Talk:Deaths in April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deaths in April 2011 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Biography

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

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.

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.

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.

Mandi Schwartz

I really have no strong inclination as to whether the Mandi Schwartz entry should be included or not, but everyone needs to stop edit-warring over it and discuss it here lest the page be locked until consensus is reached. Seriously, there are a number of established editors involved here, and you should all know better.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. But, what is there to discuss? I thought it was well established that entries remain for 30 days until/unless a separate article is created. Is that not the established policy? If so, what is the "issue" in the Mandi Schwartz case? Seems no different than any other "red link" ... no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There is no set policy, there is just consensus amongst the regular editors here. Sometimes red links are removed if they are of obviously non-notable individuals who have no hope of ever having an article (e.g. Sweet Aunt Edna died choking on a humbug - source: the local church bulletin). Regardless, for some reason this particular entry has become contentious for even the regular editors here, so it's best to hash it out on the talk to find consensus in this specific case rather than a revert war on the page. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that you say. I am trying to figure out why this specific case is different than any other? To me, she fits the same general category of all the other red links. Maybe she will get an article, maybe not ... we give it 30 days and see what happens. What's different here? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm stumped as to why this one is causing so much kerfuffle. The only way to know for sure is if the editors deleting the entry lay out their grievances here. If they choose not to it should be relatively easy to declare consensus and restore it - even if only one other editor chimes in agreeing with you. I would suggest waiting 24 hours and seeing how it all shakes out. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Maybe I am missing something? I will see what others say when they pipe in on this discussion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm with you - if you extrapolate the argument "do not pipe names to other people's articles here, show me one other case please" this would preclude anything new on WP, as nothing new would ever be allowed, since there could never be an "other case" to cite. Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether a red link is more likely to generate a new article (which is the argument for allowing red-links) whereas a piped blue link might give the impression that the article already exists. Arjayay (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the entry is added back in, I don't think it should be piped. The red links are kept as a way of generating interest in creating an article; I think you're correct in noting that this is less likely to happen if it is piped. She needs to stand on her own notability in order to be retained past the 30 day grace period. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that part of the problem is that she has a blue link, not a red link. As stated, the red link is an impetus to create an article; the blue link leaves readers the impression that there already is an article on her. I don't believe that her link is a piped link. I believe that the article/link named "Mandi Schwartz" is a redirect to another page (her brother, I believe). I was going to un-redirect it, so that her link would be a red link. But, I wasn't sure how to do that. Plus, if she never does get her own article, a redirect (to her notable brother) is better than nothing at all. Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting - I'm not sure what is done in the case of a redirect. I'm sure WWGB will chime in when he sees this discussion, he's likely come across this situation before. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Funny that you should mention WWGB. I had actually left him a note at his Talk Page about this very topic, even before you started this discussion here. So, let's see what he thinks. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

<enters on cue> There are three different but inter-related issues here: deletion of redlinks before one month, piping deaths to another article and creating an article about the deceased that is just a redirect.
1. Redlinks.
I agree with Ponyo's comment about immediately removing obviously non-notable individuals. Based solely on her career in ice hockey, Schwartz fails WP:NHOCKEY. I believe that is the argument used by some to remove her death notice recently. However, her role in raising awareness of bone marrow and stem cell transplants could be considered as a demonstration of notability. On that basis, I would be inclined to leave the entry for one month to see if her own article evolves.
2. Pipes.
I have never agreed with piping a death notice to another article. As Joseph points out, the presence of a "blue link" on account of the pipe may mean that an article about the deceased has less chance of being written. I remove pipes here whenever I see them, including pipes from a deceased band member to the band article.
3. Redirects.
I dislike redirected articles on the deceased for the same reason. Redirecting Mandi Schwartz to Jaden Schwartz#Personal life creates a blue link which may deceive prospective editors that a full article on Mandi Schwartz exists already. Joseph has commented on "un-redirecting" the article, but I suspect that would be difficult and may require an AfD nomination, which would most likely fail. I don't think editors do the deceased any favours by creating a simple redirect article. Better to leave it red for one month and see what develops. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that there is one editor who is trying to get around her being red-linked first by piping and then by creating a re-direct. (This editor has a history on insisting they are the final say on things here.) The name should be redlinked until it gets its own page. There are examples here in the past of band members, who are only mentioned in the band's article and do not have their own article, not being allowed to be piped or re-directed. Mandi Schwartz shouldn't be treated any differently than those cases. BurienBomber (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions are to leave the Mandi Schwartz redirect for now (we cannot do much about it anyway), and leave her death notice in place until 3 May. If she has no article by then (not just a redirect) then the death notice can be removed at that time. Then we can all get on with fixing other rusty parts of Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I'm happy to go along with that. Scarecrow⁴⁷ 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarecrow47 (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth ... I changed the redirect into an article stub on Mandi Schwartz. Hopefully, others will add to and improve the article, assuming that any deletion attempt fails. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Annalisa Ericson

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

Please move Swedish actress Annalisa Ericson to correct death date on the 21st of April 2011. Her official obituary with funeral arrangements was published in Svenska Dagbladet on the 30th of April 2011.

90.230.160.42 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is a source provided (that I can't read), do you have a source to provide to contradict the current one? CTJF83 18:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the obituary : [1]. You have to choose the pdf-file called SVD-20110430-A035 under April 30, to see her obituary. She is listed under the name Annalisa Ericson-Schildt. I hope this works for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.160.42 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett J. Keen

Known professionally as "Chip Fairway" during his wresting career. Curious as to why his death/passing on April 9, 2011, is not listed.68.231.71.119 (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WWGB (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deaths in April 2011. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 11:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Deaths in April 2011. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Deaths in April 2011. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]