Near misses 2006

[Rotten Ali 600]

I second that, although I don't know who Douglas Bader is.

 

At least one film was made about his exploits (with Kenneth Moore playing the role) of the Spitfire pilot who had two woodern legs.

 

from wiki:

Group Captain Sir Douglas Robert Steuart Bader DSO* DFC* (21 February 1910–5 September 1982; surname pronounced bar-der was a successful fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. Bader is upheld as an inspirational leader and hero of the era, not least because he fought in spite of having both legs amputated. His brutally forthright, dogmatic often highly opinionated views (especially against authority) coupled to his boundless energy and enthusiasm inspired adoration and frustation in equal measures with both his subordinates and contemporaries.

[Bald rick 9]

I'm going to have to have a rant about these two threads. Namely the "near misses" and the "not exactly famous".

Please you Mods, lets have some order. I can't help but feel most of the postings for these two areas coming from oribit swipes from wiki et al, should be placed only in the "not exactly famous" tread. Only those people who are genuinely known by most people (ie famous by both name and image) and are regular picks in DDP (and not on the DeathList 50 persons list) should be in this near misses thread.

To confirm if it's DDP hit or a really famous person (say someone famous as Douglas Barder) its in here, if its an orbit swipe of someone most people have never heard of (like this WWII flying chap, god rest his soul, thanks very much and all that) then its only in the "not exactly famous".

Or, more simply, and less subjectively, restrict iain to only posting in the 'not exactly famous' thread. That would cut the mods' workload from your proposal in half. I like your idea though, despite how difficult it might be to classify them. For instance one of our esteemed mods has an interest in chess, so he may say that all dead chess players posted would count as famous. Similarly, if one of them had an interest in WWII flyers, and their circle of contacts (outside DL) consisted almost exclusively of like-minded people, then this person would appear to be famous to them.

[Octopus of Odstock 2,187]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

 

 

I think the problem Iain (or anyone else, but mainly Iain) has in one way is he wants to provide a service, but isn't sure which product is right.

If we have basic set criteria, then Iain would know before he posted, which thread each person should be in.

Repeated failure to keep adhering to the criteria could relate in a warning at the worst extreme...

 

And I think that's fair.

 

What do people think?

[Tempus Fugit 214]

I agree that about 75% of those that are currently in the "Near Misses" thread rightly belong in the "Not exactly famous" thread.

 

The near misses thread for 2005 had 1240 posts, this years near misses thread is heading for about 3500 posts come the end of the year.

 

The bulk of those will belong in the Not exactly famous thread, this will of course make that thread extremely large but at least it will all be on topic.

 

Now that VSBfromH's thread has been pinned, there really is no excuse not to use it. All that is really required is a bit of common sense in determining which thread to post an obit in. Google news search obit hits should act as a guide if you are unsure.

[Phantom 2,533]

Pio Leyva singer with the Buena Vista Social Club has died of a heart attack at the age of 88

[Canadian Paul 97]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

 

I think the problem Iain (or anyone else, but mainly Iain) has in one way is he wants to provide a service, but isn't sure which product is right.

If we have basic set criteria, then Iain would know before he posted, which thread each person should be in.

Repeated failure to keep adhering to the criteria could relate in a warning at the worst extreme...

 

And I think that's fair.

 

What do people think?

 

I think the first two criteria are good, but the third one is a little shady. Just because no one felt the need to mention them makes them "Not Famous Enough?" For example, no one mentioned Rick James before he died, but certainly he was famous enough in the UK (and to get his own thread on the forums after his death, but I'll leave that can of worms closed for now).

 

Perhaps a third thread? "Famous enough, but not a near miss"

 

Oh, and before you ask, I didn't browse through old threads to find a name that was mentioned only after death. Superfreak started playing on my iPod.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Pio Leyva singer with the Buena Vista Social Club has died of a heart attack at the age of 88

 

How many of them are left now? They're starting to get ticked off the register at a fair lick these days...

[Life Begins at 5 o'clock 7]

Pio Leyva singer with the Buena Vista Social Club has died of a heart attack at the age of 88

 

How many of them are left now? They're starting to get ticked off the register at a fair lick these days...

 

Case in point about the relativity of fame. Apparently this group is famous, however I have no idea who they are or what they do, aside from apparently being musicians. I wouldn't consider them famous though. I'd put them below the most obscure of the Nobel winners. But someone that doesn't care about science or politics the way that I do might find them completely unknown.

[in eternum+ 22]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

What do people think?

Gimme a break! Wiki is sh*t (the DL entry excepted, of course ). Pat has his/her own Wiki entry, for chrissakes. Since when is having a Wiki entry proof of anything?

 

I'm all for sorting this business out, but I don't think Wiki is the answer. I don't even think the DL candidates should have Wiki links on the DL front list forum page thingy. Wiki is bollocks. Iain (bless him - I have no issues with his sweet yet vain attempts to post relevantly on this site) is proof that Wiki info is unreliable and shoddy at best. Surely we should be relying on actual news stories for our info, even if it's just the Near Misses or Not Exactly Famous threads. I mean, if there isn't a news story about the individual's death somewhere in the world, then perhaps their death shouldn't be posted on this site. That strikes me as a fairly good criteria [editor's note: criterium?].

 

With regard to the two threads: I think they should be merged into one, semantics notwithstanding. They pretty much have the same stuff posted in them, anyway.

[M Busby Airlines 7]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

What do people think?

Gimme a break! Wiki is sh*t (the DL entry excepted, of course ). Pat has his/her own Wiki entry, for chrissakes. Since when is having a Wiki entry proof of anything?

 

I'm all for sorting this business out, but I don't think Wiki is the answer. I don't even think the DL candidates should have Wiki links on the DL front list forum page thingy. Wiki is bollocks. Iain (bless him - I have no issues with his sweet yet vain attempts to post relevantly on this site) is proof that Wiki info is unreliable and shoddy at best. Surely we should be relying on actual news stories for our info, even if it's just the Near Misses or Not Exactly Famous threads. I mean, if there isn't a news story about the individual's death somewhere in the world, then perhaps their death shouldn't be posted on this site. That strikes me as a fairly good criteria [editor's note: criterium?].

 

With regard to the two threads: I think they should be merged into one, semantics notwithstanding. They pretty much have the same stuff posted in them, anyway.

 

Is there a vacancy on Mods? Do I hear the slap of tongue on brown star?

BBC,CNN,SKY;ABC,Reuters ,in the UK for a death.

The nearlies, any 2/3 mentions on a reputable news source,such as Google,MSN,BBC,Yahoo,ABC,CNN,should be enough to appease even you.

Other than that is not relevant.

[Life Begins at 5 o'clock 7]

Tonight, Jerome McElroy died. RIP

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/...nment-headlines

[Guest iain]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

 

I think the problem Iain (or anyone else, but mainly Iain) has in one way is he wants to provide a service, but isn't sure which product is right.

If we have basic set criteria, then Iain would know before he posted, which thread each person

 

should be in.

Repeated failure to keep adheri

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ng to the criteria could relate in a warning at the worst extreme...

 

And I think that's fair.

 

What do people think?

 

I think the first two criteria are good, but the third one is a little shady. Just because no one felt the need to mention them makes them "Not Famous Enough?" For example, no one mentioned Rick James before he died, but certainly he was famous enough in the UK (and to get his own thread on the forums after his death, but I'll leave that can of worms closed for now).

 

Perhaps a third thread? "Famous enough, but not a near miss"

 

Oh, and before you ask, I didn't browse through old threads to find a name that was mentioned only after death. Superfreak started playing on my iPod.

 

I have an idea.Supposing the moderators just create a new thread entitled 'iains posts' so anyone who want to find out what total non entities or marginally semi-famous people have died can go there,and I can stop making posts on th e near misses thread.Then if you never want to see my posts again you can just avoid the 'iains posts' thread.Is that a goer?

[Guest iain]

Tonight, Jerome McElroy died. RIP

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/...nment-headlines

That link seems to lead to an article about the death of chef from South Park.Surely he doesnt qualify for the near misses thread!

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

I think that if there has to be a criteria to be on Near Misses it should be as such:

 

1) They must have a Wikipedia article on them before death.

 

AND

 

2) The news of their death produces a sizeable amount of articles on Google News Search (maybe 25-30 minimum?)

 

AND

 

For it to be a "Near Miss" as such, then a quick search of this forum will reveal whether this person has been discussed before or not in any thread.

 

Otherwise, I'd say "Not Famous, but..."

 

I think the problem Iain (or anyone else, but mainly Iain) has in one way is he wants to provide a service, but isn't sure which product is right.

If we have basic set criteria, then Iain would know before he posted, which thread each person

 

should be in.

Repeated failure to keep adheri

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ng to the criteria could relate in a warning at the worst extreme...

 

And I think that's fair.

 

What do people think?

 

I think the first two criteria are good, but the third one is a little shady. Just because no one felt the need to mention them makes them "Not Famous Enough?" For example, no one mentioned Rick James before he died, but certainly he was famous enough in the UK (and to get his own thread on the forums after his death, but I'll leave that can of worms closed for now).

 

Perhaps a third thread? "Famous enough, but not a near miss"

 

Oh, and before you ask, I didn't browse through old threads to find a name that was mentioned only after death. Superfreak started playing on my iPod.

 

I have an idea.Supposing the moderators just create a new thread entitled 'iains posts' so anyone who want to find out what total non entities or marginally semi-famous people have died can go there,and I can stop making posts on th e near misses thread.Then if you never want to see my posts again you can just avoid the 'iains posts' thread.Is that a goer?

 

Why not? And, hey, why stop there? Perhaps the mods could also rename the whole forum after yourself? Personally I think this might also raise merchandise sales. I for one would rush to buy an Iain thong.

[The Four Horsemen 26]

I can just see you now, wearing aforementioned underwear whilst gazing wistfully out to sea as the sun sets on BHB Towers - that's right, just a thong at twilight........

[Octopus of Odstock 2,187]

Gimme a break! Wiki is sh*t.

 

I have an idea.Supposing the moderators just create a new thread entitled 'iains posts' so anyone who want to find out what total non entities or marginally semi-famous people have died can go there,and I can stop making posts on th e near misses thread.Then if you never want to see my posts again you can just avoid the 'iains posts' thread.

 

 

 

Sheesh.. I try & suggest a solution to pacify everyone & end up either being ignored or berated. (Apart from CP, bless him )

 

Remind me not to get involved next time

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Sheesh.. I try & suggest a solution to pacify everyone & end up either being ignored or berated. (Apart from CP, bless him )

 

Remind me not to get involved next time

That's what happens to diplomats.

 

regards,

Hein

[Tuber Mirum 125]

I like to look into this thread most days to see if anyone of note has died.

 

I'm getting a bit fed up of having to wade through arguments for and against deaths being posted in this thread as opposed to the "Not Exactly Famous" one or not.

 

The following is out of VSBfromH's justification for creating the "Not Exactly Famous" thread.

 

Can I propose a new thread in which we celebrate those who cannot be classed as famous in a worldwide or even a national sense, but deserve a mention.

 

This could be the place to note those quirky or surreal deaths, or simply those people who you feel deserve a mention due to the content of the report of their death.

 

Hopefully it will declutter the "Near Misses" thread.

Seems to have hit a bit wide of the mark then, doesn't it?

 

In the olden days we got by just nicely with only one near misses thread, and nobody grumbled much unless someone started a new thread where it wasn't necessary.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that important if someone's death gets posted in here who isn't really that famous. And it's too complicated for iain anyway having two threads.

 

I say we lock the other one and put them all in here.

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

I like to look into this thread most days to see if anyone of note has died.

 

I'm getting a bit fed up of having to wade through arguments for and against deaths being posted in this thread as opposed to the "Not Exactly Famous" one or not.

 

The following is out of VSBfromH's justification for creating the "Not Exactly Famous" thread.

 

Can I propose a new thread in which we celebrate those who cannot be classed as famous in a worldwide or even a national sense, but deserve a mention.

 

This could be the place to note those quirky or surreal deaths, or simply those people who you feel deserve a mention due to the content of the report of their death.

 

Hopefully it will declutter the "Near Misses" thread.

Seems to have hit a bit wide of the mark then, doesn't it?

 

In the olden days we got by just nicely with only one near misses thread, and nobody grumbled much unless someone started a new thread where it wasn't necessary.

 

What I'm trying to say is it's not that important if someone's death gets posted in here who isn't really that famous. And it's too complicated for iain anyway having two threads.

 

I say we lock the other one and put them all in here.

 

Wouldn't that be allowing the lunatics to run the asylum? I mean, even more than they do already around these parts. "Not Exactly Famous" should, as NAP notes, be the domain of deaths that are interesting in and of themselves (like the guy who got eaten by a crocodile), even though the person who died is not famous. And all the pointless death notices from Wiki about someone no one's ever heard of who died because they were 87, should go into this new directory I've constructed:

 

[Guest iain]

the former senator John Glen Beale has died at 78

 

Sarah Caldwell ,founder and director of the Boston Symphonmy Orchestra has died at 82

 

country and western songwriter Cindy Walker has died (wrote songs for Roy Orbison among many others)

 

Dutch political leader Ria Beckers has died at 67

 

founder of Zimbabwes governig party Zanu-PF James Chikerema (cousin of Robert Mugabe) has died at 80

 

and possibly the worlds oldest animal Addwaitya the tortoise has died at 250

[Guest iain]

another one just in..the magician Channing Pollock has died at 79

 

and this..actor Michael Attwell who played the part of Pauline Fowlers brother Kenny in Eastenders,has died at 63.He also starred in a couple of Doctor Who stories

[Octopus of Odstock 2,187]

3 comments.

The tortoise was posted 2/3 days ago in the Not Famous but thread.

Channing Pollock's death is not "just in" - I saw an article that he died some 4 days ago. I had heard of him, strangely enough, but didn't think his death was worth posting at Deathlist then or now.

 

But Michael Attwell's death is not only sad, it's surprising. I can't remember him in Eastenders, but the obituary your link eventually leads to mentions that he was Derek, the Doorman, in the recent BBC programme Hotel Babylon. Although a big man, he looked well and I wouldn't have thought he was 63.

 

Hotel Babylon links page - Attwell is the pen-pic left of More Characters.

[Guest iain]

actress Lynn Perry who played the part of Ivy Tilsley from Coronation Street has died aged 75

[Octopus of Odstock 2,187]

actress Lynn Perry who played the part of Ivy Tilsley from Coronation Street has died aged 75

 

Hey, Iain, today, at last, you've been first on the button to report not one, but TWO famous deaths!

 

Lynne Perrie

 

Here's a link to support it - Note the correct spelling of her name.

[Guest iain]

actress Lynn Perry who played the part of Ivy Tilsley from Coronation Street has died aged 75

 

Hey, Iain, today, at last, you've been first on the button to report not one, but TWO famous deaths!

 

Lynne Perrie

 

Here's a link to support it - Note the correct spelling of her name.

As always,thanks for putting me right