Talk:2011/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

2010-2011 Queensland floods & Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi

The Queensland Floods and Cyclone Yasi is a significant event, shouldn't it be stated here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.128.249 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They are not significant internationally, which is the requirement for inclusion here. There are numerous similar events around the world every year, most resulting in far more fatalities than those in Queensland. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 22-24 – Following Gadhafi's regime uncertainty for Libyan oil output, oil prices spike

at what percentage will wiki users consider this a "world"-news event ... we are at +15% as of today? --70.162.171.210 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be worded differently - I doubt Libyan crisis is the only factor here, there is unrest in most oil producing countries in the area. Perhaps it's better to wait until the extent of the spike is known (i.e. after the situation cools down). — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait and see what long-lasting impact it has first. Oil prices go up and down all the time a "spike" (i.e. a sharp rise followed by a sharp fall) isn't likely to have much impact in the long term. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The box at the top of the page with the years and decades in it

Who keeps meddling with this box. It was alright as it was, who keeps messing around with it! It is way too small to read and clearly created by someone who does not consider people with sight difficulties. I personally do not have sight problems, but I would consider those who do! I say it should be reverted back to how it looked before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.223.222 (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

John Galliano

• February 25 – Oscar-Winner Natalie Portman 'Disgusted' By John Galliano's Anti-Semitic Comments. Dior announced that it had suspended Galliano following his arrest over an alleged anti-semitic assault in a Paris bar. Three days later, British tabloid newspaper The Sun posted a video on their website showing Galliano in another incident at the same bar, hurling anti-semitic insults at other diners and declaring "I love Hitler... People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers would all be fucking gassed." This incident happened just before Paris Fashion Week for Fall/Winter 2011/2012. It remains unconfirmed whether or not the collections for Dior and his own label will debut.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On 1 March 2011, Dior announced that it had sacked Galliano, with Dior's chief executive Sidney Toledano stating "I very firmly condemn what was said by John Galliano".[1]--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

i contend it is a news event that will meet the 9 foreign articles rule--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not notable. There are much more notable antisemitic remarks by better-known people, and they're not in year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The event is not even important enough to merit own article here, much less anywhere else. This is a page that lists the most important events in a year worldwide, not tabloid material. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

from the talk section of Galliano this wiki administrator does not think this is such a "small" issue:

Given the news attn, Wiki editors might be vigilant about this article for the next while. It had 136k hits on Mar. 1st, when the title description was changed to "neo-Nazi". I've reverted that & edited the text for grammar and smoothing, as we can expect it to get much attn. Let's try to make Wikipedia look good and reliable to those drawn to it here, who might not otherwise know it.Alethe (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So trivial I can't think of where it belongs. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What news attention? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2

Apple is expected to sell 20 million iPad 2s in 2011. Only 4 million tablets from other manufacturers are expected to be sold. Is the iPad 2 announcement notable enough? Marcus Qwertyus 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a commercial announcement designed to sell stuff. As soon as you use the word "expected" you are both crystal-balling and pandering to the desires of an advertiser. Neither is part of our job here. HiLo48 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually an outside analyst's opinion. Marcus Qwertyus 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Computer related releases happen all the time, none is particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ace Combat

Ace Combat 5: Unsung War is set in future, at the time of release, year 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.28.1 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If anywhere 2011 in fiction, certainly not this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, see Wikipedia:RY#In_fiction. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Shahbaz Bhatti

Removed as not internationally notable. Someone who appears to have had no wiki article in any language until his assassintation cannot be considerd internationally notable. Also, his assassination was a purely local event. Reactions from other countries do not constitute international implications, governments do this all the time for many varied events, not necessarily internationally notable ones. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thor Vilhjálmsson

He has more than nine foreign articles but his English one only consists of two and a bit lines and a list of works. Worthy for inclusion? Ifore2010 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the non-English ones are a similar size, at least one hasn't even reported his death. I guess that's a No for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Tucson Shootings Inclusion

Extended content

Resolved  – Looks like there is general agreement not to include. SheaF91 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Comment is requested for the following issue: Should the Tucson, AZ shooting incident be included on the 2011 year page? Previous discussion on the matter had led to some incivilities, and after 2 weeks has yet to receive a clear cut consensus on the matter. Parties in favor of inclusion support their position by stating that the incident has received substantial international news coverage, and that it should be granted inclusion. Parties opposing inclusion support their decision mostly by citing that it is not of enough significance to be deemed an international event. Governing policy on this matter is WP:RY. This article meets inclusion criteria by meeting the "3 continent rule", however, under the "Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes" rule, this topic can be construed to either pass or fail this rule. All editors, especially previously unrelated and uninvolved editors are encouraged to provide comment on this topic. Ltcb2412 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose - This is clearly a US-centric event. The victims had no international notability prior to the shooting. The perpetrator had no international notability prior to the shooting. No other country is involved in any way (messages of condolence do not count as many countries send such messages for as a matter of course) eother prior to or subsequent to the shooting. As a mass shooting it is not unusual in terms of scale, such shootings are no longer uncommon and therefore lack notability (more than 20 deaths might qualify as sufficiently rare to still be notable). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose - No other country is involved in any way. That's enough. HiLo48 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose - Events like this, unfortunately, happen much too frequently in the world for any one of them to be considered notable, even if it occurs in the United States. The international, and even the domestic, response has been limited to condemnation of acts like this and not more more aside from some initial finger-pointing. Regardless, I don't see it having much of an impact at all, even within the United States. SheaF91 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Seems like it fails the "international relevance" clause. Midlakewinter (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Some of you Wikipedia editors need to get off your high horse. Don't include this event because it didn't involve another country and political assassination attempts happen all the time around the world? Surely you can tell the difference between a political assassination attempt in a country with an unstable government vs. a a political assassination attempt in a country with a stable democracy, much less in the world's top superpower. And if events that only involve one country are not included, then you might as well delete the 1969 moon landing since the United States was the only country involved in that event. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.45.116 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC) No, you're not. Starting with the last question, see The Dish. It documented one of many examples of international cooperation in achieving the moon landings. And rather than "a political assassination attempt in a country with a stable democracy", I saw it as another unsurprising shooting incident in a country with a lax attitude to gun ownership. Has it even been proven in court yet that it was a political assassination attempt? HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC) And this almost certainly wasn't a political assassination in the usual sense of the term. It looks more and more like a sad case of a mentally ill person who never got any treatment and became more and more paranoid until they lost all touch with reality and went on a murderous rampage that was only justified in their sick mind. Unfortunately it is difficult to force a mentally ill person to seek treatment until it can be established that they are a danger to themselves or others. Before his killing spree Laughner had acted weird, but had not done anything violent. Less than 5% of schizophrenics (if that is what he has) are violent, and less than 1% of them cannot be helped by medication. This therefore may be notable in the field if mental health practices and possibly a new gun control law limiting the large-capacity magazine he used, but there isn't any real international impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Strong Support. There have been several cases of unimportant news occurring in obscure African countries with little to no worldwide relevance, however they have been on the page. This is an event that has worldwide coverage, and has had multiple people killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistmaniac (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Strongly oppose; doesn't seem to have any notable consequences even within the USA, let alone anywhere else. Just look at the article, the newest reference is weeks old. Nothing that would exceed the attention span of breaking news producers, as sad as it is. — Yerpo Eh? 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Support I don't see the reasons for the strong opposes (Because Domodedovo International Airport bombing is also a specific country-centric event, with no notable impact outside of Russia, and from what I can tell, it hasn't even had much of a notable impact within Russia, outside of the same type of impact the Tuscon shootings had here). However, this event caused a lessening of the emphatic political rhetoric that has allowed the two sides of the US government (three if you include the independents) to work more closely together on policy. It reunited, at least for a brief time, two of the most volatile, yet civil, political views in free world, and ultimately, the reaction to the shootings by the members of the legislature will change the way the government of the US is viewed for some time, and will also change the whole political climate for some time as, whether or not the rest of the world likes it, the US is extremely influential, and the collaboration between the two sides will change foreign relations and internal policy significantly.--Fbifriday (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) So it's notable because the US is more important? Well that's a nice, balanced, objective viewpoint! Good point about the bombing in Russia though. At 35 deaths it barely qualifies as notable, and the fact that it may have been from carried out by Chechen rebels is not particularly international. I even considerd removing it or bringing it to talk page at the time it was entered. Maybe someone would like to do that now? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) The choice of a major transportation hub for such an action is a strong international statement, and there was a number of foreign victims. Its international relevance is sourced in the article ("was aimed "first and foremost" at foreign citizens"). As for the Tucson shooting, Fbifriday's impact assessment is cute, but, without sources, sadly irrelevant. — Yerpo Eh? 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) And yet the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attempt, which was not only internationally centered (the flight went through two other countries before arriving in the US), and would have killed non-us nationals, but was also an attempt on a major transportation hub (the successful detonation of a bomb on board a flight inbound for landing would shut down the airport for some time), was not included in 2009, due to a discussion [here] because it was "US-Centric", with discussion from some of the same people who are arguing against the inclusion of this event. It would appear to an outside observer that the arguments aren't based off fact, just simply off of a view that what some view as US centric shouldn't be included, even if they do indeed have international implications. --Fbifriday (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Also, Derby, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about the removal of the Russian bombing, but just in case you are, last time I checked, Chechnya isn't its own country. It is part of the Russian Federation, which is considered one country, even though it is has many independent republics, which means that ultimately, the fact that it was a Chechnyan rebel group that conducted the attack is irrelevant to it's international implications. It's like saying that the Tuscon shootings are internationally relevant because John Roll was from Pennsylvania, which although part of the United States, is independent of Arizona. Which, if you are being sarcastic and think that the attack being by a Chechnyan rebel group DOES make it internationally relevant, I would like to use the argument I just used to dispel your argument as my argument for inclusion. --Fbifriday (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC) No, I wasn't being sarcastic. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC) @Fbifriday: in the case you mentioned, "attempt" is the operative word, so it was clearly an almost-event. Year lists would be completely overwhelmed if we included every one of those, and no, the Domodedovo incident wouldn't have been included here if the attack failed. You should also note that nobody implied anything about "US-centeredness" in the debate you mentioned. I suggest that you at least get the facts right before accusing people of ignoring them. — Yerpo Eh? 10:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I would lean towards this incident not meeting the "International Notability" clause, on top of which there is not consensus on the matter. -- Librarylefty (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I'm hesitant to say this because I know it's a touchy subject and I'd rather not have an argument flare up again, but it appears the consensus is that this event should not be included. Anyone else think the same? SheaF91 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC) I agree. It's significant that after the passing of some time this event has largely passed into semi-forgotten history, especially outside the USA. Certainly nothing has happened to make it any more significant than it ever was. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed. Consensus is obviously to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Undoubtedly. — Yerpo Eh? 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Welsh devolution referendum, 2011

Extended content

Resolved Surely there will be a mention of this referendum here somewhere, it is a historical event afterall? unless there is prejudice towards the Welsh here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.223.222 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 March 2011 If it's historical, it doesn't automatically make it globally important. I suggest you educate yourself on what this page is about before making pathetic accusations about prejudice. — Yerpo Eh? 15:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, I touched a nerve. "pathetic accusations about prejudice" your a rather naive person aren't you? "I suggest you educate yourself on what this page is about" there was a time these pages were about all world events, now it is ignore some events and only record the events that are 'good stories'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.223.222 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, you touched the common sense nerve, which I still possess, unlike some people. These pages cannot be about all world events (never were) becase there are far too many. Only those that have international relevance matter, especially in recent year pages (see WP:RY). Not (for example) a local referendum that was ignored by almost 2/3 of the voters. Even a large majority of those that are directly influenced by its results didn't consider it as important. Why should we, here? — Yerpo Eh? 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, it's really not about whether or not it's a "good story" it's about if it is an event that will have lasting international consequences. Please do not make personal attacks, it is possible to disagree without being rude. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC) My last ever comment on this, call me a former long term wikipedia user. 82.11.223.222 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC) ..."a long term wikipedia user"...who doesn't have a proper user name? Wits aside, I agree that this event does not have the international notability required for inclusion, but I am rather concerned with the way you treated this case, Yerpo. You did not have to call his accusations pathetic. Such language can result in uncivil behavior. SheaF91 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC) I appologize to the anonymous contributor for being perhaps too rude, but it really insults my common sense when people come here with the goal of promoting their cause and start implying there's some hidden evil agenda against that cause when they cannot (or even to begin with, as was clear from the opening question). Is it really so hard to inform oneself a bit and get a little perspective? — Yerpo Eh? 09:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Mewn gwirionedd, byddaf i yn Wicipedia yn y Gymraeg (cyieithu ar eich ben eich hun). Do you know what people, lets forget the arguing and delete the referendum section of this page (delete this whole silly thing and leave the matter there) agree? 82.11.223.222 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Look, I said I'm sorry for being too rude. Based on the part of a previous reply that you later deleted, I have a feeling that this was actually a semantic issue. In any case, "prejudice" is a strong word and my reaction was aggressive because of that (nevertheless, I admit I shouldn't have put it that way). I agree that we should move on, but this discussion should stay for the reference to other people. — Yerpo Eh? 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Space and images

At the moment there isn't enough space to include images, mainly due to the amount of space the Other Calendars box is taking up. I made a request here that the template be made collapsible but received no response. Any other ideas to make space on the page? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If we are forced to work around that giant box, I rather prefer the way it was done in the current (as of now) version of the 2009 page. As for the content of the photos, it would be up for discussion, but I would say a picture (or even a collage, like the one on the 2009 page concerning the Gaza War) from the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests is definitely worthy of inclusion. SheaF91 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (edit: forgot to sign at first...oops)

importance so far this year warranting a photo (and of course there is not room for most of them):
1 Jane Russell
2 Anne Francis
3 John Barry
4 Pete Postlethwaite - knighted and yet i guess you know better than the queen in this matter and pick the unknighted rock star i list below at number 8
5 Sargent Shriver
6 Simon van der Meer - its kind of odd that you would say that the rock star goes ahead of the noble prize winner in physics
7 Richard Winters
8 Gerry Rafferty - a one-hit-wonder, this is his true place on the list and no where near due a picture if only 2 or three can be included currently
9 Susannah York
10 Milton Babbitt
--70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

the sad part about it is that the following person should be number one and yet does not even warrant on the list of 2011 by your current rules:

Edwin D. Kilbourne - let me see, a list of actors and rock stars, or a saver of countless lives from flu? --70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, you are overstating his importance? I agree that popular artists are overrepresented due to the fact that mass media revolves around them, but including people that only seem to be important in the USA won't solve this problem. I also agree that a picture of the Nobel prize winner in this list would be fitting, but in this particular case, it would violate fair use terms because no free pictures of him exist. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

Extended content

Since the Christchurch earthquake was excluded, this one should be, as well. It also only influenced one country and had far less serious consequences. — Yerpo Eh? 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Probably not; the tsunami seems to have affected other countries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Tsunami warning has been issued for more than 20 countries, as far as United States and countries in South and Central America. This is an international notable event but in the Christchurch earthquake, it only affected one country with no tsunami warning to any other country. According to news report, tsunami will be reaching the Russian coast, Taiwan, Philippines within 3 hours — muckysock94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC). According to news reports, more countries are expecting tsunami like Indonesia, Taiwan, Nicaragua, Mexico, Peru, US State of California, Papua New Guinea and the pacific islands are expecting tsunami.— muckysock94 (talk) Again, international notability is not the same as international importance. Tsunami warnings are routinely issued whenever such an earthquake strikes. At this point, it is unsure whether this tsunami will have any serious effect in any country other than Japan. — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC) The fact that more than 20 countries are issuing Tsunami warnings seems important. The next tsunami to strike would be in Taiwan in about 10minutes. The earthquake is also the 7th largest earthquake in the world since people started recording earthquakes. — muckysock94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC). This event is not particularly notable unless/until the death toll is greater than 1000, as per previous consensus, AFAIK. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) I tend to agree here, this even is not that notable, it will probably hit the news more because there were more cameras available to feed the media. But, as per previous events the death toll and damages, (as it stands now), does not make this event very notable. FFMG (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Looks like this might change. There are several hundred confirmed casualties already, and tens of thousands of people unaccounted for. If this goes on, I'll start to lean towards inclusion, especially if we consider the fact that this was the 7th strongest quake in the recorded history. — Yerpo Eh? 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) We shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves here, but it is looking to be a major earthquake. Even in Japan, which is prepared for large sized earthquakes, takes some damage from something as great as an 8.9 earthquake. Plus I just heard that Japan is asking for aid from other countries. SheaF91 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) People, please be patient. This is a history article, not a news article. As I posted in discussion on the Christchurch earthquake, the full impact of this event won't be known for weeks, maybe months. (They're still finding bodies in Christchurch.) We don't have to get full details into the article today. Better to be right, than rapid and wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Tsunami warning for the earthquake is now up to 50 countries and territories. Chile has upgraded the warning to alert and orders coastal evacuation. Japan PM Naoto Kan also cedes help from the US Military. Tsunami has already hit the US State of Hawaii and it now on its way to North and South America. The Tsunami also burst dams, destroying more than 1,800 homes. I think this is quite significant, don't you? Muckysock94 (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC) muckysock94 (talk) The earthquake's magnitude has been revised to 9.1, which makes it the 4th largest earthquake ever recorded. Muckysock94 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) muckysock94 (talk) No, HiLo is correct, we should wait; I also should have been somewhat less quick to follow with the argument. Muckysock94 (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) In the meantime, what are we to do with the blurb that has already been posted? SheaF91 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy

Hi. On what basis is established the notability for astronomy entries? They were recently removed from this page, but IMO they belong here. Unrelated to above, but the reason there's no space for images is because of the lack of enough entries. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, astronomy is not mentioned at WP:RY but is clearly relevant to more than three continents at a time. Should we include 2011 end times prediction as a see also link? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I would say that the question is if astronomical events in general are something we should be recording in RY articles. A solar eclipse usually makes international news, lesser events not so much. The point is that this these pages are for recording events of historical impact in a given year. There are clearly some users who feel the inclusion criteria are already too loose, but I suppose we could compare such an event to the death of a pop singer or the marriage of a prince and see if it receives the same level of attention from sources and the various WP projects. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Including entries to fill up space is not a justifiable reason for inclusion. As per the lede of WP:RY "Since so many events happen in a year, not all events will be notable enough to merit inclusion on the page. Such events may be better placed on a subpage. That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion. The event must have a demonstrated, international significance. The fact that other year articles may include events which break this set of guidelines is not a valid reason to do so for another event." Astronomical entries can be included if they are demonstrated to be of particular significance e.g.

* January 15 – The longest annular solar eclipse of the 3rd millennium occurs.

This entry, as the most significant of its type for a millenium and one which is likely to be recognised by the general public, has been considered more notable than e.g. an astronomical alignment which is unlikely to be of particular interest to non-astronomers. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed Bouazizi

This was the guy who set himself on fire, sparking the Tunisian revolution and some would say the subsequent protests, including in Egypt. We are including the Egyptian protests in the article, and he has significantly more than the 9 required foreign articles. I think the addition is certainly worth serious consideration (perhaps in future years he will be viewed similarly to Tank Man, despite the major differences in the surrounding events).

Also: the edit that was undone regarding Bouazizi's death misstated the date he died - it was January 4, not January 20. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Top Priority: Japan Earthquake

It says the Japan earthquake is 9.1 magnitude, but it is 9.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.24.48 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Christchurch Earthquake

Extended content

Since the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi are "not significant internationally", the recent earthquake in Christchurch should be removed to, there were more devastating earthquake around the world with a high magnitude and far more casualties. How has the earthquake affect the world internationally? Muckysock94 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC) sadly, agreed--S-d n r (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Agreed, a tragedy but a local one with no international impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC) There has been discussion on the inclusion of earthquakes in previous year articles. Users may like to have a look at those discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC) There were inclusion of earthquakes in the previous year article but all of the earthquakes included have at least 400-250,000 casualties. The NZ earthquake does not even have 200 deaths and it does not affect the world nor is it an international crisis (unlike the Haiti Earthquake last year). Muckysock94 (talk • contribs) I generally agree, but note that the real death toll won't be known for weeks. This isn't a news article. We can afford to wait. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I think international impact is vague. How has this: # January 24 – At least 36 people are killed and more than 100 others wounded in a bombing at Domodedovo International Airport in Moscow, Russia.[3] affected any other country compared to the earthquake? I definitely think the bombing should be included but i also think that the earthquake should as well. I can understand that you would not include last year's quake in the same location as that did not kill anyone but this is far more devastating and has required help from all over the world and also may have killed several foreigners including a group of Japanese students. For a developed nation to lose 75 people (with another 300 possibly dead) and a total population of only 4 million, thats a pretty big deal. O for Awesome (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) The bombing at Moscow Airport should be included. The "bomber" has strong links to the "international" terrorist group Al Qaeda. It might be an internal threat for Russia but because the attacker is affiliated to Al Qaeda and is a cause for concern internationally. The earthquake in CC is indeed a tragic event but there are no international impact. The japanese students are "missing" and has not been confirmed to be dead. What is the difference between 75 people from a "developed country" and 75 people from a developing country, 75 people will always be 75 people be it first world or third or 4million or a billion Muckysock94 (talk) Yes but my point is with the death toll, New Zealand has a strict building code in terms of earthquake proofing etc and to still lose 113 and have 200 still missing is a huge deal. But also, why does it need international impact rather than international notability? 02:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O for Awesome (talk • contribs) Do you have any idea how many events get international news coverage? In the age of mass media and internet? There is a whole project - Wikinews - for that, this page would get totally overwhelmed in less than a week if we started adding news stories indiscriminately. Instead, the goal of year lists is to collect the most important events on global scale within that year. For determining what those are, we have the international importance rules. May not be the most optimal set, but it's the best we can think of. Otherwise anybody can come along and say "this is important for my country and it deserves mentioning", like you did. Try to get a little perspective. If it deserves mentioning, it can have an article (that's what the notability rules refer to), but that doesn't automatically make it globally important. — Yerpo Eh? 07:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC) If you're not going to mention the Christchurch earthquake in a round up of 2011 then your inclusion criteria are seriously out of whack. There's barely anything included for February, it's hardly as though you're running out of space! Event that kills hundreds, cause a national state of emergency, and create billions of dollars of damage should be included. Fences&Windows 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC) The problem that we are trying to avoid (at least how I see it) isn't that we are running out of room; we are far from that issue, and we understand your argument that there are few events listed under February and it could use some "filling-out." The problem with that approach, however, is that if there happens to be a month in which there is a lack of really important events, then we may end up filling it out with events of less importance. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, except there seems to be an annoying tendency for people to argue for the inclusion of less-important events solely based on the fact that other events of seemingly equal importance are included, and so acting as I mentioned before would only provide fuel for their arguments. SheaF91 (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The fact this event isn't included is ludicrous and insulting to every New Zealander wiki user. It received international news, killed hundreds, cost billions, destroyed a city and its treasured landmarks, kicked off a humanitarian crisis and changed New Zealand forever. But sorry, not enough people died so it's not important enough to include on Wikipedia for 2011. This kiwi is thoroughly disgusted with the editors of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.88.203.79 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

landmark study in prevention of diabetes too small an event for wiki

• March 24 – According to a landmark study in The New England Journal of Medicine, an orally administered Takeda Pharmaceutical called pioglitazone, marketed as Actos, shows 72 percent effectiveness at the prevention of the development of type 2 diabetes in pre-diabetic subject participants. Ralph DeFronzo, M.D., study leader and professor in the School of Medicine and chief of the diabetes division at The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, stated that "It's a blockbuster study. The 72 reduction is the largest decrease in the conversion rate of pre-diabetes to diabetes that has ever been demonstrated by any intervention, be it diet, exercise or medication.."--70.162.171.210 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not particularly notable. Might belong in 2011 in science; certainly in 2011 in medicine if it existed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

José Alencar

He has well over the minimum articles but they are largely stubs and most have no citations. Even the English article was barely more than a stub when he died. He seems to have done nothing internationally notable. The consensus for Recent Year articles is that state leaders should be included unless there is a very good reason not to, regardless of foreign language articles. Should this be extended to Vice Presidents? Unlike state leaders VPs often seem to have little international involvement and seem to have in general far less international notability, which is the requirement for inclusion here. I would say exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And I would say include. This man was second in command of the fifth largest nation on earth, home to 190 million people. We've got Geraldine Ferraro listed and she never actually was VP, just a candidate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to inclusion; he held an important leadership position in one the largest countries on the planet, as noted above. Bcperson89 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Harry Coover, seeking consensus for exception and inclusion

Regarding Harry Coover. I am seeking consensus for exception and inclusion ... who has not used super glue no matter where on this planet they live?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the most cogent argument you can come up with I don't think you're going to get that exception. I'm sure there are millions of people who have never used super glue. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

so if 4.1 billion have never used it but 2.4 billion have ... it is still that 2.4 billion have!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly you have no source for any figure of the people that might have used superglue and I suspect you are grossly overestimating the figures. I'd expect less than 1% of the populations of India, China and Indonesia would have used it even in the rest of the world it would be lucky to be 10%. Secondly even if people have heard of superglue they almost certainly have no idea who Harry Coover is. Really, even if superglue is notable, Harry Coover isn't, certainly not for inclusion in this article anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, if you're asking for an exception to the established policy I think we'd like to see some actual evidence of the reasons why there should be an exemption, rather than just hyperbole and numbers pulled out of thin air. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyudmila Gurchenko

Why have her removed when she has has a fair bit more than the nine foreign articles needed? Ifore2010 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read her article, she is notable only in Russia, she has done nothing internationally notable. In fact there is no mention that she even travelled outside the Soviet Union/Russia. Her non-English articles are clones of the English one, which seems to be clone of the Russian one, or direct clones of the Russian one. Most are little more than stubs if that, and most didn't exist before her death. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

LizaMoon

March 29 – More than 1.5 million web sites around the world have been infected by the LizaMoon SQL injection attack spread by scareware since Tuesday. (USA Today), (Reuters)--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

as far as i can see this thing is growing exponentially ... so how can it be a non news event?!--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No article at LizaMoon suggests that we shouldn't list it here. And remember WP:NOTNEWS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. An item that doesn't even have an article here certainly does not belong in a recent year article. See WP:RY. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet virus/attacks are not infrequent. This one is no more notable than many others; i.e. not particularly notable at all. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

i am willing to defer for a few days ... by then the thing will be massive, and thus, the mainstream news will constantly be mentioning it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

i think the item if and when it is reincluded should read:

March 29 – More than 1.5 million web sites around the world have been infected by the LizaMoon SQL injection attack spread by scareware since Tuesday. Novice computer users should be warned that when a pop up window opens the best way to insure you are not infected is to close the window from the task manager. (USA Today), (Reuters)--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that this is an encyclopedia. It is neither a computer helpdesk, nor a news outlet. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mar Varkey Vithayathil

Undecided whether he should be included in the deaths section, Let's have a vote. Ifore2010 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I mean no to the vote. Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus, not voting. We have a guideline at WP:RY that outlines standards for inclusion on these type of articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be particularly notable, just another cardinal, which on its own is insufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Should "Judgment Day" appear under Predicted/Scheduled events?

Hey Ttonyb1, OK, I acknowledge WP:CRYSTAL, but I guess I was focusing more on the part that says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". I think the prediction itself, and the coverage of and discussion about same, are already notable. A quick search of Google News finds over 50 articles, including some very mainstream outlets: For instance:

• Irish Independent: [2]
• Houston Chronicle: [3]
• USA Today: [4]

The prediction has been notable enough to merit a very well referenced full Wikipedia article about same. Surely if there is a full Wikipedia article about some predicted event, it is notable enough to include mention under the "Predicted/Scheduled Events" section of this page?

Anyway, just my 2-cents. If you don't wanna put it back, I'll defer to your opinion. I just wanted to make my case.

Cheers, --Rnickel (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rnickel, thanks for your comments, but I don't see how a controversial prediction by someone that has predicted other dates that did not happen should be added. Like I said, <smile>if it happens, we can add it then.</smile> ttonyb (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant you the controversy and the poor track record. How about this? Presuming Camping's prediction is wrong again, I guess it all comes down to whether we see significant coverage of that, as happened when his previous prediction fell flat in 1994 (Google News archives have close to 150 articles from that year [5]). If so, would you subsequently be open to something like "May 21 – Date identified with certainty as "Judgment Day" by Family Radio president Harold Camping passes without incident"? --Rnickel (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have a problem with putting predicted events that have no basis in fact other than a single source that has been disputed. ttonyb (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Predicted events which have no basis in fact of any sort clearly violate WP:CRYSTAL. End of story. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I get a journalist friend of mine to write an article telling the world that scientists expect absolutely nothing special to happen on May 21, 2011 and October 21, 2011, can I include that in the article too. Of course Camping's prediction should NOT be included. There is no rational basis to his prediction. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I just undid another addition of this before reading this talk page. I would agree that it is not notable and certainly breaks WP:CRYSTAL. on another note, however. should this turn out to be true, The sarah connor Chronicals predicted Judgment day to be the 21st of April. perhaps they're only a month out?  :-) . actually thinking about it a bit more - that's exactly 30 days prior to the predicted day, which is the number for "completeness" cubed, meaning "not quite complete", perhaps this is god saying "Imma let you finish, but Sarah Connor Chronicles was one of the best shows..." Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Somebody better add it to the article on 1992 while we're at it. Somebody makes a prediction like this every few years. How anyone still follows them after it doesn't happen is something I will never understand. It certainly does nt belong in this article as it is a fringe theory not accepted even by the vast majority of Christians. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment – <smile>As I already said, we can add it if it really does happen.</smile> ttonyb (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this article is a historical record of events, that would seem entirely appropriate! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Epsilon data on e-mails stolen

March 31 – A data breach at one of the world's largest providers of marketing-email services, Dallas-based Epsilon, a subsidiary of Alliance Data Systems Corporation, may have enabled unauthorized people to access the names and email addresses for customers of major financial-services, retailing and other companies, (Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC, U.S. Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp., Walgreen Co., New York & Co., Kroger Co., Brookstone, McKinsey & Co., Marriott International Inc., Ritz-Carlton, and TiVo Inc.).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240992886577106.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/business/05hack.html?src=buslnl--70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added to the article. It's the largest generally known security breach to date, but that caveat makes it problematic to list in a year article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, such large-scale data breaches happen all the time. May having enabled something clearly doesn't automatically make it important enough for inclusion here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

from your own reference - January 17, 2007 TJX data breach = 94 million = largest prior breach = look at year article for 2007 = zip ... this bias to not include even the largest prior event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My point was, that such events happen all the time on this scale. If one of them is the largest by a margin, it doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. For that, some notable consequences should be demonstrated. If you find something like that, I would support inclusion of the TJX data breach in the 2007 article. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unusual. Not particularly international. Not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NN event, unless this has far-ranging consequences such as, multiple large companies declare bankruptcy, this should not be included. ttonyb (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Juliano Mer-Khamis

April 4 – Juliano Mer-Khamis, Israeli actor, director, filmmaker and political activist (b. 1958)

The above entry was removed from the "Deaths" section. This individual was an international acclaimed actor and was also widely known for his political activities. He passes the requirement of over nine foreign language articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the circumstances of his death - a peace activist shot to death by a terrorist - would of its own, I believe, justify inclusion on the 2011 page. The entry should be re-instated. Davshul (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't really all that known for his work, it would seem. All but one or two of the foreign-language articles were written after his death, and it is unfortunately not enough for the inclusion here, if the means of his death is his only claim to international notability (compare to Mohamed Bouazizi who is excluded from the 2010 list for the very same reason). Please note that to avoid subjective assessments of what is "international acclaim", we only use the presence of foreign-language articles as a criterion. Which he did not have until his death. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Minsk bombing

So because I know this is going to degenerate into a lengthy debate like just about everything that does not meet a few specific editors criteria let me explain why this is notable. Firstly, other than being the worst terrorist attack, as well as the first mass casualty terrorist attack in Belarus' history. The attack is also part of a growing geopolitical problem within the old-Soviet Sphere. This attack is the first real challenge to the Belarusian strongman Lukashenko since he assumed power in 1994, and the attack is having serious ramifications on several major events within the sphere. First of all, the continued isolation of Belarus by Europe and the United States is pushing Belarus towards Russia and there are fears that this attack will push Belarus further into the Union State with Russia as well as increase Russia's influence over Belarus. This may lead Belarus to recognize the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Secondly, this attack is seriously undermining Lukashenko, as his entire regime is based on peace and stability, and adding to the growing unrest within the Belarusian population as there are now fears of terrorism along with a collapsing economy. Finally, though this attack like just about everything else in the Slavic Spehre and Central Asia is ignored by Western media the attack has generated immense press in Russia, China many parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as it affects many regional interests such as arm shipments to the Libyan conflict and so forth. So while it may seem unimportant to us Westerners it certainly has some major impacts in other parts of the world, moreso even that the Moscow Airport bombing in January. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

does it have its own article ... no ... then probably not significant enough yet = your belief of wider implications is probably crystal ball - at least for now--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

today a mass grave in mexico article got pulled and that one, i would think, is more likely to deserve inclusion

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does have it's own article. 2011 Minsk Metro bombing. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Casualties don't determine the importance of an event, mass graves are found in Mexico all the time. This however is the first major terrorist attack in the history of Belarus. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Another terrorist bombing, l;ike dozens every year all over the world, and therefore not particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So is the January 24th incident. But I don't see people taking issue with it. This however is a degree above the Moscow Airport Bombing in the way that Belarus has never suffered a major terrorist attack on this scale, and it is also the deadliest to strike the nation. Terrorism happens in Russia all the time, infact terrorism is more frequent in the United States or England than it is in Belarus. So I appreciate the fact that you don't think it is a big deal, but that does not make it so. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove – The event is a big deal to whoever it touches; however, it doe not meet the WP:RY criteria for inclusion. I do not see this as an event with international consequences. ttonyb (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuzwa, can you please, please read the consensus on what kind of events belong here before writing kilobytes and kilobytes of explaining what does this attack mean to Belarus and Belarussians? I can understand that you feel that it is a big deal for Belarus, but that does not make it a big deal for the world. So yes, remove unless global significance is demonstrated. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony WP:RY is vague, please tell me exactly which line this article fails. Yerpo I have read WP:RY, it does not require me to get consensus before adding an event. If you want to do so then why don't you lock the article. Also consensus has only now begun to form, so instead of constantly edit warring with me why don't editors AGF, and actually make a legitimatie conensus before and then remove the article. Instead of one editor assuming everyone will think it is non-notable and taking it upon himself to be the vigilante. Thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Response – Kuzwa, you asked what the article fails in WP:RY. Per WP:RY, "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion. The event must have a demonstrated, international significance." Regardless of your explanation, the event does not have "international significance." ttonyb (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also Yerpo I've made my case above, so if you don't think it demonstrates global significance than please feel free to discuss further. Significance is a very loose term and can mean different things to a lot of people. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't make a very convincing case, in our opinion. Most of your "case" was your personal anaylsis of the event's possible future consequences (with a couple of really far-fetched parts, to be honest). What is required is clearly explained in the intro: "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion. The event must have a demonstrated, international significance." So please start providing citations that confirm this event's international significance before going further with your assumptions about other editors. It will be much more productive. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, feel free to state that instead of throwing WP:RY in my face. I've seen this guideline before, and frankly its useless. First of all the "deadliest" terrorist attack in Belarus therefore means it must be significant in some way, to the country. Similar to how the October Crisis which is found in 1970 is significant in Canada but probably not beyond that. Secondly, what is international significance? I don't see anything particularly explaining this concept in RY in further detail, I would LOVE to know what wikipedia considers international significance, I would assume the fact it made the press in another nation thus must mean it has "international" significance. This goes beyond that considering there are multiple nations including the United Kingdon, Israel and Russia sending teams to aid in the investigation of the attack. Here are some international sources: Canada, China, Israel, Russia and so forth. Also I find it ridiculous that you are making assumptions about me making assumptions. I am actually perceiving... --Kuzwa (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, a little less hostility from you would help this debate very much. Secondly, making press in another nation is far from international significance - almost any event gets mentioned in other countries' media in these days of instant communication, including a fashion model picking her nose in public. International significance is more than that, as you can probably imagine. The event should influence other nations in some significant way (which doesn't include speculation about the future). It's true that this is not very well defined, but a reliable foreign source explaining how the event influenced this foreign nation should be a good start (again, without speculation). If influence becomes clear only later, it can of course still be added. WP:RY only covers recent years, so dragging 1970 into this is nothing but a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, being less condescending on your behalf would also help. Secondly, sorry for my air of hostility but I am increasingly frusterated trying to contribute to year articles when I feel as if editors are taking it upon themselves to decide there is consensus against an article and removing it, without actually conducting a debate so that there is consensus, or, worse are using their own judgement as if that is somehow a good replacement for general consensus. Now back to the issue - I have some articles about geopolitical significance of the event on other countries, one of them is a blog of a Belarusian organization which I am not sure (?) if it would be a legitimite citation, but does address the bombing's impacts on nations like Georgia and Russia and the breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. So I'm not quite sure how to weigh in geopolitical impact as it does not really seem material to some people, but it seems significant to me. Finally WP:RY is a bit silly in that it only covers the most recent 3 years, recent I would think would go longer back than that considering there is a major difference between actual significance of events we find in 1980's articles and events we find in the RY ones... --Kuzwa (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting RY slightly, it does not only apply to the most recent three years, those are just examples. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing about WP:RY is, that it was only accepted in 2008 (IIRC); older year articles are full of stuff that is only very narrowly important and still need to be cleaned. But those suffer less from the recent news bias, which is why the guideline chiefly concerns the last couple of years. As for this bombing, blogs and such self-published sources are unfortunately not considered reliable around here, so I'm afraid it is insufficient. As I said, the impact has to be real (= not expressed as guessing about the future turn of events) and recognized by the media of foreign nation(s) it influences. The editor that first removed your entry probably couldn't find something like that and simply asserted the consensus about what belongs (or doesn't belong) here. That made supporting your notability claims your responsibility. Until then... — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove: it is easier to just vote and i am sorry but i get stuff removed all the time but i just assume that those who follow this article have experience at what should be excluded (and again it looks to be that "currently" your assumtions are just crystal ball - at a latter date, with more subsequent events the item might get included but for now is not warranted--70.162.171.210 (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Worldwide electronics shortage"

Does this deserve to be included with the Japan earthquake? Isn't it too soon to claim such an important event? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It does sound rather vague, but as far as I read the sources, the impact is direct and real. Whether it deserves mention here or not is another question. Let's see, a factory or two shut down (as of now) and concerned words from industry leaders? Most likely not. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"* March 11 - April 13 – Tokyo Electric Power Co. initiates a policy of rolling electricity blackouts leading to Japanese industry shutdowns and thereby world-wide electronics part shortages.

• Toyota closes several plants in Europe for part of April and May due to parts shortages caused by the power outages associated with the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. (AP via Forbes)

"--70.162.171.210 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

...and Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is important enough to warrant a separate entry... — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What would make it important enough for you? HiLo48 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Toyota part? Probably nothing short of their turning evil and gaining world domination. The first part (about the rolling blackouts) is starting to look suitable, though. I overlooked it when I wrote the first reply. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This still doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable, yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The shortage does seem to impact many large companies in developed countries worldwide. Now I'm curious as well, what would make this notable enough? — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#Economic Impact does not mention that there has been a major global impact from this, yet. A few plants closing and a few shortages aren't particulalry major, and there are only predictions that this might escalate and become major, not that it already is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Japan's industrial output declined by a record level of 15.3% in March due to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. (BBC News)
• Panasonic Corporation will announce cuts to 40,000 jobs according to reports. (Reuters)--70.162.171.210 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Looks like we need to do this again. The previous discussion was not as conclusive for exclusion as I recalled. A recent edit summary claimed that this event is of international interest. I would point out that international interest = newsworthiness, not notability. Many events can be of "interest" without being the slightest bit notable. A recent news item from the US reported that 60% of those surveyed didn't think it was important. This event does not affect any country other than the UK in anyway. Just because it replaces the latest episode of American Idol or Dancing with the "Stars" also doesn't make it sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If 40% of Americans think it's important, that's an awful lot of people with no direct reason to have an interest. William is the future King of 16 independent countries, so this event makes Kate the future Queen of those same countries. The event is beginning to receive saturation coverage on commercial TV in Australia. As someone who would love to see my country become a republic, I hate to say this, but this event has become both notable, important and of interest to hundreds of millions of people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A 60% importance rating does not equal a 40% contrary analysis. One must always add in the "don't knows" and the "refuse to comments". ttonyb (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that point, but you must accept that the number would be non-zero, probably still many millions, And you failed to address the rest of my comment. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

...and I do accept the numbers are high; however, popularity is not the same as notability.

• Exclude – pageantry does not insure international relevance. Let's not confuse popularity with international notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I addressed the international aspect above, and you ignored it. When people debating an issue here take such a bad approach, it only makes me more determined to repeat and emphasise my point. These folks are the future King and Queen of 16 independent nations. (And that does not count England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as separate entities.) If 16 nations isn't international, what is? HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Here is my take on the "Three-continent rule" and the international aspects of the marriage. The "Three-continent rule" is a minimum and to be honest, I am not sure there is anything that they as newlyweds they will do that is internationally significant. I keep going back to popularity vs. notability. With that said, the consensus will probably be achieved and I will acquiesce to the addition when this occurs. Good luck and my best to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me more about the "Three-continent rule" :-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You can read it here, but it is not a 'rule' as such, but rather a guideline. Please read about the consensus guideline as well. FFMG (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Include – While I agree that this event is not really an earth shattering event we cannot get away from the fact that it is getting an awful lot of publicity, my country is showing the wedding live and I suspect many other countries are doing the same. And he is the future King of England, (and a couple of commonwealth countries). I would include it simply because it is an event that is generating a lot of interest and it does not happen every day. In years to come people might be interested to know that he got married in 2011. FFMG (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. This is clearly a notable and historical event with international attention and should be included.Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously notable and a sad comment on the stubborn misdirected attempts here on wiki to demonstrate article integrity to the exclusion of all else – I will start with the most important problem first - one of the most important lessons I have learned in life is "would you let someone die just to prove a point" = proves the "stubborn misdirected attempts here on wiki to demonstrate article integrity to the exclusion of all else" portion of my bold-type sentence. The other problem I will now present - another of the most important lessons I have learned in life is "who in the last century is the greatest 'teacher'"?; the answer is not immediately obvious ... the answer is Elvis. Like it or not he had the ability to gather together huge populations who would listen and debate his every word. This second lesson proves the first part of my openning sentence - "Obviously notable (enough for article inclusion)" ... but it will take further explanation to prove how the "notablity" is implied. You will admit that somewhere between 500 million and 2 billion people will watch something more than a soundbite of this wedding activity? Therefore, you must further admit that you have no idea of the consequences of this same wedding activity, and most importantly, that those consequences, although crystal ball, are extremely highly probable. I will give an example to prove how your misguided attempts are so wrong with respect to "notablily" - the international security endevours alone for this event will be more than even for a NFL superbowl, since the event only occurs once in 30 years. I could go on to many more obvious ways that this event is "notable" but hopefully I have openned your eyes to the "currently crystal ball" and yet you cannot see the massive ramifications that "are probable" with this event--70.162.171.210 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no "massive ramifications" from this event! William will either become king or not, regardless of whether he is married or who he is married to. Even if he one day has children there are still no massive ramifications. The future of the monarchy (the only possible massive ramification on this subject) will not come down to whether William gets married or not, it will merely determine the line of succession. This marriage will make no difference to the government or sovereignty of the UK, let alone any other country. In the UK this event will cause unusual disruption, which makes it notable apart from anything else. OUtside the UK some people will watch it on tv but it will hardly cause any significant disruption to any country's daily routine. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

At a personal level I feel pretty much the same as DerbyCountyinNZ regarding this event, but it's obvious that it's having a big cultural impact here in Australia. All tabloid media - print, radio, TV - are beginning to give it saturation coverage. People I normally regard as rational beings are talking about it in the street. I wish it was otherwise, and I cannot explain it, but it's a BIG event to millions of people here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Compare and contrast - is the wedding for Charles and Diana listed? If that is, then this should be listed as well. 89.243.113.34 (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is completely irrelevant. Not only does WP:Other stuff exists apply, but 1981 is outside the scope of WP:RY which applies in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Against –4
ApprenticeFan
ttonyb
DerbyCountyinNZ
Jatkins
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For –7
HiLo48
SheaF91
FFMG
Deb
Beeblebrox
Wjfox2005
70.162.171.210
--70.162.171.210 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You should be counting me as a For vote. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

as per your last statement now current--70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3 days still vote is 6 to 3--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly looks like a win for media hype and 5 second attention spans over actual importance! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in like this... but shouldn't this be determined not by consensus but by policy? I personally don't see any major impact... if and then when William might become King, he'd be a constitutional monarch, so the number of nations he'd be the monarch of doesn't seem relevant. The guidelines for these pages have gotten substantially stricter over the past year or so, to the point that an event must be unquestionably globally important; this does not seem to meet that test. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Network shuts down

April 21 – The PlayStation Network shuts down due to an intrusion of an unnamed group of hackers. 77 Million PSN users are frustrated because they cannot access online aspects of games, and it is feared that the hackers have users' credit card and personal information. Sony confirms that they don't know when it will be back online. This the largest breach of personal information in history.
the event already demonstrate notabily by being the largest and by world-wide denial of 10's of millions from their hobby. If someone came to your house and locked the door to your garage and you could no longer get into it to practice your hobby of carpentry building of tables, what would be the difference?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A NN event that fails to meet the criteria in WP:RY. ttonyb (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Three-continent rule - check
New events added must receive independent news reporting from three different continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed.

Sports and other contests - check
Sporting events which are either annual or are not international (more than one continent) do not belong on the main year page, but on the year in sports page (e.g. 2009 in sports). Valid sporting events may include:
1.World Cup
2.Olympics
3.Terrorist attack at a sporting event or other such major disaster

Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes - check

Disasters of a global or near-global significance may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article. Likewise, assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated. Events such as suicide-murders, kidnappings, school shootings, etc. do not necessarily qualify unless especially significant. --70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

this event is not the latest game release and therefore has nothing to do with 2011 in video gaming, as suggested by Favonian in the change log--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is anything but the largest data breach in history - see the "Epsilon data on e-mails stolen" discussion above. Therefore, it's nothing that special and probably won't have demonstrable long-term consequences (at least not outside Sony). As for the hobbyist part... of course I wouldn't like it if someone came to my house and locked the door to my garage, but I sure as hell wouldn't claim it to be one of the most important events of the year. Perspective is the key. This event is perfect for 2011 in video gaming, which, if you actually bother to read the subtitles, doesn't only list new releases. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

this is far more serious than that event - in that event were passwords stolen? no; in that event were credit card numbers stolen? no; in that event can any demonstrative effect be shown like denial of users hobby? no--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In this event were passwords stolen? Sony says they may have been. In this event were credit card numbers stolen? Sony says they were encrypted, so no. Do you see where this leads? The "denial of user's hobby" argument is a tad far-fetched as well - people can still play single-player modes or use other gaming platforms, it's not like something life-shattering for them (and not for you, either, I hope). And surely not significant enough for inclusion here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Non notable. Yet another virus/computer attack of minority interest. Belongs in 2011 in video gaming (that article does not have to be merely a list of releases, it could/should be expanded to include events of this nature). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

NN event, companies are hacked all the time, not sure why this one made the headlines. Probably because sony playstation is a bit more populare that others. FFMG (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is being described in the press as the biggest hack ever, 77,000,000 people had their information stolen and a major web service has been down for a week. Not positive that it belongs in this article but it is not "just another hack." Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The press obviously doesn't have a clue. See the discussion I linked to above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

US Tornado outbreak

Worthy for inclusion or another US centric event? Ifore2010 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

US Centric event. ttonyb (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no international impact. Foreign workers are not rushing in to assist with cleanup, not aware of any foreign heads of state commenting on it. Not fun for those involved I'm sure having been through a few tornadoes myself but not internationally relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

NN sadly enough--70.162.171.210 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tornado Quotes:

"The deadliest tornado in world history was the Daultipur-Salturia Tornado in Bangladesh on April 26, 1989, which killed approximately 1300 people."

and

"The most extreme tornado in recorded history was the Tri-State Tornado, which roared through parts of Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana on March 18, 1925. It was likely an F5, though tornadoes were not ranked on any scale in that era. It holds records for longest path length (219 miles, 352 km), longest duration (about 3.5 hours), and fastest forward speed for a significant tornado (73 mph, 117 km/h) anywhere on Earth. In addition, it is the deadliest single tornado in United States history (695 dead)."

Thus, this current event is NN as world's biggest, nor even as United States biggest.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ernesto Sabato

Does this communist propaganda writer really met all the requirements as to number of articles - I would hate to include this guy if it is not warranted ... to think this guy could have been a lifelong physicist and done good works, but instead, spent his life passing out propaganda panphlets and will get written up in the yearly article.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of his life choices is entirely irrelevant as regards inclusion in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

a curious statement, since the root of my question was did he meet the minimum requirement for inclusion.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He so far exceeds the requirements for inclusion that even suggesting he doesn't is a waste of space on this talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

again a curious statement, since I looked and I thought it was a lot closer to being questionable, but no matter since again its a tragedy as I have said before that those who truely warrant to be on such a "best of this world list" (such as this guy, Edwin D. Kilbourne) dont even rate; and yet, the guy you believe is "so far exceeding" probably should not even be allowed to be the neighborhood dog catcher.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that there was some sort of value judgement attached to being listed here. These people aren't the "best of the best" just the most notable persons who have died recently. If Adolf Hitler had died this year we would list him too. If a really nice, virginal nun who loved everyone and gave cookies to poor children and saved starving dogs died without being well know we would not list her despite being a fine human being. Morality and virtue are not considered as we cannot allow what is listed here to be based on personal opinions but rather on quantifiable facts. That's why we have a guideline to assist us in determining who to list. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Beatification of Pope John Paul II

If the wedding of a future figurehead of a constitutional monarchy with no real power is a notable event on a global scale, surely The beatification of a man who was the spiritual leader of millions if not billions of Catholics around the world for 27 years is a notable event. Catholics from around the world converged on Rome for this morning's ceremony and it has been reported on throughout the world, as is easily evidenced by even a cursory Google search. See Beatification and canonisation of Pope John Paul II for more detail. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The wedding wasn't notable, the reason it has been included is due to the number of people watched it (a poor reason IMO). Are any beatifications notable enough for inclusion? If they aren't notable generally then why should this one in particular be included? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because this is not just another beatification. Even his detractors acknowledged John Paul as an exceptional Pope. His reign was the second longest in the history of the church, he beatified and canonized more persons than all other Popes for the last 500 years combined, he is credited with hastening the fall of the Soviet Union, and is the first Pope in a thousand years to be referred to as "The Great" after his death. 87 national delegations, including 22 heads of state, attended the ceremony along with hundreds of thousands of people, not on TV but in person. Catholics live in pretty much every nation on earth, and have been lobbying Rome to canonize John Paul since practically the day he died. This is a historical event that will be remembered for a very long time and should be recorded on this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While I was writing the above it was added again. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have already reverted twice, I suggest you let it stand for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of 3RR. It's a pity the single issue user who added this again despite my advice to discuss it here failed to do so, as the status quo should remain until a disputed edit is resolved. As for "This is a historical event that will be remembered for a very long time" that's WP:CRYSTAL if ever I saw it. And this is merely a beatification, not a sanctification, which would obviously be more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did warn them on their talk page about edit warring and I would be interested to hear what other users have to say about this issue. I don't think it is crystal balling, this was a widely anticipated event in this process, and is happening well ahead of the usual schedule at the urging of the faithful and large factions within the church hierarchy, including the current Pope. There are some events wherein we know right when they are happening that they have historical importance. The release of Nelson Mandela from prison, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc. Of course there was no Wikipedia when those events happened but we didn't need Wikipedia to tell us we were witnessing history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

not saint = NN, unless the number of popes ever beatified is a very small number of the whole number of popes to exist - if only 7 popes of say 99 have been beatfied then yes notable

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is John XXIII's beautification mentioned in its respective Year article? Whatabout the other current Blessed popes? If not, then John Paul II's beautification being included here, would smack of WP:RECENTISM. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you re-read my comments above I have already mentioned numerous reasons why this is different. John Paul is only the fourth in all of history and the first Pope in a thousand years to have "the Great" appended to his name after his death. The sainthood process has been accelerated, it should just be getting started now according to the traditional way of proceeding which mandates that the candidate should be dead for five years before the first stage occurs, instead they are now in the final stage. 22 heads of state and delegations from 87 nations attended the ceremony, so the "three continent rule" is more than satisfied. I'm not sure what else you all would like to see to convince you. That's a hell of a lot more attention than some of the other events listed in this article got, it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't recall this level of world attention to Estonia joining the Euruzone or the death of Nat Lofthouse, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama does not read WP

May 1 – U.S. President Barack Obama declares in a media statement that Osama bin Laden, the founder and leader of the militant Islamist group Al-Qaeda, has been killed (on this page).

• He did not read the same Wikipedia page which states that OBL died on the 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.241.75 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was May 1 in Washington at the moment he was killed, so his death was announced by Obama on that day. However, the difference in time zones means that it was already May 2 in Pakistan; Wikipedia uses local time for determining the time of events (see WP:TIMEZONE) which usually works fine, but in this case, the effect is a bit strange. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and okay, the text is sound with WP guidelines (where births and deaths are devoid of places). 193.56.241.75 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

local is clearly the best policy since all media reports them as such, otherwise, it would be a monumental task to try and ascertain if each death may have occured across the timelines and correct them--70.162.171.210 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen

A number of people have been trying to add Elisabeth Sladen to the deaths section. Although the number of project articles now meets the criteria in WP:RY, most are stubs that were added subsequent to her death. Any comments about adding to 2011? ttonyb (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think she should be on the page. I think this because doctor who is very famous and she is the most famous companion of the doctor. WILLROCKS10 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think she should be listed, most of the articles are stubs. I also don't think we should have her picture either. Maybe others have an opinion? FFMG (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

She had just 4 non-English articles, all clones of the English one, when she died. This does not indicate that she was sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, not notable enough. The fame of Dr. Who in English-speaking countries doesn't automatically give worldwide fame to individuals involved with it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, not sufficiently notable. I'm not sure that the implied modification of WP:RY that the other-language articles must have existed at her death had consensus, but I lean against inclusion even if not discouraged by WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think she should be included due to her prominence on an international TV series, as well as being someone who was known to many generations over a long period of time. 89.243.113.34 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

NN--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it's clear that her death should be noted. She was a public figure and an actress of international recognition. She appeared for four years in an international, long-running TV series and her contribution to it is well noted. Also, her birth is noted in the 1946 section, so why shouldn't her death be noted in 2011. There's no need for a picture, but I think her death deserves to be shown. - Bannerguy 15:01, 28 April (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannerguy (talk • contribs)

I think the simple fact people keep adding her warrents her mention on this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.21.176 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the simple fact is that many users are unaware of the guidelines for inclusion at WP:RY and despite the fact that there is a note specifically mentioning that she should not be added users persist in ignoring this and adding her anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion in a recent year article is higher than for a year article of many years ago. Hence Sladen's birth qualifies for inclusion on 1946, but her death does not qualify for inclusion on 2011. Her death is on 2011 in the United Kingdom. 188.29.156.101 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think any notable famous people should be noted. It's not fair that when I read down the list of people, I barely know any of them, however I know Sladen.

I think she should be included, lots of people were upset by her death, and she's an amazing actress, plus one of the Doctor's most recognizable companions

Arthur Laurents

Arthur Laurents: i must have missed something ... have you looked at the tremendous list of famous films this guy was the screenwriter for? --70.162.171.210 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He doesn not meet WP:RY minimum criteria. Being associated with notable movies does not make Arthur Laurents notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Awards, nominations and honors

A new award has been established in 2010, The Laurents/Hatcher Foundation Award. This will be awarded annually "for an un-produced, full-length play of social relevance by an emerging American playwright." The Laurents/Hatcher Foundation will give $50,000 to the writer with a grant of $100,000 towards production costs at a nonprofit theatre. The first award will be given in 2011.

Theatre

• 1958 Tony Award for Best Musical (West Side Story, nominee)
• 1960 Tony Award for Best Musical (Gypsy, nominee)
• 1968 Tony Award for Best Musical (Hallelujah, Baby!, winner)
• 1975 Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Director of a Musical (Gypsy, winner)
• 1975 Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical (Gypsy, nominee)
• 1984 Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical (La Cage aux Folles, winner)
• 2008 Tony Award for Best Direction of a Musical (Gypsy, nominee)

Film

• Academy Award for Best Picture (The Turning Point, nominee)
• Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (The Turning Point, nominee)
• Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Motion Picture Screenplay (Rope, nominee)
• Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay (The Turning Point, nominee)
• Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay (The Way We Were, nominee; The Turning Point, winner)
• National Board of Review Award for Career Achievement (winner)

did you even read this?--70.162.171.210 (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Only one of those is a major award directly attributable to Laurents: Academy Award nominee for best screenplay for the Turning Point (I suppose you could count the Golden Globe nomination for the same film as 'major'). Still doesn't seem enough to include him (although adjmittedly he is no less notable than some others, but I'd rather seem them removed than another included). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the non-English articles are mostly stubs or clones of the English one, which suggests not particularly significant international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry Cooper

He only had seven foreign articles at the time of his death and was never a world champion despite his popularity, worthy anyway? 86.174.193.75 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

More worthy than some other boxers/sportspeople/quasi-sports-entertainment types, but I would be hypocritical if I voted to include. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

from what i remember faught ali did not beat ali - right on the line for me - looked it over mayber closer to include--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cooper is notable in the UK, and hence is on 2011 in the United Kingdom, but I don't see significant international notability for him. 188.29.19.138 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth cross dates

finished adding birth cross dates for 2011 deaths thru Seve Ballesteros May 7 --70.162.171.210 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Claude Choules

According to recent years (RY) *any* person can be listed as "notable" if, and only if "[the individual in question has] at least ten languages". Claude Choules has 13 interwiki links (12 in diferent languages), which is enough notability to his inclusion. Regardless of his activitis, he passes RY Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. "This is a minimum requirement for unexplained inclusion"; "Any entry may be contested by any editor"; "many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles.". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for context, where was the discussion you referenced in your edit summaries? I'm not sure it makes much sense to have a blanket prohibition on certain types of entries. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, here, here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ, I have fixed the 3rd link above as it did not jump to the appropriate section for Millvina_Dean (due to a prior re-name at that location, apparently). I believe the one other link you wanted to share was this more-interesting discussion. Incidentally, I don't follow Year articles, but I see that Deaths take only one part of the entire article (Events, scheduled events, and major religious holidays being 3 other parts). I see various names included in the 2011 Deaths such as a British footballer or a French actress, so I want to understand what the difference is between the 2011 Deaths in this article as opposed to the dedicated Deaths in 2011 article. That way, I can better understand why -- based on past discussions you have linked -- you appear to vehemently defend against any oldest person of the world or last suriving person of a disaster like Titanic (or major world event such as WWI as in Claude Choules). In my humble opinion, they can be notable JUST for that one event alone. If the issue is "space" by end of year, whether literally or visually, then we might as well remove the Deaths area completely from this "2011" article & just provide the redirect saying, "Main article: Deaths in 2011" in place? Thoughts? CalvinTy 12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in 2011 has no criteria for inclusion other than the deceased person has a wiki article. The guidelines at WP:RY were established so that only those of international and historical importance be included (this comes under the general remit that not everything or everyone can or should be included in (particularly) Recent Year articles). The minimum criteria is that the person have 9 non-English articles. This is not perfect as it is possible that the existence or non-existence of such articles does not actually reflect genuine notability but varying degrees of recentism. As always inclusion or exclusion can be overridden by consensus (again this does not necessarily reflect genuine notability and can be prone to single issue block voting). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links. It seems these were three separate conversations from 2009. I don't believe I see any actual policy decision that specifies "last living" persons are specifically excluded, and your own remarks seem to reflect that sentiment as well, so I don't think it's fair to say Choules automatically fails the inclusion criteria. (and of course consensus can change) I would tend to agree on the "world's oldest person" as that is a designation that changes frequently, but my take on this is that it is a different situation entirely. As of two days ago there is not a single person alive on earth who saw combat in WWI. That, more than Choules himself, is what is notable about his death. There will never be a new first hand account of what was called "The Great War." There will never be another speech by or interview with a combatant. They will no longer be represented at veteran's events. An era passed away with Choules' death, never to return. That is what is especially noteworthy about his passing. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Being the last living survivor of something doesn't make a person internationally notable. There is always a last survivor, and they need not have done anything special. Longevity is largely about lifestyle and genes. Choules didn't play an especially important military role; the same goes for Henry Allingham and Harry Patch, which is why they were excluded. Millvina Dean didn't have a notable career, hence she was excluded. If we included last living survivors of all kinds of things there would be dozens of them every year, such as the last survivor of a mine disaster in China in 1938 or of a shipwrecked overloaded boat of illegal immigrants in 1946. To be internationally notable enough to be included, a person usually has to have had an internationally important career. 188.29.19.138 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that point. I actually see this as something more suited for the "events" section than the "deaths" section. As I mentioned above it is not so much Choules himself as what his death represents. I don't think anyone would argue that WWI was not an internationally notable event, and with Choules' death the last eyewitness to the horrors of that time is gone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to get the facts right... I'm pretty certain that he wasn't the last person alive to have witnessed the WW I, merely the last to have fought in it. You don't have to be a combatant to experience horrors of war first-hand, although it probably is a somewhat different experience. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk

Is his conviction really notable, or just News? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

laughable that you would even attempt to say that someone convicted on 28,000 murders is not notable - i worry if you are an anti-semite--70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

70.162.171.210, please read WP:UNCIVIL and unless you have evidence of such ugliness, please do not make such attacks toward others. ttonyb (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

just to be certain bin laudin = 3000, nazi = 28,000, and bin laudin got listed in wiki year article--70.162.171.210 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What is bin laudin? Just to be certain, John Demjanjuk will certainly be eligible for inclusion when he dies, but this conviction is a relatively minor event. Please stop muddying the issue by equating his crimes with this trial. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden was head of Al-Qaeda, who killed many thousands of people, far more than 3,000. In any case, Bin Laden is included beacuse of his death. Demjanjuk wasn't the head of the Nazi Party (or a division of it), so the two aren't really comparable. Demjanjuk himself is internationally notable enough for his death to be included in the Year article of the year he dies in. His conviction isn't a major international event, although it is worthy of inclusion on 2011 in Germany. Is there any reason not to move the conviction from this world article to that country specific one? 109.249.202.67 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

more preposterous statements ... essentially bin laudin is noted cause he was found not because he was dead ... your arguement is rediculus on its face - essentially you are saying if he had only been captured it that event would not be in the is article on May 2 which everyone here knows is not true ... further, to say that the conviction, his victums and all jewry have been crying out for 60 years, is somehow not notable till his death is more rubbish - essentially you have dismissed millions of jews grief as if the guy was some 3-time serial killer - shame on you--70.162.171.210 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to make up my own mind on this matter, but I can assure you that rudely suggesting other editors are racist will never assist your argument. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is really notable, he was not convicted of murdering 28,000, but rather the lesser charge of been accessory to their death and got 5 years for it, (3 years suspended). Even Israel itself overturned a earlier conviction.

If we keep that entry we need to replace the "...convicted by a German court of killing over 28,000 Jews in Nazi Germany..." because that's just not what happened. FFMG (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

edited per discussion--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no 'per discussion', I was just giving my opinion, _if_ we kept the entry, we need to re-word it. I still think it is not notable and should not be included. FFMG (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So far it looks like 1 for inclusion, 3 for exclusion and 1 no vote. Sufficient? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his conviction is notable, either, but he wasn't convicted or accused of "killing over 28,000..." or of "accessory killing over 28,000...", but of "accessory to murder in killing over 28,000...." I've corrected the wording, although I also don't think it notable enough for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone feels like making more racist remarks, I'm Jewish, and I considered there to be insufficient evidence of identity even for exclusion from the United States. All we (the US government) had is eye-witness testimony of tortured prisoners (many of whom never actually saw him, according to their testimony), and Nazi records of a similarly nicknamed person working as a prison guard. In other words, a multitude of kangaroo courts. The conviction might be notable for that reason, but that would involve different details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week and it looks like the consensus is to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)