Talk:2017/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bruce Forsyth

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to include the subject.Notability (see Milborne's comments) and international outreach of the subject has been well-demonstrated.Editor(s) are also cautioned strongly against disruptive bludgeoning.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

He had eight Wikipedias (excluding Simple English) at the time of his death (Scots was created after his death) and I just removed him twice. What are your thoughts about his death being here? Gar (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Exclude - he doesn't have any international notability. He's on 2017 in British television and 2017 in the United Kingdom. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think he is famous enough sure he is not that famous in America but in europe he is increbibly famous. The curent system is biased towards american celebrities. I think Foysyth should be made an exception if enough people say so. Silent mocker (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include highly notable individual, someone that millions of English-speaking readers would expect to find in this current approach to deaths listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Highly notable in the UK only. He's only known on the continent by Strictly Come Dancing viewers who can receive the BBC and who watched SCD when he presented it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  [Citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  The burden of proof that he's significantly internationally notable is on those who want to add him. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'm asking you to prove your claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  By the way, his death has been covered by reliable mainstream sources in such far-away places as Australia and the United States. I think that indicates sufficient international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  It doesn't - it merely indicates that he has some fans in other countries. The NYT reported Jade Goody's death. Jim Michael (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  You hate on Goody. That her passing was noted in the NYT makes her internationally notable. When you finally understand that, get back to us. In the meantime, your personal views are not welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  She didn't do any important work. International coverage doesn't equal international notability - you need to understand that. If we include people who were merely reality TV participants, the Death section will be swamped with them in future years. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  Jim, you're missing the point, this isn't about your personal feelings. And soon the guideline will reflect community expectations, not your preferences. So whether you accept it now or in a few weeks, I suppose it makes little difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'm helping to maintain and improve an encylopedia article that's about international events and people, preventing it from turning into tabloidish, trivia-filled junk. That means that important scientists should be included, even if they're ignored by most of the media - and reality TV 'stars' like Jade Goody and Kim Kardashian should not be. Jim Michael (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  No you're implementing your own personal view of what you think should and should not be here, and it's been demonstrated numerous times that your thinking is out of step with the community. Do you need me to point you at those RFCs again? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include His international notability is his record-breaking 75 year career span as a male entertainer, as recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim I think you just demonstrated that you have no idea who Bruce Forsyth actually is. Bruce Forsyth was an entertainer for years who hosted numerous TV shows and was a household name in the UK the same way Johnny Carson or Dick Clark was. Bruce Forsyth and Jade Goody are two entirely different people and comparing one to the other is like comparing apples to oranges BTW what's your deal with Jade Goody the woman has been dead for almost a decade now. Silent mocker (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I know full well who Forsyth was. He's very notable in the UK but isn't internationally notable. That's why he belongs on 2017 in British television and 2017 in the United Kingdom, but not here. Being in the Guinness World Records doesn't make him internationally notable. TRM said that Forsyth is internationally notable because his death was reported in the NYT, so I pointed out that doesn't make him internationally notable because they reported Goody's death as well - and she certainly wasn't internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Include As highlighted above Bruce Forsyth was not just any old trivial TV star. The very article itself notes he he longest television career for a male entertainer in history. As the BBC notes likewise [1], Sir Bruce is the only entertainer whose career spanned the entire TV era. Yet, I find it very frustrating that he is not "notable" according to some, yet there are dozens of individuals listed on these pages who only Americans are familiar with. If Bruce's death can make the main page, it should make this article by default --TF92 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

None of that makes him internationally notable. The BBC will obviously boast about one of their own stars, so they're not neutral in regard to him. The criteria for being in the recent deaths on the main page is merely to have their own article which is in good condition. Many people who have much less notability have been on there.

Which people, currently listed in the Deaths section, are only know to Americans?

Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Jim, Forsyth is interntaionally notable. You don't "like it" because it fails your arcane nine-Wikpiedia test. Claiming others aren't neutral, or there are more press there, or they are just "popular" or that "people nominate them because they like them" or that people only come here to "nominate one person and then leave" are all becoming a little bit telling. I've noted it before, but we're now at the cusp of genuine ownership issues. Particularly as you've been told by the community a few times in the past month that your approach is inappropriate. I'd take some time to think about that before continuing with your current reasoning. P.S. First thing I'm gonna do when we get this back to an essay and renege the stupidity of the nine-Wikpiedia rule is nominate Jade Goody for inclusion, because you seem to have a fixation about her. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include - "he doesn't have any international notability" is absolutely laughable and should be ignored entirely, This really is a no brainer! - He was notable in the UK and was notable worldwide - International significance and as such should be on this page, I nor others shouldn't even need to explain this ..... –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Wrong - I'd be in favour of excluding him even if he had more articles. I didn't even help to establish the 9+English guideline. He should be excluded because he wasn't internationally notable - he merely had viewers in other countries which can receive the BBC. Try mentioning him to people who haven't lived in the UK and aren't fans of SCD - they won't have heard of him. Nominating someone because someone else doesn't want them included isn't good practise, TRM - you're showing that your true intention here is to sabotage recent year articles rather than improve them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Nope, the intention is to make the recent year articles relevant to our community and to our readers, something which your edits have showed you are dead-set against. You and your one or two familiars don't own this page, or the other 15 pages governed by the RY guidelines, and soon that will be more than evident as the guideline becomes a thing of the past and your "oversight" becomes nothing. Try working with the community and for our readers here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You were editing for years without any interest in these articles. The only reason that you're here is because you followed me here to annoy me because you have a grudge against me because I was one of several people who opposed posting the 2017 Finsbury Park attack to the main page. Are you harassing all of them as well? It's impossible to assume good faith in regard to you because of your patronising attitude and many contradictions.

No-one here has suggested any internationally notable work done by Forsyth.

Jim Michael (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have, yourself! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't suggested any international notability, because he doesn't have any. Length of career confined to one country isn't international. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You said his BBC shows were sold globally! And yes, longevity to the point of a world record, combined with all the other notability is more than enough. But this conversation, as with all others here, is a waste of time. You have your opinion, it used to be backed by Yerpo, Rubin and DCinNZ, but they're off the grid on this now, so it's just you vs the rest of the community. Good luck, you'll need it when the changes happen! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that - I said that some people in some other countries can receive the BBC and watch SCD. Length of career isn't internationally notable. Would you be saying all of this if his career had been confined to a small country in Eastern Europe? You flooding this page with hundreds of comments has temporarily chased away the other regulars. Jim Michael (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Given your current and ongoing disagreement with one of them, that one is awaiting an Arbcom trial and the other barely contributed, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Which one are you saying that I have a current and ongoing disagreement with? Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Now then Jim, I'd suggest you redact that personal attack immediately, or else provide evidence. I'm here because I became aware of how appallingly these pages are being "curated" and how much of an ownership problem there is. You should be aware by now that you are not acting in the best interests of our community, the recent spat of RFCs have suitably demonstrated how far off the mark the "regulars" here are, so plese, quit the victim act. This little enclave has been found out, and it's being flushed through, it needs a lot of work, and it needs the rid the place of its extant mindset which is not what our readers want to see. This isn't about "you and me", this is about "RY and the readers", why would you imagine it any other way? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is clear - you only came here after I opposed adding the Finsbury Park attack to ITN. Had I not done that, you wouldn't be here. 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Jim Michael (talk)

I strongly suggest you redact your personal attack about not caring about this project Jim. Your running mate Rubin has already fallen foul of dubious personal attacks and false claims, I wouldn't want you to be next in line at Arbcom for similar grievances. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include – Clearly a notable figure in the world of entertainment, with an incredibly long and distinguished career that's even recognised by the Guinness Book of Records. I think he deserves a mention here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude. No intrrnational significance, not much international importance or notability. I'd probably be against inclusion even if he had 9 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• And that is a perfect summation of the ownership problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• "I'd probably be against inclusion even if he had 9 articles." - You'd be against inclusion even if it had 20 thousand articles and your "Excludes" on every single RFC prove that point. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• If he's in the Guinness Book of Records for having the longest career of any male entertainer, then he's quite clearly notable. As I've said before, I think you derive some sort of pleasure from deleting so many entries and upsetting people. Nobody else I've encountered in 12 years of using Wikipedia is so totally obsessed with deleting stuff. Other people's comments back this up. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include Noted actor and television performer, recognized by royalty, recognized by Guinness, even I had heard of the guy. As a by-the-way, it was noted by a British newspaper editor that "Britons were bemused by the tributes to Jerry Lewis, America's king of comedy." Are we going to treat Bruce differently because he was not an American actor? And he did do work over here, too.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 17:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In terms of international notability, there is no question about Jerry Lewis. He had more acclaim in France than in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment it's been removed, again, by another RY regular. Perhaps we need to seek an uninvolved admin to assess this, i.e. Not one of the other RY regulars? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Lewis had a much wider fanbase than Forsyth - look at how many articles Lewis has. Lewis was world famous. It's not about (dis)favouring anyone because of their nationality. Actors are much more likely to become internationally notable than presenters who only work in one country. Forsyth didn't do any notable work outside the UK. Jim Michael (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to stop assuming our readers are only from the United States of America. You're making up criteria as you go along. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've never assumed or implied anything of the sort. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not what your edits imply. Particularly in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not true; I don't even see why you're inferring that. My case for exclusion is that he's not notable outside his own country. I would say the same thing regardless of his nationality and how many articles he had when he died. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Then why do you keep ardently claiming that he's not internationally notable when, in fact, he has a world record? And that Rubin would exclude him even if he didn't meet the nine-Wikipedia rule is the icing on the cake. This sub-project needs a serious makeover, starting with removing control from the regulars who are in no way connected to community expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There are Guinness World Records for all sorts of things. We don't include someone simply because they hold one of those many records. Jim Michael (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a single editor here is suggesting we include Forsyth "simply because" he's a world record holder. It's becoming somewhat terrifying that you set out your stall and object, regardless of any argument. As noted, this is classic ownership and, also as noted before, your opinion is way misaligned with the community. Forsyth is listed, and will remain so, and once we conclude the RFC on the RY guideline, the next will be the deletion of the "9 Wikipedia" rule which is causing so many problems. In the middle of all this, your own personal version of RY inclusion criteria will be excluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a personal version - only the version that was created by consensus years ago. Jim Michael (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Only doing my job". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include Although I support the complete removal of the deaths section as a duplicate of Deaths in 2017 while it still exists clearly Forsyth is noteworthy to be included particularly for his time in business and recognition by the like of the Guiness Book of Records with a world record. Clearly a world record is not a domestic event and confers international notability. Although whatever International Notability actually is is unclear but Forsyth appears to be in the Foreigners that Americans have not heard of so dont include category, which is clearly not an acceptable exclusion criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The large majority of people outside the UK haven't heard of him - unless they're fans of Strictly Come Dancing. Jim Michael (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of "not being heard of" as a criteria we already have loads of minor politicians and sportspeople listed that most people have not heard of. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Which minor politicians are currently on this article? Jim Michael (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include Not just because of the source coverage, but he has had continuous mainstream coverage since 1958, which means unlike Kim Khazakstan or whatever her name is, he is familiar to a large demographic across age. There seems to be a lot of discussion here about one dimension (global spread) without considering another. Jim Michael, please read WP:BLUDGEON. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuous coverage in the UK - he's only had fans in other countries since he began hosting Strictly Come Dancing.

Familiar, yes - but he has few fans who are under 40.

Jim Michael (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLUDGEON? Everybody's ignoring you because you are on a mission - go and find an article to write. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Since we now have a clear consensus, with only the fanatical Jim Michael and deletion-obsessed Rubin against, perhaps we could restore Bruce to the 2017 death list? Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  Classic ownership issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  And now, the filibuster! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment as the RY guideline has now been reduced to an essay, an RFC is no longer required. Consensus was clearly established beforehand in any case, so I suggest the RFC be removed, Forsyth remain on the list and this discussion also be closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You've started RfCs yourself, yet you don't like it when other people do so. It's necessary, in order to bring objective opinions from people who aren't Forsyth fans. Jim Michael (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

That was only when the RY criteria were defined by a guideline. It's an essay now and we have clear consensus for inclusion in any case so an RFC is no longer necessary. And for the record, I'm not a fan of Forsyth, I simply recognise his notability, along with every single other non-regular owner commenting here. But have your filibuster if it makes you feel better, it will only make us stronger... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the people who promote one particular person being added are fans of that person. In most cases, those people don't ever come back here - because all they wanted to do was add that one person whom they're a fan of and don't care about any other aspect of the article or project. I realise that's not the case with you, but the problem is that when someone who has many fans dies, there will be many of them who want him/her included. That's not adequately countered, because people who aren't fans of them usually aren't interested. That leaves only the regulars to be objective. Jim Michael (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the regulars simply object, almost invariably against the wishes of the community. There's no one individual fan here on any of these RFCs, just a community who disagree with the ownership this mini project suffers from. And now the entry criteria are simply an essay, the overwhelming consensus we have already established is more than enough to see Forsyth's inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The regulars object to insufficiently notable people and events being added. Jim Michael (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is contrary to the community wishes, as adequately demonstrated many times already. You're not here for yourself, you're here as part of the community and to serve or readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no facts supporting claims of international notability, nor do I see a consensus for inclusion. However, I see little harm in inclusion. Unlike some proposed names, his situation is sufficiently unique that including him does not suggest including thousands of others in a single year. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus for inclusion. Especially if you remove the owners of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't see a consensus for inclusion? You and Jim are the only ones who want to exclude! vs. nine others who want to include. So that's 2 vs. 9... a clear consensus for inclusion... :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No I don't see a consensus for inclusion. Most of the arguments for inclusion consist of stating (without facts or reason) that he was "internationally notable", and should be included. Arguments that should be considered for consensus have verifiable reasons. Before you note that my statement that he was not internationally notable has the same problem, the burden always falls on those who want to include facts or entries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

His death was reported around the globe. Arguing against that seems to be patently absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include due to international coverage of his death. Agathoclea (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  That is not a reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes it is, a far more valid reason for inclusion than the RY essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So consensus can be disregarded if Arthur Rubin doesn't agree with the reasoning. Why don't you make that a guideline, Arthur? You probably know how. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Dina Merrill

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

---

Should Dina Merrill be included in the list of Deaths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Michael (talk • contribs)

• Exclude - she has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include for someone with no international notability, hefty obituaries in The Independent and The Guardian (who describe her as a "Hollywood star") seem to beg to differ. It's pretty clear that "Hollywood stars" are internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If we included everyone who had starred in Hollywood films, the Deaths section would be significantly longer than it currently is. Likewise if we included anyone who has had obituaries published by the MSM outside his/her country. Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Plus she meets the (curent) nine-Wikpiedia criterion, so there's nothing to complain about here. It doesn't matter if the Deaths section is long. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, and there are no real limits, particularly when you're talking about an extra 20 or 30 characters in the list. We're not including "everyone who had starred in Hollywood films" by the way, you're making that up, we're including "this individual who starred in Hollywood films, whose death has been noted extensively across the Pond, and who easily meets the nine-Wikipedia (current) criterion". So there's nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Did she have articles in ten languages when she died? Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I count eight at death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin – Same. Gar (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it's 12 now, and since the nine-Wikipedia guide has a clear consensus against and since it's only an essay in the first instance and since her death has been reported internationally and since those reports establish her international notability, I'd say this is a no brainer for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The guide is 9 + English at death. You used the number of articles to claim that Golmard should be included. Now you're dismissing it to include Merrill. Jim Michael (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not, read what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You said Golmard should be included because he meets the criteria due to having enough articles. I said that he should be an exception due to his lack of international notability. You said that Merrill should be included - despite not having enough articles - due to her being internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Times have changed Jim, times have changed. We're no longer under that bizarre "guideline", so we can be much more flexible. She's definitely notable! Cheers Jim! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include per The Rambling Man. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include per international notability. Classic example why the "9 articles at death" clause is clearly wrong. The fact that articles in all these languages are created as a result of her death reflects international newscoverage of her death Agathoclea (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include When news of a death - particularly someone who was pre-internet when they were actively covered in media - prompts the creation of non-english articles, then that is distinct evidence of their international notability. This was always a weakness of the 9-language rule in Recent Years. They are not RECENTLY notable, so they should not be covered by that guideline. Scr★pIron^IV 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  If we ever needed a succinct argument to abolish the 9-language rule, that was it. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include as per TRM - Internationally notable and as such should be on the article. –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include Blatantly internationally notable. Who cares about the stupid 9Wiki thing. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Hurricane Harvey

Shouldn't Hurricane Harvey be listed? Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You'll probably find that in 2017 in the United States because it was a "purely local event", per current norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a hard time outrightly opposing because Havey also caused a death in Guyana as well as causing warnings in Mexico. I think it may be ideal to merge Harvey and Irma into a single entry, because they both originated in the same general area and are part of the larger hurricane season in North and Central America. When combined they are indisputably internationally notable due to the number of countries affected. EternalNomad (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Harvey being here: Norms aren't policy. We can include Harvey if deemed important. I deem it important. pbp 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include In years to come, talk of 2017 will raise thoughts of Harvey and Irma. Everything happens locally somewhere, so by that stupid definition Year articles would be completely empty. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include Harvey and Irma - they've each caused significant effects in several countries. Jim Michael (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include Both Harvey and Irma – massive, historic and damaging events, with global news coverage. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Just add it for the love of anything sane. This micro-project is plumbing the depths of Wikpiedia bullshit right now. We have a clear consensus that the births/deaths inclusion criteria are nonsense, we will soon have a clear view of the inclusion criteria for "events" too, and it should be quite a bit more inclusive, as all the recent RFCs have shown. This is a textbook example of one of them, regardless of criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anton Vratuša

Should Anton Vratuša be included? Slovenia was not independent when he was PM and he has fewer than 10 articles (he was removed from List of the oldest living state leaders for this reason). I wouldn't oppose applying the head of state/government status retroactively but I just want to make sure consensus agrees. EternalNomad (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No, because Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia throughout his term as Slovenia's leader. He wasn't head of state or government. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because he is internationally notable, despite the odd criteria applied by some of the locals. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

UN report on genocide

It's the genocide that's notable, not the UN Commission report. (The version said it was a UN report, which is clearly incorrect. It's a UN Commission report.) My correction is this edit. If it were a UN report, it wouldn't be notable. Also note neither the report nor the genocide has a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, per the criteria to which you and your regulars adhere, this is a purely local event so should be banished forever from this article. Why haven't you followed your (and your colleagues') normal procedure and excised a "local event"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried that, but I can see the argument that genocide should have international consequences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making edits where you claim some kind of consensus by "established editors". CIR Rubin, CIR. You are, for the moment, an admin, and should know so much better. Sayonara Rubin-san, you're out of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I corrected the incorrect information about the UN Commission report of genocide to an entry about the genocide. You restored the incorrect information. Are you intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep it up Rubin, while you can. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concerns.

1. The "UN report" is not notable, under the "international significance" standard, or under any other specific standard which has been proposed. If all "UN reports" were included, we'd have hundreds of events.
2. It's not a UN report. It's a statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The citation we're using doesn't say it's a report of a UN Commission or Agency....
3. The underlying genocide probably should be included, even under the "international significance" standard.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then adjust the entry, stop deleting it and asserting that people adding it are being "disruptive". You're (currently) an admin and should know better. If you don't feel technically competent enough to make the changes, let me know what you'd prefer to see and we can discuss possible changes. I'm am not limited by an Android phone and feel that I am able to address any editorial concerns with ease. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I did adjust it to a statement about the genocide. It was removed by one of "the regulars" for no stated reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, my editing ability is not limited, either by competence or technical ability, so feel free to ask me to add anything you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Olympic site announcements

Check me on this, but I recall the site selection announcement information being removed from the year articles after the sites are actually selected, being replaced by the actual information as to the Olympic city and dates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What is your point? Why aren't you doing the "recall" yourself? Just leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe me, even if I was sure, and posted diffs. You would also claim it should be in place under the new rules, even though none have been specified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No Olympic selecton "events" in 2009 through 2016. When I get home, I could use AWB to check more years, but that seems adequate as an implied consensus to exclude the selection announcement after it occurs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:RY, the announcements shouldn't be in recent year articles unless they are in non-recent year articles. (The criteria for inclusion in recent year articles should be more strict than in non-recent year articles, because there are more sources about recent events.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - the announcements shouldn't be in any Year article. The entries for the Olympics should be only on the years in which each Games takes place. Jim Michael (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add the others, either of you, or do you not feel able to do that? I'll do the hard work later if you don't feel technically competent enough to make the changes, not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow, well look at 1997. Problem solved, no need for further discussion now. I've even referenced that one, talk about improving the encyclopedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hell's teeth, and 1993 too? You gotta be kidding me.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And 1990 too. All that without AWB to boot. Suggest we close this erroneous recall section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Cassini-Huygens

Why should this be on this article, rather than just on 2017 in spaceflight? Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it was reported globally. It's simple as that. No need to repeat your bludgeoning position on Jade Goody etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not? How often does man touch an outer planet? Galileo probe, Galileo, Cassini (the only time for Saturn). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The first spacecraft to enter the atmosphere of Saturn, a major space mission ending after a long time, and reported globally across a multitude of news outlets. There is no way I'm going to let you delete this. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, each such event in spaceflight is a milestone significant enough to be featured. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hilarion Capucci

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus.Skew towards oppose.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Should Hilarion Capucci be included in this article? Regardless of the apparent failure to meet WP:RY at the time of death, his article indicates significant "international notability", as evidenced by the substantial rise in numbers of interwiki articles about him. Relisted since a RFC on the applicability and the iron-handed-imposability of WP:RY was closed at WT:RY#RFC: guideline status of this project's inclusion.By Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, as RY still applies despite your misgivings and desire to alter the criteria. At time of death Capucci didn't meet the criteria, thus cannot be submitted. Rusted AutoParts 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's rubbish. People who do meet the current criteria are being excluded by the regulars for one personal reason or another, so there's no reason at all not to take a step back and admit that an individual is notable enough for inclusion a few months after the event. Your tag-team behaviour has been noted, and I recommend you stop it immediately. Did you even read the article or my opening post? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not rubbish. It's the protocol that's needed to be followed and I shall do so unless stated otherwise. And there wasn't any tag team effort to undo your edit. I saw a potential edit war about to occur and I elected to nip it in the bud. This hostile and uncivil approach is way uncalled for. Rusted AutoParts 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts I agree. I follow guidelines and I understand them. Sometimes I get annoyed at times, but that's life. I don't know why The Rambling Man had to revert my edit. I made a clear statement and he reverted it. Gar (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It was neither hostile nor uncivil, your over tag-teaming is under scrutiny now. Both of you (!), please read the opening statement. That this individual didn't have articles on 9 Wikipedias at the time of his death is beside the point. He is internationally notable, from his work across the globe. Please stop just reverting to the "9 Wikipedias" rule, which other regulars are actually ignoring and intentionally removing individuals who meet that criterion. Get your house in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

....That is the rule that is in place until it's decided it shan't be used. Quite frankly it's easy to assume you are being hostile as when I reverted your edit based off it looking like edit warring the first thing you do is accuse me of "tag teaming" as if this was a concentrated effort to revert you. And on that note can I ask you provide evidence of times me and @Garchomp2017: "tag teamed"? I wasn't aware we were in cahoots. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Tag team evidence is compiled, not to worry. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

By all means share it with us. Expose my conspiracy. Rusted AutoParts 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It will be used at the appropriate point, probably when discussing how much ownership there is over the WP:RY project; it's helpful to demonstrate how a number of you act (perhaps even passively, but still knowlingly) in a tag-team manner. We'll see how the next few RFCs pan out. I'll let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like you to please share your evidence. You're accusing me of something and I wish to set the record straight. Rusted AutoParts 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, the issue with regulars here tag-team editing is a big one, and just because it doesn't necessarily involve off-wiki collusion, it's still subtantive evidence that this project is rotten to the core and needs a huge investment of outside influence to bring it back into the community. Any such evidence will be presented at the future RFC concerning the governance and ownership of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I recommend letting the RfC play out, !voting and submitting rationale(s) rather than making comments about editors or about what other stuff exists or doesn't exist. Every single person that each editor wants included is not going to be included, because people by nature will often disagree with each other about specifics (and some editors are inclusionists while others are more deletionistic). For that reason it's best to remember that even if someone ends up not in the article, we've also got Deaths in January 2017 (and subsequent months) and Category:2017 deaths. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Those articles should be the only articles really, not this hotpotch of subjectively selected individuals, chosen by two or three editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  The deaths listed in the year articles serve a useful purpose. They give a curated overview that is readable and not overwhelming. There is a logical reason to have a limited number of death entries per month (look at past years); to have a much greater number would become overwhelming to the reader. No crowd-curated list of deaths is going to be either perfect or agreeable to everyone; the same applies to any Wikipedia article or endeavor. If you feel this particular person should be included, you are welcome to !vote in this RfC, which is viewable to a wide assortment of people. These neutral outside forms of dispute resoluton are how we handle content disputes on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  I would believe you if (a) the articles themselves are curated (they're not, many are junk), (b) there's a logical set of inclusion criteria that isn't implemented subjectively by three or four individuals, and (c) I'm not sure why this is even of any point beyond the Deaths in 2017 article which lists all notable individuals that have died this year. I'm fully aware of this RFC (are you joking?!!) so thanks for your input, but it's safe to say that none of it really hits the important points. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  If you don't see the point, then why bother editing it at all? Edit other things. The year articles – including deaths – aren't going to go away; they are a standard encyclopedic feature. These articles are curated, or else no one would ever revert or change anything. You may not like which editors are curating them at any given moment, or how or why, but that doesn't change the fact. If you want more editors on board to curate them, then you would need to round up more editors somehow, but like many WikiProjects and articles there aren't a massive number eyes left on them (although this article has 90 or so active watchers). Creating an RfC as you have done brings in more eyes, but it's also standard practice to actually !vote on something you feel strongly about rather than to simply complain that things aren't going your way and other people are wrong or are doing things wrong. Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  You're a little behind the curve on this one I think, but it matters not. There's a series of RFCs going through RY to radically change it from the regular ownership haunt its become to something relevant to our readers. Your definition of "curated" is certainly different from mine, this project "curates" by rejecting anything the regulars don't like (check the page history of any recent year you fancy), and that's ownership, not curation. If the regulars want the "best" for the readers, they wouldn't do that, and they would listen to the community. Just look at the various RFCs above about inclusion of certain news items. The regulars rejected pretty much all of them, yet the community overwhelmingly accepted them. The project is undergoing a huge overhaul, and that's a good thing. So it's not about "simply complaining", some of us are actively working to improve the place. I suppose if you haven't read around the project pages, you wouldn't be aware of that, and that's actually part of the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of the current discussions at WT:RY. You clearly disagree with the way this and other RY articles have been curated, but as I mentioned before, having a quite limited number of entries has typically worked better for the reader in most editors' eyes; hence, an effort to provide some form of inclusion limitations. Softlavender (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Wow, what evidence do you have that the current inclusion criteria "typically worked better in most editors' eyes"? Are you talking about the decision making from three or four project regulars who work in packs against anyone who dares question their methodology?The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. The argument about the interwiki number increase falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all, but that's a really interesting slant on why you may think this nine-Wikipedia thing is good. People can be found to be internationally notable post-mortem, without a doubt, so why you and the other regulars are all bandwagoning, I know not, but hey, plus ca change. The Rambling Man 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: don't WP:BADGER. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  Ok, IBAN! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. No evidence of international notability sufficient to override WP:RY, which is still in effect in this article. If there is some, point to evidence that he had international notability before death. WP:BRD suggests exclusion unless consensus gor inclusion is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I find it interesting that, through all the bickering, no one has said exactly why he doesn't qualify under WP:Recent years. I looked at that very complicated policy and I wonder how that ever got written. Notable, yes, he was notable. I generally don't pay attention to anyone involved in these modern religions, gimme that oldtime religion, but even I have heard of him. And it's a shame he died. What about this 9 Wiki rule? I looked at WikiData and it seems to say he's on 15 Wikipedias. Is someone trying to say that because a Wiki speaks English, it doesn't count? The entries before and after him have the same number of entries in WD in the same languages. Why is this article so contentious? I looked at the history and I'm amazed there's an article left! There are almost as many deletions as there are entries!

Back on point, I don't know how to cast my !vote. No one is stating a reason for exclusion except to point at WP:RY. Cite chapter and verse for those of us who don't make recent year articles our life.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 06:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a perfect summary of some of the issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, what am I missing here? I've read WP:RYD. I've looked at the WikiData. Why do so many think he doesn't belong? He was no Mother Teresa, but he still passed WP:GNG. He seems to pass inclusion. What is the issue?  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to follow the arcane instructions above somewhere on how to determine if an individual had 9 non-English Wikipedia entries at the point of death, the only way to do that is by finding the point in time of death at Wikidata. It's that simple, and that logical, and that helpful to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I can be naive sometimes, but that is no reason to lead me down the primrose path. The use of the word "arcane" should have tipped me off, but I was assuming good faith. A more helpful and less sarcastic answer would have been nice, but I seemed to have stepped into the midst of a power play of some sort. Never mind, I have other things that need doing. The WP:FRS will have to do without me on this topic.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The Rambling Man, you have requested comments, so far comments have been made in opposition and you are badgering the various arguments. You have made your point(/s) about this clear. Please let the RfC play out to the full fortnight. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing anything to contribute to this discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there are others who disagree with his exclusion! The Rambling Man (talk)

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

Stanislav Petrov died May 19

Stanislav Petrov is the Russian guy credited with ignoring erroneous computer warnings of a US missile attack preventing WW3 though the news has only just been announced. JRPG (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's on the main page now in the ITN section, and all over the international press. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And also in 2017#Deaths since Sunday. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, but thanks for response. JRPG (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Arjan Singh

Why should he be on this article rather than merely on 2017 in India? In what way is he significantly internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

He held an internationally significant position, the highest ranking military officer in India, and was thus prominent internationally. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

So where is significant international coverage of his passing? — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly - try finding people, other than Indians, who've heard of him. In what way was he relevant to any other country? Jim Michael (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Popular in Nigeria too Jim. Please calm yourself down a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly notable enough for this article. Agree with The Rambling Man that the opposition should calm down, and also read WP:BIAS. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, where is significant international coverage of his passing? All mentions I can find are in Indian media. Lacking wider coverage, the statement that he is "clearly notable enough for this article" is nothing but WP:OR. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I will not be responding to anything you say from now on. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Typical, you avoid the answer whenever I ask you to back your statements with concrete evidence. But not having to read your clichés anymore is an improvement at least. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That comment is a personal attack. I suggest you apologise. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have anything topical to add to the discussion? — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:--Chiming in, since I happen to be from India too! Whilst this has surely grabbed the national headlines, can you kindly point out some non-trivial refs in international media? Warm regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 12:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Pinging @The Rambling Man:.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be answering proxy questions, but if you can't find his obit in both US (e.g. CNN) and UK sources (e.g. Daily Mail) and others (Oman, Nigeria, etc), you haven't looked that hard. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.Those were the sources or obits that I got too! I asked on the premises that you may've got some more sources with more sig. covg.Anyways, while I would have been pleased with more covg., this' s a support on inclusion from my end. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he should be included on this article, rather than just on 2017 in India? What relevance did he have to the rest of the world? Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How many of these discussions do we need? A subject is brought up for discussion then it just devolves into TRM arguing with other editors. It's the same discussion over and over and over. Rusted AutoParts 17:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been going on for 3 months - since I (and several other people) disagreed with TRM on the discussion about whether or not the 2017 Finsbury Park attack should be on the Main Page. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It will continue until you (regulars) all realise that what you're producing is not what our readers want to see. The fact that it's the same discussion time and again, and that whenever we get more than just me and the "regulars", we get an outstanding voice against the status quo should tell you something. Jim, if you continue to bring up this false accusation, I will see you are taken through ANI and Arbcom if necessary. Even if it were true, it's not relevant to the current problem that keeps being perpetuated by the regulars who aren't taking on board that their approach is not commensurate with community wishes. Rusted AutoParts irony being that I've already stated that I am no longer arguing with Yerpo as that is always unproductive. Rubin will soon receive marching orders, and if Michael continues to make such personal accusations, he'll be joining him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just remarking when there's almost 10 discussions about inherently the same differences in opinion it leave me wondering when something's gonna actually get done so that this argument can finally end. Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville

I have added the Charlottesville kerfuffle to this list because news outlets in Europe and Oceania are posting stories about it, meaning it passes the three-continent rule. I have included a brief version of what appears at 2017 in the United States, and also a source from an Australian news outlet. pbp 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Removed as a purely domestic event which has no impact outside the US. It has global coverage because it's an event in the United States, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in RY that says it must be removed. RY says things that are listed must 1) be notable, and 2) have coverage on three continents. This has both, so I see no reason why it should not be on here. I should also note the removing party did so one minute after engaging the adding party (me) in a separate manner, which leads me to wonder whether his edit was based on personal animosity toward me rather than actually concern about appropriateness. pbp 20:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that. It's a domestic event. So it belongs in the 2017 in US article. Sure, go forum shopping now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in RY that excludes domestic events. I believe that this is an event that, while domestic, is sufficiently newsworthy to warrant inclusion here. pbp 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's see what others have to say then, shall we? Or start an RFC as I had to in order to include the (actually significant) bombing at the Manchester Arena. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You had to RfC MANCHESTER? That seems more bureaucratic than it needed to be. pbp 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(moved my comment to RfC)

Well there you go, welcome to the RY world of three/four regulars running the place according to their preferences. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rfc

Resolved

 – Snow opposed.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Should the August 12 events in Charlottesville be mentioned on this page? pbp 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose minor scuffle, practically no impact in the United States, leave alone the world. Best suited for the US 2017 article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Received significant worldwide coverage and exceeds RY guidelines for what's supposed to be here. pbp 20:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  Wait for it..... Yerpo, Jim Michael, Arthur Rubin, DerbyCountyinNZ. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  Looks like you don't even need my input to make your WP:POINT. Curious, eh? — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Nice, consistent approach! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:Recent years states that content "may be removed" for not meeting inclusion criteria. That means just what it says, nothing more, nothing less. This is the 3-continent rule: New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. That means the topic must be independently of interest, not merely stripped off the wire and reported. The wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer is a fine example of independent interest. Blizzard of 2016 is not. As important as this issue seems to us, no one outside of the US really cares. BTW, that Australian reference is a pay-to-view and CNN is as international as the New York Times is. You still need two more reliable sources.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 20:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly local event. I'm sure it got some international coverage, but that's the case for most terrorist attacks. --McSly (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - clearly local hate crime borderline terror incident. Would need to develop into a kuch wider conflict for consideration of inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - No international impact even though it was reported in reliable sources outside the US. Meatsgains (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's a domestic event. There's no reason to include this; we're excluding all the other vehicle-ramming attacks which have happened this year. Jim Michael (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• '"Support'" car ramming incident in UK has been included in wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack This incident has been main news story for several UK national media outlets including the conservative outlets Charlottesville - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40927089 Isthisuseful (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Nobody's suggesting the article should be deleted, simply that it's far too trivial to include in a summary of this year's notable global events. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed - the events are notable enough for articles, but not to be included in RY articles such as this one. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a domestic event which is about internal American politics, not relevant to the rest of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per TRM's invitation. A domestic event, whether or not a domestic terrorist, with no international significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above - Domestic event which had no real significance outside the US, not worth mentioning. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose A smaller, symptomatic part of a wider series of ongoing events, which 1) will not have notable or discernible lasting effects. 2) Not a milestone achievement or contributing factor to the events characterizing this year in history. 3) Is part of an ongoing domestic issue not limited to the year 2017. Agree that article is notable enough for inclusion, but deserves no place in 2017 Edaham (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Wait a month or, then maybe the event can be added. ImTheIP (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - UK has modest coverage, but mostly because of Trump and that's about it -- .in and .au seem just relays of US feeds, and basically nothing from Brazil or South Africa. Just not a major event on the world stage. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Are there even real standards for these articles or is it just write as you go? Instaurare (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is domestic event. Nothing significant that was worldwide such as terror attack. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dick Gregory

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

---

Can someone please explain why Dick Gregory keeps getting removed from the list of deaths by the admins? He meets the WP:RYD criteria; articles on him in English, Arabic, South Azerbaijani, German, Persian, French, Hebrew, Kannada, Dutch, Portuguese, Simple English, Swedish, and Turkish. That's 12 other than English; the required number is 9. But beyond that, he is one of the most influential comedians of the 20th century and was also a very notable social activist. Could someone fill me in on what I'm missing here? What criteria does Dick Gregory fail to meet? Dragonbacon (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

He only had 5 Wikipedia articles, other than English, at the time of his death. Language codes are: ar, azb, de, en, fa, he, simple. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry Dragonbacon, this bizarre way of deciding who can be included will soon be gone! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@DragonBacon:. If you can provide a WP:RS for "one of the most influencial comedians of the 20th century", it's likely he could be included under the the current system (although not necessarily under a new system, because one hasn't been established.) The criterion was always "internationally significant". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

His death has been reported internationally, that's easily sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If international reporting of a death is sufficient, we'll have to include many more people. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If being reported on internationally, having a sizable obituary in the New York Times, etc doesn't qualify as sufficient, what would? In all seriousness, this criteria is extremely arbitrary. If you have any knowledge whatsoever of pop culture in the 20th century you'd know just how influential Dick Gregory was. Why should Gregory be excluded, but Josef Musil, an obscure Czech volleyball player whose wiki is literally 29 words long, be included just because he meets this arbitrary criteria? Dragonbacon (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Dragonbacon but there's no point in trying to debate it with some of the regulars here. They have a unique view of what ohr readers would want to see here. Needless to say it isn't right, and we're slowly going about changing it all, so even if Gregory doesn't get included now, he will do in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Musil won two Olympic medals. That makes him internationally notable. His article is short and he's not well known because he retired many years ago and his sport isn't particularly popular.

What international notability does Gregory have?

Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think winning olympic medals makes someone "internationally notable." Ask anyone on the street if they know who Josef Musil is and I can guarantee that 99.9% of them won't have a clue who you're talking about. Try that with Dick Gregory and you'll get much more recognition. For the most part, Olympians who aren't the super famous ones like Michael Phelps fade into obscurity as soon as the games are over. Anyway, there were obituaries for Dick Gregory in publications from all over the world, which very clearly indicates international notability. For example, the Guardian (UK), Der Spiegel (Germany), Le Monde (France), O Globo (Brazil). He also inspires scores of comedians, the NYT lists Bill Cosby and Richard Pryor as just two examples. He also ran for president in 1968 and received almost 50,000 votes, and landed himself on Nixon's enemies list. He went to Iran to try to negotiate for the freedom of the hostages during the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1980. It seems rather obvious that he is a lot more internationally notable than a Czech volleyball player with a 29 word wiki who had a shorter obituary in the major newspaper of his home country, Blesk, than Gregory had in a French newspaper.Dragonbacon (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If we were to go by name recognition, we'll have to include a load of reality TV participants in future years. We aren't using level of fame as a measurement, because being internationally notable doesn't require being internationally famous. Yes, most sportspeople aren't famous - or they cease to be famous when they retire. However, notability is permanent.

The large majority of people outside the US haven't heard of Gregory, or have only vaguely heard of him.

Jim Michael (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"We aren't using level of fame as a measurement, because being internationally notable doesn't require being internationally famous." That's a completely incoherent line of thought. Fame and notability aren't inextricably tied, but they're obviously closely linked to one another. The more famous someone is, the more notable they likely are. A reality show contestant is going to be forgotten by the world a few months after the show ends, while Gregory has been famous in the US and abroad, performing all over the world, since the 1960s. Dick Gregory was trending on Twitter the day after his death. Josef Musil was not; about 7 people within his home country tweeted about him upon his death. Josef Musil was not a notable person, especially outside of the Czech Republic. Dick Gregory very much was, as evidenced by the fact that publications from around the world published obituaries and was trending on Twitter worldwide after his death. This isn't that hard to grasp. Dragonbacon (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dragonbacon, in my experience this conversation is wasted breath. The kind of individual some of these regulars want is someone like Henri Rang, rather than Gregory. There's too much thinking about editors and bureaucracy and not enough thinking about readers here. It will change, and the more eyes we have on this current ongoing nonsense, the better when it comes to overhauling the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Rang is notable enough to be included on 1946. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But if Rang, someone who NOBODY would be able to identify if you asked, is notable enough to be included in 1946, Dick Gregory, whose notability has been established multiple times in this thread, is obviously notable enough to be included in 2017 Dragonbacon (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You missed the point, once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your approach is pure WP:OR while Dragonbacon's is pure WP:RS and WP:V. I wonder which one should be used to construct an encyclopedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not true - Olympic medalists are by definition internationally notable. We don't measure notability by how much media coverage a death receives. Jim Michael (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You declaring that olympic medalists are internationally notable while highly influential comedians aren't seems pretty subjective to me. What makes an olympic medalist more notable than a comedian, per se? Dragonbacon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, we measure notability by WP:N and all the individuals you keep seeking to remove already pass that. Some go even further and are covered in detail globally. Your OR approach is not going to last. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Celebrities usually trend on Twitter when they die - even if (s)he is unknown or little-known outside his/her home country. The fact that most sportspeople are forgotten after they retire doesn't make them less notable. Presence of a person or his/her fans on social media doesn't increase notability. Jim Michael (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just inaccurate. People trend on twitter after they die if they had some sort of impact on the world. Someone who was unknown is not going to trend on twitter because no one knew who they were! You claim that the criteria to be included is "international notability." Who could be more internationally notable than someone who had obituaries in international newspapers and was trending worldwide on Twitter after they died? Dick Gregory absolutely had a greater impact on the world than Josef Musil did. Dragonbacon (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR Jim, pure and simple WP:OR. It needs to stop. Your preferences as to who is and who is not "internationally notable" in your own view is not an acceptable measure for inclusion in Wikipedia. Or perhaps you're locked in the 1960s, pre-Internet, pre-social media. The actual fact of the matter is that your version of "international notability" disappeared decades ago. And after all, we're looking for an objective version, not Jim's own version that he prefers and about which he makes unfounded claims time and time again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Arguments are fun to read, huh. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not this one. One side is entrenched in policy and guideline-based arguments, while the other is up to their elbows in original research and "it's how we've always done it" stonewalling behaviour. To an outsider this must be fundamentally obvious. And rest assured, only one of the sides is interested in what our readers would hope to see in a synopsis of the year.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP isn't a popularity contest. Year articles aren't for reporting the events and deaths that gained the most coverage by the mainstream media or social media. People who want to read what's most popular have the red-top newspapers, celebrity magazines, blogs etc. for that. Jim Michael (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then why have any comedians, or entertainers for that matter, on the article? Jerry Lewis died a day after Dick Gregory, and he's included. The only criteria Jerry Lewis meets that Dick Gregory didn't was the absurd 9 Wikipedia rule. They were both highly notable professionals in their craft who influenced scores of people who came after them, all over the world. Dragonbacon (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, meaning that RY is a popularity contest for deaths because all it's bothered about is the number of unreliable sources that are dedicated to an individual. The more unreliable sources you have about an individual, the more likely Jim Michael and his buddies are to include them here. Forget common sense or WP:V or WP:RS.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim, nobody said it was. WP is for serving our readers. Your approach doesn't do that, not at all. In fact, it's worse, it gives the readers a very poor reference guide to events and births/deaths in recent years. In fact it's shambolic. No-one looking at it afresh would ascribe it any sense or notability and move right on to something else. The sooner you realise that, the easier it will be when we transition to the new criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've not added unreliable sources to articles, nor claimed that their presence assigns importance.

Lewis was world famous - he was in a very different league to Gregory. Lewis was a successful film actor as well - his audience was hundreds of millions of people in many countries.

I've never said that entertainers can't be internationally notable.

People who are known to only one or two percent of the population have trended when they died. They merely need to have a small, devoted following - which may be in one country only.

Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're using fame as a litmus test? Disregarding the fact that Gregory was also world famous, you're now using fame instead of "notability." And you're implying that people like Musil or Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori are more famous and notable than Dick Gregory, which anyone with even a lick of knowledge of 20th century history would know is nonsensical Dragonbacon (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR Jim, pure WP:OR. Nobody claimed you added unreliable sources, I don't see you adding any sources to any articles lately so how would that make sense? "a very different league"? Your personal opinion. Do you have WP:RS to back up that claim? Do you need "hundreds of millions of people in many countries" (citation needed) or just "millions of people in many countries"? Or "hundreds of millions of people in a few countries"? You're not really making any objective or tangible sense, just giving us your personal opinion on everyone's "international notability" according to Jim Michael. Which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of why the number of language WP articles was taken into account. Lewis has long had articles in many different languages - because his work is watched widely across much of the world. Gregory had only a few articles during his lifetime, because few people outside the US are interested in him.

If John Major and Kim Kardashian were both to die tomorrow, her death would receive far more media coverage than his (with the possible exception of the UK media). Would that prove that she's more notable than him?!

Jim Michael (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The number of people who edit Wikipedia are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who read Wikipedia. Maybe editors in other countries aren't making articles for Dick Gregory during his lifetime, but how does that imply readers don't know who he is. John Major/Kim Kardashian is a strawman not grounded in common sense. John Major was a head of government and Kim Kardashian is a major figure in US culture. Dick Gregory was a highly influential comedian, and Josef Musil was some volleyball player from the Czech Republic who has absolutely no notability even if he won medals. The notability is according to YOU, not to the community or the readership. Use common sense.Dragonbacon (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally think Jim. It's what's best for our readers. And they would expect to see both listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but anyone with many fans in many countries will have articles in many languages.

The Major/Kardashian hypothetical example illustrates what I'm saying. The death of someone who is merely famous for being famous and who has done no important work would be prioritised by most of the media over a former head of government of an important country.

Gregory was only influential in the US.

Musil was a Olympic medalist - that's highly internationally notable.

Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

But Dick Gregory is not famous for being famous! He was a highly influential comedian and social activist! And being an Olympic medalist may be highly internationally notable for YOU, but not for everyone. Most people's definition of "notable" would be someone who has had an impact on the culture, or someone who is well known among the populace. Dick Gregory fills both of those criteria. Josef Musil does not; him winning Olympic medals didn't change anything about the culture, and after the olympics no one outside of Czechoslovakia knew who he was. And for you to say Gregory was only influential in the US is absurd. He performed all over the world, and this was noted by foreign newspapers and publications by publishing obituaries! Dragonbacon (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim, you're bludgeoning again. Not saying anything different. Our readers are important, not the world according to Jim Michael. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregory's activism was massively undermined by him being a deadbeat dad. Saying you're fighting for a fairer society, whilst at the same time producing a huge number of children and not caring for them, is hypocritical in the extreme. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that absent fatherhood is one of society's greatest ills. Prisons are full of inmates who grew up without their fathers. That's probably why most people in the world never took his self-promotion disguised as activism seriously - and why he had few fans outside the US. Jim Michael (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The truth comes out! You seem to have a bias against Dick Gregory, a "deadbeat dad" and "producing a huge number of children and not caring for them." You appear to be allowing your personal biases against this man, who for better or worse was a very influential figure, to prevent others from adding his name to the list of notable deaths in a collaborative encyclopedia. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet more WP:OR and in fact BLP violations from Jim Michael. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm explaining that no-one other than his die-hard fans in the US who somehow are blinkered to his extreme overbreeding and gross irresponsibility would believe he was a genuine activist who wanted to improve society - as opposed to the selfish self-publicist he was. That's why few people outside the US took his activism seriously - a person not doing his own duty whilst lecturing others on theirs is extreme hypocrisy. A deadbeat dad being an activist is as credible as a porn star promoting celibacy. Saying that Gregory was a good activist is like saying that Oscar Pistorius is a good boyfriend.
This isn't a BLP - it's the talk page of a RY article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You committed a BLP violation by denigrating another human being, albeit recently deceased. You should redact your insults and read BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Remind yourself of what BLP stands for: biographies of living people. What I said is true - even if he were alive it would be impossible for him to bring libel action against me. Jim Michael (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(a) don't be so naive (b) this is your last chance - actually read BLP before commenting further. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Larissa Volpert

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

---

She fails WP:RY. If consensus is found to include, she should be in, but, in the absence of consensus, she should not be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

She only had 8 non-English articles at death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So there is no guideline or consensus that supports inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your dumb rule that you fraudulently promoted to a guideline is no longer a guideline, m8. Sorry. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, there is no guideline or consensus supporting inclusion. There is no longer a guideline, but the consensus opposing inclusion has not been overriden. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What consensus opposing inclusion? Or do you mean the walled garden a few people protect here against anything that is not, in their view, notable, deserving or what have you? Where is the consensus against inclusion of this particular item by the way, i would like to give it a read, link to it please. 91.49.70.95 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:RY had consensus long before it was (improperly) declared a guideline, and that consensus had not been overridden in general, or in this specific instance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

So an essay with totally arbitrary criteria is the be-all, end-all in decision making trumping everything else? This all seems more like massive ownership issues when reading some of the discussions on this and related talk pages. Change is desperately needed, especialy in attitude and demeanor of the "owners". 91.49.70.95 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and i would like a link to any discussion actually establishing that essay as consensus. Not that i don't believe you, i would just like to give the discussion a read to understand the reasoning behind something so arbitrary. And not any explanation by you please, an actual link to any given discussion relating to establishing consensus for it.91.49.70.95 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, so I understand that the RFC isn't formally closed yet, but we're really going to say there's still consensus for the 9 wikipedias thing? I think it's quite clear it has almost no community support. We can absolutely have a discussion about international significance (I have no opinion as far as Ms. Volpert is concerned), but the number of foreign-language Wikipedia articles at her death is no longer a valid argument. agtx 22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Volpert was Woman Grandmaster, but not Grandmaster. She isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, she is sufficiently notable. She easily passes GNG and any other notability criteria. As far as I can tell WP:RY has no standing compared to GNG and content policies - such as WP:V supported by WP:RS. The consensus supporting inclusion is GNG and assorted content policies. Also, WP:RY seems really idiosyncratic in some areas. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No-one's claiming she's not notable enough for an article, nor that the article isn't adequately sourced. We exclude the large majority of notable deaths from RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur - Please provide diffs to the discussion which demonstrates this 'consensus'. Oh yeah, sorry - Find the page which contains the section you want to refer to. Click on "Permanent link" in the "Toolbox" in the lefthand sidebar. Go to the page's Table of Contents. Right-click on the name of the section you want to use, where it appears in the Table of Contents, and select "Copy link location". The section link you want is now in your clipboard. Paste this into your text - you can leave the link 'naked' or if you wish you can make it appear neater by enclosing it in square brackets "[" on the left and "]" on the right. How many took part in the discussion? I mean, right now the woolly, poorly written non-guideline seems to have as much credibility as you do. It's a very flaccid, wobbly axe to be wielding on every discussion. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any other (formally) proposed set of criteria, WP:RY remains in effect, even if the RfC specifying that "international notability" is not defined by the 9-Wikipedia rule receives consensus.

You are demanding the impossible. No diff could possibly establish that consensus was or was not realized, only that it was recognized or the failure to obtain consensus was recognized. Consensus for WP:RY was recognized (on its talk page) in 2009. That may have been flawed, but consensus has never been unrecognized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"No diff could establish that consensus was realised, it could only establish that consensus was recognised." Yeah, I think you need to stop typing. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The strange 9-wiki-rule certainly is history. As far of the merits of Larissa Volpert on an international scale, the articles give the impression that she had a more domestic notability. Agathoclea (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin:--The demotion of RY guideline into an essay closed with a statement that said:--Also, editors are advised to try to follow by the essay as far as possible, while working in the subject area.That did not mean:--Editors are mandatorily bound to follow the essay.And, that the RFC about int. notab = 9 wiki-articles has been closed (by me), it would be much better if you would change your approach and be open to something that does not stem right out of the RY essay.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  "As far as possible" usually means "absent a consensus to do otherwise", but if you have a different interpretation, I'd like to see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The community consensus is that "international notability ≠ existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles." though. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"As far as possible" in the absence of new rules I would interpret as not to quibble over a 9+ that gets included (unless its a glaring obvious case not to include), but look at the individual merits of someone who isn't a 9+, as the 9+ rule is clearly not a defining characteristic of someones notability only an indirect indication. Agathoclea (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Echo Agathoclea.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

* Include - Achieved top international honours in women's chess titles, plus 3 world championships, in favour of making her internationally notable. The only thing against making her internationally notable is a badly written essay, unjustly promoted to a guideline, which breaches numerous core Wikipedia principles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking at the article again and only can see the Soviet title not a world one. Can you point me to it? Agathoclea (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

She didn't have top international honours. Jim Michael (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

She held the Woman's International Master title. The word 'international' is even in the title of the title. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Those women's titles she held are of lower ranking than the top titles. Jim Michael (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

According to our articles on the titles, 599 held the WIM title in 2010, and 297 held the WGM title in 2016. Sufficient for "international notability"? My opinion seems to be ignored by the community, but I think not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, you are showing your cards here mate. This stuff isn't about deliberately disagreeing with individuals, its about disagreeing with the issue at hand. Here I mistakenly thought the title was a singular, annual recognition. Albeit, she is still being recognised internationally by chess, I agree its not as cut and dry as I thought. I have struck my !vote. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude

As a chess player, I note International Master is relatively low rank and a number of women are now Grandmasters not lower ranking WGMs. Top women, the Judit Polgárs of this world refused to play in women's only events. Might be worth asking at WP:WikiProject Chess though. Her Chessgames.com page is is here JRPG (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Anne Wiazemsky

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

---

Jim Michael removed Anne Wiazemsky from the deaths section with the comment "not internationally notable." In fact, her death was the subject of obituaries around the world: NY Times, The Times, Le Monde, The Guardian, El Pais, Magyar Nemzet. That should be enough to establish international notability. agtx 17:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiazemsky was only notable in France. Obituaries and media coverage in other countries don't prove international notability. If Jimmy Carter and Kim Kardashian were to both die tomorrow, her death would receive significantly more media coverage than his. Would that prove that she's more notable than him? Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, international notability is sufficiently demonstrated by the global coverage of her death. The usual KK argument is boring and actually we would list both KK and JC here if they died tomorrow so it’s a non-argument I’m afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Why—despite worldwide coverage—is her death only notable in France? What would prove international notability to you? agtx 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include clearly internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include - Another poor removal that results in a lengthy discussion that comes to yet another reversal. Why is Jim consistently allowed to remove names and events that could come across as controversial without any consensus yet we have to spend a few days explaining why it is appropriate to include. Agtx could you or anyone else answer this? I think his behavior has become incredibly disruptive and time-consuming.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheGracefulSlick: At the risk of being flippant: because on Wikipedia, we discuss things when there is a disagreement. I'd prefer to assume Jim's good faith. If he is unable to come up with any good argument or reliable source that counsels removal, then the discussion probably won't go his way. agtx 04:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Several editors remove insufficiently notable events and people from year articles. Removing is a standard part of WP:BRD and not against any rule or guideline.

International notability for an entertainer, writer etc. would be that (s)he did important work in multiple countries and/or that the person's work was very popular and/or won important awards in multiple countries. Mere reporting of the death or obituaries isn't sufficient, because it's standard practice for media sources to report deaths of notable people - even if said decedent wasn't notable in that country.

You missed my point regarding KK & JC: if he died of old age in his sleep tomorrow, and on the same day she was killed in a car crash, her death would dominate media coverage and would dwarf the coverage of his. That wouldn't show that she's more notable than him - because level of media coverage doesn't show the level of notability. Jim Michael (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what that proves. For example, Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died on the same day in 2009. Just because he got more coverage doesn't mean we don't put her on the page. We don't have to decide whether Kim Kardashian or President Carter is "more notable," and that would be a foolish endeavor anyway. The answer would be meaningless. All we're looking for a certain baseline level of international notability, not some kind of comparison between people who happened to die around the same time. I think that obits in multiple countries are a strong indication that a person had the required level of notability. Many others appear to agree with me. agtx 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The strawman KK argument has very much run its course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, Agtx, the problem here is that this is a classic case of "we've always done it this way, why change?" and then a refusal to see how clearly that historic decision-making process is not in line with community wishes. It could easily be perceived as ownership, the regulars barely actually add anything to these articles, they simply police them to maintain their own status quo. Various personal definitions of so-called "international notability" are continually proposed, we keep getting the "Kim Kardashian" paradigm thrust at us, these are all irrelevant if the community does not agree with them. Which they don't. In actuality, it really seems like we need to flip the logic here. Individuals such as Wiazemsky whose international notability is actually beyond doubt, and adequately demonstrated above, should be included by default and then those in disagreement should argue for removal. Especially now we have only an essay which is simply a set of suggestions; all "hidden historic consensus" is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I absolutely understand your frustration, and I'm frustrated too. But I don't think flipping the logic is the right thing long-term. WP:BURDEN still applies. As the people wanting to add things to the page, we've got the burden to prove the entry should be there with reliable sources. You've done a really good job of bringing in new eyes to Recent Years, and it's pretty clear to me that a few people can't own these pages the way they used to. Having these debates will hopefully help solidify the notion that new people can show up and be heard here. agtx 16:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A draft to rewrite the "rules" is long overdue. It's getting ridiculous how we always repeat this cycle: someone adds something, Jim or Arthur revert, someone opens an RfC, it passes with a big majority supporting, and it's included in the article. It's in fact policing and perhaps showing ownership of how "things should be run like they always did". Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include I think Jim Michael needs to stop distrupting this project. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include - Jim has got to stop policing these articles. It's getting ridiculous how we will always end up on the talk page, open an RfC, and it passes 99.9% of the time. It is merely a half a dozen, even maybe less, that disagree with the inclusion and just revert as "not internationally notable". Based on what? It's seriously getting frustrating, and I get TRM. On the topic itself, it should be included because of international notability. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

2017 Central Mexico earthquake

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Concensus is Y include.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

---

This is a domestic event and therefore should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Exclude. Not that big an earthquake, even by California standards, and certainly not by Japan or Indonesia standards. Regardless, it should remain excluded unless there is consensus to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I haven't made a decision on this yet. There are sources below showing that this was global news. Do you have a source that says this wasn't that big of an earthquake? agtx 18:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Most recent years contain at least one earthquake each that has a higher death toll. This is dwarfed by the 2010 Haiti earthquake and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Include. There are domestic issues listed on the site, for example, Las Vegas Shooting; therefore, this was an event that is relevant enough for standing out in the year's record.

Include this whole "domestic event" paradigm is deeply flawed and should be ignored when events that are globally covered for days at a time clearly transcend any kind of parochialism. Just because it's not as big as the biggest, it doesn't mean it's highly pertinent to a large number of readers who would expect to find coverage of such disasters in a synopsis of global events of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Include . Despite all the hidden messages being left for each other, I don't think the guys have got their game right here. Clearly a big event, talked about globally. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Talked about globally?! It wasn't the lead story in the news anywhere other than in Mexico. Try mentioning it to people outside Mexico in a year's time and they won't remember it. Natural disasters with high death tolls happen every year and few gain much interest outside their countries of occurrence or are remembered as major events of the years in which they happened. They're not the sort of thing that people talk about in the pub, at the watercooler or round the dinner table. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't the lead story in the news anywhere other than in Mexico. Oh really? Wrong. I found that in two seconds. Plenty more out there. Stop making false assertions, yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong ++. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Even Reuters (who are they?) featured it as their top international story here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ITV featured it as their headline here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Top three headliner for Al Jazeera here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Even Pakistan's Dawn covered it on their news homepage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph seemed pretty interested in it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Include I could make a point but TRM made it for me. This has been discussed around the water cooler outside Mexico -- extensively.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Include Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussed around the watercooler extensively?! Try talking to your colleagues at work about an earthquake that happened in another country and you'll see yourself quickly become the most unpopular person at work. Jim Michael (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A familiar feeling no doubt. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in your workplace. My colleagues take an active interest in global news and we regularly discuss such notable events. Your assertions are plain false, and sometimes wholly inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not familiar to me, because I know not to talk to colleagues, friends, neighbours etc. about miserable events that happened thousands of miles away which I know they won't be interested in. Your colleagues regularly talk about natural disasters that happened thousands of miles away?! Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most of my colleagues are well educated, and well-rounded individuals who show an interest outside of their borders. Most of them have passports and have travelled extensively. None of them own guns. It may be unusual for you, but yes, we discuss all sorts of newsworthy topics, and this earthquake, the Las Vegas shooting, the Manchester bombing etc, were all amongst topics we would chat around. I don't understand what you mean by "I know not to talk to...", that sounds very draconian and perhaps demonstrates a very large difference in culture that we can't reconcile here. And it would certainly underpin why you are so insistent that so-called "domestic events" shouldn't be listed here if you daren't discuss them at all with your colleagues for fear of becoming the least popular person at work. I find that whole scenario incredibly sad and depressing. Where I live and work, we're encouraged to take an active interest in world events, good and bad, and to discuss and debate the issues that surround them. I'm truly sorry that you don't have that capability. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Borderline troubling. Why would I be hated at work for talking about the suffrage of Mexicans? What sort of shady place do you work, Jim? The White House? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

When you say suffrage, I assume you mean suffering. And no, people whom I know aren't interested in people whom they've never heard of and who live thousands of miles away - regardless of their nationality. There has never been an occasion at any of the places that I've worked at during which I've taken part in - or heard - a conversation in which a natural disaster was mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry that must have been an auto-correct or something. Anyway, I think you need to stop judging humanity by the standards of the people you keep company with. For in my experience, most folk I know DO care about others, regardless of how far away they are. I certainly didn't just shrug at 9/11 despite it happening in New York. Or scoff at the deaths in France following the terrorist attack. Or skip ahead the pages in the newspaper which outlined the plight of those whose lives were destroyed by the tsunami in Thailand 2004. Maybe you do, but as I have said to you before - this isn't an encyclopaedia for you. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never chosen my colleagues - they came with each job. Unless you're the boss, you can't hire and fire. I've done different types of work, so it's not like I'm immersed in a subculture or sociological bubble that's disconnected to mainstream life. I don't personally know anyone (other than myself) who is interested in distant things which doesn't affect him/her. My colleagues, family, friends, neighbours and acquaintances have never shown interest in events a long distance away which are unrelated to them. I remember a colleague mentioning 9/11 due to having a family member in NYC at the time. Natural disasters have never been of interest to any of them, and if I attempted to shoehorn a distant earthquake into a conversation about drunken one-night stands I know I would be ridiculed as well as considered a boring and miserable killjoy. Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely depressing and goes a long way to helping us understand this "domestic event" mentality. Where I'm from, the earth is a small piece of rock, and humans are our friends. So when sad things happen to them, we talk about it, and don't fear ridicule or isolation. I'm suddenly much more thankful for what I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, deep breath. Going back to your original assertion, it's completely erroneous to suggest this was only headline news in Mexico, and it's completely erroneous to suggest that people outside Mexico wouldn't be discussing this "around the watercooler". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Earth is a massive piece of rock - I don't know why you think it's small. Sad things happen all the time - people usually aren't interested if it happens a long distance away and doesn't involve them or anyone whom they know. I was mistaken about the media coverage, but I stand by my assertion that the vast majority of people outside Mexico aren't interested. Other reasons that people don't usually talk about natural disasters are that it's miserable and futile - and the conversation can't go anywhere. You may have frequent conversations with your colleagues about natural disasters - and for some reason be grateful to have such people in your life - but I think you're unusual in that respect. Like I said, I personally am interested in what happens in the world - but the large majority of people aren't interested in miserable things like natural disasters. The reason I say to exclude domestic events is because that makes sense for international articles like this one and because there's a long-standing consensus to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and do this as succinctly as possible: you're wrong. Your assertions were false, as proven. You've now been told that we're not all shying away from discussing international issues at the watercooler. The average UK reader will be more than interested in this kind of thing because they are geographically and socio-politically aware and want to read more. Just because your personal experience is that the people you know aren't interested, that should not be imparted to a global encyclopedia where issues that interest the global readers are somehow deemed "local" so not relevant by you and the other regulars. Your argument arc seems to shift every single time you're proven wrong. I'm done with you. Good luck Jim, we'll never speak again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment It's at most 4th in magnitude in 2017.USGS. I cannot easily find lists of "most destructive" earthquakes, but it probably doesn't rate well on that scale, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin according to this source it is the deadliest earthquake of 2017, the most destructive of its kind in Mexico in the last 32 years, and, in a tragic twist of irony, the disaster occurred on the anniversary of the '85 quake. Honestly, I have a hard time believing anyone can argue against including this major incident -- the international response alone is satisfactory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a red herring in any case. High magnitude earthquakes with little impact can be ignored, lower magnitude earthquakes which cause massive destruction and hundreds of deaths should not. We have a consensus for inclusion here, further claims this is a "local event" (disproven above) and not talked about internationally (disproven above) are actually very unhelpful and wasteful of editor's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Only you and your IP friend have claimed that natural disasters are a common subject of conversation at work. That doesn't prove me wrong - it merely shows that you're an anomaly - or you work in a scientific field in which natural disasters are studied. People talk to their colleagues about the weather, events in their lives, their families and friends, what they watched on TV last night - very few talk about natural disasters that happened thousands of miles away. The vast majority of people don't want a futile, miserable conversation about distant natural disasters. I asked several friends and family members this week - who are quite a diverse group - if they've ever taken part in or heard conversations at work which involved mention of natural disasters. They were all puzzled at my question and said that they never have. I haven't shifted my argument - the only thing I've conceded is that the media coverage of this earthquake was greater than I'd thought - but I don't read the media of many different countries in order to find out.

It was an important event in Mexico, which is why it's on 2017 in Mexico. It's not important globally, because it didn't affect any other country and because neither the magnitude, nor the death toll, are high in comparison to the worst earthquakes. Jim Michael (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim you have made it perfectly clear you are secluded from the rest of the world but that, and a small poll of your friends, is not relevant. It was the deadliest earthquake this year and the international response is high. The media analyzed the disaster and the world community responded with aid. It has become a global issue. Do you need another editor to tell you natural disasters are a topic of discussion: I'm telling you now. I did not need this earthquake to occur in my backyard for me to care about the victims; the world community did not either.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's okay TheGracefulSlick, the comments from Jim just go to demonstrate that some places on earth have little or no interest in discussing globally significant topics and that some people are even frowned upon for attempting to do so. I'm extremely glad that I don't live in one of those places and that the majority of the people I converse with are all too happy to chat about global topics, things that don't necessarily impact themselves, and to be surrounded by people who care about the earth, not just their locale. It completely explains why we have such a split in approaches here, and why this term "local" or "domestic event" is so meaningful to some, but not to others. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Include. I am convinced by the reliable sources TRM cites above, and unconvinced by the lack of sources that anyone else has cited. agtx 20:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Jim's "well, me and my friends haven't talked about it" attitude is a cause for concern, especially when his opinion of what to include was almost exclusive on these pages. I think it's worth pointing out that, just because one editor has a very closed mind and self-centred, disinterested circle of friends who talk only of drunken sexual encounters, doesn't mean he can use experience as a barometer for the opinions and intellectual/inquisitorial scope of others. In fact, what he's revealed goes some way in reducing the value of his own opinion, rather than the value of others. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not secluded from the rest of the world, or closed-minded - I wouldn't be on WP if I were. I'm interested in what happens in the world and have edited articles about events in many countries. However, most people aren't interested in world affairs and events such as natural disasters. A conversation at the watercooler, over the garden fence etc. that's about an earthquake, flood etc. wouldn't last a minute.

Aid being given by other countries and international organisations is standard when there's been a major natural disaster. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What's being asserted above is a truly frightening vision of what's attempting to be impsed on Wikipedia by some of the users here. I regularly have conversations about world events such as disasters that last more than a minute with colleagues, friends, relatives. But in any case, that's utterly irrelevant to whether or not they should be included here, that's beyond doubt as the events have received significant global coverage and the community and readers want and expect to see them here. Personal opinion on how long a conversation might last "at the watercooler" is irrelevant to this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak include - if that's even a thing. I normally include major events, such as terrorist attacks, because of its international coverage, victims and perpetrators were of multiple nationalities and an organization, on about most of the world's radar, terrorist list and the UN's terrorist list. However, for this, I am on the fence. All victims were Mexicans and it was a natural disaster. I am not saying a natural disaster is a reason for exclusion. Japan's major tsunami in 2011 is one example why these events should be included. However, the most recent earthquake coincided with another earthquake decades ago and it received plenty of international coverage. Per these reasons as well as TRM's, this should be included. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

October Mogadishu bombing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Concensus is to Y include.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The October 2017 Mogadishu bombings was removed with the justification "Purely a local event, of no interest to the wider world". This absolutely reeks of systemic bias. By what measure does the 2017 Las Vegas shooting meet the requirements of international notability but this event doesn't? -- irn (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include this "local event" nonsense really has to stop. People who were not local to the event are still interested in it, despite claims to the contrary. I think someone who includes the phrase "of no interest to the wider world" about such a disaster in an edit summary should be encouraged to avoid making such edits ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include My edit was made in a moment of frustration of the constant insistence on this talk page by some editors that nothing is ever internationally notable except what they deign to approve. My edit was in violation of WP:POINT and it will not be repeated. mea culpa, mea maxima culpa Scr★pIron^IV 19:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include The "local event" negation is no longer relevant to this process. Biggest attack in Somalia history, a hot-button country, globally reported with knock-one effects internationally. Obvious inclusion. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude this domestic event. Removing things due to being domestic events is still valid. Long-standing consensus is to exclude domestic events - and no new consensus has been established to overturn that. What knock-on effects has it had in other countries? Somalia has long been a dangerous country with a lack or law and order and as such most countries have for years strongly recommended that their citizens don't go there - and few do. Worst attack in its country means it's very notable there - but doesn't indicate international importance. I've already said that the LV massacre shouldn't be included, so there's no bias from me. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment this was main page news across the globe, so it's not a "domestic event". Game over. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As you know, international media coverage doesn't prove international notability. Among this year's stories which gained a great deal of media coverage in many countries include: George Clooney's twins' birth, Pippa Middleton's wedding, Kathy Griffin holding a fake bloody Donald Trump head and the wrong Best Picture winner being announced at the Academy Awards. Jim Michael (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As you know, your assertions are continually against community wishes and reader expectations, so you don't need to keep saying the same things and using the same strawmen because doing doesn't change anything, ever, other than to get people to listen to you less and less. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include - With all the atrocities and acts of violence Somalia has endured, this was the worst its capital Mogadishu has faced. Certainly, that alone has historical significance. I am tired of seeing comments like "no interest to the wider world" when that opinion is based entirely on the close-minded editor writing it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Just stop, please. pbp 22:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, it's based on what interests most people. If you survey ordinary people in any country other than Somalia in a couple of months' time about what the biggest events of the year were, very few would mention any of the bombings in Somalia.Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I think it's well established by now that your view does not reflect what "most people" or "ordinary people" think. The examples of your interactions with your friends and colleagues have given a clear picture of where you're coming from and it doesn't appear to be in anyway commenusurate with what Wikipedia is striving to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC) You may claim that you talk about bombings in Somalia when you have conversations at the watercooler, over the garden fence, at the pub or at parties - but I can assure you that doing so would mark you out as unusual, unwanted and unpopular. Jim Michael (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Another lie. Sorry Jim, but you're just wrong. Where I'm from, we talk about this sort of thing all the time. You may not believe that, I don't really care, but it's fact. We have a circumspect global view of life and want to discuss and learn more about things that happen outside our four walls. You can't assure me of anything, and I would ask you to stop trying because every time you do, I can assure you that I'm not the odd one out. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include with all due respect, why the heck are we even talking about this? Odds are, this is the largest mass killing this year. I read English-language media from four continents, and it was reported in detail in all of them. If fact I don't think I could find a mainstream English news outlet that did not report on this. Jim Michael, do you have an example of such? I can only imagine that this is also true of the non-English media. There's absolutely no case here to exclude this. Vanamonde (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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