Talk:Deaths in March 2017

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Osborne

How was Robert Osborne in Psycho? I couldn't find any references saying he was in Psycho, let alone his role. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed as Man on IMDB but was uncredited. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have an uncredited role listed as one of his top notable roles? Is it just because of the fame of the movie? David Bowie is listed for Zoolander, (which he only had a cameo in), instead of listing The Man Who Fell to Earth or Mr. Rice's Secret, where he had the starring role. Similar thing I guess. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Osborne's non-notable roles as they are clearly inappropriate. WWGB (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalika Prasad Bhattacharya

Be aware that English translation websites in India appear to be reporting his age at death as 56, in opposition to the age 47 currently being used in our article (the nearest quote in a source appears to be stating "in his mid-40s"). It is probably that where one repeats a wrong fact, the others have followed, but his age at death needs to be firmed up through first an English source being used, and one which asserts his age as 47. Please note that the source used in his own new article states his age at death as 56, yet gives his date of birth as "c.1969". Clearly wrong math applied, and if that '56' age turns out to be correct, our entry needs amending. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this up on the article Talk page. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article now reflects the new belief that his age was indeed 56, as one editor has boldly asserted without comment here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, anyone else want to help me keep an eye on the subject article? I've been having a right revert battle over there - luckily (or perhaps not), those adding amended birthdates and age don't seem to be able to provide references to back it up. (So - currently, it's a circa birthdate of 1960-61 and an age at death of 56, those facts supported by two good obit sources. Various different IP editors have been putting in various different dates and ages.) Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Stewart Question

Would listing a couple if her most notable clients be considered tacky? For instance:

Lynne Stewart, 77, American defense attorney (Omar Abdel-Rahman, Sammy Gravano).

BurienBomber (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier personally if she was linked to notable "event articles" i.e. Wikipedia pieces on trial events which are notable enough to warrant their own articles without threat of AfD, rather than just to notable names who themselves are notable outside the scope of her duties. Although there's no Wikipedia guideline to outlaw or frown on "namedropping", that's how it would feel to me on first thought. Just an observation, and I wouldn't be taking any action in any case, as there'd be no tackiness whatsoever in supporting and highlighting her notability and professional ability? I would merely prefer one method over the other, that's all. Thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's not mentioned in Gravano's article, which might indicate she wasn't important to his story (or that Wikipedia is a work in progress). But we've listed clients of managers, biographers and producers, so I don't see a problem with lawyers, if the connection is clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, given that omission plus her confirmed criminality, is it worth worrying about expansion of the inline information at all? Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think lines are only too long if they wrap around. Preview shows these fitting, but we've made no room for Larry. I'm not big on two-item deals or omitting a perfectly notable third. Leaning toward mentioning nobody now. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, this was just sloppy deleting on my part. Wasn't trying to imply "Outlaw" Ron Bass was an "outlaw" or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think you were! Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "WP:OR" part made me think you thought I was thinking something. All good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the only edit comment I made which included a reference to "WP:OR" was the creative headline writing from another entry - not that one? You'll agree that including any headline other than verbatim is original research? Mystery. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same one, if by "that one" you mean this one. If I were being creative/original, I'd have said "Master of Texas gourdbuster no match for Tampa hospital". But if I just failed to notice I hadn't fully cleared the old title before inserting the new one, that's me not using my brain. Woefully negligent? Sure. Grossly incompetent? You bet! But on the charge of making stuff up, deviously or willy-nilly, I find myself not guilty and will henceforth pay closer attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. End of, and no recriminations, as it's good faith editing all round as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aktari

RE: Mike Aktari of Jerseylicious. Please add as a "red link". Thanks. Source: [1]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair just to let this hang. I think there's extreme doubt over his real notability - his credit on the show equates to "Man A" in a classic film, I feel. I'm assuming other editors feel the same way, otherwise this would have been added? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Butler?

Hello all,

I have here a death of an Irish hurler from Wexford -> [2] who matches this one -> Mick Butler perfectly unless his age didn't fit. The dead one was 80 years old and the one in wiki is born in 1950 (about 66-67 years old). Can this be the same one and there is an error in the year of birth in wiki??? Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a good rummage through the facts and figures, I fear the two are entirely different hurlers but with the same (fairly common in Ireland) name combination of Mick Butler. Some of the sources leading off of the "junior" of the two certainly don't match a man of 80 (Butler the younger was playing youth team hurling in 1966, so that's not an 80-year-old's profile at all). I would personally walk away from that entry. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Ref. --Danielvis08 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piers Dixon source

I disagree with using this source as it's behind a paywall and only gives half the obituary. Readers cannot access the full article without a subscription and robs them of being able to read it in full detail and robs editors from being able to use it to gather additional information. I feel it should be removed until a better source can be found. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The man is dead. The source gives enough information that we can establish that. I've seen a lot worse sources than half an obituary from a highly reputable newspaper.Nukualofa (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we can use just about any source that says someone's dead regardless of reliability. The point is any information we can use from it is cut off due to the paywall and in my opinion we shouldn't use any sources that only give us half the story. Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously consider this source unreliable? It's The Telegraph, which on Wikipedia is described this way: The Telegraph is widely regarded as a national "newspaper of record" and it maintains an international reputation for its high quality, having been described by the BBC as being "one of the world's great titles". – It's headline says his name and the word obituary, and the article starts with "Piers Dixon, who has died aged 88". It definitely gives us all we need to know to list him on this page, and then when a free source with DoD and CoD comes around, we'll change to that one.Nukualofa (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, unreliable sources will state info that support its claim but still remain unreliable due to a few things, and personally a paywall being slapped onto it makes it unreliable to me. What if someone who has a subscription or read the physical paper the article is in and states that someone was in it hidden by the paywall? Since we can't physically see it because the paywall takes effect, its considered unsourced or not in the source because it's not visible. It may say Piers Dixon had died, but I didn't see any sentence that had anything in regards to where the Telegraph got that information. Who confirmed it? It's the only source available right now and in its current state with a paywall on it and no sentence where they obtained the information about his death, yes it is unreliable and shouldn't be used. Rusted AutoParts 17:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall must kick in after a certain number of views, because I can still see the article myself. The reliability of the source can't be questioned, so my rationale would be to keep the present source until something of a "freer" nature comes up which is also reliable. There's no doubt he died, that's not disputed, and it needs to be included here. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agustina Castro

Agustina Castro is described by the source as having "never served in the Cuban government and kept a low profile". That makes her not qualified to list here and most certainly not as a "political figure". — Wylie pedia 03:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I believe she should be removed. If I had found an Interlanguage Link to another country's Wikipedia article about her, I would have felt differently. But there is none - she not notable enough. She has notability by association with her more political family links, and specifically with the emotive surname, but that's all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it rides as a redlink for 30 days then. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in March 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaths in March 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]