Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 10

message: His death is a shock, but this article's still not "high" importance, sorry. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Provide reasons. This isn't a vote.) —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He's one of the most well known Australians abroad.  Certainly more than any Aussie Prime Minister.  Maybe not a "Top" like John Howard, but "High" seems justified. — ceejayoz talk 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "covers a general area of knowledge"? In a year, two years, five years, will it still be high? Even cities are only mid--low! pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the assessment standards page: "Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Australia." — ceejayoz talk 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only count as one person, but I can attest to the fact he was very well-known. In fact, I, a resident of the Netherlands, don't know many other Australian besides Steve Irwin; Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson and Nicole Kidman being the only others I can come up with at the moment. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you're ignorant. The really important figures in Australian or any history are usually major political leaders whose actions have long-lasting and significant effects on the country. We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid, we don't rate Russell Crowe higher than someone like Robert Menzies just because more people might have heard of him because they get their information about the world from the celebrity-obsessed mass media. Steve Irwin was a famous and popular figure and obviously deserves an article, but he is not as high on the importance scale as you seem to think. 86.134.213.12 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get angry. The problem with your statement is that notability isn't just something that's for students of Australia. See ceejayoz's comment. I'd say that the fact he was extremely well-known outweighs what is essentially your bias with which you say that other people are more notable than him, despite not being as well-known. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Retracted comment; article is high importance now, like I believed it should be. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason why scholars would not be interested in Steve Irwin, it's just that a reasonably objective assessment (if such a thing were possible) would surely not place him in the upper reaches of importance among Australians. Mid-level is fine. It puts him between trivia and great importance, which is about right. 86.136.7.160 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it was prominently featured on the news all over the world and that CNN has been showing repeats of his Larry King Live interview would contradict this statement. Do you have any reason to assess that his importance wasn't that great? —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)