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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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]

March 4[edit]


March 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Businesses and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Joe Altobelli[edit]

Article: Joe Altobelli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): D&C
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar Protests[edit]

Article: 2021 Myanmar protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Over 50 people are killed in pro-democracy protests against the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I know this is already in ongoing, but I believe today's developments with 38 dead protestors is sufficient to return this to a blurb. The article has not yet been updated, but I expect to see the article updated within the next twelve hours or so, and perhaps nominating this will bring some additional attention to the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose (for now) - sources are barely reliable for the amount of Deaths (currently they are all based on statements by HR groups), there is a lot of NPOV Editing ongoing. I see the need and the good faith and I agree but we need more and better sourcing, there is a lot of political activism ongoing. Many recently registered Users adding stuff barely sourced. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Advise a revision to Support the United Nations can probably be cited as a reliable source.[1] Moreover, a massacre of this scale probably should be ITNed based on significance.

March 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Àlex Casademunt[edit]

Article: Àlex Casademunt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El País
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: Shocking death from a very famous singer in Spain. I've just created his article, most of the paragraphs are referenced, although there's a section that I'll work on after dinner. Cleaning is needed about grammar.. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Nom. Comment I think it's now fully referenced. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Needs a bit of translation work, such as On 18 January 2018 was born his only daughter, Bruna, fruit of his relationship with Laia. I applaud nom for doing the citation work. Lettlerhellocontribs 04:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Attention required It seems pretty ready, if anyone else can take a look it would be great. Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Barber[edit]

Article: Chris Barber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; The Daily Telegraph
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) 09:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bunny Wailer[edit]

Article: Bunny Wailer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56256885
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: Original member and namesake of The Wailers - a true giant of Jamaican reggae. hydrox (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Needs citations. Don't know exactly why nom removed the citations template I placed; I have added it back again and marked the text needing citations. Lettlerhellocontribs 01:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I assessed the situation as improved, but thank you for the clarification. --hydrox (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It's quite unfortunate that the article is very short without much verification, Wailer was a very influential person in his field. Hopefully, the article will soon be improved. User talk:reallylazy 12:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Much improved. 10 albums left to source, but uncontentious and should not be too difficult. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks better now. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. TJMSmith (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Imperial County car crash[edit]

Snow close as no consensus to post, and almost no support aside from the nominator. Keeping this open to wait for what might happen seems unproductive. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 3 March 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: Imperial County car crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 13 people are killed when an SUV hits a semi-trailer on State Route 115 in Imperial County, California (Post)
News source(s): WSJ Global news, Canada independent
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Short, but sure to grow as more details become available. Significant and unusual number of deaths. 27 people crammed into a vehicle built for 8. LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Barring massive car accidents (multivehicle), we generally do not post accidents involving private vehicles. Also, we'd probably not even have an article on such an accident in the first place per NOT#NEWS (it is not the type of thing that would get investigated by a gov't board like planes, trains, or even commercial boats). --Masem (t) 00:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • A bus accident kills 19 in Hong Kong --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Masem:Just in case your watchlist shows a different view of the encyclopedia than mine does, a great deal of editing activity on this site is wasted on mindlessly parroting today's or yesterday's headlines with little regard for the big picture. For example, I get tired of being told that people who have been notable for decades aren't actually notable simply because the mainstream media quit writing about them by the time Wikipedia came along, then they die and all of a sudden they're notable if their death resulted in a headline, leading to a turd of an article reflecting that coverage of their death but laughable when judged as a biography. Maybe the overall problem needs to be addressed instead of pooh-poohing every little example. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm one of the first people in line that WP has a problem with how most handle NOT#NEWS. We can keep articles up-to-date with breaking news that we know is of encyclopedic value (such major corporate mergers or a movie winning a major award) and include breaking events that we know will have long-term impacts (eg like the Jan 6 Capitol riots or a major aircraft disaster). But we have a problem that people see the minute in the news and feel the need to write about it, leading to articles that are filled with proseline and timelines and non-encyclopedic coverage of events at the end of the day. Traffic accidents involving private vehicles rarely are of encyclopedic nature because there won't be any long-tail coverage of the event. It may make the news but its not encyclopedic. --Masem (t) 02:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there some sort of point you're making about ITN's tendency to post so-called "disaster stubs", LaserLegs? P-K3 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    • They crammed 27 people into a vehicle built for 8, and crashed it. This is probably the most notable vehicle crash to be nominated in a decade. Also, while CalTrans isn't releasing details, the Mexican Consulate has been contacted which means the victims were more than likely illegals. I'll forgive you for assuming bad faith on my part. Also, I'm working on adding a map, I just struggle with that template. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no long-term impact. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose a tragedy, and a story I saw in the US news. However, apart from MINIMUMDEATHS argument, there's no claim of impact yet. The article is definitely a stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose—I'm not even sure that the article would survive AfD at this juncture. Without some lasting impact, the situation isn't that noteworthy. (It's still a tragedy though.) Imzadi 1979  01:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A dreadful tragedy but long term impact is highly doubtful. I concur with Imzadi1979 in questioning whether it would pass WP:EVENT. Basically it's a bad traffic accident. Sorry, those happen every day all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose a "disaster stub" which has literally zero encyclopedic value. This probably deserves deletion, likely to be covered by a single sentence in a list article somewhere about routine traffic accidents in the US. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN worthy, more likely to succeed at AFD than ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Given the number of passengers and the size of the vehicle, it seems likely that some, if not most, would have been children. This has obvious tie-ins with illegal immigration and child trafficking. So, not really a "routine traffic accident". There may be more to this story, and I'd ask that we leave it open for the time being. No one would describe the Essex lorry deaths being confined to accidents or vehicles.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No they wouldn't. That was the murder/manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese people. Certainly not a highway accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is important enough to post & easily important enough for an article - regardless of its location. It was a serious crime as well as an accident. Had the SUV driver survived, he'd have very likely been sent to prison for years. He squeezed 25 people (including himself) into a vehicle made for 8, in which most of the seats had been removed to cram more people in. Even if the victims were neither illegal immigrants nor working illegally, the circumstances make this an unusual crash. Jim Michael (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Nope. It's an overloaded vehicle and some people died. If this had happened anywhere but the US it would just be dismissed as "meh, another road traffic accident because people were being stupidly negligent". The article is flimsy "an accident happened, the road was closed, someone said it was sad, people are being informed". This has practically no encyclopedic value: it wouldn't make the top 50,000 news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Briefly in the news in California but of no major significance.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I know we desperately need blurbs to post, but this stub might not even pass WP:EVENT, let alone have enough significance to justify posting in ITN. If we had a blurb for every car crash with ~a dozen deaths, ITN would be a continual stream of bus and coach crashes from around the world. Modest Genius talk 14:05, 3 March 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: Vernon Jordan[edit]

Article: Vernon Jordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Fox News, The Hill, NBC News, NPR, 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: Very influential civil rights activist and Democratic Party insider. I recently got this photo of him to FP status. Article appears to be in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support – notable and I've added more references to the article, it's in a good shape and suitable for ITN. Vacant0 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The first paragraph in the "Legal career and activism" section has no citations. Mlb96 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – A somewhat fading household name in the U.S., but perhaps not widely known enough elsewhere for a blurb. – Sca (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose That paragraph does need citing, and the lead is rather short too.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mlb96: @Pawnkingthree: References and lead text added. Vacant0 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Support, thanks.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough. Tucker Gladden 👑 21:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talkcontribs)
  • One small bone I have to pick is with the sentence In 1998 Jordan helped Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern, after she left the White House. Helped her with what? If my memory of 1998 is correct, he helped her find a job, but given the nature of that situation, we should be spelling it out more clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Muboshgu: Yes, find a job and he recommended an attorney she briefly used. I've added that.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted All issues resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian St John[edit]

Article: Ian St John (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
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: Couple of cites needed, but looks good apart from that. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

March 1[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Three members of the Panamanian diplomatic corps in Colombia are killed after the overflow of the Río Frío drags the vehicle they were traveling in. (Infobae)

Health and environment

Law and crime


RD: Alan Bowness[edit]

Article: Alan Bowness (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph UK
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: British art historian. Article requires some work, but, definitely worth the investment of effort. I will get to it later tonight. If someone wants to get to it before me, please feel free to do so. Ktin (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


(Posted) RD: Zlatko Kranjčar[edit]

Article: Zlatko Kranjčar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, SFGATE
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 footballer and coach. Govvy (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Needs refs. Weak oppose still needs a few more citations. Lettlerhellocontribs 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks citations. Vacant0 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Lettler:, @Vacant0: I have stripped the article back a good bit and sourced what I could. How do you feel about the article now? Govvy (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: There are still some sentences that need to be sourced such as the ones under "Club career and Early years". Rest of the article seems perfectly fine. If this gets fixed I'll be changing my vote to Support. Vacant0 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vacant0: I've had a good go at trying to find sources for Early years section, but seem to be failing there for some reason, and struggling with the language barrier, the club career, I've added a few more sources. I feel the article is good enough for ITN RD. But that's my opinion. I really have tried hard to make the article better today. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Govvy: I managed to find some sources. The article is well-sourced now. Vacant0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Support Article is sourced now and suitable for ITN. Vacant0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is nearly there but only 1 of the 22 honours he received is cited, will support when fixed JW 1961 Talk 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There are some problems still; what JW noted and the fact that chunks of the prose are still uncited. Will also support if these issues are fixed, and maybe the lead could be expanded. Lettlerhellocontribs 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reply @Joseywales1961:, @Lettler: I've expanded the lead paragraph and added more citations, have sourced most of the honours section. Hope that helps. The article still probably needs work on, but surely it must be good enough now for ITN RD, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Support nicely improved article JW 1961 Talk 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Added a bunch of refs so awards and gaps in the coaching sections are addressed. Would like there to be more depth about his 10-year playing career at Dinamo Zagreb instead of an overall stats summary, but his coaching career seems fully fleshed out. SpencerT•C 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy corruption trial[edit]

Article: Nicolas Sarkozy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Former President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is sentenced to three years in jail for bribery. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Former President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is found guilty of corruption and sentenced to three years imprisonment.
News source(s): (Fox News), (NY Times), (The Guardian), AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Nicolas Sarkozy's article is good (Not much info on the trai/arrest though), the trail's article is current event stub. This is notable for ITN, but article qualities are bad. I would recommend Wait !Votes until articles are improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Did we not post his conviction? I don't recall. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. He's been sentenced to jail, but the sentence is suspended and experts don't think he'll spend any time behind bars, so it seems a bit misleading at present  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He was only found guilty today, per this Guardian article. As the verdict is arguably the bigger story, I've suggested an alternative blurb - Dumelow (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I might support posting the conviction of a former head of state, especially for conduct while in office, but as Jayron ably notes below, there are other issues. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There are two bolded articles. One (on the trial) is insufficiently short, and the other (Sarkozy's bio itself) barely mentions the most recent developments, and has almost no coverage of the trial itself. There's nothing as yet worth posting on the main page. If either or both of these problems are fixed, I will re-assess the quality of the articles. Right now, we don't have anything worth posting. --Jayron32 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32:, your !vote sounds like a wait instead of an oppose. You should change it as an oppose seems more like you fully oppose the topic on ITN rather than article quality. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it's an oppose vote, because we should not post articles which are not up to quality. I have not ever opposed a "topic" on ITN, and I don't plan to any time in the future. Article quality and coverage by reliable sources are the only criteria I use when assessing the appropriateness for the main page. This one does not have quality articles, so I will oppose it until such time as it does have quality articles. --Jayron32 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the quality issues of the articles above. The trial article is far too short as standalone and feels it belongs inside one of the Sarkozy's main articles, but Sarkozy's article is woefully undersourced too. In principal, the conviction and sentencing of a former world leader - even if that sentence is likely to be commuted - is still ITN worthy material but this has a ways to go to get there. --Masem (t) 15:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – pending article improvement — Widely covered as the significant conviction of the former head of govt. of a major state on criminal charges stemming from events while he was in office. Two former associates also convicted. That Sarkozy probably won't serve actual jail time is beside the point. – Sca (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support pending improvements Head of state sentenced to jail time, big [bleep]ing deal. Articles need to be better per Sca, Masem et al, but once thats done absolutely This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality It is extremely rare for a former G8 head of state to be sentenced to a jail term, so I believe this is significant enough for ITN. Regrettably, the trial article is not sufficient quality, and Sarkozy's article is lacking a ton of citations in the political career section. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support if blurb is revised. I will eat my chapeau if he does a single day in prison; I don’t want the casual reader to come away with the recollection that Sarko went to jail when we don’t know that. However I do find the conviction itself noteworthy regardless of what happens next and pending referencing, strongly support a blurb that just mentions the conviction. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support on significance, currently oppose on quality. I would recommend merging the corruption trial page into Nicolas Sarkozy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talkcontribs) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - But he's appealing against the conviction. STSC (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article on the criminal case itself is a stub that could be written on one page of a diary. Unfortunately none of Wikipedia's politics buffs have had the interest in a case involving the former head of state of a G8 country that they had in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals (48k), Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (128k) or Traingate (31k) Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality. Sarkozy's article has one short paragraph on this topic, and the stand-alone article is a stub with barely any more information. Given the reams of sources on this high-profile case and trial, there really should be more substantive content before posting. If that can be fixed, the conviction of a recent ex-President seems highly significant and worthy of posting. Modest Genius talk 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irv Cross[edit]

Article: Irv Cross (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FOX, CBS Sports
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 football player and sportscaster. Lettlerhellocontribs 02:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - Why is this under March 1? It's still February 28 in the USA (as on when this was nominated)! 45.251.33.224 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia operates under GMT time. Lettlerhellocontribs 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    But I thought that RDs followed local time? I guess we learn something new everyday... 45.251.33.224 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    They're meant to follow UTC but many people, even admins it seems, sometimes forget and revert to putting them under local time.  Nixinova T  C   03:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    It's too much overhead when the article and sources lists the local date.—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support To the point and suitably referenced.  Nixinova T  C   03:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose He had an 8 year NFL playing career including 2 Pro Bowl appearances, but the prose section on his playing career has no information about that. Instead, it only covers times he was traded. Insufficient depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 05:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Playing and broadcasting career has been sufficiently expanded. @Spencer: Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems to be referenced, so I'm giving this one a yes. Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Parliament House rape allegations[edit]

Unlikely to gain consensus to post (we don't post mere allegations) --Masem (t) 15:33, 1 March 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: Parliament House rape allegations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg, Sydney Morning Herald The Guardian New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Garnered wide coverage in Australian media, even overshadowing COVID-19 in the country, also seems to be making news in America and the UK. Feeds into the MeToo movement and Weinstein effect, slightly reminiscent of the 2017 Westminster sexual misconduct allegationsAshton 29 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • We're not going to post allegations due to WP:BLP concerns. If there are arrests/resignations/convictions then maybe. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we don't post allegations, and this is precisely the kind of nomination which should be snow-closed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently just allegation, and so WP:BLP concerns about posting it. Also, and much less importantly, the article is just a stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 1 March 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 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) 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)

  • Comment I have taken the liberality of moving this nomination to 28 February. Lettlerhellocontribs 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is tagged. Support looks better now. Lettlerhellocontribs 15:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Golden Globes[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 78th Golden Globe Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Nomadland (director Chloé Zhao pictured) wins 2 awards including Best Motion Picture - Drama at the Golden Globe Awards (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Crown wins four awards at the 78th Golden Globe Awards.
News source(s): CBS News The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know that this isn’t listed at WP:ITNR, but it’s still a pretty big awards show that merits a blurb. The Image Editor (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I've added an altblurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we generally have not posted the GG in favor of the Oscars as the principal award for US film industry. We did post the GG once before in 2017, but that was on La-La Land's record breaking results [1] which made it stand out, but that's the only time I can immediately find, and I don't think this case rises up to that. --Masem (t) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. The article does not have enough prose describing the ceremony itself. It's a giant table farm with little prose; as with other awards ceremonies/sporting events, the minimum quality requirement for posting is a prose synopsis of the actual event. I don't see that here. --Jayron32 17:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor man's Oscars. P-K3 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality, lacks of deeper coverage and prose, lots of tables. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality, very little text and many of the tables appear unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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. Support looks good now. Lettlerhellocontribs 20:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support added some citations. RIP. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks well sourced now, and lead has been expanded to an appropriate length. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Managerial stats table needs a cite, but is otherwise generally sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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)
  • Posted Stephen 23:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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. Support with cleanup. 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)
  • Oppose I oppose the blurb, as the death of any city mayor is not important enough for a blurb. Oppose RD on current quality, until the neutrality issue is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb -- not notable enough for a blurb. Support RD once article is cleaned up. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD conditional on the neutrality issue being resolved, as everything in the article is properly sourced. Mlb96 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lettler: @CommanderWaterford: @Masem: @Joseph2302: @Rockstone35: @Mlb96: NPOV has been fixed in the article and the article is now well-cited. Vacant0 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD on quality improvements. --Masem (t) 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD Considering that improvements have been made, I shall vote in favour. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:50, 1 March 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)

  • Oppose Still needs a few more citations. Also, why is the December incident mentioned in the "Death" section if he survived it? Mlb96 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose references needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs more references. Also surely there's more than a few lines that can be said about an NFL player's career? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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)
  • Support a well remembered actor, well remembered for his work with Stephen Chow. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Odd that a IP would randomly find this... either way, please read WP:ITNRD. Lettlerhellocontribs 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs grammar cleanup, see things like Chow revealed that he didn't want to lend money to Ng as it would become a downward spiral for Ng and Ng wouldn't have broken free from his gambling habit. Lettlerhellocontribs 23:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs a copyedit, as there is some confusing grammar, such as On 2 January 1952, Ng Man Tat was born in Xiamen, Fujian to a family of 3 other siblings, him being the second child- I assume this means he had one older, and 2 younger siblings, but the sentence currently he was the 2nd and 4th child. And the example above. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302 and Lettler:, I have broken up these lines. I should stop the habit of editing in the middle of night. Do help to fix the article where possible, thanks! – robertsky (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have done some necessary cleanup. I'm still bothered by some things; for example, do we really need a paragraph about Ng's grudge against another actor? Lettlerhellocontribs 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing and copyediting issues seemed to have been addressed. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 16:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks fine. Lettlerhellocontribs 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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)
  • Support Now much improved and suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 06:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Can't believe we only waited three days before using a "fair use" image on an article that's now a target on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Can't believe anyone would hold up a nomination on those grounds. It's no longer reasonable for someone to go get a picture of him, which fits the spirit of WP:NFCC. Not sure why 3 days or 3 years or 3 decades makes a difference. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    TRM I hear what you're saying, but for me that issue isn't a red light for posting like lack of referencing, copyvios, or poor article quality. Other ITN admins may feel differently. That said, I feel this is something worth discussing on the article talk page. SpencerT•C 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) RD: Irving Grundman[edit]

Article: Irving Grundman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Montreal Gazette; NHL; CTV 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) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support refs + depth of coverage fine. SpencerT•C 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(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)

(Closed) Shamima Begum loses in Supreme Court[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:05, 28 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: 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)
  • Oppose the important event for this happened last year (when she was stripped of citizenship), this isn't even on the front page of UK news websites anymore. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 28 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) 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. [2] [3]. – 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)
The release of all the victims should be added to the blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Masem: & @Black Kite:, the victims have been released & the number was confirmed at 279 not 317. Not sure how we should go about updating the blurb with that, but the number should at least be changed. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Elijahandskip, I second this – "about 300" seems unnecessarily vague. ritenerektalk :) 01:29, 4 March 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

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(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)
  • Comment After some improvements the last days it should be good enough. Spencer, thanks for noticing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:39, 1 March 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)
  • Oppose Have tagged the article for neutrality and citations. Lettlerhellocontribs 16:35, 1 March 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 [4] 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.

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:

  1. ^ "UN: 38 died on deadliest day yet for Myanmar coup opposition". AP NEWS. 2021-03-03. Retrieved 2021-03-04.