Talk:May 1975

Inclusion of the birth of a murder victim

Last month i removed the birth of murder victim Laci Peterson from this article, but see this has been reverted today. Peterson does not have her own bio, and links to her name simply redirects to the article about her murder. It's the murder of Peterson which is notable as an event, those involved in it are not notable themselves and therefore the fact that peterson was born in May 1975 really isn't something that needs mentioning here. For documenting births/deaths we tend to have a "no redirects" guideline which is being breached by this addition. Needless to say I intend to remove the content once again, though i thought I'd give those involved a chance to argue their case first as no explanation of any sort has been given thus far.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate (sincerely) the invitation to respond. My view is that it's not a big deal. WP:N applies to whether someone should have their own independent article, though, rather than the mention of their existence somewhere else. If you want to eliminate references to well-known people whom you consider non-notable, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that means that someone else can edit the page again to include it. The pages do need to be policed regularly for out-and-out vandalism, but I don't see the need to go through the several hundred articles to debate whether someone is or isn't worthy of mention. We're a lot more concerned about the addition of the additions of people that nobody ever heard of, something that's usually explained as someone's strange idea of a birthday greeting. I guess it's cheaper than buying them a gift. Mandsford 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with mentioning the Petersons where relevant, but it is best to do so in the context of the case itself rather than the individuals, Laci Peterson's birth is not notable in any way as an 1975 event. What I've been trying to achieve is to make a few articles such as this one a bit more consistent and selective by enforcing the "no redirects" guideline for births and deaths. I strongly believe that improving our constancy here will actually also reduce the problem of additions of people no one has heard of and it should also help to avoid confusion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the last statement, I wouldn't count on it. There will always be vandalism to these articles. Luckily, we have a lot of people on the lookout for obvious bad faith additions. We also have a lot of people on the lookout for images that aren't free use, which also serves a purpose. I'd add that almost nobody is notable or newsworthy on the day that they are born, unless they happen to have extremely famous parents. It's mostly a judgment call about whether the name is recognizable, not whether they would get their own article under WP:N. There are plenty of people, whom almost nobody has heard of, who qualify for articles because of inherent notability rules, including minor league soccer players, but I would discourage mentions of their births on one of these pages. For the most part, births and deaths are one of those things that readers look at because it's relevant to their own birthdate-- or there are two or more well-known people who happen to have been born on the same day. While I understand your viewpoint, there are, literally, hundreds of these articles, and the policing should be practical, not theoretical. Mandsford 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought and had a look at similar articles for other years. It seems births need to have their own section in the article anyway so we need to put that right. I can't find any such births sections that allow redirects either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything that we "need" to "put right", but if you wish to get an idea about what we (as in all of the editors) need, then I encourage you to bring that up in a discussion group about the project, inviting the contributors to join in the discussion. I'll be happy to let other people in the project know your suggestions, but I recommend that you not take any unilateral action without getting some type of consensus of opinion. My opinion is that if it "ain't broke", then don't fix it, but we'll see what other people have to say. Mandsford 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just checked again and seems not all pages have separate births and deaths sections so perhaps that's not such an issue and I won't be making any changes. Still, I did find a guideline for persons in such cases to have at least nine non-English language Wikipedia articles. I can't find a Laci Peterson article on any non English Wikipedia site so that again suggests she doesn't even come close to meriting inclusion here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's fair. I took her name back out, and I doubt that anyone will put it back in. I think that the way this came about in the first place is that she was among the "celebrities" listed in the 1975 article when this one was being put together. Have a good 4th of July, whether as a holiday or as a Friday. Mandsford 17:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I would tend to allow an entry for her death (citing the circumstances) but not for her birth. However, that's on the basis of my personal preference and I don't think there is any policy or guideline that would support the action. I've had some debate with other contributors to the Years and Months articles as to whether they should be trimmed so as to avoid recentism and USA-centricity, but so far my arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Deb (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)