Talk:Deaths in 2004

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Years

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Early text

could someone give a source for larry browns alledged death?

take your pick --fvw * 03:41, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

thanks, i used google instead of using google news there seems to be only one article, from nytimes though

this better? --fvw * 03:46, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

I heard that Jeff Hardy, the WWE wrestler died of a heroine od. Is this true?

Bernie Little died April 26th. He's not listed here. Here's an article about this giant in the world of American Motorsports: http://www.formulaoneprop.com/news/030426.htm

"Recent" is ever-changing term. In a few months, these will not be recent. You should consider moving the contents to their respective months. --Jzcool

I agree. --Daniel C. Boyer

Of course once these are no longer recent deaths, these tidbits of information should be moved to the respective month pages. In the meantime, this is one of our most popular pages, and also just adding information here serves as a cue for people who know something about the people to add to their pages.

I would define "recent" based on the size of the page, I think. I think that this page will be unweildy once it gets to twice the size it is now, and so I'd say that a death is recent so long as it is within the last two years or so.

Again, this is one of our most popular pages, we should not delete it. --Jimbo Wales

I don't think the question is whether or not we should delete this page, rather trim off the older content. At this writing, we have entries back to September, 2001. Perhaps what should be done is once a month all deaths more than 12 months past should be moved to the proper date entry, & then deleted.

Any objections? -- llywrch 04:07 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed that these should be archived, and then removed from the Recent deaths page. My suggestion would be to move deaths from 2001 and 2002 to pages titled 2001 in memoriam and 2002 in memoriam respectively, and then linked to off of the 2001 and 2002 pages in the top right box. -- RobLa 21:32 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. -- Minesweeper 01:32 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Is Kid Rock really dead - I can't find any reference to it? Verloren

No. or at least, not according to (http://www.kidrock.com/home.php). Or mtv.com, which is running an interview with hum. Joe C, his dimunitive sidekick died in 2000, though.

What is the convention for death dates: do you take the date at the place where they died or do you take server time, or do you take UTC? AxelBoldt

I use the day that was listed in the obituary in the newspaper. -- Zoe

I use the date stated by whatever news source I find the information in -- written news often states what date it was where the person was, and I use this date. --maveric149

According to dictionary.com:

ce·leb·ri·ty A famous person.

A person of distinction or renown

a widely known person

Or, in the formulation of historian Daniel J. Boorstin, "A celebrity is a person who is well-known for his well-knownness." Boorstin also said, "The hero was a big man; the celebrity is a big name."

I'd say, for example, most politicians, while famous, aren't celebrities, or if they are, it's for another reason. (Pierre Trudeau to the contrary notwithstanding.)

General Galtieri appears on this page, which bothers me. Do murderous fascist dictators really count as "celebrities"? Could we perhaps change the title of the page to simply "Recent deaths"? --GrahamN 23:18 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

"Recent notable deaths" (or "notable recent deaths") might be a tad better (to avoid people listing their cat), but yes, I think a rename to get rid of the C-word is a good idea. --Camembert 23:34 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "notable" is necessary. You say "to avoid people listing their cat", but we don't feel the need to say "Notable ongoing events", to prevent people describing the progress of their cat's course of de-worming treatment, or "Notable historical anniversaries", to prevent people giving the anniversary of them buying their first cat. If a thing is not notable, what would it be doing in an encyclopaedia? --GrahamN 01:30 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

You're right. "Recent deaths" is fine. --Camembert

On "Uzi submachine gun" Uzi Gal is named Uziel Gal, which one is the correct one? -- JeLuF

His obituary in the Los Angeles Times called him Uzi, in the headline and in the first paragraph. -- Zoe

Guardian (UK paper) obit had Uziel throughout. --AW

This may be pedantry, but ... shouldn't this page be at List of recent celebrity deaths? — Toby 01:58 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Anyone think we should move all of the 2002 deaths to the 2002 article? -- Zoe

No. That would be a bad idea. Each month's worth of deaths should be moved to the corresponding month of 2002 article. The list on the 2002 page should be kept relatively short. --mav

I've just had a go at starting to format this page differently (I'll do the whole page later if there are no protests). I'm sure the bullet points are better, but not so sure about the way I've done the year/month headers (possibly each heading should have month and year given rather than how it is now). I'm also not sure if it would be better to put a hyphen twixt date and name, as on the individual year pages. Comments welcomed. --Camembert

Anyhow, I've changed it now. --Camembert 19:50 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

Maria Felix is listed there under two different dates. We need to correct that.

Antonio Bad Boy Martin

- Ok, corrected.

Perhaps what should be done is once a month all deaths more than 12 months past should be moved to the proper date entry, & then deleted. Any objections? -- llywrch 04:07 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

If you mean by "date entry" the [month YEAR] pages then I agree. But 2001, 2002 would become ridiculously huge if all these entries were transfered there. That is why the [Month YEAR] pages are a good place to archive this stuff. --mav

While I admit you have a point, Mav, I did a check of the deaths in this article & compared them to the deaths under 2001 & 2002, & found there was a fair bit of overlap already.

For 2001, the first column is the name of the month, the second the number of names, & the third how many of these names would be added to the 2001 article:

October	2	2
November	6	5
December	3	3

For 2002, the first column is the name of the month, the second the number of names, & the third how many of these names would be added to the 2002 article:

January	10	4
February	9	3
March	6	3
April	13	11

Looking at this, the bloat would actually be minimal -- a fact that surprised me. There is a fair bit of duplication.

However, comparing the names between the two lists shows a lack of -- to risk the NPOV & undoubtedly annoy some people -- perspective. Assuming that the year article always has the more prominent or significant name, I found that it sometimes omits names, while including minor celebrities, obscure athletes, etc, while the other list has the significant names. And then there is the issue of duplication.

In short, we need to decide which list includes the more important individuals, & to which list we relegate the less important. It doesn't have to be one of subjective judgement: why not state any death notice that links to a person who does not have an article on Wikipedia is kept in the [month YEAR] page? -- llywrch 03:34 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Full stop

It seems half the entries have a period (.) at the end, and the other half don't. Which should it be? -- stewacide 14:16 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Matter of taste, I suppose, but in a list like this, I would favour no period. As the vast majority of entries seem to lack a period, I'll remove periods from those few entries that have them. Camembert

Although thinking about it, if an entry has more than one sentence, maybe it should have a period. Hmm. I think I'll leave it as is (I've removed some) and let somebody else scratch their head over it. --Camembert

With similar issues over at the list of people associated with World War II, I decided to rephrase things so that they came out as all one sentence, for exactly that reason. I think they should be consistent in whether or not they end with a period. But I also strongly feel that only a real sentence should end in a period. And clearly for most of these entries (both here and the aforementioned list), the brief descriptive phrase or clause is the best way to go. So I turned them all (well, all the ones that jumped out at me) into clauses and/or phrases, and chopped all the periods that weren't part of abbreviations or initials.

Hmm, looking at it, looks like the only real problem one left here is "Chemical Ali" (April 5). That's a three-sentence job, could be more obnoxious, but still doable, I'd think, with enough conjunctions and stuff. ;) -- John Owens 21:01 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Main page

Now what do all the important recent deaths on Main Page have in common? (Although to be fair, I've heard of Barry White) jimfbleak 16:51 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

They are all dead? ;) MB 18:13 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to add people you've heard of, when they die. If everyone does that, things should even out more, eventually... -- Oliver P. 18:39 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just kill people you feel should be on the front page. Why wait? Martin

I agree. This would also keep this list as 'recent' as possible. - Sigg3.net 20:46, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I still see no evidence of resonable policy being adopted for getting deaths put forward on the main page. Perhaps the most recent (say 20) entries from this page should be put up there, or perhaps a week's worth - at the current rate of progress this would not be too burdensome. It's interesting to see people whom I've never heard of featured - but then I really do think that Eugene Istomin should feature, and also Denis Quilley. Am I too biased? David Martland 13:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

McPherson

Moved from page:

21 Duncan McPherson, former NHL first round pick of the New York Islanders; dissapeared in Austria in 1989, body found today.

There's no article and no reference, so it's unclear on the state of the body and hence when Mr. McPherson died; if he died in 1989 (as seems plausible), then there shouldn't be an entry here, but in some month in 1989, with a caveat saying "remains discovered in July 2003" or somesuch. James F. 04:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sankoh

Foday Sankoh died on Tuesday, and there's no article about him. If someone would like to develop one, here are some links:

Here is an article about Sierra Leone's politics. webkid 10:45, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Give ages?

Would it not make sense to give the ages of those who died? For example, Diana Mosley and Bishop Donal Lamont died largely because of age (Lamont was in his 90s) whereas Kieran Kelly was 25. I've said in the article that Kelly died as a result of a horseriding accident, but the shock of his death was all the more poignant because at only 25 Kelly was widely seen in the horseracing world as an up and coming jockey generally regarded as having a bright future. That is fundamentally different to say an older jockey at the end of his career being killed. Whereas most people'e reaction to Kelly's death was shock and regret, Lamont's and Mosley's deaths would have been drawn responses largely of "I didn't know they were still alive" or "they had a good innings". FearÉIREANN

The age of each decedant should be after his / her age on all Deaths in articles. Qzm (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animals

So what if Spot the dog has an article, he's a dog and doesn't belong in this list. Mintguy (T) 12:22, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Just being Devil's Advocate here) What if a famous horse like Seabiscuit or Secretariat died. Or Dolly the sheep? Some animals are newsworthy and/or famous. I'm not sure Spot Fetcher is worth mention on Recent Deaths, but some animals would be. SeanO 13:21, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Where does it say that the list should only cover humans? If an animal is relevant enough to have its own article, it may as well have its death listed here. --Wik 13:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yea keep the animals, how else would I have known Keiko had died? User:SimonMayer 13:37, 6 March 2004. (UTC)

Where do we list Spalding Gray? He's a recent death, but no one knows when between January 10 and March 6 he died. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 21:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put him down as 10/11 Jan (night of his disappearance); why don't we leave him there until the coroner's report is published? (coroner? medical examiner? inquest? I have no idea how these things work in NYC) –Hajor 21:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the date is not known, an encyclopedia shouldn't just make one up. 10/11 Jan needs something to indicate it's a guess. Perhaps a big "perhaps"? - Nunh-huh 21:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Abbas

Also: do we know the date that Abu Abbas died, or do we merely know the date his death was announced? I think it's the latter. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Natural causes is what they are saying. →Raul654 21:54, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

It was the 8th, announced on the 9th, I've fixed it. (I wonder if he was in a wheelchair at the time - nah, too poetic. :) - Nunh-huh 00:34, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Encourage external links on this page

Its prudent to have an external link beside a recent death listing, this is because Google doesn't pick up most recent pages from the web. Providing ext. links will be all the more helpful if

the person doesn't have an article yet
the person is not well known enough
the person is popular only in some parts of the world and
if the person has died on the day of the posting.

It may or may not make sense to add the link in the external links section of the bio page as most obituary pages are not more than 1 paragraph long. Also ext. links on bio pages are more based on the life and profile of the person rather than a death notice.

I noticed User:Minesweeper removing all the external links from here. This is in response to that. Jay 03:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with User:Minesweeper on this one. This page looks tidier with nice, terse descriptions ("British television presenter", "Russian dissident and human rights activist" -- minimally wikified, too) and without the external links. External obituaries could be linked to from the deceased's article, at least until such time as the article overtakes the press obit in extension and detail. Similarly, there's no real excuse for a person listed here not having at least a stubby article: "_Name_ (DoB-DoD) was a _description_. He/She died at the age of xx. Link to external obit." Give me a minute and I'll show you what I mean with Maureen Potter. –Hajor 13:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Young sports players

I noticed a lot of 18-20 year old American college sports players listed in June. While I don't mean to diminish the loss their loved ones suffered, I don't believe that they're really notable enough to be listed here. Jxg 18:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notable or not, it doesn't hurt for them to be there. --Marcus2

They're covered in media and youth sports are often broadcast on national television, so they are definitely notable. An external link would be helpful, however. Zerbey 17:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even if they weren't that notable (not that the sports players aren't), it wouldn't hurt if they're mentioned in recent deaths. --Marcus2

If they are not notable, they shouldn't be on articles such as this. If they are notable, they should have articles and be listed. Qzm (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ramone

Johnny Ramone seems to have denied that he is dead as recently as two hours ago [1], so perhaps we should wait for a source before adding this:

? Johnny Ramone, 55, The Ramones guitarist, prostate cancer

Cause of death

Should we be including cause of death in the listing (it's becoming more popular, and I always do), or should we leave it for the article? What do other Wikipedians think?

No reason not to where known, though I wouldn't make its absence a reason to delete an entry - David Gerard 18:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd only add it if it was particularly noteworthy to avoid cluttering up the page, but I don't particularly care if other people add it. Gamaliel 20:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd include it only if the manner of the passing was in itself newsworthy (hostage murdered; suicide; traffic tragedy). Pages and pages of "heart attacks" and "prostate cancer" would only serve to make a point about our own mortality (albeit a highly valid one) -- bordering on the morbid, don't you think? Save it for the article. –Hajor 15:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, in most cases the article itself or one of the Lists of people by cause of death is probably preferable. -- User:Docu

It should be added when it is known, regardless of the cause. Qzm (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron White: Blue Collar Comedy Fame

I heard a rumor that Ron White passed away from a heart attack. Can't find anything online. Any truth to this?

Nothing turns up in Google News. Gamaliel 06:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

His official website has nothing about his demise Zerbey 14:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article deals with a current or ongoing event

No it doesn't, so I've removed the reference to the appropriate template. An "event" is something that happens. A single death is an event. A list of recent deaths has no beginning and no end; it doesn't "happen". (You don't see a similar message on Recent changes, or even Current events come to that.) -- Avaragado 22:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Laura Branigan dead

From http://www.livedaily.com/news/7012.html?t=98

Singer Laura Branigan (news), best known for her 1982 hit "Gloria," died of a brain aneurysm at her New York home on Thursday (8/26). She was 47. karahd 12:02, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Explaining the listing of a Dutch police officer

I've added the name of a Dutch police officer to the list of recent deaths. I can understand why many people think he doesn't belong on this list, so I would like to explain why I included him. During the chase of a suspected drug dealer in Enschede (the Netherlands), two police officers were shot. One died of his wounds, the other is in critical condition at this moment. In the Netherlands, violence against police officers is relatively rare. Both in the 1980's and in the 1990's, 2 Dutch police officers were killed on duty. In the 1970's, 6 Dutch police officers were killed on duty. Because fatal violence against police officers is so rare for the Netherlands, I think the deceased police officer deserves to be on the list of Recent deaths. Aecis 10:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only people who should be listed on articles like this are those who have their own Wikipedia articles. Jim Michael (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In triplicate

There were three copies of the body of Recent deaths on that page a moment ago. I deleted all but the top one (reasoning that people look at the top one first to make updates). I did not, however, make a careful comparison between the various revisions as I did not have time. -- ke4roh 14:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't see why the first 6 months were removed completely. Maybe moved to a seperate page and linked, but not totally removed. The first 6 months has information that is not available anywhere else in WIkipedia and should be kept if for nothing else for search purposes. Williamb 06:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it was a deliberate deletion. Some browsers truncate files which are longer than 32KB, which is why Wikipedia issues a warning at the top of the edit box of long articles, and that is what seems to have happened in 4.61.180.179's edit today. -- Arwel 11:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dead twice!

Hi. I want to apologize about the recent posting I made, on October 30, about the death of a BBC actor. It just happened that I had stopped by the BBC website and saw his death notice, then I looked here and didnt see his name on the list , when he in fact, was there, so I added him...again!

I dont know much about the BBC or other topics, such as , say, TVyNotas for example. So Im sorry to make someone else go through the double work of reverting. User:Marine 69-71

Panda

Do we realy need the oldest Panda (13 August)? It could be offensive. --Nk 15:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I find Pandas highly offensive. Like Penguins! - Sigg3.net 08:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious; how do you (or could you) find its listing offensive? Do you take similar umbrage from the listing of George the tortoise (10 May)? Some animals are celebrities, and I don't think marking their deaths along with human deaths demeans the latter in the slightest. Pets are valued companions to most people who keep them, are they not? -- Hadal 09:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're asking NK, right? - Sigg3.net 12:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, George was a celebrity tortoise, but not as notable as Timothy (4th April), who was the last survivor of the Crimean War! -- Arwel 12:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jay van Andel's death date

Yesterday it was 6th December. Now it's 7th December, but the date shown on his own page is 8th December. What is the true date of death? 203.37.77.9 22:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JPL-NASA vanpool tragedy

Is that worth mentioning? Somewhere? -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elena Souliotis remembered ?

I was amazed to hear(on Geoff Bennett's afternoon program on ABC Classic FM, yesterday Saturday 18th December), about the recent death of Elena Souliotis.

This was news to Wikipedia, so I assumed it had only just happened (yesterday perhaps). Imagine my surprise when I learned she died two weeks ago, on 4th December, in Florence. The earliest obituary I found was not published till nine days after her death (The Scotsman, 13/12).

But that still leaves about five days, in which time thousands of opera-loving Wikipedians (and thus millions and perhaps billions of other people world-wide) were denied information about this wonderful singer.

Between them, historians, obituary collectors, and just plain ghouls like me, regularly trawl through all imaginable on-line sources of information. That information is often immediately re-published on other websites, such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia and similar sites are, by definition, always behind the times because they are at the mercy, so to speak, of their contributors. But apart from that, word spreads very quickly through the OFC (Obituary-focussed Community). So, how come everybody in Wikipedia, including me, totally missed this very sad departure? Or, if they were aware of it at some time between 13th and 18th December, why did nobody think this was worth putting on Wikipedia?

I am truly, deeply mystifed and profoundly troubled. I get like that sometimes. Cheers JackofOz 00:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2004 Earthquake victims

I NPOV'd this entry. I agree it should be kept since this is one the biggest human tragedies of all time (see also Deaths in 2001 which had the 9/11 victims listed). What do other Wikipedians think, is it appropriate to list? Zerbey 21:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 victims should be removed from Deaths in 2001 unless they have an article. Oh, looky, they do. Though personally I wouldn't list them anyway. Do you plan to make articles for the victims of Hurricane Jeanne, the Bam earthquake, and the Moscow theater gassing? I don't think these are appropriate to list here at all - only encyclopedic or potentially encyclopedic *individuals* should be listed. --Golbez 22:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Who makes the rule that this list is restricted to *individuals*? Because you said so? In the list, there are many entries that do not have a wiki article to go with the links. These entries can be removed if you think the list is too long. If the person does not deserve his own wiki article, he/she isn't notable enough for this list, right? The article title says deaths in 2004. The 150,000 deaths are **extremely** notable in the year of 2004. In fact, more notable than all the entries in the list add up. The total sum should be entered as one entry. No one is proposing to list everyone there individually. I disagree with the point that the death toll should be left as current event. We are not writing a daily newspaper, this is an encyclopedia that is meant to last indefinitely. Ten years from now, this collective death will no longer be a current event hence its significance deserves a permenant spot in the 2004 death list. The title does not say individual deaths in 2004, hence the list should include all notable deaths as persons or as events. Opposite to your opinion, the death toll in Hurrican Jeanne, the Bam earthquake and the Moscow theater gassing SHOULD INDEED be listed as a number in the list because they are notable event though each dead individual is not. Before we continue this edit war, I propose to put this item in dispute. Kowloonese 23:10, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

1) Then they should get articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because someone doesn't have an article now doesn't mean it won't exist. Looking through Deaths in 2004 (or was it 2001?), I saw a Lynyrd Skynyrd band member. Notable, but may not necessarily have an article yet. If some member of your garage band died, non-notable, not worthy of an article, and should not be listed.

2) Yes, which is why they are mentioned on the core page for 2004, 2004.

3) What's the cutoff for listing large numbers of dead in the article? 100,000? 50,000? 3,000? 30? Cmon, gimme a number.

4) Yes, it is an encyclopedia, which is why we have lengthy articles on the earthquake, a mention of it in 2004, etc.

5) Look at the top of the page: A list of figures. "figure" to me says "individual". So enter 150,000 individual entries, wikilink them, and see how many get VfD'd. There's a reason that the individual deaths of otherwise non-notable people aren't on wikipedia, but are on the memorial wiki.

6) OK, so we include Moscow theater, that was about 250 people... How about the deaths in the Russian plane bombings, which were, what, 150? How about the people who died in the French heat wave? Or the people who died in a local fire last week that killed 7? We list people here based on their NOTABILITY, not the reason they died. Notable events that caused death go on 2004.

7) Suppose we should put this on WP:RFC. --Golbez 23:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

1) Who is Lynyrd Skynyrd? To me, none of the band memebers is notable. But we don't go by my standard. Most wikipedians use the google test. Perhaps if you get over 500 hits, he is notable.

2) the core page 2004 lists the events, this page should list the death toll, emphasize on the number, the count.

3) Forget the number. Every individual death only counts for one, so if you set a number bigger than one, none of the entries on this page qualify. Why don't you go by whether the death toll is notable? How? If it makes it to international news, then it is notable.

4) same answer as #2. list the count.

5) Who put that line in? I can change that line if you want me to. Can you go by that as the rule?

I'll change it back. Your move. --Golbez 03:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

6) None of these individuals are notable, but the count, the death toll is notable. If the 7 deaths in your local fire made it to international news, I think they are worth mentioning too.

This is a list of deaths of figures; if you want a place to put a notable death toll, we have it at 2004. When I click Deaths in 2002, I want to know what notable figures died in 2002 - not that some folks were killed by some terrorist. That doesn't go on a list of deaths; that goes on a list of incidents. --Golbez 03:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

7) What is the process? Is the link to WP:RFC sufficient to initiate the process? Kowloonese 01:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I've never been in a dispute before. Oh, and by the way - Are you sure they all died Dec 26? No one died the next day? Maybe the next day? Doesn't accuracy demand you get a perfect count of the people who die on each particular day? Also, what if a hurricane killed one person one day, three the next, six after that, another one the next day - does it get a separate entry for each day? --Golbez 03:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keith Matthew "Matt" Maupin

The article has him listed as dead as of June 28, yet the referring article states that the U.S. Army lists his death as totally inconclusive and lists him still as a POW. I listed a note referring that his death was in dispute, but it was removed. What is the procedure in this case?--Mitsukai 05:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Deaths articles only for recent years

Why is this a seperate page to the 2004 page, when earlier years have deaths in a section of the main year page? Not that I have a particular problem with it, except that it doesnt appear to be consistent. 80.177.152.156

There are currently Deaths in articles for 1999-2009 only. Due to the huge increase in the number of famous / notable people, more recent years require separate articles for deaths, so as to include all notable deaths, whilst avoiding Year articles being too long with the list of deaths. There are criteria at WP:RY for recent years, that do not apply to earlier years. Said criteria restrict deaths to be listed 2009, 2008, 2007 etc to those people who are of substantial international notability. All notable deaths are eligible for inclusion on Deaths in articles. Qzm (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]