Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 40: Line 40:
*'''Oppose''' this is trivia and much better suited to DYK. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 18:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is trivia and much better suited to DYK. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 18:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' This is big news, plenty of coverage. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' This is big news, plenty of coverage. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' Article quality ATM simple is not very good, but depending on whether Melvin Capital actually goes bankrupt and/or The SEC/platforms like Robinhood change their rules, this event may have a more significant lasting effect. I say wait until a later date when the article is of higher quality and better sourced. A potential day for an ITN listing could be when some sort of permanent change inspired by this event takes place, but I would hold off for now. (I think we can all agree, however, that this is deeply, deeply funny.) <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Mooeena|Mooeena]] ● [[User_talk:Mooeena|💌]] ● [[Special:Contributions/Mooeena|✒️]] ● [[Wikipedia:A_primer_for_newcomers|❓]]</span> 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


== January 26 ==
== January 26 ==

Revision as of 18:48, 27 January 2021

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Ismail Haniyeh in September 2022
Ismail Haniyeh

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

January 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


GameStop short squeeze

Article: GameStop short squeeze (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The GameStop short squeeze causes GameStop stock to jump from $4 to $371.28 after Reddit users predicted a hedge fund closure over the last week. (Post)
News source(s): (The Guardian) (AP News)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Big deal in the business world. Article quality isn’t that good, so maybe do “wait” votes until the article is improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Billy Kenoi

Article: Billy Kenoi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hawaii News Now
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Hawaii County, US. Article not bad - Dumelow (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. This shouldn't go up, until it's replaced with an independent source - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: David Washbrook

Article: David Washbrook (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DailyO
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British historian. Obituaries are yet to appear in major newspapers. Article (particularly early life) can be beefed up at that point. Article as it stands does meet homepage standards of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Ron Johnson

Article: Ron Johnson (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Thorburn

Article: Peter Thorburn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Zealand Herald; NZ Rugby; TVNZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh it's probably something that could be omitted, although since he is a rugby star it's logical that his blog would be about that. Your call really. SpencerT•C 04:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New Prime Minister of Estonia

Article: Kaja Kallas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kaja Kallas becomes the first woman to become Prime Minister of Estonia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Kaja Kallas becomes the Prime Minister of Estonia, the first woman to hold the office.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The new government of Estonia led by Kaja Kallas takes power following Jüri Ratas's resignation due to a corruption scandal.
News source(s): DW, Politico, AP, Guardian, Estonian World
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Estonia is getting a new Prime Minister, which is ITN/R, as the Prime Minister is the position with all of the power in the country. This does not follow an election, because the previous Prime Minister resigned due to a scandal. This is particularly noteworthy because Kallas is the first woman to become Prime Minister of Estonia, and Estonia now becomes the only country in the world with both an (elected) female head of state and head of government. While the news broke two days ago, Kallas only officially became Prime Minister this morning, so I am nominating this for today. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Carlos Holmes Trujillo

Article: Carlos Holmes Trujillo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Colombian Minister of Defense dies from COVID-19. Article needs work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Italian Prime Minister

Article: 2021 Italian government crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte resigns after weeks of disagreements within the government coalition. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT, Guardian
Credits:

 Ritchie92 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the Prime Minister is not the head of state. Also, there could be no change of PM at all in this case, as he could be re-appointed by the actual head of state (the President of Italy) to form another government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Double oppose then. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, ITNR is for including recurring events, not for automatically excluding what is not in ITNR. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Nilda Pedrosa

Article: Nilda Pedrosa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not trying to imply that it's a stub (sorry if that's how my wording came off), just that it's bony, with some sections comprised of just one sentence. If that could be bulked up a bit, then I'd support. Gex4pls (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Arik Brauer

Article: Arik Brauer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Standard + leading papers in German
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: no art he didn't do - now referenced and expanded, and on the way to more, but should be enough already Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joseph Sonnabend

Article: Joseph Sonnabend (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Blade
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: HIV/AIDS researcher, article was rated as GA in 2015. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) 2021 Portuguese presidential election

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Portuguese presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (pictured) is elected for a second term as President of Portugal. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Correio da Manhã, AP
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Re-election of a head of state. ArionEstar (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Armstrong (ice hockey)

Article: George Armstrong (ice hockey) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable professional athlete, article is a GA. - Indefensible (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: New Zealand health officials reports the first community case of COVID-19 in more than two months in a 56-year-old woman who returned to the country from Europe. (Sydney Morning Herald) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&action=edit Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: New Zealand is notable as having eliminated community transmission. Periodic re-introduction of community exposure is significant news in my opinion. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes that a top official suspects transmission during quarantine due to more transmissible variant. DougEMandy (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as calling out any one country's COVID response (positive/negative/otherwise) is covered by the banner. --Masem (t) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minor detail in the big story at the top of Template:ITN, good for them making it two months without a single case, I'm jealous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why call out New Zealand for having one case and not the United States for passing 25 million, or India for passing 10 million, or Micronesia for getting its first case earlier this month? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NorthernFalcon. I find it absolutely hilarious that a country which has done a stand-up job of containing this unprecedented global pandemic is now somehow considered newsworthy for ascertaining the presence of ONE CASE of COVID-19 while the rest of the world is burning. We could learn a lot from the Kiwis.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Us New Zealanders have had it pretty good over the last year, and we sure appreciate it. I would not regard it as "being called out" for having a case of community transmission; I'd see it as an incredible effort that it's taken this long until another case escaped into the community. Schwede66 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Robert Rowland

Article: Robert Rowland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Walter Bernstein

Article: Walter Bernstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American screenwriter. Article requires some work, but, not too far away. Edits done. Article looks good for homepage / RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jonas Gwangwa

Article: Jonas Gwangwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted South African jazz ‘giant. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, notability is not a concern with RD. Any gripes with the article itself are valid, but please do not oppose RD listings for being un notable :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roy Torrens

Article: Roy Torrens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: he was regarded as a pioneer of the success of Ireland national cricket team in international cricket. Abishe (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Russian protests

Article: 2021 Russian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ People across Russia protest against the arrest of Alexey Navalny. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In 112 Russian cities protesters demand the release of Alexei Navalny, and the resignation of the Vladimir Putin.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, Meduza, The Moscow Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Front page news on CNN, BBC, etc. Either blurb or ongoing. Article is currently developing as events are unfolding. Brandmeistertalk 13:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose proseline. The background section is larger than the events themselves. Nothing in the target tells me, the reader, why this matters. 40,000 people marched? From where to where? Then what? Speeches? Police brutality? Putin resigned? What happened? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, that table, almost all of it cited to Meduza.io which is an aggregator that provides no sources for it's map. Needs an orange tag -- of course it'll go on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-closed) (Posted/Pulled) RD/Blurb: Larry King

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed image
Article: Larry King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American television and radio host Larry King dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): Official Twitter The Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Announced by his media company. RS should follow pretty soon but that is imho sufficiently reliable. SoWhy 13:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to 109.249.185.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for adding The Independent source. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Patently trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We should keep both. No need to knock Hank Aaron (who played baseball, not basketball). UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haters gonna hate LaserLegs Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until his hopsitalization, King was still active as a host, so even less of "old man dies" here. --Masem (t) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We created RD to keep death blurbs from pushing other stories out of the box, so my threshold for a blurb is very high. No hate here. Will stop being "in the news" Monday morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was that Wallace might be more famous in the US than King, but living outside the US, I know exactly who King was but had never heard of Wallace. Outside the US, King was synonymous with US television for a long time. --cart-Talk 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide - agree with cart, I never heard of Mike Wallace on this side of the world JW 1961 Talk 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb if the CNs are fixed. BBC: King was a giant of US broadcasting who achieved worldwide fame for interviewing political leaders and celebrities. AP: King helped define American conversation for a half-century. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb from another person outside the United States. Like it or not, his name is probably the first one that comes to mind when talking about television.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It’s obvious that the most famous television journalist since Cronkite and a cultural icon deserves an entire blurb, not a simple recent death mention. Most people under 60 don’t even know who Mike Wallace is. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently judging by the reaction, that isn’t the case. This was a man who was also in children’s tv shows and movies. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cronkite who? Anyway, just checked with my partner and my sibling. I didn’t know if they knew of Larry King, but they said yes. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Miller, Hayley; Moran, Lee (January 23, 2021). "Larry King, Iconic TV And Radio Interviewer, Dies At 87". HuffPost – via Yahoo!. He rose above personal tragedy, financial despair and half a dozen divorces to become one of the most revered and prolific interviewers in broadcasting. Dalton, Andrew; Moore, Frazier. "Larry King, broadcasting giant for half-century, dies at 87 January 23, 2021". Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Associated Press. 7&6=thirteen () 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Influential in the television broadcasting field, death reported with significant coverage and article in decent shape. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. I'd certainly never heard of him, but most importantly none of the +votes have offered any serious explanation for his transformative importance in the field. There are plenty of high-profile journalists and interviewers but their importance is usually national-only. For what it's worth, I think we did include David Frost in 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Larry King is one of the most influential, well-known, and transformative individuals in the history of broadcasting. I'd suggest reading the article if you've never heard of him. Mlb96 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As TRM and I have pointed out, this cannot be posted RD or Blurb until quality issues are resolved. Too many editors are arguing towards importance but forgetting the other major pillar for inclusion in the ITN box. --Masem (t) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem Which "quality issues" are there? I think they have all been resolved. 7&6=thirteen () 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were more before, but there remains the POV orange section tag on the controversy section. --Masem (t) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a scale of 1 to 1, how strong is your support? – Sca (talk)
Amakuru I'm not sure what you mean by "early posting"; there are numerous comments above with a good number of people weighing in. We have no arbitrary minimum discussion time. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I explained what I meant by this above. Several people had already opposed a blurb by the time you posted, and now even more have opposed since. That means it's not Uncontroversial, and as we always do with such cases, we RD it first (assuming quality is OK) while blurb discussion continues. To avoid the unseemly rigmorole of having to pull something that's already been posted. I was questioning why that step was bypassed here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of that bring a formal rule. I evaluated the arguments and made a decision. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I must agree that while a major figure in American journalism, he does not quite rise to the level of blurb worthy in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/pull blurb I was a fan, but he died of old-age related diseases at 87, and he wasn't "top tier" famous. A big name sure, but most certainly not heads higher than several others in the world of journalism. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Larry King vs. Hank Aaron, both "old man dies", I'm always astonished about the VIP treatment US athletes get on ITN, as opposed to US non-sports people who are internationally known. Just saying. I know I can't change that, but it's worth mentioning. (Ok, now let the "you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about rain" begin.) --cart-Talk 21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter I invite you to make nominations of such persons that you think merit posting and convince others to support them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've noticed a few !votes pointing out that he was elderly; I'd like to politely ask that editors avoid those types of rationales in RD blurbs where the notability comes not from the way they died, but what they did with their lives. Any accomplished individual who is at the top of their respective field is more likely to die old than young, so age is not the determining factor here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he's elderly is a relevant factor because it means that his death is not in itself remarkable or independently newsworthy. If he had died unexpectedly at a young age, as say Kobe Bryant did, that changes the equation.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Age at death is also the exact hook of the proposed blurbs, what else are we supposed to oppose? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Amakuru and InedibleHulk. Someone who is entirely notable for "What they did with their lives" is on WP:ITNRD as a reason to post someone in RD, not as a blurb. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let Me Die A Youngman's Death by Roger McGough. --cart-Talk 22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Amakuru and Nohomersryan, both can be reasons why a death is notable (either that the death itself was unexpected or that the individual themselves was notable), but most RDs that get posted as blurbs are deaths of elderly people who died of natural causes, because the determining factor was what they did in their lives. Kobe Bryant dying at a young age was undoubtedly shocking, but this is very rarely the case. Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. If any editor were to oppose the posting of Aretha Franklin, Stephen Hawking, or Nelson Mandela because they were all between the ages of 76 and 95 and died of natural causes, they would surely be criticized for thinking that their advanced age makes them any less blurb-worthy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what the discussion is for; whether an individual is at the top is inherently arbitrary and not for us to decide, it's for sources to decide, and Sharon Begley's passing resulted in nowhere near as many reliable sources covering it. I'm simply arguing that we can and do post the deaths of "major figures" (see WP:ITNRD: "The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb."), not just deaths that occur as a result of shocking freak accidents, hence "they were old" shouldn't be considered a valid reason to !vote oppose.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is exclusively about the age at which he died. Maybe propose an alternative if you don't want his age to factor in. Not sure where Supporters see any other accomplishment here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you take issue with the wording of this RD blurb? The format of "(field) (name) died at the age of (age)" is pretty standard.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore, it's old news. But yes, should have been RD (two days later at Annan, I voted No blurbs for anyone). At least that one had a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it is inherently subjective, and what is for Wikipedians to decide is whether it gets posted and/or blurbed or not. Right now there does not seem to be consensus for supporting the blurb whether based on age or otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. - The bar is higher than simply being top of one's field, which was the old RD criteria that was rightfully junked. Besides, Franklin and Mandela's deaths were followed by a wave of tributes and lengthy memorials that dominated TV for days after they had passed. King was an elderly TV host who did not die in a surprising way; he won't be top news 24 hours from now. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we should take into account a person who is simply elder and has not been active for a while in their field (meaning that they should have achieved a greater importance in their youth as was the case of Hank Aaron), until the start of 2021, King was still doing his shows and interviews and showed no sign of slowing down until he was hospitalized by COVID. So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant, in addition to the fact King was a luminary in the field already. --Masem (t) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant Wait, what?? An 87-year-old man who was hospitalized for over a month with a deadly disease is as surprising as a 41-year-old athlete dying suddenly in a helicopter crash? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb for the post-posting debate. A world-renowned figure in his field, working up until nearly his death. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb he would be famous internationally for the "people with American cable TV" audience, but otherwise I doubt the Mandela/Hawking levels of notability. Was King even top of his field in terms of notability relative to contemporaries? No issue with RD. Juxlos (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb American TV isn't available in much of the rest of the world. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled - Because 6 of the 7 folks who expressed an opinion since the posting were either pull or oppose, it's best to pull it at this time until a consensus develops to post. Courtesy ping: 331dot-- Fuzheado | Talk 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost as blurb. There was consensus to post as a blurb when it was posted and the given reason for removal is weak. Consensus should be judged as whole and not based on knee-jerk pull comments after the fact. -- Calidum 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hank Aaron a virtually unknown outside the US is posted to Blurb. But Larry King is not per ”being unknown outside the US”. Let that sink in.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb it's inherently US centric (i'm from Australia); when someone who is one of the top figures in their field (broadcasting) and known worldwide - is seen as less notable than a baseball player (only really big in the US, Japan, Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic) - which proves international notability means nothing in the end. I doubt anyone here would blurb Sadaharu Oh either (or any cricketer like Garfield Sobers or Viv Richards for that matter - which would point towards American sports fanboyism instead and noone actually caring about the sport's international prospects). Unless we are going to claim a CNN show has less international reach than baseball. Only legitimate argument would be that Ted Turner would probably not get a blurb, so a CNN host probably should not! Either way, i support King's blurb. GuzzyG (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably the Hank Aaron blurb should be removed and added to the RD list as well per your comment and similar others, that would be better than having them take up ITN blurb space for other encyclopedic content. - Indefensible (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Noone would blurb Barbara Walters so King is in a similar playing field - although he's up there with David Frost and Oriana Fallaci - we'd probably blurb David Attenborough though, so in the end - it's just the person whose field tends to have Wikipedia editors as fans (like Carrie Fisher). Realistically, journalism is a relatively country specific area (although people like King break through internationally sometimes, moreso than a Walter Cronkite type of broadcaster). Sports though i would say only top notch footballers like Pelé (worldwide sport) or Olympic athletes like Michael Phelps (worldwide competition) should be blurbed regularly, with the rare pass for Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Michael Jordan type athletes that are known worldwide or people like Garry Kasparov with a bit of historical importance behind them (human rights) - most sports are very local ad very rarely are important in different countries than in which they compete. Either way, King's show broadcasted on CNN International; which means he is more international than some people here give him credit - but if we go by the original Thatcher/Mandela standard than none would probably make it, to be honest! GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Definitely the most notable person associated with CNN and probably talk shows in general. Maybe I'm biased by living close to the US but whenever a character in a movie goes on a talk show it always seems to be Larry King. Connor Behan (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being associated with CNN is not prima facie proof of notability, not even in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most notable person associated with CNN" is a different sentence from "notable because he was associated with CNN". Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb -- can we please make a policy that once a blurb is posted, it is not pulled? This is unprofessional. I'd rather we wait a long period of time before blurbing than do this. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support such a policy -- this alone is enough of a reason to restore Larry King. It is troubling that an admin thought it was acceptable not only to pull a death blurb but to do so without moving it to RD. Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh 1. He is known worldwide, this is not debateable. 2. He was extremely successful and accomplished in his career over the years, in radio and television, by any standard you can name. 3. His article indicates nothing transformative, he didnt pioneer anything, didnt make any great advances to the world of broadcasting/news/interviews etc. He didnt invent the softly softly interviewing technique. He may have been highly influential, but its not in his article, which reads much more like 'This is who he was, what he did' not 'This is what he achieved and improved on compared to others in his field'. If the standard for blurbing is 'transformative', then his article needs something to that effect. If we are happy with just having someone at the top of their game after a long successful life, we need to dump the transformative requirement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Yes, a well-known figure but doesn't meet the "transformative" standard. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Well known is not the same as important. Quite shocked at the level of support here. I imagine the place King held at CNN when CNN was the be-all-end-all is inflating people's opinion of him. He interviewed everyone because he was such a lightweight. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Hank Aaron to RD too: no consensus to post there either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb Well known around the world (except to young people perhaps) and he was definitely at the top of his field. His death has been reported as a top story not only in the U.S. but also in other countries. Larry King's show, by the way, aired not only on CNN USA but also on CNN International, which is available in many countries. I'm surprised Larry King is being questioned while we have a blurb for Hank Aaron, who I never even heard of. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. It seems that King was pulled ENTIRELY which is very disproportionate. He's easily important enough for RD (unless there's undisclosed BLP issues in the article or the like), but probably borderline for a blurb. (Also, Hank Aaron >>> Larry King, surprised to see that incredulity above... it's not unreasonable for Aaron to get a blurb but not King. TV journalists are common; lifetime homerun record holders are exceedingly rare.) SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why is he not in RD???-- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - Only top of a narrow field; I'd say he was an Eddie Van Halen level television host... - Floydian τ ¢ 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, per User:Vanilla Wizard rationale above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only while very well-known, not transformative. It's pretty hard for a news host to be transformative because they can't proactively change the course of history/academics/sports techniques/jurisprudence/commerce etc in a way that a trailblazing politician/research professor/sportsperson/judge/businessperson could, but that is the lot of a TV host Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats This needs revisiting now that Larry King has scrolled off RD but Hank Aaron is still there with a big picture. King peaked at over 1.5 million views and was still the top read on Wikipedia yesterday with 666K – a figure that Aaron failed to reach at all. The other blurbs are nowhere in this contest – they barely twitched the needle. The general consensus of our readership is clear.
Readership views
Article 7 days to 24 Jan
Larry King
2,185,535
Hank Aaron
1,046,483
LauncherOne
59,781
2021 Russian protests
46,286
2020–21 Central African general election
13,874
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Cyclone Eloise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Cyclone Eloise (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 13 people are killed from Cyclone Eloise. (Post)
News source(s): ReliefWeb The Guardian Nigeria Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic situation unfolding. Uncommonly strong storm heading towards a poor country still recovering from Cyclone Idai, which killed 1,300 people and left 2,200 more missing. More deaths will occur. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 01:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This storm is still strengthening and is almost guaranteed to continue doing so all the way up to landfall. Which is imminent. The storm is going to strike Mozambique, a country that was devastated by Cyclones Idai and Kenneth back in 2019. The country hasn't yet recovered, and they recently experienced a landfall from Tropical Storm Chalane near the end of last month. This storm is guaranteed to have significant impacts on a region still recovering from a devastating storm, and as such, it warrants an ITN mention. There will be more damage, and there will almost certainly be more deaths. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I would think that the blurb should reflect the strength and ominous nature of the storm. As written, it sounds like a thing that happened and is done with. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For now. Don't get too WP:CRYSTAL on us now, the storm hasn't made landfall yet, and so far the death toll is low. (Also, the article needs a bit of improvement) Gex4pls (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over your sources and it looks like (correct me if I'm wrong) the 3 deaths came from previous rains not associated with the storm, and the only death mentioned is in the reuters article, where they claim that one person has died in Madagascar. Gex4pls (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gex4pls: The 3 deaths were part of the moisture associated with the storm. The Reuters article mentions flooding days before the storm's arrival. The storm was very large and had a large moisture field, with sprawling rainbands. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, makes sense then. Sorry about that. Gex4pls (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gex4pls: No worries! It's entirely fine to question the deaths/impact of a storm if the source is unclear. Cheers, ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The last significant update about the protests was a January 12th one-liner when the supreme court suspended the law. [8] The most recent protest was added on January 8th and was about protests which took place on December 24th. [9] Everything else from the 8th till now is ref improvements, copy edits, and commentary from both sides -- not protests. People disagree with laws all the time and make their cases in court, in the media, in elections, etc and that's what's going on here. The article is stale, the story is stale, and it needs to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am guessing you are not aware of the recent happenings. The article is in dire need of an update; yes, it needs to be off the main page in its present state. There have been pretty recent and major developments to the case, wherein the government proposed suspension of the said laws while the protesting party refused. There is a plan to take out a major rally on 26 Jan - India's Republic Day. If someone updates the article, this should remain on. It still is a pretty hot topic being covered by international media. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the story, because I honestly don't care about it. I just evaluated the article against the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care about it Uh-huh. That should violate #4. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, I didn't scour the internet for news about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then get it into the target article, that's what we're featuring on the main page for our WP:READERS --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article could use some updating, but looks like this is still noteworthy and an ongoing event that is not resolved yet. Some sources from a quick search: MSN/Bloomberg, MSN/Hindustan Times - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal per nom. This is an ongoing issue with items in the Ongoing section. SpencerT•C 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just looked into it briefly, there were negotiations ongoing between the 2 sides which failed on Friday, and there is another protest planned for the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Single sentence bullet point updates (e.g. 2020–2021_Indian_farmers'_protest#Timeline are essentially minimal updates to the article. Without paragraph-length substantial ongoing updates (suggesting that the continuing events are substantially noteworthy), articles should not remain indefinitely in Ongoing. SpencerT•C 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that the protests are not over so the nomination is not accurate, and it should not be removed for that reason. The event is still ongoing, there was a legitimate reason why things calmed down because directly-related negotiations were being held, but no resolution was found. So more protests are expected in the near-term, and it would not be unexpected to see major developments added. - Indefensible (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough; have struck "per nom". I am not supporting removal because of reasons in the nomination stating that the event is stale, rather because the article is not continuing to receive substantial updates with recent events. Although more protests may be expected, possible future events is not a reason to keep a non-updated article in Ongoing. SpencerT•C 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • That reason makes more sense and I agree the article could be improved, but contrarily there is no rush to take it down since events in scope of the subject are still active and there is reasonable expectation for near-term developments. Realistically it could be similar to the newly posted Russian protests, it would not be right to take it down for lack of article update and then turn around in a couple days and have to repost it because of a new nomination for the same event IMO, so it would be better to just sit on it a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fact that there is going to be a major development in India (Republic Day Jan 26th - protest march in Delhi) which is now 24 hours away suggests we should wait until then. Albertaont (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make one update in two weeks --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and thanks to the nominator for the background. If it's been more than a month since the last protest noted in a protest article, then the article is far from sufficiently updated to satisfy Ongoing criteria. Whether protests might happen in the future, and whether those might result in actual article updates is CRYSTAL. Per discussion here, there has been apparently many things going on that haven't gotten into the article; Why should be wait another day to see whether yet another "X thousand people marched in Y city demanding Z" update? If that actually hashes out and it's notable, the article can go back to Ongoing or as a blurb. But this should have come down weeks ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No longer CRYSTAL, Republic Day protests are definitely happening. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Juan Guzmán Tapia

Article: Juan Guzmán Tapia (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chilean Judge. Article requires some work to get it to homepage levels of quality. If someone understands the region, you are welcome to lend a hand to make the necessary edits. Edits and content updates done. Article has shaped up to a nice C-class biography. Article is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a concern with RD, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Luton Shelton

Article: Luton Shelton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Jamaica Football player Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: F. X. Sudjasmin

Article: F. X. Sudjasmin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The third deputy chief of staff of the Indonesian Army to come in the RD. Bear with me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted blurb) RD: Hank Aaron

Proposed image
Article: Hank Aaron (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Hank Aaron (pictured), the second highest Major League Baseball career home run leader, dies at the age of 86. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Baseball legend Hank Aaron dies at the age of 86.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Baseball player Hank Aaron dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): https://www.al.com/sports/2021/01/baseball-icon-hank-aaron-dead-at-age-86.html
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The GOAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--WaltCip-(talk) 19:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a recent death. WikiLove Goat (talk 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Important deaths can be posted to ITN, not RD. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg a couple months back. Gex4pls (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the reason he's being posted is because he is also an extremely important icon in the civil rights movement. He got a standing ovation in the deep south in 1974 for breaking Babe Ruth's record. That's an insane accomplishment. It's not just because of his ranking (which is impressive all on its own). -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Futile Oppose He was 86 and died, his real newsworthy accomplishments came decades ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, just so it's on the record. I love baseball and Aaron, but I don't see what makes this blurbworthy. This isn't a surprising death, and while it's true he's one of the best to ever swing a bat, he isn't worshipped on the scale of, say, one of the best footballers ever. As for the civil rights angle, it's pretty broad and hard to fit Aaron into as easily as, say, someone like Jackie Robinson. (What makes him greater in that aspect than someone like John Lewis, who was yanked from ITN quite resoundingly?) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He also isn't reviled on the scale of one of the best footballers ever, if you know who I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yanked from ITN quite resoundingly: Looking back at the the Lewis nom, it seems that 24h of very strong blurb support got pulled for a few hours of non-rebutted, post-blurb opposes. The post-pull comments were harsh on the removal. "resoundingly" is open to debate.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring specifically to the comments made after the posting, which seemed unanimously negative. I figured this would be the same kind of nomination that attracts a flurry of supports for a blurb, only to crumble when it's actually posted. Guess I'm no clairvoyant. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose those "bigger things" for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Global recognition is not a requirement for any ITN posting, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not blurbing Dave Bolton, also referred to quite literally as a "legend". We haven't blurbed a lot of alleged "legends", in a lot of fields. When Pele dies, he'll be called one, too; he'll get the blurb by sheer numbers, I bet, but I already Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have noticed a few people citing his civil rights accomplishments as reason to post, but I'm not familiar with them and when I go to the article, CTRL+F "civil rights" returns zero results. If it's just his status as an accomplished black player through the civil rights era, I get it but the article doesn't make it seem important (the term "black" is only mentioned twice in the article). I am leaning support though because of his numerous baseball accomplishments and how well-known he was. TarkusABtalk/contrib 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post posting Support blurb The bottom line is that he was an influential figure and the article is in good shape PERIOD. The “he’s old” argument is overused and frankly a weak one (everyone gets old, even influential figures) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That he got old and died, like everyone who doesn't die young, is the content of the blurb. It doesn't say shit about his feats, his influence or what changes now. The "old man dies" story is overused and weak, hence the routine opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Meherzia Labidi Maïza

Article: Meherzia Labidi Maïza (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Univers News (in French)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tunisian politician died overnight of 21/22 January. I've updated the article with her death - Dumelow (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man, looks like someone messed up the death section a bit when adding (in good faith) the dispute over cause of death. I've given it a tidy and removed the cause of death category - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, marked for admin attn now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Ready) RD: Mauricio Herdocia Sacasa

Article: Mauricio Herdocia Sacasa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Prensa
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Leading Nicaraguan figure in international law, contributed to major Central American peace accords and development of legal bodies, which he also led. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Prime Minister resigns

Article: Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Prime Minister of Mongolia, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, resigns after COVID-19 protests. (Post)
Credits:

 125.165.82.168 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Henryk Chmielewski (comics)

Article: Henryk Chmielewski (comics) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Papcio Chmiel was a comic book artist, very popular in Poland. Millions (not an exaggeration) of young people were raised on his comics. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nathalie Delon

Article: Nathalie Delon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go for about 24 hours now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dave Bolton

Article: Dave Bolton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; NSWRL; Wigan Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Resignation of Canada's Governor General

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Julie Payette (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Governor General of Canada, Julie Payette, resigns following the release of a report by the Privy Council Office accusing her of harassment of civil servants. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Toronto Sun
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Resignation of Canada's head of state. Not sure if this is ITN/R, but it's the first time in modern history that a governor general has resigned in Canada. Article is decently sourced but will need some improvement (notably under "Honours") Floydian τ ¢ 22:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen is the head of state. The governor general is her representative. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you're already half Canadian with that unnecessary apology :) In commonwealth countries, the Prime Minister is the head of government, and the Queen is head of state. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen for that nation. Purely ceremonial role really, but still a very high ranking political office none-the-less. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Commonwealth countries. There are 31 Commonwealth nations that are republics, and the Queen is not the head of state. -dmmaus (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021 Baghdad bombings

Article: 2021 Baghdad bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 32 are killed and 110 are wounded in a suicide attack in Baghdad, Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; CNN; Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major suicide attack, first of it's kind and magnitude in 3 years. Gex4pls (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL claimed it; explosive belts, strapped to the bombers in a busy marketplace; to try to force Iraq to submit to becoming part of an ISIL-ruled caliphate.
Had this happened in the Western world, it would have been posted within minutes of being nominated, with every comment strongly in favour of that. Suicide bombings having been common in Iraq from 2003-2017 doesn't make this double bombing less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the 999th time, IS isn't an "IS-affiliated website", Amaq News Agency is (social media presence, anyway). Seriously, this isn't hard, never has been. Simply read past the headlines, read past the headlines, read past the headlines! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amaq is the propaganda arm of IS. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And The Washington Post is the propaganda arm of Amazon. CNN and Fox have their favoured subnational entities, too. There's a clear difference between any thing and an affiliate of the same distinct but related thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can see this event important enough. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant death toll, international coverage and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this really is another disaster stub, and like every other one we post it'll not be expanded once it rolls off the main page. No one will ever be held to account for it, nothing will change in the Iraqi security situation because of it, once the wire services stop covering it the English speaking world will never think of it again, unless it's needed as filler for OTD. Could we please stop posting these rubbish articles? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs Could you stop putting the English speaking world over everyone else? A person killed in a bombing in Iraq is no less significant than one in the States. Just because people there don't/can't edit here doesn't make it less newsworthy. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People in Iraq can edit en WP, providing they understand English & have internet access. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the English Wikipedia. Not sure what else to say. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing in English doesn't mean that we should favour the Anglosphere. Prosecution & change in a country's situation aren't requirements for posting. If you think the article could & should be improved, you're welcome to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose like LaserLegs says, this has almost no value from an encyclopedic perspective and could be covered in a single line in a "list of terrorist attacks in Iraq" article. There's no long-lasting value, nothing will change as a result of this, no-one notable was killed, nothing notable was destroyed. It doesn't make it any less tragic but it does call into question the entire EV of the story and certainly isn't something I'd expect to see in the top 365 news stories of this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't be covered in a single line, or even a single, short paragraph. Your arguments could be used to reject the vast majority of mass murders. Would you be against posting this article had this double suicide bombing which killed over 30 people happened in NYC, London or Paris? The mass media give stories priority based on popularity, but we don't. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could. "A double bombing in Baghdad which killed 32 people was claimed by IS. Everyone else condemned it." And yes, I regularly vote down "mass murders" in regions where mass murders are commonplace. It would be fascinating to see where this article is in a year. As LaserLegs calls them, they are "disaster stubs" and usually remain that way, simply because they have no encyclopedic value. And yes, if a double suicide bombing afflicted New York, London, or Paris, of course it would be newsworthy, because they are not war zones and mass murder through bombings in those locations is far from commonplace. This is about context. This particular event would not make the top 365 news stories of the year. Probably not even the top 1000. See also: Category:Suicide bombings in Baghdad, Category:Suicide bombings in London, Category:Suicide bombings in New York and Category:Suicide bombings in Paris. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mass murders ceased to be common in Iraq 3 years ago. Many fatal bombings have occurred in London and Paris (London attack & Paris attacks lists them). The main reason for there being less media coverage of the Baghdad bombings is that the public are less interested in them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The categories speak for themselves. "many fatal bombings" have NOT occurred in London and Paris in the past 30 years. And certainly not with 32 deaths. But nice try. Nothing more to say than the two sentences I suggested for this "news". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. Less interest, less coverage, less article information. If a single victim or killer profile ever emerges in English from this objectively obscure and very different story, I'll eat my left shoe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the mass media, we don't measure importance by popularity. A perpetrator or victim of a mass murder having their own article isn't a requirement to be posted to ITN and there's no article about any of the people involved in the large majority of our articles about mass murders.
If you think the article is missing info it should include, you're welcome to add it. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've nailed it. There's literally nothing notable to report about this event, just a location, a date, a number and a perp. And the usual "everyone condemned it" blather. Two sentences in a list. Job done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "profile", not "article". As I used to regularly remind you years ago, reading genuinely helps when arguing about mass murder norms. We have no names, no ages, no hometowns; if this was about London, Paris or Tokyo (which it isn't), we would. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The media haven't said anything about the identities of the bombers or victims. Even if names & profiles of the victims were released, we tend not to include them in articles about mass murders. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide bombings are much more often described as mass murders &/or terrorist attacks than as disasters. Although they can be classed as a type of man-made disaster, the term disaster is much more often used to describe natural & accidental events.
The length & quality of the article are sufficient for ITN. It would be improved significantly if it were posted, because it would greatly increase the number of people who read & edit it. Most of our readers probably don't even know that it happened. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't improve at all, there's literally nothing more to add to it. As noted, could be adequately covered in two (or three, at a push) sentences. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kamala Harris

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Kamala Harris (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kamala Harris becomes the first female, Black, and Asian Vice President of the United States (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post; NYTimes; The Guardian; Hong Kong Standard
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (January 20)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Aslan Byutukayev

Article: Aslan Byutukayev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I don't know if this is appropriate to put it in the RD section. I would withdraw this RD nom if deemed inappropriate. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks fine for RD Support JW 1961 Talk 20:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mira Furlan

Article: Mira Furlan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Actress best known for playing Delenn on Babylon 5. Prose in good shape but short filmography needs sourcing. Masem (t) 05:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mulyadi Tamsir

Article: Mulyadi Tamsir (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sindonews
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Victim of the Sriwijaya Air 182; body has just been identified on 20 January. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gex4pls: I'll change it to a start. It is over 300 char above stub if we used the DYK counter. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, I think the Personal Life and Death sections could be merged, but other than that seems good. Gex4pls (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Baptist Kaggwa

Article: John Baptist Kaggwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Monitor (Uganda)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ugandan Roman Catholic bishop. Looks to be reasonable - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, I've added some more information now if you'd be able to take another look - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the ping. My apologies for the delay. SpencerT•C 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLove Goat:Notability is no longer a restraint on RD noms, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Cross

Article: James Cross (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; CTV News; Montreal Gazette
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (January 20) Bloom6132 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sibusiso Moyo

Article: Sibusiso Moyo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; BBC News; Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2021 Madrid explosion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Article: 2021 Madrid explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An explosion caused by a gas leak in Madrid, Spain kills at least three people and injures at least eight others. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is a light at the moment as this has just happened and news networks are likely focused elsewhere. Masem (t) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BBC seems to have killed their story – at least the link doesn't work anymore.Sca (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's an errant "n" in the URL. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Fixed. – Sca (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For context, in the time since nommed an explosion at an uzbekistani power plant has killed three.[16] Gex4pls (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And 32 killed by suicide bombers in Baghdad. [17]Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Inauguration of Joe Biden

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Inauguration of Joe Biden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Joe Biden is inaugurated (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2021-01-19-biden-inauguration-n1254610
Credits:
  • Oppose Biden's election was posted on ITN in November; there is no need to post an ITN item for his inauguration as well. Chrisclear (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) We don't usually post inaugurations, which are just formalities; we posted the election. We did post Obama's first one due to its unique nature, but the only first Biden is setting is that he is old. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that this item should not be posted. Chrisclear (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chrisclear Why did you nominate it if you don't think it should be posted? 331dot (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I might not be on Wikipedia in a few hours to oppose it then. Chrisclear (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Chrisclear Please don't make a nomination unless you support the item being nominated. We don't preemptively nominate something to reject it, especially if the only reason is because the nominator simply won't be on Wikipedia later. That's just the way it is, none of us can be here 24/7. As I said, we don't generally post inaugurations. In the event that it was posted per a consensus, consensus can change; we can and have removed posted items. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regarding "We don't preemptively nominate something to reject it", is that a policy or something you are merely requesting? Chrisclear (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what the difference is, given that many practices here are not written down, but I am requesting that you not preemptively nominate something for the simple reason that you won't be around when it might be nominated. If everyone did that, this page would be impossible to manage, sorting out good faith nominations from those just wanting to get their opinion in. The instructions on this page are for those who wish to "suggest a candidate"; you are not suggesting a candidate, you are preemptively nominating something you don't want. That is not nominating a candidate. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Just to make sure, you made a nomination with the rationale that it should not be posted? Did we post Trump's? If not, we probably should not post Biden's either, unless there is some extra addition to the blurb, like the extraordinary level of security (which is what is a thing most media focus on these days). --Tone 10:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close. The Nominator doesn't even want this posted, so why are we discussing it? As above, we posted the election and there's no need to also post the inauguration as it follows directly from that. Unless some unrest occurs or something, but that would be a separate story in its own right to be discussed if and when it happens.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose of course if something untoward happens like one of the orange followers goes rogue, we can consider it, but this is a run-of-the-mill part of the process, not noteworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Support I hate to be different this time but I think I should. The inauguration event would be one of the most watched event this world. Even from my-country-centric point of view this is very notable. One of the main tv channel in my country has even scheduled a live report. This, this, and this too. If the nominator opposes this I'll take over. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael This is just a formality; it has long been known Biden will be president starting at noon(even if Trump and the rioters did not know). No first is being set here as with Obama. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, this again. If that's the case then there should be an ITN policy that says "do not nominate news items that discuss a) regular events with a clearly determined outcome beforehand; b) ceremonies and formalities" Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeromi Mikhael We used to list it in ITNR as something we don't do, but it was removed. The election was the notable story here, not the formalization of its result. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the case. I believe I'm not a newcomer here, but the lack of any formal criterion for ITN blurbs still confuses me to this day. I see that "The election, not the inauguration" has already been an informal criterion amongst the regulars here. Someone should really make an unofficial guide to ITN blurbs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The results of the elections have already been posted. Yes, it will be an act seen by millions of people around the world (including me), but it's still something ordinary that, as they say above, is never published. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For someone who oppose the posting of this event to become the blurb, it is major event that had significant attention around the world. I rather wait for this to be posted until Joe Biden is actually inaugurated at noon EST, after that it can be discussed whether the blurb can be posted or not. 180.242.50.227 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that it should be posted and then we should discuss whether or not it should be posted? 331dot (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for Trump, we posted his inauguration as a secondary mention, two days after the event, but the main focus of that story was the 2017 Women's March that occurred because of the inauguration, not the event itself. As for Obama, back in 2009 we did post his first inauguration, but looking at that it feels like ITN was a different beast back then. There are seven stories posted, and each one is less than a line in length. And the discussion was just a couple of people saying let's do it. In 2013, the proposal to post Obama's second inauguration was roundly opposed. So I'd say precedent is that, in the current ITN format, we don't post unless there's something special about it.
  • Oppose - Close it. STSC (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: