Years List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Even though had eleven articles at the time of his death, I don't think he should be included, just like how Charlie Murphy is not included. I guess, leave him out. Gar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that practically all the non-English articles are clones and have no local references, AND several of which (including the Udmurt one) do not seem to have noticed that he died, it seems he was not particularly notable. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @DerbyCountyinNZ Exclude is right. Gar (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we'll add individuals notable enough for articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only international notability to this is Ariana Grande stopping her concert tour. Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User should stop edit warring and come discuss Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what your saying, then your saying that the Orlando shooting shouldn't be included on the 2016 page. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly logical assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting isn't on 2016. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was expecting this discussion to eventuate, I started this discussion at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She had nine non English wikis before death but I feel that an exception could be made for her. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way? Looks notable enough to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in what way do you mean "what way"? I'm supporting her inclusion here, but policy is that individuals must have 10+ non wikis in order to be considered notable for inclusion. She had nine prior to death, so that's why i'm suggesting perhaps an exception could be made for her to remain. But if it's determined she shouldn't, I'll abide by that decision. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oh, sorry, thought you meant an exception to WP:RYD and that you wanted her excluded. (It still says that you just need nine, not more, so I'm not sure where 9+ comes from?) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, where's the 10+ coming from? WP:RY says "at least nine" not "more than nine". -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9+ non-English Wikis (i.e. 10+ in total but excluding Simple English). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right, that's my understanding, but the first comment in this section advocates making an exception to include someone with "nine non English" articles. That's just a mistake, then, right? In other words, this discussion is kind of backwards: even though Glenne Headly meets the minimum requirement, it's been proposed that she not be included. -- Irn (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, she had 9 + :en at the time of her passing, so according to guidelines, she could be included by default. I thought (below) that we were talking about someone with 9-language coverage overall. — Yerpo ^Eh? 04:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of inclusion. Being a second-tier actress with no major awards simply doesn't justify making exceptions, in my opinion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The 9+ non-English Wiki requirement is already becoming too low so I don't see that an exception is justified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, her non-English articles are clearly cloned from the English, consist of a very brief biography and a list of films/tv series and contain almost no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is she internationally notable? She's one of an increasingly large number of people who lack international notability, but has stub articles in several languages - some of which are insufficiently referenced and/or badly written/translated. We need additional guidelines for inclusion, such as having won major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he had 9 non-English articles before his death, but two of them were added a day before when such an outcome was imminent. I suggest exclusion, the event was tragic, but this person wasn't notable for any real achievement, so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines. People who gain notability through circumstance rather than achievement are subject to exclusion per WP:RYD. Unless his death results in some tangible international reaction then he should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add the destruction of the Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul under the "events" section Debartolo2717 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debartolo2717:/@Eggishorn: If you don't mind me asking, why exactly is this event so important to deserve a place in the yearly list? A number of cultural monuments was destroyed in this conflict, what makes this mosque so special (aside from the structural glitch)? — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't attempt to speak for Debartolo2717, but possibly because it was supposed to be IS's capital? I fulfilled the edit request because it was verifiable, there wasn't any general policy reason to not add it, and nothing on this page appears to forbid it. Other year articles include major cultural crimes, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in the 2001 article. If a consensus develops her after discussion that it should not belong (perhaps per WP:NOTNEWS), I won't object. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as per WP:RY it "... must have a demonstrated, international significance". Although it has often been argued that "international significance" is undefined this is one of many cases where there appears to be no (or at least insufficient) international significance. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews search for "mosul mosque destruction" gets ~41,000 results in the last 24 hours, from most major US and UK outlets, as well as major RS from Israel, Hong Kong, Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, etc. with officials from the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Indonesia expressing condemnation of various sorts. That seemed like demonstrating international significance to me and so I didn't think RY was a barrier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception: Merely being mentioned in numerous news outlets, and even the "expressing (of) condemnation" does not demonstrate "significance" as this happens for every disaster or similar; there is no actual international effect. This is a common area of dispute in Recent Year pages and has, despite the efforts of a few editors, has never been adequately resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. There's no reason to include this one, but not the destruction of other buildings. Media reports and condemnation from public figures is standard - this isn't unusual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it was actually featured on the main page, I've restored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since WP:OTHERSTUFF was invoked, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were a UNESCO World Heritage monument, so not really comparable, no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]