Talk:November 9

For a topic to be notable enough to be on this list, there must be an article on it. When one exists for this person (with evidence of his notability in the article) then he can be placed here -- Mason11987

Really? Says who? You? And you make the rules here? This is your article? 131.30.121.23 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty much a common standard by editors working on the date articles. You must agree that if all people regardless of notability were allowed to be added to this list then it would become so long that it would prove quite useless. Also, according to WP:CITE you can't provide original research, which is what you are doing if you don't supply citations for your additions to this list. Since this list MUST be limited in some respects, it seems most useful to limit it with respect to our WP:Notability standard. If a subject isn't notable enough to have it's own article, why should it be included on a list populated solely by people who have their own articles? There is a note at the bottom of the births section (a similar note is at the bottom of the births section of every date article I believe) that expresses a commonly held idea:

<!-- Do not add people without Wikipedia articles to this listDo not trust "this year in history" websites for accurate date informationDo not link multiple occurrences of the same year, just link the first occurrence.-->

I point you towards the first line, added by some other editor. With exception to the one other red link I just removed every birth, death or event on this list has an article associated with it. I invite you to visit every other date page on wikipedia to see if this is concurrent to what the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other editors adding to these sections agree with. I briefly scanned Nov-1st through nov 9th and found one other red link in the birth-death section and I removed it. Many editors ([1] [2] to point out two examples from the last 3 or so days) have tried to formulate the best possible way of making these pages as useful and managable as possible.

I don't make rules, I'm trying to help out with one of a group of the most widely abused and misused pages on the wiki to try to make it useful by allowing only events/people that are notable. It would seem foolish to think that there shouldn't be a notability standard after all. Or else why wouldn't someone add their pet lizard steve? Or their cousin bob? The date pages aren't a place to decide notability of an article as it can't be argued well (or usefully) here. If there IS notability, then an article not simply stating notability but proving it via some of the suggestions on WP:Notability will show that. Until then I don't see why it should be on this list.

Also, while Google results aren't really "proof" of notability, the fact that there are zero matches for ( "Jake Bottero" philosopher ) kind of raises some doubts as to how "notable" he is. You'd think someone would have written about him if he was. Chris M. 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muriel Degauque becomes the first Belgian female suicide bomber."

Does that means she was the first Belgian suicide bomber, the first female suicide bomber, or the first Belgian female suicide bomber (was there already a Belgian male suicide bomber)? Kingturtle 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that, but I assume that since the line says she was "the first Belgian female suicide bomber", I think that the writer meant that she was the first Belgian female suicide bomber, not the first Belgian suicide bomber or the first female suicide bomber. Then again, I don't know, and I might not have understood your question. --Kevin ^(TALK) 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Under Events or Deaths for 1966, should a reference to the Paul is dead conspiracy be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.61.26 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is a conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, and therefore not an important world event. McCartney is definitely alive. Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

iPhone was removed by me. Namely because one, that is a future event. And second it's a electronic device not a birth, death or event that has a great effect etc. GRiM-reapa 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

With reference to this, a reminder to comply with WP:CIVIL in the writing of edit summaries. Codharris (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with them. Therefore removed the intro stuff. Wallie (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. What was this guy eating? (talk) 11 September 2011 (EST)

There needs to be a hat note for the article November Nine, my edit to this effect was reverted due to it not having "global notability". The biggest poker tournament in the world, with one of the biggest prize pools of any tournament of any sport in the world is not globally notable? There should be a hat note irrelevant of notability anyway, since they are the same article name but with different spelling, very confusing. -AlexTG (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Poker tournaments are not important world events. For the vast majority of people, they are completely irrelevant. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I know professional wrestling is a niche portal, but if any event deserves to be here, the most famous deviation from script and betrayal of a wrestler ever is it, right? Just throwing it out there as plausible... article's locked or I'd have added it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.152.115 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

At a minimum, there has to be a Wiki article about it, or a mention of it in a Wiki article. Can you provide a link to a Wiki page where we can read about it? By the way, this article is no longer protected, but if you're not logged in, or you're a Wiki user who doesn't have sufficient credibility (I forget what the exact terminology is), your edit will be held for approval. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Right … the See Also Section is now telling me it goes to the [Nine in German History] article.

Rather than to the external pages from the BBC, New York Times, and Canadian history site.

Can someone post back the relevant links, please? I’m hopeless at this sort of revision.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

–––

Just realised how much of a hash I made of that … !

12:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs)

Felix the Cat made his debut on Nov 9 1919, becoming one of the first cartoon characters made 2601:646:C600:D270:C82B:E12F:19C9:66EB (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this claim? Kiwipete (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where this should be referenced, but November 9 is also the title of one of Colleen Hoover’s more popular books. Damndeens123 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)