlers stood around the ring and cried. Misawa's influence was not only known in Japan, but in the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia as seen by numerous videos on Youtube and articles published on the subject of his death on several websites. Looking at this article I see alot of things that are not known world-wide, that the only way to even become aware of them is to be involved in those subjects. As for wrestling fans being bias, I can't see why or how. We would know which wrestlers are known world-wide and which aren't. We'll probably be having this discussion again one day regarding the addition of Hulk Hogan, Dwayne Johnson, Kurt Angle, or even Stone Cold Steve Austin. I would like to see a good argument against why Misawa should not be included. It has clearly been shown that he was known in several countries. As for being known outside of the wrestling community, IDK. Tell me how Augusto Boal, apparently a Brazilian theatre director, is more notable then Misawa, when I've never heard of and apparently he is world renowned? I didn't see anything about his death on Yahoo or even a comment somewhere about it. Also, as for the Inoki comment above. He is not only a professional wrestler who created New Japan, but also created Inoki Genome Federation. Inoki is a politician. He is a huge influence in Wrestling and MMA, not only in Japan but in the USA, which has been recognized by the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). He has been interviewed by Ring of Honor and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, if I can recall even the UFC. Without a doubt in my mind, I know Inoki is not only known by fans but non-fans as well. Though we are not talking about him but saying "he is less notable than following "household names" is just completely wrong and disgraceful as well so I felt I must say something.--WillC 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the side of including Misawa but you're really picking the wrong person to compare it to with a footballer because football is the most popular sport in the world it's just that America never embraced it. If you asked anyone in any other country outside of America they'd be able to reel of a long list of famous footballers and Robson would be among them as a manager seeing as he managed majors teams in England, Ireland, Holland, Spain and Portugal. Unfortunately I have also heard of Augusto Boal but then again I'm particularly keen on theatre and I'd argue the fame of Boal is based on the effect and influence he had on forum theatre - most of my theatre-friendly friends would be au fait with his style but I know for a fact that they've never heard of him because I brought him up in conversation the other day and they had no idea and they study theatre. Misawa too is someone who has had a great influence on his profession in terms of his style, who he has wrestled and trained and establishing an internationally succesful company. His death was featured in The Sun which is, sadly, the most widely read newspaper in the UK. I saw more reaction to his death than I did Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick which, bearing in mind I was taking a literary theory exam a month later I find quite shocking but perhaps quite telling. Tony2Times (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling isn't culturally important; the general public don't unite behind and focus on a particular wrestler in the way that happens with football (in the US, baseball or basketball). In the UK, the football World Cup and the Wimbledon tennis tournament are among the most common topics of conversations, even amongst people who otherwise take very little interest in sport for the rest of the year, whilst those competitions are on. People who don't talk about or watch football will follow and watch England's matches and progress in the World Cup. The UK, including people who usually have little or no interest in tennis, is united behind Andy Murray every year when he plays at Wimbledon. If Murray ever wins Wimbledon, he will be a national hero. Nothing similar to that can be said about any particular wrestler. No wrestler ever has a whole country, or even a substantial proportion of it, backing him. It is a niche sport, not part of mainstream culture. What little mainstream media coverage there has been of Misawa's death was mostly in tabloids, and due to the the fact he was fatally injured in the ring; thereby it was a shocking story that tabloids love to publish in a sensational manner, along with loads of speculation and unfounded allegations. The headlines in national tabloids would have been along the lines of 'wrestler killed in ring' not 'Mitsuharu Misawa dies', as the latter would have been met with indifference by the vast majority of people, who would just see a foreign name they've never seen before, and not read any of the article. The coverage was because a sportsman (accidentally) killed another sportsman during competition, not because Misawa was widely loved / admired by a substantial proportion of its readers. If Misawa had died of stomach cancer, would the coverage of his death have been half or even a quarter of what it was? No, because 'wrestler dies of cancer' doesn't sell papers; 'wrestler killed in ring' does. Information yes (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At least you've made your bias perfectly clear. It's not actually a case of not enough foreign language articles, not enough references in the English article, not enough flowers on the grave, not enough international influence, or any of the rest of it. It's because you don't like professional wrestling, so you have decreed that it "isn't culturally important". You've given nothing but speculation and lies to support anything, and you've made it clear that you feel that professional wrestlers are somehow less important people and their worldwide popularity should be negated because of their chosen profession. You've been completely unwilling to even consider the mountain of reasoned arguments before you and are simply content with playing the part of playground bully by saying, "My opinion is the only one that counts." You've twisted the rules for this page by asserting that it's perfectly fine that professional wrestlers are removed on sight without consensus but that other people in the entertainment field (including a Big Brother contestant) should remain on the list while they are discussed, because consensus works the other way around with non-wrestlers. I believe that I've wasted more than enough time here, and I should have realized sooner that there is no point to arguing with bigotry. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually when the reports came in on Misawa's death, him dieing in the ring wasn't the main focus. Him being dead was, not how he died. It was noted though. You may want to look up on wrestling a bit more before you say the public does not get behind wrestling. You spoke of the biggest events, well the biggest events in wrestling are the January 4 Dome Show held by New Japan every year at the Tokyo Dome, where it usually gets around 20,000 or higher with the highest attendance in 1998 being 65,000. Then in America it is WrestleMania, Starrcade (no longer held), or TNA Bound for Glory. WrestleMania annually is featured in mainstream media and usually breaks the attendance record of the arena or stadium it is held at. The highest number it has ever had was 93,000 with WrestleMania III. That event held in 1987 also had 4.5 million buyrates world-wide. Starrcade's highest attendance record is 17,500 in 1997. While on the otherhand Bound for Glory which is 5 years hold has only gained 5000 at its highest, though that isn't surprising since TNA has yet to pass advertising and promoting 101. Now lets head south to Mexico where lucha libre is all the rage and TripleMania is their Super Bowl, and the first event has the highest with 48,000 in 1993. The highest known attendance record for a wrestling event in the history of mankind is held by the two day event Kollision in Korea. It was held in 1995 by WCW and New Japan in Pyongyang, North Korea. The first day brought in 150,000 people, while the second day brought in 190,000 people. Not all of the people at these events are wrestling fans, some just go because they hear in the local advertisements that a big time event is being held in their city and they go.--WillC 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
[7] ESPN characterizes Misawa's popularity in Japan as a comparable to The Rock and Hogan which means he was influential to Professional Wrestling, since ESPN is a Major Sports Outlet and isn't a wrestling site I think this more than covers that his death is somewhat significant. AfroGold - Afkatk 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I live in the corner of the US (where Barack Obama is from), and the name "Misawa" is not known as a name of wrestler, but one of US Air Force bases in Japan, by many people in here, because some of them had been deployed there.
I personally have chances to visit Japan at least twice a year, staying there about a month in total, every year. I came across his death during my last stay in Japan by chance (although I was not in Hiroshima, where Misawa died at the ring). I know not only by "Sports newspapers" (equivalent to tabloids in other countries), but regular newspapers also covered his death as a part of leading articles, on the very next morning.
But there are other factors we should know.
  • He died on late Saturday night, so his death was reported by newspapers on Sunday morning, in which comparably less amount of news related to politics or economy are reported.
  • The news media mainly reported his death in deep are Yomiuri group companies such as NTV, Yomiuri Shimbun, and Sports Hochi, all of which have strong business relationship with Pro Wrestling Noah since its establishment, because they have had strong ties with All Japan Pro Wrestling, which Misawa used to belong to, for over decades.
  • NTV had been broadcasting NOAH matches only in the middle of the night, then suspended all NOAH broadcasting on their terrestrial channel since early this year, but on "G+ SPORTS & NEWS", their CS channel only.
  • Unfortunately, January 4 Dome Show has less popularity than other sporting events held in New-year period such as
(all events listed above have nationwide live TV coverages, while Dome Show does not have any)
  • Even Dome Show gets dozens of thousands of attendees, the number itself does not prove that it is an event of public interest.
--Belle Equipe (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm basing the Dome Show on being a big event in wrestling world-wide on the fact that WCW and TNA have both been involved with the event, while TNA have released a TNA Global Impact! DVD which was very sucessful regarding the event and have plans for another of that kind. Also since AJPW and Noah I believe have been involved with it.--WillC 15:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
>being a big event in wrestling world-wide
Although it has been "a big event", it is in wrestling world. As you refer yourself as "Wreslinglover", your comment is still one of wrestling fans' point of view. Majority of people even do not know what kind of organization WCW and TNA are (WCW usually refers World Conference on Women or World Council of Whalers), and what NOAH is (unless specified as Pro Wrestling NOAH).--Belle Equipe (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see a excuse for TNA since they are still growing (though they have released a video game published world-wide if I am correct), but I mentioned above that WCW, parterning with New Japan, holds the world record for most attendance in wrestling. Oddly enough, the event was held in North Korea. Over two days, that event grossed 340,000 people, with 190,000 of them on the second day. WCW also defeated the WWE in ratings for several weeks when WWE was at its height in the late 90s. WCW is pretty much known world-wide.--WillC 05:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"In North Korea...event grossed 340,000 people", huh?
Those attendees merely had to be there because dictatorial government ordered them to be there. Otherwise, they would be sent to one of concentration camps in their country.--Belle Equipe (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that was not the case in this situation. I would like to see proof though of your bold statement.--WillC 06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Before saying No to what I said, read "Human rights in North Korea" first. Not only that Wiki article, but hundreds of thousands of news reports tell us about the "Paradise on the earth" and the "Great Leader".--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed Martin or Misawa from the article, nor did I mention their inclusion prior to this month. People who died this year and have enough articles tend to be added quite quickly by someone; whether they are internationally notable enough or not. I'm not saying that there should be a ban on, or different criteria for, inclusion for wrestlers. Chris Benoit is rightly included in the Deaths section of 2007. It is difficult to assess the notability of sportspeople. Fans of a sport in question will say its competitors are important, but if the vast majority of the rest of the world have never heard of them, that assertion is difficult to prove. It is difficult to prove wrestling's importance when it is more for show that serious competition. How is it possible to show which wrestlers are better than others, when so many of the fights are staged? The argument is split between a) those with an interest in wrestling who claim that Misawa was one of the most famous wrestlers (and as such should be included) and b) the rest of the world who had never heard of him (until he died). People who have little interest in fashion have heard of Yves Saint Laurent. Those who have never seen any of his films have heard of Paul Newman. Those who have never seen any of his plays have heard of Harold Pinter. Those who have never read any of his books have heard of John Updike. So why have virtually no non-wrestling fans heard of Misawa? Information yes (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of Updike nor Pinter. Because wrestling is scripted wrestlers should not be included. That is complete bullshit. Though you didn't say that straight out, that is pretty much what you just said. The excuses are laziness and wrestling is fake so no. Films, plays, and most television shows that are not sports are scripted, so maybe all of them are not notable either. I talked to a friend of mine today who lives in Wales about this situation and he said that Walter Cronkite is on the list, which he is, and he is only known majorly by the American people for his American news-broadcasts. Well the news is scripted, maybe we should remove him for those two reasons. I actually decided to look at the list and see which ones I've heard of and which I have not. I've never heard of Corazon Aquino, Bobby Robson, Merce Cunningham, Frank McCourt, Leszek Kołakowski, Meir Amit, Arturo Gatti, Robert McNamara, Vasily Aksyonov, Allen Klein, Alexis Argüello, Pina Bausch, Ralf Dahrendorf, Félix Malloum (his article is a stub and someone whined that Misawa's article wasn't expanded), Omar Bongo, Jean Dausset (the same as eariler), Koko Taylor (wish I had though), David Eddings, and the list goes on and on; this is just June through August. I've heard of Cronkite, John Hughes (only because it sounds like the porn star John Homles so I've remembered), Michael Jackson, David Carradine, Karl Malden (once I saw a picture of him), and Farrah Fawcett, though I don't see how Fawcett is known world-wide. To me it seems, you must be involved in the section they are known for to know them. And you all are talking about wrestling fans. It is true, all of mankind is just comprised of hypocrites.--WillC 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless you are too young to know Corazon Aquino, you are revealing your upbringing by listing her up as a person you never heard, since her name came up thousands of times on various news media around the world especially during her term.--Belle Equipe (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the kicker, I'm 18 and I have an interest in politics and religion. I plan to run for President of the United States in 2028 and after I'm done with my poticual career I plan to retire and become a Professor of Religion somewhere. My father also has an interest in politics and religion, while my mother use to be a substitute teacher. I'm home schooled and everyone I meet usually ends up asking "Damn, how smart are you?" or stating "Damn, you are smart!". Honestly, I've never heard of her and if I ever remember a moment where I saw her on tv or anything, I will mention it.--WillC 09:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sports fans typically devote a lot of their time to following sport, prioritising it above other things. As a result, they tend to have an inflated sense of the importance of sport and the people involved in it, in a way that fans of television shows or films do not. Those saying Steve McNair should be added were thinking 'famous sportsman; murdered - how can he not be on the list'? They failed to realise that virtually no-one outside the US has ever heard of him, and the few that have would only know 'he's that American footballer who was shot dead' and hadn't heard of him until reading of his death. Updike and McCourt are writers of world-acclaim. Cronkite is well-known in the US; in many other countries, he is someone who a large number of people know a bit, but not much, about. American news is regularly shown on television in some other countries. Fawcett's fame has lasted continuously for over thirty years; she is very famous in a long list of countries, including across Europe and the Americas. Regarding Martin and Misawa: imagine if (like most people) you had never taken an interest in wrestling ... you have to admit you would never have heard of either of them. Sport shouldn't be staged; it is meant to be about the best competitors winning, hence a largely staged sport kind of defeats the point of sport. Whilst films and most television programmes are scripted, Farrah Fawcett has been a household name, with mainstream appeal across generations, in many countries for decades; 80 year olds know who she was, as do 15 year olds. When the news of Fawcett's cancer was broadcast, millions of people cared. Who, other than wrestling fans and the people who personally know him, care when a wrestler is diagnosed with cancer? Why is that? Because wrestling is not part of mainstream culture in the way that television, films and music are, or even in the way that some more popular sports are. Information yes (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that they just might mention it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Crap Gary, you beat me too it. Yeah, it seems wrestling is not really in the mainstream ha.--WillC 06:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is just full of ignorant posts in my view. People that don't know much about wrestling obviously will claim wrestlers don't belong on this list, don't belong on Wikipedia and so on. Next time actually LOOK into things before claiming wrestlers aren't notable. Martin and Misawa both belong on the list. Their deaths werent just covered by wrestling sites. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-wrestling fans claim that, because they, who constitute the vast majority of the world's population, never heard of Martin or Misawa until they read on Wikipedia that they had died. Very few wrestlers are widely known to the general public. Hulk Hogan is well known because of his reality TV programmes. Information yes (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yves Saint Laurent is well-known to the general public, and influential, in many countries on multiple continents - there's no way anyone could claim only French people and those who follow fashion have heard of him. People who are not much interested in film could not avoid knowing of Paul Newman. People in some fields can become world famous, film being the most likely field. It is rare for a wrestler to become world famous - neither Martin nor Misawa ever had world fame; they can't compare to some of those in film, TV, fashion, politics etc. Information yes (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sports sites, local news and gossip sites might cover a wrestler having cancer, but do The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Telegraph or Le Figaro? I doubt it, because the general public would not be interested. In comparison, Farrah Fawcett's cancer was reported by them, and the vast majority of the world's media: high-brow, low-brow, serious, gossip, local, national and international - because Fawcett has been world-famous for decades. Due to that, the general public, not just her fans, not just Americans, are very interested. Information yes (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a perception / claim by some of the editors to this article and talk page that I am anti-wrestling. That is, however, proven false; before the debate on this talk page began, I added Misawa to 2009 in Japan, and Martin and Misawa to 2009 in sports. If I hadn't done that, they would probably still be absent from those articles. I am merely stating that they are not internationally notable enough to be on this article. There is a high standard for inclusion here; the others that should not be present are also being removed / kept off. Information yes (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Andrew Martin and Mitsuharu Misawa

A few editors have voiced their opinion about the notability of wrestling, and wether it is a 'popular' sport/production/entertainment or not. I think it is time we have a simple vote so we can have a clearer idea of the consensus on both (And yes, I know what Wikipedia is not, this is just to get a better idea as to what to do next).

This is precisely why majority votes aren't used on Wikipedia. You demonstrate your ignorance by pulling out an argument that sounds valid but is ridiculously ill-informed. Andrew Martin wasn't known outside of his country? Do you even know what "his country" is? He spent the majority of his career competing outside his country. How can you expect your opinion to hold any credibility when you obviously couldn't be bothered to click a simple Wikilink and read the first sentence of an article? And yet you expect people to believe that you are some sort of authority on his notability? What a joke. This is clearly yet another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Please enlighten me, what part of "not notable enough outside his country, (and not even that famous in his own country)" is factually incorrect?
Anyway, this section is not really for discussion, the one above is better for that. FFMG (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I say Include Misawa, Exclude Martin. Misawa is clearly known outside of his country, while Martin is also known, but not to a mega extent. Though Martin wrestled in WWF/E for several years, worked in TNA for a short time, and wrestled in numerous countries on the indy scene, I don't see a reason for his inclusion. Though I wouldn't mind him being added. Afterall he was a Canadian wrestler who is known for wrestling in the US.--WillC 18:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Will, above. Misawa is a wrestler that had great respect throughout the wrestling industry, both for his work outside of the ring in developing wrestling in Japan and as a performer. Wrestling in Japan is much more a part of the national identity than it is here; they did, after all, elect Great Sasuke into government - as a masked wrestler. Misawa certainly deserves to be recognized here. Martin, not so much; his career was short and of minimal impact. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Include: Misawa - global company, known in several countries, mainstream news reports of death. One of the most prominent and influential figures in his sport.
  • Neutral: Martin - known in at least Canada and the US, but no mainstream reports of his death (other than those that regularly report on pro wrestling). Nikki♥311 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. This isn't a discussion, it's a vote.
Now where does it say "No discussing below this line".
  1. Pro wrestling barely qualifies as a sport.
How so? Golf, Tennis, etc all qualify as sports and there is less athletic talent involved in each. Yes wrestling is scripted, but the slams to the mat are real, the chair shots, etc are real, and in most cases the blood is real.
  1. Pro wrestling is certainly not internationally notable.
Before making comments in which there is a possibility of them being completely idiotic, do some reseach first. By just looking at List of professional wrestling promotions, I can say wrestling is certainly internationally notable. In that list there is active and defunct notable wrestling promotions sorted by country which comes up to 12 different ones.--WillC 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. At least half of Misawa's foreign language articles are straight copies of the English version with only a single source (the same Wrestling site) which is about as strong an indication as there could possibly be that he is not notable outside the wrestling community.
Lack of expansion is not an excuse. As above, in my research I noticed two articles already included that are no higher than stub. Going by your logic, that means we should remove them now because they must not be known outside of their genre unless they are expanded to FA.
  1. It took 7 weeks before anyone even bothered attempting to add him to this page which reinforces the fact that he is not notable outside the wrestling community. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My above comment should cover this but again laziness is not an excuse.--WillC 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Include: Misawa - was the top wrestler and president of one of the largest promotions in the world, and later founded his own promotion which also went on to become one of the largest in the world. And while the average wrestler's death doesn't get a mention outside wrestling websites, Misawa's death was reported in various news outlets around the world. PepsiPlunge (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I should say...Neutral for Misawa (close to Exclude), and Exclude Martin.
At the same time, I need to correct Tony Fox's opinion regarding "Wrestling in Japan is much more a part of the national identity than it is here".
(I do not know where "here" is, but ) unfortunately, it is not true. Puroresu used to be one of most popular sports in Japan until early 1960s, when Rikidōzan, who was then-national hero (although he was a Korean descent) was active. After he was assasinated, puroresu was still one of major sports which had live TV broadcasting during "golden time" until mid-1980s. Both Giant Baba and Antonio Inoki are household names still (although their off-ring works contributed to their popularity). But puroresu gradually became out of the mainstream of popular sports year by year for the past quarter of century, especially since puroresu TV programs had been downgraded to midnight ones. At the same time, another major sport in Japan, professional baseball league, was still enjoying high popularity, and J. League had earned skyrocketing popularity since its inauguration in early 1990s. Mixed Martial Arts such as K-1, PRIDE, Pancrase, earned popularity in past decade, but even none of fighters has got national publicity only by their achievement in those organizations. (Naoya Ogawa is well-known because of his gold-medal winning achievement in Judo field, Akebono is known as former-Yokozuna). Sorry to say to you wrestling manias, but puroresu, which Misawa literally took his life upon, is like a "neglected civilization" for most of Japanese people, right now. --Belle Equipe (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exclude Martin - virtually unknown outside wrestling and US & Canada. Exclude Misawa - virtually unknown outside wrestling and Japan. Information yes (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia rules be damned - Misawa should obviously be included for the dozens of reasons listed above. Martin should be excluded despite his notability in multiple countries, as he was nowhere near the top of his profession. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Include Misawa. He founded one of the biggest wrestling promotions in Japanese (Pro Wrestling Noah) and one of the most famous Japanese wrestlers. I am leaning toward Include Martin as well. He had decent success in the 2 largest wrestling promotions in the world, but never ot above mid-card status. To the editor who said wrestling is not internationally notable, I don't get how you could try and claim that unless you live somewhere like Gabon. Even right now (when wrestling is not at its peak popularity), it is still incredibly popular worldwide (including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, etc.). 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal summary

It's been a week now and so far we have
Andrew Martin
  • Exclude - 7
  • Include - 0
  • Neutral - 2
Mitsuharu Misawa
  • Exclude - 3
  • Include - 7
  • Neutral - 1
Maybe we should let it run another week before closing/archiving this fascinating discussion, but I don't think this will really change the results. FFMG (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that the request at the WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page managed to convince 4 other users to vote here when they otherwise wouldn't have. So that's 5 with an obvious POV! It looks like Misawa will be the next Jade Goody/Lucy Gordon when someone attempts to add the next nn to this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like its just informing them of the vote and after looking over the criteria for inclusion should they feel like contributing to the discussion and/or vote(which they are allowed to) they can. No need to cry over it.138.163.106.71 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned the vote at the WT:PW page, but it's certainly not a "request". I specified that people should look over the criteria for inclusion and make an informed judgement. I see no difference between that and contacting any relevant Wikiproject when a topic that falls under their scope. The television project should be contacted when Jane Goody is being discussed; the politics project should be contacted when discussing Romeo LeBlanc; the mountain climbing project should be contacted when discussing Achille Compagnoni. You comment (Derby) comes very close to accusing me of canvassing, which I find quite offensive. As for the "obvious POV", you will notice that not one of them voted to include Andrew Martin. If the project members were so determined to get wrestlers listed regardless of their notability, I'm sure at least one of them would have pushed for inclusion, so please don't accuse them of any sort of bias. As things stand now, it was decided to vote. People voted to include Misawa and exclude Martin. So be it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, Gary is no longer apart of WP:PW I do believe. All projects related to an article should be notified when an article is under discussion to be added or removed.--WillC 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Several minutes ago I put a message on the talk page of the Years Proj, which is certainly relevant to this matter. Information yes (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. Why let it run for another week? What would be the point? To prolong it until some users get their wish of not including Misawa? I feel a week of voting and a few days of discussion is long enough and we should end this now.--WillC 18:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter, the main reason why I think we should wait another week is simply because the number of voters is not exactly that great.
Seen that some canvassing has been taking place as well I don't think it would hurt to wait a bit longer for the dust to settle. 2 weeks is not such a long time to wait. FFMG (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been no canvassing. All Gary did was mention the vote. Two sections prior to that one regarding this situation have already been opened. One by an ip on users being biased against wrestling because of this edit. That lead to members of the project gaining notice to this situation. Gary opened up one later to update on the situation, then one to tell of the vote (another update). WP:PW, usually in most cases, has at least one user open a section regarding an AFD nom, a nomination of an article for GAN, GAR, FAC, FLC, FAR, FLR, etc, discussions, moves, etc. This is not out of the ordinary. Gary is usually the one who does this and encourages others to as well. I don't view this as canvassing, I view this as getting appropriate editors involved in the discussion. Having discussions with users who know very little about a subject will end in a dead end. It is not like Gary or I went to user's talk pages and said "Go here and vote include". Anyone was welcome to notify respective projects if they wanted of this discussion.--WillC 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, regardless what the intentions might have been, waiting another week is surely not going to be the end of the world. FFMG (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The message I posted was neutral. The message that Derby posted ([8]) was certainly not. Notifications were apparently given out to relevant parties, so the one week that has passed is obviously sufficient. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely. Clearly enough relevant parties know of this discussion, one which has been sufficiently indepth. At the moment the vote stands at 1 to include Martin, 7 to exclude Martin, 2 neutral, while Misawa has 8 to include, 3 to exclude Misawa, and 1 neutral. There is no reason to prolong this other than for some users to get their way.--WillC 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazing that people could not wait one simple week. FFMG (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can wait, but I fail to see the reason too wait.--WillC 05:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The name was added already, and 2 weeks seemed like a fair enough amount of time for a vote, not sure why you don't think so, that's the way voting works. Anyway... FFMG (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it has been another week since you asked for another week.--WillC 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
And, as I said earlier, the name has already been added, what else do you propose I do? FFMG (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
We mark this as closed.--WillC 09:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrew "Test" Martin/Walter Cronkite

I've been reading this page and noticed that Andrew Martin isn't going to be included in the list of Deaths for 2009.

I've read alot of different reasons for this but yet, none of them make any sense.

I've read that he isn't going to be included in the list because he wasn't well known. I've also read that he isn't going to be included in the list because he was a wrestler. (Which is the stupidest reason of them all)

Wrestlers are sports personalities and also entertainers. There are alot of sports personalities and entertainers which have been included in past death lists. Also, to say he isn't well known is wrong. I'm sure he was more well known worldwide than Walter Cronkite, who is on the list, and even has a picture on the list. Walter Cronkite is only well known in America and maybe Canada. I've never heard of him until he was added to the list and I'm sure alot of other people who aren't American or Canadian can say the same as me. Yet, Andrew Martin was known worldwide in places like the UK, Australia, Japan and even South Africa. The WWE is a worldwide company and there shows get shown all over the world, so alot more people know the wrestlers more than an American newsreader who's only ever appeared on American TV and maybe Canadian TV also.

Also, speaking of Walter Cronkite, if he is kept on the list (Which I'm sure he will be), I personally don't think he should have an image on the list. Instead, Sir Bobby Robson should be the one to have a image, as out of everyone on the July section, he is the most well known with 33 different language articles, whereas Walter Cronkite has only 31 different language articles. Even Robert McNamara has more different language articles than Walter Cronkite with 32 different language articles. - Cool King 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool King (talk • contribs)

Martin was little-known outside the US and Canada (apart from among wrestlers and their fans); his death did not trigger mass grieving and huge-scale media coverage in many countries - Heath Ledger's death did. Hence Ledger is on 2008, but Martin is not on this article. There are many people on previous year articles that are not sufficiently notable enough to be there. That is due to the fact that the ten article minimum is a fairly new rule (though it is retrospective) and that previous year articles are not watched as often. Those articles need to be studied, and some of the less internationally notable people removed. Cronkite was very well-known in the US, and although he is not known of anywhere near as much in other countries, and a high proportion of young people outside the US have never heard of him, he has been known significantly in many countries for decades. Whilst he was based in the US, the fact he reported historically very important events and was an anchor for a major national mainstream news organisation means that clips of those reports were used at the time by media in many other countries to show how those events were originally reported in the US. Those same clips have also been used in documentaries involving those events. Hence hundreds of millions of people recognise his name and face and know he was an important news presenter. If, as I believe, Robson is more notable than Cronkite (due to Robson's career in many countries), then Robson's picture should be restored to this article. Information yes (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you seriously say Walter Cronkite was not known outside the U.S...wow...how old are you 15? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.170.168 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett June 25 date

Just wanted to give an opinion. First off, for such a great and pioneering site, Wikipedia should be embarrassed for judging whether or not to put a person's death on a page by how many articles they have.

First off, for June 25th, 2009 to only have Michael Jackson up there is not right. Farrah Fawcett's death was the big news of the day until MJ's schocker. She deserves to have her name mentioned for that specific date. I think anyone who lived in the 70's knows she was a worldwide mega-icon. Highest selling poster ever, Charlie's Angels was the biggest show on Earth for a time and she was on every magazine cover imaginable, the most photographed and sought after woman on the Earth for a period of time. Even at age 50, the highest selling Playboy of the 90's. She needs to be mentioned specifically on the June 25, 2009 date. Can't it say something like, the deaths of pop culture icons Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson...such and such.

As for McMahon, Mays, McNair and Shriver. I think McMahon deserves to be recognized on the deaths list. Johnny Carson was a pop culture icon and McMahon was his right hand man. They go hand in hand. Don't forget he also did Starsearch. McNair and Mays are borderline. More inclined for McNair because he was in the Superbowl which is watched worldwide. I'm sure many people know of Mays around the world but his fame is mostly limited to North America. Shriver is a no brainer. Sister of JFK, founded Special Olympics. Obvious. Instead of using a numerical guideline, how about common sense.

I think it's fairly OK, except Farrah needs to be put with June 25th, 2009, especially since she'd been battling cancer for three years. That's unacceptable, she was the it girl of a generation.

And sorry, pro wrestlers don't cut it Will. I can see maybe Hulk Hogan or The Rock as they are international icons but that's it. It's international, so if Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan died, they would obviously be put up there.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtskins (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all this is an international page and therefore entries in Events and Deaths need to be internationally notable. The criteria at WP:Recent years have been agreed by consensus to prevent the indiscriminate inclusion of events and people which/who are not sufficiently notable. The 9 non-English article minimum for Deaths, while not perfect, has been agreed as the best means of establishing whether someone is in fact internationally notable. Far too many users claim someone is internationally notable when they in fact are not (at least not outside their activity, which is usually insufficient). So far only 1 person has been added who failed to meet the minimum, and in most cases the guide WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary can be used (ie a dramatic/unexpected death does not increase a persons notability sufficiently to be included here if they would otherwise not be). As regards Farrah Fawcett, only exceptional deaths should be included in the events section as well as the Deaths section. Her death, while overshadowed by that of Jackson, would in any case not have been anywhere near as newsworthy or have "pushed internet traffic to potentially unprecedented and historic levels". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither McMahon, Mays nor McNair have ever been known by a substantial number of people outside the US. Try going to Europe, Africa or Asia and see if you can find anyone who has ever heard of them. 2009 in the United States lists all three, as they were undoubtedly famous in the US. The Deaths section of this article is only for internationally notable people who die this year. Information yes (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving McNair, Mays and McMahon off but you are completely wrong about Farrah Fawcett. She was the most famous woman in the world in the 70's and has millions of fans worldwide. Remember Charlie's Angels was world famous, not just in the U.S. and she was on every magazine cover worldwide in the late 70's/early 80's. Remember Larry King Live was going to have an entire show dedicated to her until Jackson died. The poster is found all over the world. It was a major event, especially considering how documented her cancer battle was. Go to the BBC page that reported her death on June 25. There's dozens of pages of people from around the WORLD saying they'd miss her and remember Charlie's Angels. And don't forget that same night, her tribute had better ratings than Jackson's tribute. She deserves to be on June 25.

BBC:

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&forumID=6644&start=270&tstart=0&edition=2&ttl=20090827173342#paginator

The fact is, I am now 99.9% certain you are too young to have lived in the 70's or her addition would be a no brainer as she represents an entire generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.43.124 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

I'm curious as to why Ted Kennedy has been added without discussion. It was stated above (in reference to Eunice Kennedy Shriver) that "To be included, a person needs individual (not family) notablity; if she did not have famous relatives, she would not have anywhere near as many articles." So, in this case, being a Kennedy wasn't enough. In fact, I believe that it hurt her chances of being included, as it gave people an argument against her ("Sure, 75% of the world's countries have some form of the Special Olympics, but she's just famous for being related to John and Robert"). I'm curious about whether people outside the United States (or even the vast majority of Americans) could name something that Kennedy did on his own — yes, he served as a Senator, but the only truly notable senators (with very few exceptions, such as Joe McCarthy) are notable for going on to hold a higher office. Kennedy's one attempt didn't get him past the primaries in 1980. I'm certainly not happy that he died and I don't mean to sound callous, but I'm wondering why the rules for this page change so much from day to day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

He was added without discussion (by me, in fact) because, with his forty non-English articles, he passes WP:RY (i.e., "the rules for this page")--not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times over. That most certainly cannot be said about the majority of people on the list. As for "people outside the United States" who know a thing or two about Kennedy, does Queen Elizabeth count? He certainly did not get his honorary knighthood because he had a famous name, and he is so notable that his notability itself has an article of its own. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably because his death was actually noticed around the world. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Because of...? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Because he had a notable, high-profile career as a Senator. His support of other democratic candidates for President, including Obama, included speeches which were broadcast by mainstream media in many countries. His profile and success were much increased by the fact he was the brother of JFK and RFK, but his life is still notable enough on its own to easily qualify for this article. To say that because he is included that means his sister should not be, or that if she is not on the list he shouldn't be either, is ridiculous. Look at the massive difference between the media coverage of the two: she received little media coverage outside the US in life or death; most people outside the US could not say anything about her, apart from maybe recognising the name Kennedy and asking if she was a member of the famous Kennedy family. He, on the other hand, has been a high-profile figure for decades - most people recognise his face and name and know a few things about him. Look at the coverage of his death - a lead story on the (inter)national news in many countries, despite the fact his death was very much expected, as it was well-known that he had brain cancer, which in most cases causes death. Information yes (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. He was notable and high-profile...ummm...because of...? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Because he was a Senator for so long, and because he was a very influential figure in politics for so long. His support of anti-British politicians with IRA links in Northern Ireland made him internationally relevant. He was also a controversial figure, especially since the Chappaquiddick incident. He is undoubtledly very notable, as is indicated by the length of his article and the number of Wikipedia articles he has. The Special Olympics has never really been important - the whole point of the Olympics is that the most able win. To have a version of that in which disabled people compete against each other because they don't stand a chance against the best sportspeople is a pointless, politically-correct bad joke. You might as well have a race to see who is the fastest nonagenarian, or retards compete to see who can win a competition involving mental ability. It is clear that Ted was multiple times more notable / important than Eunice, see how many times longer than hers, his article is, and that he has over three times as many articles than her; compare the number of media articles and search engine hits. They both had many notable family members, but he was famous and she was not, because he had an important life and she did not. Information yes (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow...just wow. It's hard to have a level-headed discussion with you when you hold such radical opinions. Not much left to say but "Hey, the 1930s called. They want their intolerance of 'retards' back". GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as in the 1963 & 1968 articles, we've got 'John F. Kennedy' & 'Robert F. Kennedy', what it gonna hurt to have 'Edward M. Kennedy' here (I've avoided the re-direct to the article)? GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? John F. Kennedy was President of the United States. Robert F. Kennedy was Attorney General and advisor to the president during one of the most significant points in the country's history (racial tension, Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam War, etc.). They are notable on their own. Ted Kennedy was not president, nor did he ever come near to holding the position. He was a senator, just like Frank Lautenberg, Mike Crapo, and Saxby Chambliss (who?). His notability is almost exclusively inherited, and what he did accomplish (which nobody has yet been able to identify) was because he was placed into a position to do so because of his last name. Eunice Kennedy Shriver was a Kennedy, but she also accomplished something with which most of the world is familiar. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
He is the third longest serving US Senator in American history. We don't use 'Bobby Byrd' or 'Jimmy Thurmond'. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Robert Kennedy was known to the public as both Robert and Bobby, but probably 90% of those who know of Ted would not immediately recognize the name "Edward Kennedy" (just as most American TV watchers would have no idea who "William D. Mays, Jr." was). And so we get George W. Bush announcing, "I was traveling around the country with Theodore Kennedy" [9] (no comment on Bush's speaking...uh, skills, but the point is, Ted Kennedy just was not known as Edward, and to list him as such could be counterproductive and confusing). More on this stuff at both WP:NAME and WP:NAMES. By the way, I'm talking about what to call him on the list, not about whether he should be on the list at all. GoodDay and GaryColemanFan are talking about two totally different things, although neither quite appears to have caught this. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone claiming that 'Eunice accomplished something with which most of the world is familiar', please expand her article and show evidence of that there. Most people outside the US have never heard of her, and could only recognise her middle name Kennedy. Note the huge amount of coverage that Ted's funeral received, and which Eunice's did not. Notice how long Ted's article is, it explains at length why he had such a high profile. He was loved by millions, despite his wrongdoing. If it was simply a case of having a famous name and being related to many high-profile, powerful people, then both of them would have been roughly equally well-known. However, the fact is that he was well-known in most of the world for the large majority of his life. She was never known by a significant number of people outside the US. Information yes (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edward Kennedy is currently a disambiguation page, which is ridiculous considering: a) the vast majority of people typing that will want the Senator's article; b) Edward kennedy is a redirect to his article. Information yes (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reasonable argument to list him on any year article as anything other than the name of his article, yet he is down as Edward M. Kennedy in the Deaths section of 2009 in the United States. Information yes (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009/Archive_4&oldid=1142398158"