Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Naomi Osaka and Novak Djokovic
Naomi Osaka and Novak Djokovic

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

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]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

February 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime


RD: Glenn Roeder[edit]

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

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: English footballer and manager. Article has some unsourced statements. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now As the nominator said, some refs are needed before I can support this. Article is also tagged for lead expansion. Lettlerhellocontribs 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Briggs (actor)[edit]

Article: Johnny Briggs (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Guardian; Sky News
Credits:

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) 15:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good for RD. Lettlerhellocontribs 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support satisfactory for RD and nice to see a filmography with every entry sourced JW 1961 Talk 18:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Milan Bandić[edit]

Article: Milan Bandić (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Long-time Mayor of Zagreb Milan Bandić dies at the age of 65. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post, ABC News, Jutarnji list, B92
Credits:

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: Long-time mayor of Zagreb, notable and well-sourced Vacant0 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Tagged for neutrality. Definitely not fitting for a blurb; if the present issues are fixed, it would be fine for RD. Lettlerhellocontribs 16:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose NPOV Tagging. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Definitely not a politician at a level of importance for a blurb. RD is sufficient once the article is fixed up. --Masem (t) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Louis Nix[edit]

Article: Louis Nix (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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 NFL player and Notre Dame standout. Reported missing a few days ago, confirmed dead today. Only 29. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ng Man-tat[edit]

Article: Ng Man-tat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Straits Times
Credits:

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: Renown Hong Kong actor. Death announced on 27 Feb. The article still in process of updating and sorting out ref issues. – robertsky (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: have updated the articles with references. let me know what else may be required. – robertsky (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Mallard[edit]

Article: John Mallard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Evening Express
Credits:
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)

  • Oppose It's a stub; it needs to be expanded before it can be eligible. P-K3 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
P-K3 I have updated the article. It is no longer a stub. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Looks good now, thanks. P-K3 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Peter Gotti[edit]

Article: Peter Gotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News
Credits:

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. Lettlerhellocontribs 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, the image on the page is there under fair use, not free. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I meant "non-free" image. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Referenced, fulfils WP:ITNCRIT CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ok. P-K3 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: D. Pandian[edit]

Article: D. Pandian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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]

Article: Hannu Mikkola (talk · history · tag)
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)

(Posted) RD: Manfred Gerstenfeld[edit]

Article: Manfred Gerstenfeld (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jerusalem Post
Credits:

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. Lettlerhellocontribs 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)
    Ktin, yeah they are a pain alright, I wish people would add them as they are adding books to articles! JW 1961 Talk 20:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Shamima Begum loses in Supreme Court[edit]

Article: Begum v Home Secretary (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)
It doesn't say that in the article. What if she wins? Then this posting will look pointless. Conversely, if she loses, then that can be posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Abductive see the section “Reactions”. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I and many other editors despise Reactions sections. And this one does not change my arguments above. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    Probably because this doesn't actually affect any of those countries. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this affects Bangladesh just because she is Bangladeshi. The only country that this affects is the UK. Mlb96 (talk) 18:35, 27 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)
  • Oppose - Just a local immigration case. STSC (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The coverage is pretty unknown outside the United Kingdom. I rather support it if the ruling happened in the United States as the country had more international influence than the UK. 36.76.234.82 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not even the most important case heard by the Supreme Court since January. I don't remember any excitement on ITN about Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd & others whose implications are much wider... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Zamfara kidnapping[edit]

Article: Zamfara kidnapping (talk · history · tag)
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:

Nominator's comments: Fairly big kidnapping. Only problem is article size. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 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)
Except that I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to do so, and frankly I do not give a damn about the subject. The target isn't a WP:STUB because of the filler. Strip that away and nothing is there. I read the articles, and try to keep the dross off the main page, and I do not seek nor require your validation. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 27 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)
  • 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)
    The 42 have been released; the 317 still missing. [1] [2]. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 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)
@Masem: Since this is on Main Page, could you look into the revdel the article needs? There's a ugly red box on the article, that doesn't make it look any good. 2405:201:4013:80D0:5875:6973:2F:27B1 (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Black Kite, thanks for that - I wasn't sure if adding a RD1 tag to an ITN article was the best way to go about things, or whether it would have been better to have emailed an admin. Pahunkat (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: GameStop short squeeze[edit]

Re-closed per WP:SNOW. Opposition is unanimous minus one wait !vote; a consensus will not develop to post.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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: GameStop short squeeze (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
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)
I'm just doing a google news search of Gamestop, and while there is coverage of the current increase today, its not like with the attention and concern that the first wave got, and analysts don't expect a similar spike. --Masem (t) 17:04, 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)
I find your "thought police" comment offensive. No one is policing anyone's thoughts. Certainly not me. If you wish to work to limit snow closings, please do so instead of disrupting this page with this sort of comment. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment still running. Up to Jan 29. There are easily content edits in the last few days so it's probably updated, nolo on "significance" --LaserLegs (talk) 17:18, 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)
If we are looking at the ongoing, we're talking what is being reported on it currently, and that's what is not making it into the news. The current increase is of some discussion but nowhere near the volume that it was at as at the start of February. --Masem (t) 19:48, 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]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Joseph Duffey[edit]

Article: Joseph Duffey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

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: American academic and bureaucrat. Unsuccessful Dem nominee for U.S. Senate seat in Conn. in 1970. Article needs some work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Pickup[edit]

Article: Ronald Pickup (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Independent; The Guardian
Credits:

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 oppose Outside 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]

Article: Michael Somare (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, National Post, Port Moresby Courier
Credits:

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)
    • That's just the citation style; each url is part of a footnote. I agree about the section layout though. Joofjoof (talk) 01:28, 26 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)
  • Support Yes, the article needs work, but Somare was the Papua New Guinea's founding and longest-serving prime minister. He's been involved in just about every major policy decision in PNG for decades, even before independence. He's essentially synonymous with the country. Unrelated, but positing his bio on the front page may encourage other Wikipedians to improve his article. Scanlan (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the disclaimer under the nomination: all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post. If the article quality is not yet high enough for RD, you should not vote to support. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, nothing in my above comments contradicts that disclaimer or makes a claim that "all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post". Simply noted that Somare's role in PNG's history, for better or worse, is immense and perhaps worth including on the front page. Nothing more than that, other than agreeing with the original nominator's suggestion and rationale. There might be cases like this where the importance of an individual's contributions to the history of a country (or other fields) potentially outweighs the existing quality of their Wikipedia articles, but that's up to the ITN norms and the discussions on this page. I appreciate your point, but I still stand by my vote. Scanlan (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles that do not meet minimum quality requirements are not posted at ITN, thus "there might be cases like this where the importance of an individual's contributions to the history of a country (or other fields) potentially outweighs the existing quality of their Wikipedia articles" is inaccurate. This is outlined in the third criterion listed at WP:ITNRD. WP:ITN further notes "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link." as is the case with this article. SpencerT•C 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe you may have misinterpreted me. The ITN consensus is indeed that "all recent deaths with WP articles are notable enough to post". There is no "rationale" for putting a person on RD other than "they died, and the article is in good shape". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough. We don't post BLPs with unreferenced claims, end of discussion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is why systemic bias continues to plague this encyclopedia. Articles on third-world topics continue to be pushed to the background for not meeting arbitrary standards for acceptability set mainly by first-world, largely English-speaking editors. This is not meant as a personal criticism, just a reflection of the system we as editors have established. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2021 Armenian coup d'état attempt[edit]

Article: 2021 Armenian coup d'état attempt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Al Jazeera
Credits:

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)
      • I'm not sure who you are speaking to, but it isn't to me, so you might want to fix your indentation.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 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 (talkcontribs)

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)
    Ditto. Thursday heard a talking head say "coup" was inaccurate, and that further political machinations were likely. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Geddert[edit]

Article: John Geddert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

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)
    Given that reliable sources have widely reported this as a suicide, I think it's reasonable for the article to present it as such. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:06, 26 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]

Article: Vishnunarayanan Namboothiri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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)
  • Weak oppose mostly referenced now but I still see items in the biblio with no kind of verifiable sources. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal[edit]

Less than a snowball's chance in hell of consensus to post developing. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
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
Andrew Cuomo
Article: New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal (talk · history · tag)
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:
Nominator's comments: Major political scandal. Front-page news on many newspapers around the world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
Apologies for that, I wasn't warned about any edit conflict but it still seems to have deleted your comment when I posted my oppose. Uses x (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The U.S. loves its scandals. I wonder what name they'll attribute for this one. "Assisted Living-Gate"?--WaltCip-(talk) 17:09, 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]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Raymond Cauchetier[edit]

Article: Raymond Cauchetier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Figaro (in French); The New York Times
Credits:

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)

  • Support satisfactory for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Boettcher[edit]

Article: Wolfgang Boettcher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel
Credits:

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]

Article: Peter Ostroushko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Star Tribune
Credits:

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]

Article: Bulantrisna Djelantik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tribun-Bali
Credits:

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 UniversityTJMSmith (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]

Article: Enda McDonagh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times
Credits:

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]

Article: Fanne Foxe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WashPo
Credits:

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)

(Posted) RD: Gary Halpin[edit]

Article: Gary Halpin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ, BBC
Credits:

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 - 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)
  • Oppose Intro 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)
  • @Spencer: added an entire paragraph on his club career. It's ready now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

  • Crime in Italy
    • A man stabs and wounds two police officers and tries to stab two passersby, who escape unharmed, during a random stabbing rampage in Milan. The attacker is shot dead by police. (Milano Today)
  • At least 79 inmates are killed in simultaneous fights in three jails in Ecuador, prompted by a battle for control of the jails after a gang leader was killed in December. (BBC)
  • Malaysia deports 1,086 Burmese citizens back to Myanmar, defying an order by the Kuala Lumpur High Court halting their deportation in light of the coup on February 1. (Reuters)

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Jack Whyte[edit]

Article: Jack Whyte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Kelowna Daily Courier
Credits:

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]

Article: Tormod Knutsen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): eub.no, Olympedia
Credits:

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]

(non-admin closure). Closing nomination. We should not be discussing any article here without a source from WP:RS added to the nomination. As you can understand, RD particularly is a sensitive space. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
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: Sergiu Natra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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.
Nominator's comments: Israeli composer. Article needs a LOT, (and I mean a LOT) of work. And I could be premature in nominating this, as I could not find any reliable sources pointing to his death. The Image Editor (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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]

Article: Heinz Hermann Thiele (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg
Credits:

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)
  • plus PostedBagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Zaki Yamani[edit]

Article: Ahmed Zaki Yamani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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)
Thanks for your warning, I revise my statement per your remarks. --Egeymi (talk) 05:47, 24 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)
  • plus PostedBagumba (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: James Bishop (artist)[edit]

Article: James Bishop (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde (in French); ARTnews
Credits:

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)

RD: Lawrence Ferlinghetti[edit]

Article: Lawrence Ferlinghetti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WaPo
Credits:

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)

(Closed) Breakup of Daft Punk[edit]

I don't know to what extent the post-closing comments are serious, but "closed" means closed. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's all due to sheer boredom with the winter storm blurb, John. – Sca (talk)
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.

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
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: Daft Punk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​French electronic music duo Daft Punk announces their breakup via a video on YouTube. (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, NY Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I think that they're notable enough to get on ITN Vacant0 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
We did post R.E.M., but that was a long time ago. Teemu08 (talk) 22:08, 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)

Where can I get a MIGA hat? – Sca (talk) 14:02, 23 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)
  • 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]

Article: Assassination of Luca Attanasio (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)

@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)
  • 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]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Doug Wilkerson[edit]

Article: Doug Wilkerson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Chargers, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Credits:

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)

2021 Israel oil spill[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Israel oil spill (talk · history · tag)
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:

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]

Article: Martha Stewart (actress) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter; PopCulture.com
Credits:

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)
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  • 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)
    Bagumba, fair enough. This one is clearly outside of my knowhow. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 05:10, 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 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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: