Talk:Deaths in February 2020

This article 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 articles

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Mid‑importance

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

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paula Kelly

Good morning all,

According to The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Post and a lot of others newspapers Paula Kelly died in Whittier on Saturday the 8 ( not in Inglewood the 9) and was born on Oct. 21, 1942, not 1943. She died at 77, not 76. Sincerely. --Danielvis08 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved with WaPo source and adjusted age. — Wylie pedia @ 20:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Washington Post source, as it has been asking me (and no doubt many others) to register/subscribe for months now (as has the NY Times). Quoting the WaPo url in the edit summary is enough for verification purposes on DoD and birthdate. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Refsworldlee: But you simply reverted to an incorrect source altogether, without leaving a correct one in the edit summary, only explaining the global trouble. One day, someone might click on the entry source, see the error that remains (a double with BWW, hence the OP here) and move it back to the wrong date. Simply stating or leaving a correct URL in an edit summary presumes someone in the remaining days of the month will search edit summaries for the correct URL, which will never happen. I would rather an entry be tagged for a better source than your idea of sourcing, which I have done. — Wylie pedia @ 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: : I accept that I should have double-checked the reason behind change of source, and I apologise for that oversight. However, elaborate tagging was never needed in this case, as the New York Post article is free of European block, free of registration demand - and just, well - free reading. It includes all the right info, so I've changed to that source and removed your tag. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gregg

I have suspicion about his death date. I have found in news articles that today his death was announced. His death date moved to 16 by some users. Can anyone provide kindly provide about his death date as in news articles I did not find any strong reference about his exact death date?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reported as 16th in The Times, but it's a subscription read, so not actually using that source. Adjusting article now using existing source but quoting that one in the edit summary. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

This edit request to Deaths in 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

February 20, 2020

Steve Whalen, 33, American comedian (The Special Without Brett Davis).[1] 172.254.85.226 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect answer per the consensus as it stands - "those without an article will be removed after 30 days". Therefore, as the source is good enough,

Done, giving Whalen a chance to have an article written about him by 21st March. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A 33-year-old obese New York comic, dying unexpectedly. And we're just supposed to put him out there for the world to consider alongside John Belushi and Chris Farley. Because suddenly we trust a blog. A comic's blog. Apparently by and for comics. Big coincidence, is that it? Nothing self-serving or promotional to suspect from the entertainment industry? No posthumous money at stake here, no eternal remembrance in "Top Ten WEIRD Curses" clickbait, just "the facts", eh? Maybe you're right to swallow this IP's line, who knows? Not me! I honestly suggest hearing his age from the medical examiner or police before blindly amplifying a possible pattern on the say-so of Sean L. McCarthy. Either that, or let old scholarly practices speak for themselves as well. I hope buddy's not chopping off a year for show, to be clear. But it wouldn't surprise me, just given the nature of the general TV, Internet and bar scene in the Northeast. Pending confirmation, there's no rush to get this Tom Petty-levels of mostly-correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Brett Davis' announcement, it was "last night". February 20, not 21. I can't paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Chaturvedi

I knew the problem would arise. Indian sources all report 122 and we can't consider them unreliable. We specify the age is claimed (and no, I DO NOT BELIEVE he was really 122), but leave the age here. We can not exclude he was though, it is not 300, there is still a remote possibility he was. But if we start to say "not verified" for every age in the article then we should remove everything as we don't have IDs.

So i say: we know it is not true probably. But for benefit of the doubt, leave the age, specifying it is claimed. Not necessary to remove it. --Folengo (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is actually in the wording "claimant". Regardless of what the deceased has previously said, if not verified satisfactorily, no age will be inserted here - that's always been the case. Verification essential, so the age should stay OUT. "Don't perpetuate a possible untruth." Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss! This is so contentious. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ref. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Folengo: - I just saw your rationale in your most recent edit summary. I think you are confusing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, for a news journo outlet. News outlets can initially print pretty much what they darn want, on the flimsiest of sources (Twitter, Facebook, and all and all). If an age looks right, is supported in a deceased's own Wikipedia article, and is reported by a reliable source, why the heck should anyone produce extra documentation to support the obvious? What is certainly obvious is that Sudhakar Chaturvedi cannot be allowed to be self-verifying, even in death. There's no way a reputable encyclopedia can print his alleged age based on what's in the public domain so far. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most (maybe 99%) of the ages here are unverified, by the standards we're only applying to this dude because his story reminds us they exist. Silly stuff. He wasn't known as an ageless scholar anymore than old Watanabe was known for his farming office job or smiling advice. Noted longevity claimants have reported ages, writing both makes everything obvious, regardless of the reader's faith/doubt. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got your points. Anyway I got one too: this man, regardless of age, was an early collaborator of Gandhi (proven). If we only write "Vedic scholar" it does not express how ancient he was (could have been a 30 year old Vedic scholar, for example). Age often gives an indication of the generation people belong too, without the need of clicking on their articles. So my proposal is: let's write Sudhakar Chaturvedi, 122 (claimed), Indian Vedic scholar. Makes clear it IS claimed, but also gives indication about how ancient he could have been. Any opposition to this? Folengo (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Vedic scholar" expresses how he was a high-level insurgent courier, but no objection to the age disclaimer (still find it silly to only doubt things when the news says strict verification criteria are pertinent, but sillier things happen). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 29

Mohammad Ali Ramazani Dastak is being lumped in with other Iranians dying of the coronavirus. His government refutes that.[2] — Wylie pedia @ 19:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we follow the official version, though I have lot of doubts about it (I'm in Italy, I pretty know what coronavirus is capable of).--Folengo (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we are, correctly, stating cause of death in line with his personal WP article. Let's keep this high ground. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Folengo: the symptoms between the flu and coronavirus are very similar, so I can see why the press rushed to list that as his COD, which puts the burden on us to wait/verify CODs here.

@Refsworldlee: yes, I was the one who changed the subject’s article to the correct COD. If you look at the article history, you will see it was saturated with coronavirus links. — Wylie pedia @ 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollover

I thought the monthly rollover was meant to happen after seven days. I see that February was rolled over after 5 days and 5 hours (UTC). WWGB (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would've been more constructive to just undo my rollover, but I guess snide talk page comments are better. I've undone it myself. Rusted AutoParts 05:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "snide" here, just an observation of fact. Why do you arc up and play the victim? Just cop it sweet. It's not like this is the first time ... WWGB (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playing victim? I'm just remarking how just reverting me for jumping the gun is more constructive than coming here to remark I jumped the gun. Rusted AutoParts 05:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on. Easy mistake, I think. That's all it is. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Alahverdian

This person entry got deleted in early January 2021, I suspect by a POV editor, and there's no reason why, other than POV. His article remains a bluelink, has not been deleted, and does not get removed from this list until or unless it becomes a redlink because the article has been expunged. So, it's "article delete first, remove entry afterwards". Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entry because of the high likelihood that Wikipedia is being hoaxed (per the notice on Nicholas Alahverdian). As far as your suspicions, please assume good faith. →StaniStani 01:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alahverdian's death itself is in dispute as covered in this reliable source [3]. ♟♙ (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now is the time to delete Alahverdian's entry? →StaniStani 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has attempted to engage in discussion, so I've removed it. The death is disputed by reliable sources and as such fails WP:VER. ♟♙ (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]