Talk:Deaths in May 2024

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.

Canadian retirement AND questionable claims of compound surnames

Arthur Irving is being shown as chairman of Irving Oil "since 1992". The company's website announced his death referring to him as "Chairman Emeritus" and a source linked in his article indicates that he stepped down as substantive chairman in October 2023.

I note that someone re-alphabetized Mary Wells Lawrence from "Lawrence" to "Wells" and a while back the listing on the death of Mary Higgins Clark was moved from "Clark" to "Higgins". While Wells Rich Greene was founded before Mary Wells married Harding Lawrence,both women used their husbands' surnames and I don't think they claimed compound surnames...does any "alpha by author" catalogue list Mrs. Clark under "H"?71.105.190.227 (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Robinson

I see the slight editing disagreement which occurred earlier, and the outcome is correct. No-one gets an entry here by associated notability, but anyone who has a strong enough case for their own article is owed an entry regardless of whether the description merely states them as a "secretary", common-or-garden or otherwise. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. She was known best as a member of the First Family and should be described as such. Sgleason818 (talk) Sgleason818 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a change of standing consensus in this project, so would need to be debated and the consensus changed before any linking or transfer of notability is included in the list. Which is half why I opened this section, to see if the debate occurred. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of the entry after the name is to demonstrate why they're notable, then we are failing at that in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I am sure she was a terrific secretary, but that’s not what she is known for. This seems like an overcorrection of the “standing consensus”.

I’m standing here too. Sgleason818 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what a standing consensus is, and the status as it stands is, we do not link by association any notability within an entry here. I'd even call it a long-standing consensus, as I've never known notability association linking to be allowed in all my time editing this page. So I'd eagerly encourage even further debate, but through other editors joining, not by us two or three going over the same ground repeatedly in this section. It's not me you have to convince. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about you, respectfully. It’s not your page. I would love some support.

Marian Robinson was for four years assistant to the First Lady and caretaker of the President’s children. At least put that in.

Millions of Americans knew her. They have emotional feelings about her.

I did, and I only clicked through to her article because this page formerly clarified who she was.

Sgleason818 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So she was the First Nanny Granny, so what? She's listed with a blue link, move on. As one of the "millions of Americans", I never knew she existed and wondered why a secretary was listed here. I clicked and found out. While that should not have to happen, she was not notable outside of the Obama years/family. Wylie pedia @ 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wondered why a secretary was listed here, but that would be cleared up by identifying that her notability comes through Michelle Obama. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all work really hard to make this a good page and it's appreciated.

I just think "Marian Robinson, 86, American secretary" conceals why she's on the page at all. Why not remove her? Sgleason818 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgleason818, she's notable, so she stays. How she's described is another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: …which we don't do here. Sgleason818 and others are welcome to revisit and reopen that discussion. However, I follow WP:NOTINHERITED. Wylie pedia @ 01:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself that you should not have had to click on the link to find out why she's notable, and the easy fix (stating her inherited notability) is something which we don't do here for... reasons? I highly doubt a NOTINHERITED argument would result in deletion at AfD, so why stick with it here? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is neither guideline nor policy. It is an AfD argument. I agree that we should not include relationships here when the deceased is notable aside from that relationship. For example, the listing of Edgar Lansbury on 2 May makes no mention that his sister was Angela Lansbury as he was notable independent of that relationship. In the case of Robinson, her notability derives from her relationship to the former first lady. I see no problem in including that relationship here. WWGB (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that there is a strong case of inherited notability here, but if that is the case, then her article should be nominated for deletion. Until it is deleted, she stays in this list. Marbe166 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure seems like most all of the list entries include the person's reason for notability. I don't understand why it shouldn't apply here, especially because most people (including one of the objectors above, and myself) probably wouldn't recognize her name otherwise. Why force another click on readers? If she's not notable, then that's a different issue, but as long as there remains a Wikipedia article about her that leads with "Marian Robinson (...) was the mother of Michelle Obama, former first lady of the United States", this simple few words should remain in the entry here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Sgleason818 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a collision of "immovable object" (the entry including "what subject was noted for") and "irresistible force" ("notability is not inherited")...there is no way that Marian Robinson's work as a secretary made her notable without her family connections. Princess Charlotte of Clarence has been deleted/merged from English Wikipedia 3 times and Patrick Bouvier Kennedy still has an entry despite neither having done anything notable in their lifetimes of less than one and less than two days respectively so we can't claim the rule has no exceptions.71.105.190.227 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia is an independent community and they have their own established procedures for closures/upmerging/deletion, and English Wikipedia has its own established procedures. A09|(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Simple Wikipedia and Wikipedia are not interchangeable in any way. They each run to their own guidelines and styles. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were just linking to Simple Wikipedia to inform who Princess Charlotte was. Their point is that the page on English Wikipedia for Princess Charlotte has been deleted/merged multiple times while the similar case of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy still has a page, despite both subjects living for under a week. Emk9 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Bromiley

Bringing my issue with her entry here. The source in my opinion is extremely insufficient. Yes, it states she is deceased. The hangup for me is how it is the obituary for Brian Phelan, and the disclosure of her death is but a faint and fleeting reference. I can't see why at bare minimum a Better Source Needed tag can't be included here, as a better source is most definitely needed for her. Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Refsworldlee if they wanna reply since they removed the tag. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Bromiley's death, however slimly reported, was nevertheless reported by the Guardian, which is impeccably reliable, as everyone will be aware. They will have checked/doublechecked the facts surrounding Bromiley's death, as they did Brian Phelan's, and as they do for every death they report. To tag inline for a better source is at least an insult and certainly misleading on first glance. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see highlighting that a source independently about her death and not within the context of someone else's as being an insult. It's not a knock on The Guardian, it's "a source more specifically about Bromiley is much more preferred". Especially since it's but like a half sentence to baseline state she died. That's all. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source has confirmed her death. That passes our demand ("every death listed must be supported by a reference from a reliable, independent source.") WWGB (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry now sourced independently of Phelan's obituary (Catalan language source). Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]