Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
How to nominate an item[edit]In order to suggest a candidate:
There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN. Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template. Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
|
Archives[edit]
February 27[edit]
February 27, 2021 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
Law and crime
|
RD: John Mallard[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Evening Express
Credits:
- Nominated by Davidstewartharvey (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: death announced 26 Feb, one of the creators of the MRI scanner Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Peter Gotti[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News
Credits:
- Nominated by Lettler (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Mobster, brother of John Gotti. Should be good for RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
February 26[edit]
February 26, 2021 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: D. Pandian[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gfosankar (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Indian politician. Article meets hygiene levels for homepage / RD. Article has shaped to a nice C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Hannu Mikkola[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Motorsport.com
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: World rally champion. Top tier driver for much of the 1980s. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Manfred Gerstenfeld[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jerusalem Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Israeli economist and author. Article should be ready soon. Ktin (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be good for RD. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support ISBNs
would be ideal (I'll have a look later)now added otherwise looks ok for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)- Joseywales1961, Wow! That was brilliantly done JW! I was struggling quite a bit with this one last night! Looks great! Ktin (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Shamima Begum loses in Supreme Court[edit]
Blurb: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has unanimously supported the appeal of the British Home Secretary against Shamima Begum being granted leave to enter the United Kingdom. (Post)
News source(s): Supreme Court judgement, 26 February 2021
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Moonraker (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: New article on Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decision Moonraker (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Notable case and we don't usually post these on ITN. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support article is thin but good enough, and it's interesting that the UK will just straight up revoke citizenship from someone born in the country for supposed crimes committed abroad. Even the country about which we dare not speak isn't so cruel. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, she lost her plea to return to the UK while arguing her case to have her citizenship restored, not the actual case to restore her citizenship. Abductive (reasoning) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- True, Abductive, but that may never come to trial. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose some countries ban the re-entry of purported terrorists, some just deport them to another country altogether without charge indefinitely. Comme si, comme ca. This was never going to happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, The Rambling Man, it was ordered by three Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- And...? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, The Rambling Man, it was ordered by three Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose from the news reports on this, the decision is not creating a landmark case law in the UK, which usually is what we want to see in such cases for ITN. --Masem (t) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- No one is saying “landmark case”, Masem. The BBC says “potentially major implications for Ms Begum's case and others like it” here. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Which may be important for those people, but not for national or international law. That's the issue; when a case only has a narrow application, it doesn't make for good ITN story. A landmark ruling, which would set case law for a large portion of a country's population (eg like last year's Bostock ruling on work discrimination against LGBTQ from SCOTUS) is the type of stuff we are looking for. --Masem (t) 21:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- No one is saying “landmark case”, Masem. The BBC says “potentially major implications for Ms Begum's case and others like it” here. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose however one looks at it, it's just a court case involving one country with no international impact. Banedon (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- ^^^ "this is bait"! Anyway, I'm not sure how someone with Bangladeshi parents who comes from the UK, went to Syria and "married" someone from the Netherlands involves "one country" but yeah, YMMV and you know this is a bogus oppose, I'm not going to point you at the boilerplate, but you knows it! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Seems somewhat less than widely impactful. – Sca (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support The article is good and I'm seeing coverage outside the UK, eg NPR and Washington Post. P-K3 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice to see a nation not kneeling to a terrorist, wish news like this could go in the "well duh" bin of judicial outcomes. Might support if she gets ₤10 million for all her hardship, but otherwise I fail to see the significance of this outside of the United Kingdom. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't seem to be a very notable event. ITN should just post landmark court cases which this doesn't seem to be afaict. Nixinova T C 08:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) Zamfara kidnapping[edit]
Blurb: At least 317 girls are kidnapped by armed bandits raiding a secondary school hostel in Zamfara, Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN), (Washington Post), (AP News)
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Elijahandskip (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Fairly big kidnapping. Only problem is article size. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support 317 is a large enough number. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Article is no longer a stub. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome to expand it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to expand it nor am I the one championing it for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- There isn't much to write about a kidnapping when no one claims responsibility. What do you want us to write in? Do your research before commenting 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I did my research, I read the target article and found it lacking details. If there aren't any to be had, perhaps it doesn't belong on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- What do you think should be included in the article which currently isn't? Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- A police officer was killed? When? Why? How? "Some" children were taken into the woods? How many? When? Why? Attacked a military camp? The same group of attackers or a separate group? How big was the camp? Was it overrun and destroyed or just delayed? Where was the military and police during all of this? And on and on and on and I know those details aren't available but that doesn't mean this mediocre article, which will never ever be expanded after it expires off the main page, should go up with so little information. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- A hijacked aircraft crashes; it takes weeks for details about the perpetrators or the victims to come out. Are you suggesting that it should not make it to ITN? Simply the lack of available information or the fate of the article post-ITN doesn't make the news less credible.
Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject
― which it does. 2405:201:4013:80D0:4908:75E8:B326:830D (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)- Yes, I'm suggesting most of the air crashes we post should not make it to ITN. To be minimally comprehensive the question should answer the Five Ws. That's my view, I'm obviously in the minority. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has never fulfilled those criteria, because we don't know why it crashed or who caused it to. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- The article isn't 70% "background" and "reactions" either now is it? Seriously man find someone else to bother with your false equivalences. The disaster stub is on the main page, you got your way, move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- But it doesn't come close to fulfilling the 5Ws, which you say should be met before an article is minimally comprehensive & posted to ITN. The kidnapping article isn't a stub & kidnappings are rarely described as disasters. You oppose many articles for being 'disaster stubs', when it'd be more productive to improve them instead of opposing them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- The article isn't 70% "background" and "reactions" either now is it? Seriously man find someone else to bother with your false equivalences. The disaster stub is on the main page, you got your way, move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has never fulfilled those criteria, because we don't know why it crashed or who caused it to. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm suggesting most of the air crashes we post should not make it to ITN. To be minimally comprehensive the question should answer the Five Ws. That's my view, I'm obviously in the minority. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- A hijacked aircraft crashes; it takes weeks for details about the perpetrators or the victims to come out. Are you suggesting that it should not make it to ITN? Simply the lack of available information or the fate of the article post-ITN doesn't make the news less credible.
- A police officer was killed? When? Why? How? "Some" children were taken into the woods? How many? When? Why? Attacked a military camp? The same group of attackers or a separate group? How big was the camp? Was it overrun and destroyed or just delayed? Where was the military and police during all of this? And on and on and on and I know those details aren't available but that doesn't mean this mediocre article, which will never ever be expanded after it expires off the main page, should go up with so little information. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- What do you think should be included in the article which currently isn't? Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome to expand it. Jim Michael (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I've just had a go at expanding the article, and this seems like all that's possible for now (though it could probably do with a ce). Will have another look tomorrow to see if anything comes up to add. Pahunkat (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support because kidnappings on this scale are very notable & rare, even in Nigeria. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd be one of the biggest news stories in the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – These Nigerian mass schoolgirl kidnappings are becoming frightfully frequent. Why hype such shameful extortionism? Perhaps we should consider Ongoing instead. – Sca (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Major incident and article is of decent length now - certainly not a stub. P-K3 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, has Reactions section. Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Abductive:, that means nothing. We posted the Storming of the US Capitol and that has an extremely large reaction section. Reactions mean nothing for ITN nominations. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- As you are no doubt aware, Reactions sections are widely despised by editors. This particularly sickening one is a quotefarm of useless politicians stroking their own career disgracing the article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I get what you mean, but I just wanted to point out that you can't have a viable "oppose" !vote based on having a reaction section. Maybe reword your !vote to get your point across. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it gets to the alleged expansion of the article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of reaction sections either, which is why I renamed it Aftermath and trimmed the excessive quotes. The section should focus on the ongoing search and rescue operations. If people wish to read the quotes they can click the articles cited. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it gets to the alleged expansion of the article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I get what you mean, but I just wanted to point out that you can't have a viable "oppose" !vote based on having a reaction section. Maybe reword your !vote to get your point across. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- As you are no doubt aware, Reactions sections are widely despised by editors. This particularly sickening one is a quotefarm of useless politicians stroking their own career disgracing the article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Who cares that there's a reaction section?? Certainly not me. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Abductive:, that means nothing. We posted the Storming of the US Capitol and that has an extremely large reaction section. Reactions mean nothing for ITN nominations. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- notable -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support -big event in Nigeria, and we should include major events in Africa more. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support A perfect example of what ITN is about – showcasing our editors' quick-turn articles on events around the world. This article is just as long and certainly just as important as most of what gets posted here, and while it's in its early form, I have no doubt it will expand as the situation progresses. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - the article has been expanded and improved from a stub since the first oppose to a point where I feel this meets the required length for ITN - it's likely to be further expanded as more information comes to light. The concerns for the 'reactions' section seems to have been addressed, with the section culled down to summarise key points. 317 students is a large number, even in Nigeria - for comparison, 42 people were abducted in a similar raid less than two weeks before, which makes the event notable in my opinion. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ready the article meets our usual disaster article standards, there is strong consensus that it's notable. I don't like it, but it seems ready to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Article meets standards and support is clear. --Masem (t) 16:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: GameStop short squeeze[edit]
- 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.
Nominator's comments: This is definitely still happening right now. The article might not include the current second squeeze but there are several million people involved (9.3 million on r/WallStreetBets alone, broad news coverage, 16 billion dollars lost by Hedgefonds and maybe a pivotal point in financial history. Tresznjewski (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The event is over. Clearly there's still ongoing investigations into the cause and ramifications but we usually don't keep things in ongoing on that slow process of what happens after the event, though are open to a blurb if there's something like a major conviction or the like at the end. --Masem (t) 14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would say the article is wrong about the squeeze having already happened. The german wikipedia for example only calls the article "incline in gamestop stock price". The shorts haven't covered yet and even more have been bought in the recent days. You can take a look at the NYSE chart. This means the event hasn't finished yet (with millions of people and billions of dollars involved).Tresznjewski (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there is currently some increase in Gamestop's price and its tied to the reddit forums, no question, but its not with the same furor as the first spike in prices, and instead far more tempered. Analysts are watching but its not being equated to the original event from early Feb. that we actually posted. --Masem (t) 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please give me your sources? Tresznjewski (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there is currently some increase in Gamestop's price and its tied to the reddit forums, no question, but its not with the same furor as the first spike in prices, and instead far more tempered. Analysts are watching but its not being equated to the original event from early Feb. that we actually posted. --Masem (t) 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait before the thought police come an "snow close" this, I'm running a content history on the article. Will share, so interested parties can more easily review how continually it's being updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment as I also do not want to oppose this right out of the gate, because I think there might be something to this, but if the second squeeze is not included in the article, then it's of no use to editors on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I was pretty lukewarm on initially including this article on ITN, but it became a fairly big story, so I can concede it wasn't a bad call. I don't really see much justifying further inclusion on the ticker, though. While there was a brief smattering of coverage on GameStop stock a few days ago, it didn't really rise above the ranks of trivia, and, judging from the article's current fairly tranquil edit history, this does not appear to be a consistently fluctuating event. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose there's not a large amount of ongoing coverage that would allow for this article to be updated constantly. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's just not true Tresznjewski (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on ongoing, Neutral on blurb. The article has only a single significant update after February 2, which is a paragraph about February 24-25. Given that we have only one significant update in over 3 weeks, that in no way is sufficient for an ongoing link. If and when the article has significant, regular updates we can re-discuss ongoing. If a case can be made for a new blurb, please do so. I remain open to be convinced on that. --Jayron32 17:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. It wasn't that newsworthy to begin with, and it certainly isn't big enough for an ongoing. — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose certainly not suitable for ongoing, barely scratching news now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re-opened several of the opposes focused on staleness. A sudden surge on 2/24, white house reaction on the 2/21, hearings on 2/18, protests between 1/29 and 2/8, SEC response on 2/8. content diffs are here. Article is probably about as stale as the Myanmar protests with one-line updates about things tangentially related to the actual event. Nolo on significance, but with a more detailed cataloging of the content edits, it seems reasonable to re-open a hasty closure and give some opposes a chance to re-consider. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Barely making it into most US newspapers. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- This article currently has 231 independent citations, the vast majority of which are US newspapers. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not really in headlines anymore. Banedon (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Banedon. A fading phenomenon and story. Suggest Reclose (by someone else). – Sca (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose this trivial story that never should have been posted. It's a minor story about a minor company - it's not Shell. The vast majority of people have no idea what a short squeeze is & have no inclination to find out. Many much bigger business stories weren't posted. The excessive media coverage is due to the claim that 'ordinary people beat big businesses'. Try mentioning the GameStop short squeeze to people unconnected to the company & who aren't finance traders in a year's time. The vast majority won't know or care what you're talking about. Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Limited lasting impact. SpencerT•C 02:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There is a second spike in the price but no idea what the impact of this means. There is no second short squeeze so far and it is nowhere near as big or impactful as the first time around. The original Gamestop short squeeze was featured in the news on Wikipedia because it was a much bigger story. It doesn't deserve a second time. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
February 25[edit]
February 25, 2021 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Ronald Pickup[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Independent; The Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak opposeOutside of 2 clauses about his salary for his first acting role and one role which was "considered by some to be one of his best performances", the acting section is essentially a CV in prose format of his various acting roles, without depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 02:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced, looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Meets Requirements, looks fine. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Michael Somare[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, National Post, Port Moresby Courier
Credits:
- Nominated by Mattinbgn (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gianluigi02 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: First Prime Minister of independent Papua New Guinea, commonly referred to as "Father of the Nation" Mattinbgn (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Needs some work - orange tag from 2019 needs attention especially the layout of the article.
Quite a few bare urls in there also.JW 1961 Talk 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC) - The article needs a lot of work. I'm starting the cleanup but doubt I will finish it tonight. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- This old revision is much better style-wise; if it weren't for the reference improvements I'd have already reverted back to it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs a lot of work, for now does not meet WP:ITRND. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Ongoing: 2021 Armenian coup d'état attempt[edit]
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Serious and worrying coup d'état attempt underway in Armenia. ArionEstar (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: Seems like a controversial statement more than an attempted coup and unless significant new developments occur, the article will probably be merged into a small section in 2020−2021 Armenian protests. The BBC article states he's survived multiple attempts to be dismissed, and small statements from the military don't seem to signify anything practical. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous. Seems more squabbling than couping; not much in the news. – Sca (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Seems too soon to say whether or not this should be posted. The article is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - more like a dispute right now following the Guardian. Too soon I would say. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait until we know more information, likely in a few hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Considering how rapidly we got the "insurrection" attempt for the U.S. up onto the main page, I am a little surprised at the resistance to this one, "statement" or not.--WaltCip-(talk) 00:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, there is a high quality article about armed rebels attacking the National Assembly Building of Armenia in an attempt to prevent the certification of an election? There isn't? Oh, so it's not the same thing at all then. Understood. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not understanding why a lot of items are nominated to Ongoing directly. I think that there could be a good number of items that don't meet the threshold to stay in the ongoing section (which has a habit of keeping them too long until they are stale), and posting them as a blurb (and re-assessing when it ages off if it should be maintained as an ongoing item). This seems like a possible candidate for a blurb to start as events unfold. SpencerT•C 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing - this should be a blurb. Also the article isn't good enough yet. Once we have the events of the daytime of the 26th in Armenia, there should be an acceptable blurb proposal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing and possible blurb It's an attempt, but we don't know if it is successful. Tucker Gladden 👑 03:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talk • contribs)
We are a small country, off the radar, will never garner attention for good or bad. He's not going to last. It won't be a traditional "coup" with tanks on the street, strict martial law and curfews, but he's done. 2A02:2A57:79D3:0:31B0:764C:9A3E:C190 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- When "he's done", and an "interim" leader is installed in his place, that'll be WP:ITNR and get posted --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's not about being big/small or good/bad. Understandably ITN suffers from systematic bias, but a successful "coup" or a change in leadership will make it here. 2405:201:4013:80D0:DDFF:E3D6:DCD7:1D3F (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I think things are too uncertain right now for us to even have a properly worded article title; never mind a blurb, and as such I think that if we post this, it will be when we have a more firm understanding of what is actually going on. As it stands now, there are a lot of conflicting claims and stories coming out and I'd rather wait and get it correct than rush something to the main page that turns out to be wrong. --Jayron32 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Geddert[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Elliot321 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Recent death attracting a decent amount of coverage, article is in decent shape. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nominator, short article in decent shape and pretty well referenced. JW 1961 Talk 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment in some countries a death is only a suicide after a coroner's inquest [3] and you have to use words like "apparent" or "appears to" until it's proven. I guess that in the US this isn't the case and the article satisfies WP:BLP for the recently deceased, but I'm just bringing it up for someone who knows the US law better. Otherwise Support. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support SecretName101 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom, article in decent shape. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD – Article seems adequate and is still reasonably timely. Agree with Elliot321 re suicide. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Vishnunarayanan Namboothiri[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:
- Nominated by Tucker Gladden (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Indian poet. Looks sourced to me, but some things could be off. Tucker Gladden 👑 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Bibliography section lacks references/ISBN numbers. Per the article, he wrote poetry and other works, but it's not clear exactly what he wrote about. SpencerT•C 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal[edit]
- 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.
Blurb: Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo (pictured) and his administration are implicated in a scandal related to COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NBC News, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Yousef Raz (talk · give credit) and CaliIndie (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Even ignoring the entirely local scope of the scandal, this is two-week-old news. If this had been nominated when it was still fresh then maybe I could consider it, but it's old news by now. Mlb96 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – no repercussions arising from this scandal. If this ultimately results in Cuomo's resignation, I'll change to support (but I doubt it will). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't seem significant. Certainly not "Front-page news on many newspapers around the world." (and I've checked). If a development or resignations happen I'll reconsider. Uses x (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose fake scandal, and COVID-19 is in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Fake scandal"? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose again since someone deleted my oppose !vote. Agreed this scandal is overblown and now passe.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose in addition to all the above, do we actually post "implications" to the main page? And cooking the books for false numbers? Everyone has done that... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would oppose posting Cuomo's resignation or impeachment. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Simply being implicated (ignoring this being a state level and not national) is not sufficient for ITN posting. If there was convictions or resignations we may have a starting point but then we'd start questioning if it has sufficient worldwide importance. --Masem (t) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
February 24[edit]
February 24, 2021 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Raymond Cauchetier[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Figaro (in French); The New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 (February 24). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Boettcher[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Cellist of the Berlin Philharmonic, teacher of generations. Article was there, expanded and referenced. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced, looks good. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Peter Ostroushko[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Star Tribune
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bobamnertiopsis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Prolific American mandolin/fiddle player and composer. —Collint c 18:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Article is mostly a resume in prose format without much depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 02:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support The article is adequately sourced and I don't see any gaps in coverage. P-K3 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Bulantrisna Djelantik[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tribun-Bali
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Naval Scene (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Naval Scene (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Dutch-born Indonesian traditional Balinese dancer, ENT specialist, and a lecturer at the faculty of medicine at Padjadjaran University. TJMSmith (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support short but fairly well referenced and sufficent for RD JW 1961 Talk 23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Would like to see a little more information about Djelantik, as what's there right now leans a little too brief IMO. There's other info available from the id.wikipedia article as well as this fascinating Jakarta post article. Performing for President Bill Clinton and President Sukarno is definitely worth a mention in her article and it's incomplete without it. SpencerT•C 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Enda McDonagh[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 23:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD Appropriate depth of coverage and referencing. SpencerT•C 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Fanne Foxe[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WashPo
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Patar knight (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gobonobo (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Died on February 10, but not reported until today. One of the most larger historical US sex scandals. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose wait more information about her scandals. 180.243.208.77 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support everything looks sourced and the article is at least C-class. TJMSmith (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gary Halpin[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 Irish Rugby Union international, age 55, short but well sourced article JW 1961 Talk 20:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Good enough.CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose what's there is okay but too brief for someone who played international rugby union and for teams like Quins and London Irish. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I've added a bit more info from newly-released obits. Hope that suffices. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with TRM that further expanding the career section would be beneficial. I think this just meets RD requirements after Bloom's additions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
OpposeIntro states that he "played as a prop for Wanderers F.C., Leinster, London Irish, Harlequins", and outside the infobox, there is no prose about this in his playing career. Doesn't look like there are references to source this part of his playing career, as the infobox doesn't have citations. Insufficient depth of coverage of playing career; rm ready. SpencerT•C 02:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
February 23[edit]
February 23, 2021 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Jack Whyte[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Kelowna Daily Courier
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 16:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Infobox says he worked as an actor, but the article has no additional information about this. Additionally, there are some dubious statements that need referencing and a re-write (e.g. "The tacit implication is that Whyte's version of history is the true story that has become distorted over time to become the legend and stories of magic that we know today"). Would like to see a little more about his writing, especially about his non-Camulod Chronicles works, but could be convinced to weak support if everything else is cleaned up. Article could use some restructuring as well; the short fiction and later life should go before the bibliography IMO. SpencerT•C 02:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tormod Knutsen[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): eub.no, Olympedia
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Oceanh (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: Nordic combined skier, Olympic champion from 1964. Oceanh (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose the article is too short. There must be more that can be found about a double Olympic medalist. At the moment it is a stub. I'll have a look through obits later to try and get more content. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)- Support now looks good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment slightly disappointed that this has been 33 hours with only one voter. Whereas many people have voted on much newer RD candidates. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support What's there is suitable, although brief. Wished there was more about his life after 1964, but what Knutsen is known for is there in the article. SpencerT•C 01:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD SpencerT•C 02:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Sergiu Natra[edit]
- 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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by The Image Editor (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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.
- Oppose we shouldn't be posting to Recent Deaths if someone has not been reported dead in reliable sources. If their death hasn't been announced yet, we should wait until if it is announced, and nominate it then. And oppose on current article quality too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1. There's no confirmation of his death from reliable sources. As you've mentioned: 2. the article is very short, 3. many claims in the article are unreferenced, 4. his list of works should either give a citation for all of them in one go, or every work should have an exact citation, not a pile of 33 citations beside each other. Uses x (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
(Posted) RD: Heinz Hermann Thiele[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Edwardx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: German businessman. Article has shaped into a nice C-class biography. Rater.js says B-class, but, I think it is a decent C-class bio. Good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I gave it some copy-editing (He married his wife ...), with edit summaries. Some refs should be transformed from cite web to cite news, and the papers linked, which I did for SZ and Die Welt. I came to nominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ahmed Zaki Yamani[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 Saudi Oil minister. Article requires significant work before it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. I will plan on working on this one later tonight. If someone wants to give this a go before that, please feel free to do so. Edits done, largely focused on citations. Article has shaped up to a B-class biography. Ktin (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support,
one of the most significant figures in the 1960s and 1970s not only in his native country but also in the world.The article has been updated and improved.Egeymi (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please see the disclaimer below the nomination. All recent deaths of people with Wikipedia articles are presumed important enough to post. Instead, comments should be regarding the article quality. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, first half poorly cited. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- CommanderWaterford, Thanks. Updated. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Updated with a marked improvement in sourcing from Ktin. gobonobo + c 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
February 22[edit]
February 22, 2021 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: James Bishop (artist)[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde (in French); ARTnews
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 (February 22). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Updated and well-referenced. Uses x (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Lawrence Ferlinghetti[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WaPo
Credits:
- Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mick gold (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 poet and San Francisco legend. Died at 101. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article well referenced and updated, meets WP:ITNRD CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Work needed on referencing, particularly the "In popular culture" section. P-K3 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose needs references. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Breakup of Daft Punk[edit]
- 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.
- 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.
Blurb: French electronic music duo Daft Punk announces their breakup via a video on YouTube. (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose I can't think of any band in the world where a break-up announcement would be significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- If this were 50 years ago, maybe/probably the Beatles. Other than that, no way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is not ITN worthy. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. We might just post at ITN if this band reformed? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- The second Coming Together? – Sca (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- No. In fact, the Second Coming. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to be comingling unlike aspects of this situation. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- No. In fact, the Second Coming. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- The second Coming Together? – Sca (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I doubt that we would ever consider a blurb for the potential future break-up of bands like The Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Iron Maiden or U2. As for Daft Punk, not in the slightest.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment we posted REM, but that was 10 years ago --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, folks thought it was the end of the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Don't they know we're already on the second ending ? – Sca (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, folks thought it was the end of the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It's news, but as per Pawkingthree, there's almost no band that we'd cover like this (unless of course it was Wyld Styllions :) --Masem (t) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose the only band's reunion we'd cover on ITN would be Lemon Jelly. But this can run and run: who would LaserLegs like to re-form? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not ITN new level worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Parochial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
We have a consensus of oppose. Can an admin close this nomination? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
C'mon folks, let's "Make ITN Great Again"! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can't believe this has been closed to the detriment of our readers. It's (a) in the news and (b) there's a good quality article and that is all that matters (TM). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, it suits the WP:ITN#Purpose admirably. Thanks for pointing that out TRM and I totally agree! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah but you didn't support and didn't complain when this was so obviously prematurely and damagingly closed... And where's the support from those who continually say "it's in the news, it's a good quality article and those are the only criteria worth considering"?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't read the article before it was closed, and I don't !vote without reading the target. As for "support from those who continually say" -- who can say? Maybe if it'd not been closed in just 5 hours, they'd have had a chance to comment. The good thing is that the integrity of Wikipedia is preserved by not featuring on the main page a quality article about arts and entertainment that's also in the news. It would be a real shame if we bumped the Serbian shaman off in under 10 days right? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- C'mon dude. He's got a great beard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- One imagines he also has legs and no doubt he knows how to use them. I'm shocked and distressed that the "in the news/good enough article" only now applies sometimes, I thought those were the only two criteria around these parts.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- C'mon dude. He's got a great beard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't read the article before it was closed, and I don't !vote without reading the target. As for "support from those who continually say" -- who can say? Maybe if it'd not been closed in just 5 hours, they'd have had a chance to comment. The good thing is that the integrity of Wikipedia is preserved by not featuring on the main page a quality article about arts and entertainment that's also in the news. It would be a real shame if we bumped the Serbian shaman off in under 10 days right? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah but you didn't support and didn't complain when this was so obviously prematurely and damagingly closed... And where's the support from those who continually say "it's in the news, it's a good quality article and those are the only criteria worth considering"?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, it suits the WP:ITN#Purpose admirably. Thanks for pointing that out TRM and I totally agree! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong agree with @The Rambling Man. My jaw dropped reading this, and it felt like a confirmation of the things I hear about ITN from the outside looking in. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- What if they reunite one more time? --Tone 09:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, that means they are now Daft and Punk. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Post-closure support per The Rambling Man. Well-written article that's reported everywhere. So what if they once day reunite? We don't know that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
(RD posted) Assassination of Luca Attanasio[edit]
Blurb: A U.N. convoy containing Italian Ambassador to DR Congo,Luca Attanasio, was attacked by gunmen resulting in the Assassination of Luca Attanasio. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Italian ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo Luca Attanasio is assassinated and two others are killed while in a World Food Programme convoy.
Alternative blurb II: Italian ambassador Luca Attanasio is assassinated and two others are killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Alternative blurb III: Italian ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo Luca Attanasio and two others are killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo while in a World Food Programme convoy.
News source(s): (NY Times), (BBC), (The Guardian), Reuters
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Elijahandskip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by AstacopsisGouldi (talk · give credit), Gianluigi02 (talk · give credit), CoryGlee (talk · give credit) and AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: 100% notable for ITN, however, article quality isn't that good. Would suggest "Wait" !Votes until article qualities are improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't look like a particularly high-profile individual. The article on him didn't exist before right now, and it's largely dominated by info about how he died. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose current blurb, as I oppose putting Assassination of Luca Attanasio on the front page. It does not comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, as it does give attribution. The article is also way too short for the front page, is just a copy of the death section of Luca Attanasio, and uses the term "assassination" which is still under discussion at Talk: Assassination of Luca Attanasio. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:, I fixed the attribution problem. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I still disagree with a separate article for his death (and disagree with assassination being used when there's an ongoing discussion about it). So I oppose any blurb that links to Assassination of Luca Attanasio. I have added an ALT3 blurb that only links to the main article, but neutral on whether ALT3 should run. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:, I fixed the attribution problem. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, neutral on blurb Article quality of Luca Attanasio is sufficient for RD, no comment on blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD Luca Attanasio is a good enough article for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD Agree that the quality of Luca Attanasio is high enough to support. I'm not going to formally oppose the blurb yet because the article is so new, but do know that would be my vote at this time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've added two more blurbs. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD – A very unusual event to say the least, but Signor Attanasio was not a highly enough ranking official for an ITN blurb. – Sca (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD not notable enough for ITN but notable enough for RD. Vacant0 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, Luca Attanasio article is in good enough shape. Also weak support blurb for Assassination of Luca Attanasio on notability, assuming the article is sufficiently improved and expanded. Luca Attanasio is not sufficiently notable for an ITN blurb, but Assassination of Luca Attanasio is a different matter. The circumstances of the death are highly unusual as is the fact than an ambassador has been specifically targeted and killed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Conditionally support altblurb 2: not sure that RD would highlight or do justice to the significance of this situation. Wait until the article quality is improved. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is somewhat similar to the assassination of Andrei Karlov, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, in 2016. We posted that one to ITN. In that case, the article Andrei Karlov did not exist until the assassination, either. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD Bio appears to referenced well. Oppose blurb on notabiiity, as Democratic Republic of the Congo–Italy relations is not of much importance and incidents of this kind aren't unheard of in the area. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose current blurb, term "assassination" is under discussion, also article somewhat too short. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD, leaving discussion for blurb open. SpencerT•C 03:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb 2 - Nominator I wanted to specify my support for Blurb 2 as the nominator. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment just to note that there is not one single source that calls the killing an assassination. --T*U (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 2 Anyone concerned about the assassination phrasing is encouraged to participate in the ongoing discussion on those pages. These articles, however, are in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
February 21[edit]
February 21, 2021 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Doug Wilkerson[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Chargers, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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: NFL offensive lineman and three-time All-Pro and Pro Bowl selection. —Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
2021 Israel oil spill[edit]
Blurb: Israeli authorities close off access to its Mediterranean beaches following an offshore oil spill that has devastated more than 100 miles of the country's coastline (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Israel Nature and Parks Authority calls the oil spill on its shores "one of the most serious ecological disasters" in the country’s history.
Alternative blurb II: Nine ships are currently under investigation of Israeli and European authorities after an oil spill blackened 160 km of shores in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
News source(s): Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Chianti (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Comment: major disaster with political implications leading to exceptional gag order/censorship by Israeli authorities, worldwide coverage [4][5]. Chianti (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It does not sound like a significantly large oil spill in terms of volumes of oil loss, only that via flow the small amount that was spilt/leaked was distributed along a long stretch of beach. And it is comparatively small relative to oil spills on the international scale (eg Exxon Valdez). --Masem (t) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Coverage kinda sketchy. – Sca (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I understand it's getting to be night in Israel about now, but I added a translate Hebrew tag to the top of this article about five hours ago, and as of right now that's still the last update this page has gotten. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no way to attribute it to a cause. If it's from an old spill, the info belongs there. There isn't enough info the the article to feature it on the main page anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Martha Stewart (actress)[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter; PopCulture.com
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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 (February 21). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article well referenced and updated. Note to self: Read the disambiguator before jumping to conclusions about the subject. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced, and should see a spike in clicks after going on the Main Page from "OMG! Martha Stewart died?" AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Career section is essentially a list of film roles in prose format. Limited depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I might suggest this be posted either with her full name or the disambiguation, to avoid confusion with the "other" Stewart. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can we do that? I didn't even know that was an option (well, I suppose everything's an option, but I digress). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on using Martha Stewart (actress) on front page, as it takes up more space. So might cause us to kick more people off the RDs, just because we don't want to "mislead". We've never done this before so far as I am aware, for people with the same name. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- If we post "Martha Stewart" without any sort of qualifier/differentiation on RD people will think that Martha Stewart died. I feel like we have done this before but I cannot recall exactly when. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Including her middle name would be enough to remove the ambiguity, and is slightly "cheaper" at 5 characters. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. I didn't know what Martha Stewart's middle name was until I just looked and saw what it was. The confusion will be inevitable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. You see "Martha Ruth Stewart" and you aren't likely to jump to the conclusion that the recently deceased is the television personality. In any case, WP:SURPRISE should really be considered here. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't. I didn't know what Martha Stewart's middle name was until I just looked and saw what it was. The confusion will be inevitable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Including her middle name would be enough to remove the ambiguity, and is slightly "cheaper" at 5 characters. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- If we post "Martha Stewart" without any sort of qualifier/differentiation on RD people will think that Martha Stewart died. I feel like we have done this before but I cannot recall exactly when. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on using Martha Stewart (actress) on front page, as it takes up more space. So might cause us to kick more people off the RDs, just because we don't want to "mislead". We've never done this before so far as I am aware, for people with the same name. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can we do that? I didn't even know that was an option (well, I suppose everything's an option, but I digress). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced, good enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- (please) CHANGE display to say "Martha Ruth Stewart" (or "Martha Stewart (actress)"). WP:SURPRISE is a huge problem here. @Muboshgu: Per the discussion above, it seems like adding her middle name "Ruth" might be the wisest move. Otherwise, it seems misleading on Wikipedia's part. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Paintspot, that page is about writing better articles, not about main page postings. Honest question: does anybody know Martha Stewart's middle name? Either the one who died or the one who hangs with Snoop Dogg? Would adding a middle name really reduce possible confusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Changing to "Martha Shelley" both to avoid confusion and as that was the name she was living under as of 2012. I don't know to what extent there's precedent for this, and maybe in prior cases we have left the name as is, but I feel that is quite suboptimal given the stature of the "other" Martha Stewart and this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson Personally, I've never heard of the "other" Martha Stewart and I'm guessing 95% of people outside the US haven't either. I would change it back to the WP:COMMONNAME, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe they have and maybe they haven't, but Martha Stewart averages thousands more daily pageviews than all of the current RDs combined. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Black Kite You might have a fair point and I am not qualified to note UK name recognition, but as Bongwarrior states she is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and indeed such a household name in the US that substantial confusion/misunderstanding is likely. On further thought, "Martha Stewart (actress)" seems ideal, but I don't know whether we've historically included disambiguators to RD. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in the UK and have heard of the other Martha Stewart. That said, I think this sets a bad precedent as everytime we have someone die whose article isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, people might now try and change the name displayed, using this RD as justification for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Martha Shelly" is a good compromise, else it needs to be "Martha Stewart (actress)" to avoid obvious WP:SURPRISE --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment For the future, we might want to lay down some rules for what to do when a person dies but another person is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under the same name. It could happen more than you think it may. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed; I think including the disambiguation is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Use COMMONNAME (or parenthetical, if we must). The actress averaged 100 views/day, a good amount for someone who was no longer active in their career. It's a disservice to most who likely don't know her legal name and otherwise don't already know that she died (and now, probably still wouldn't now). There is merit to a parenthetical, but it's also a slippery slope of which non-primary topics warrant this treatment.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bagumba, why not go ahead and use Martha Stewart Shelley if the other name can create some confusion? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dicey if the decision for the page title was to use a parenthetical over WP:NATURALDIS, which says
Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
(obscure in this case).—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Dicey if the decision for the page title was to use a parenthetical over WP:NATURALDIS, which says
- Bagumba, why not go ahead and use Martha Stewart Shelley if the other name can create some confusion? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Changed to Martha Stewart (actress) for the time being per above, although personally I would favour the original form with just Martha Stewart. It doesn't seem right to use a name that isn't the one she's known by, just because there's someone more famous with the same name. I also don't think she should appear with a disambiguator on the main page, because that's not how we do things and again, it's not very polite to her to treat her differently because of her namesake; but we can continue arguing the toss on that point... — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is now a discussion about this topic on the ITN talkpage. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
February 20[edit]
February 20, 2021 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Joe Burke (accordionist)[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; Irish Examiner; Raidió Teilifís Éireann
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 11:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Depth is good enough, although would prefer to see a tad more (but either way suitable for RD as-is). SpencerT•C 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Douglas Turner Ward[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 02:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support No issues that I can see. SpencerT•C 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Stan Williams (baseball)[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; MLB.com
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 09:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport Paragraph on World Series appearances needs a reference or two but otherwise this looks good to go. SpencerT•C 15:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. Ping me if any issues (as I'm the sole supporter, but otherwise has been ready for >24 hours). SpencerT•C 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
RD: Gerald Cardinale[edit]
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; NorthJersey.com
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own 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) 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Limited depth of coverage of what was accomplished in his political career. Although I see a lot of similar NJ politician articles have committee assignments listed in bullet points, IMO it would be more helpful to have them in prose integrated with a larger section about his political career. SpencerT•C 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Little amount of information about his political career. Vacant0 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) United Airlines Flight 328[edit]
- 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.
Blurb: United Airlines Flight 328 has emergency-landed in Denver after one of the engines combusted and fell out. (Post)
Alternative blurb: United Airlines Flight 328 makes an emergency landing in Denver after one of the engines combusted and fell out.
Credits:
- Nominated by ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Kencf0618 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by AnAUsedSubcompact (talk · give credit)
- Support on notability catastrophic mid-flight engine failures are exceedingly rare and fortunately a skilled flight crew was able to land the aircraft safely. The article is still too stubby for main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose seems more suitable to DYK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -- it is a rare occurrence, but in the absence of death or serious injury, I do not think it is appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as the article is currently five sentences long. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose due to poor article quality. Even if the article is improved, the lack of casualties means the breakup is not that notable for ITN. INeedSupport 😷 06:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose whilst it's a bit unusual, not seeing it as important enough for DYK. And article is way too short. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Article quality is poor and no real significance. Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. No injuries. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose we don't even post every plane crash, nor have articles for every engine failure that requires emergency landing. Zero significance. It's a slow news period and it doesn't happen as much in the US as the rest of the world, but not a snowball's chance in hell. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- Question If an article is proposed for deletion, doesn't that change it's status here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: 2021 Texas power crisis[edit]
- 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.
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): (Wall Street Journal), (NBC News), (CNBC), (Australian Financial Review)
Credits:
- Nominated by Elijahandskip (talk · give credit)
- Created by Burritok (talk · give credit)
- Updated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit) and EDG 543 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose this is literally a blurb right now, and we already voted not to put this ongoing yesterday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yesterday's vote was before Joe Biden declared a disaster emergency. Please keep that in mind. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as the person who nominated this originally. The broad consensus during the original nomination was to wait until after the storm shuffled off ITN before nominating again. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Recant nomination as the person who nominated this time, I recant it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
(Posted) 2021 Australian Open[edit]
Blurb: In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Novak Djokovic wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In tennis, Naomi Osaka and Novak Djokovic win the Women's Singles and the Men's Singles, respectively, at the Australian Open.
News source(s): Yahoo, Guardian The New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Fyunck(click) (talk · give credit), HawkAussie (talk · give credit), ApprenticeFan (talk · give credit) and 110.137.166.20 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
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: Article is being worked on, see talk for discussion about page improvements and changes (prose will be present in each event section). Men's final is scheduled for 21 February at 7:30 p.m. local AEDT (3:30 a.m. EST) and winner will be added to blurb when it concludes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Opposetarget article appears to have no prose about the final, just a scoreline The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)- Wait until the men's singles final is decided and post a combined blurb. The article can be expanded with prose in the meantime.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- There would be no need to wait if there was any prose to speak of in the women's articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski, thanks for your patience. I'll be updating with prose today and it should be ready in that regard by the time the men's final is held. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait the ITNR for this says that men's and women's results are posted together. So wait until men's tournament is over, tomorrow. Also currently opposing on article quality, as I agree with points made by TRM. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that means they have to be posted together simultaneously. The note is to ensure that both men's and women's champions are posted (if quality is sufficient). If the women's article was sufficient, there'd be literally no benefit in not posting it already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment When i support it to be posted because it is ITNR, I agrees with another user to wait for men's final. A nominator or other users can amend the original blurb once final men's results released. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wait - Wait until the men's result is posted. But for now we need to expand the prose for the other finals. HawkAussie (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose reiterated, now both results are in, neither are given any kind of prose summary in any linked article I can see. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: What 'bout the third paragraph in the lead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well there are just two problems with that: 1) there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the main part of the article and 2) if that's the extent of the summary of what happened in the final, like one sentence per each of men's and women's, it's far from adequate. Hard fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: What 'bout the third paragraph in the lead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, TRM -- quick check. The bolded article has a section for all events e.g. men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles etc. I can give the men's singles and women's singles a pass. Do we need to fill all the other events? Let me know. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can't really give a pass for just a heading and a single-sentence update. We're looking for prose summaries of the finals here, not just a load of stats. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, have given the men's singles event a prose update here 2021_Australian_Open. Definitely more than a heading and single sentence update :) Ktin (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can't really give a pass for just a heading and a single-sentence update. We're looking for prose summaries of the finals here, not just a load of stats. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, TRM -- quick check. The bolded article has a section for all events e.g. men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles etc. I can give the men's singles and women's singles a pass. Do we need to fill all the other events? Let me know. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Concerns listed above seem to have been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment prose now added in all events. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Masem: -- please can I bother you again to work your magic when convenient, for a composite picture of both winners. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pull Articles have prose problem still. Tucker Gladden 👑 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Good job with the finals write-ups. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) First human H5N8 cases[edit]
- 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.
Blurb: In Russia, the first cases of human infection with the H5N8 bird flu were detected (Post)
News source(s): TASS, Interfax
Credits:
- Nominated by MarcusTraianus (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Aside from any notability concerns (which I certainly have), the target article isn't in the best condition, with 2 cn tags and a clarification needed tag. Gex4pls (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Then the article must be supplemented or rewritten. The event itself does not become less important from the quality of the article. Or we can link to an article about the virus itself. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well it's not just that. Unless something else becomes of this, this would just become another short story similar to the Eluru Outbreak from a few months back. I realize that this is a first for H5N8, but unless this becomes another pandemic I don't see any importance to this. (not to mention that, according to the moscow times, the virus can't even transmit between humans yet. 1)Gex4pls (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Then the article must be supplemented or rewritten. The event itself does not become less important from the quality of the article. Or we can link to an article about the virus itself. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is probably a premature nomination - right now I can't find any news that this has resulted in any fatalities and the Russian cases have been described as "mild" according to the article. I don't believe that a bird-borne disease that has still not caused any human fatalities is notable enough. Besides, ITN on Wikipedia is meant to report on what has happened, and not what may happen, so alerting the global community about a potential pandemic is not what ITN is meant for, though the nomination is obviously done in WP:GOOD FAITH. It's WHO's job to warn people. Not our job. 45.251.33.97 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time. There are many different influenza subtypes, and frequently these infect humans. Let's wait and see if this becomes a bigger story. SpencerT•C 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on importance Russia has said it's the case but this doesn't looked to have been picked up by news agencies in many other countries. And it's currently 2 sentences of that article. Also there are multiple citation needed and clarification tags that would need to be fixed, so opposing on quality too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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[edit]
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: