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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


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)

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)

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)

(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


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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1][2]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)

February 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Joe Burke (accordionist)[edit]

Article: Joe Burke (accordionist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; Irish Examiner; Raidió Teilifís Éireann
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) 11:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Depth is good enough, although would prefer to see a tad more (but either way suitable for RD as-is). SpencerT•C 22:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Douglas Turner Ward[edit]

Article: Douglas Turner Ward (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Williams (baseball)[edit]

Article: Stan Williams (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; MLB.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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Conditional support Paragraph on World Series appearances needs a reference or two but otherwise this looks good to go. SpencerT•C 15:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Ping me if any issues (as I'm the sole supporter, but otherwise has been ready for >24 hours). SpencerT•C 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Gerald Cardinale[edit]

Article: Gerald Cardinale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; NorthJersey.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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Limited depth of coverage of what was accomplished in his political career. Although I see a lot of similar NJ politician articles have committee assignments listed in bullet points, IMO it would be more helpful to have them in prose integrated with a larger section about his political career. SpencerT•C 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Little amount of information about his political career. Vacant0 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) United Airlines Flight 328[edit]

Closed for the third time. This is not going to fly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:59, 21 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: United Airlines Flight 328 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: United Airlines Flight 328 has emergency-landed in Denver after one of the engines combusted and fell out. (Post)
Alternative blurb: United Airlines Flight 328 makes an emergency landing in Denver after one of the engines combusted and fell out.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The article hasn't updated fully yet, but it will eventually. A few users have been working on it, so hopefully it will be good enough to be featured on ITN. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on notability catastrophic mid-flight engine failures are exceedingly rare and fortunately a skilled flight crew was able to land the aircraft safely. The article is still too stubby for main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems more suitable to DYK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- it is a rare occurrence, but in the absence of death or serious injury, I do not think it is appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article is currently five sentences long. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to poor article quality. Even if the article is improved, the lack of casualties means the breakup is not that notable for ITN. INeedSupport 😷 06:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose whilst it's a bit unusual, not seeing it as important enough for DYK. And article is way too short. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is poor and no real significance. Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. No injuries. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't even post every plane crash, nor have articles for every engine failure that requires emergency landing. Zero significance. It's a slow news period and it doesn't happen as much in the US as the rest of the world, but not a snowball's chance in hell. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Question If an article is proposed for deletion, doesn't that change it's status here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's ineligible if it's at AfD. Sometimes a speedy keep can save it (seems rather pointless in this case). --LaserLegs (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Looking like a snow keep though. Don't see much point in keeping the AfD open now. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Oddly enough, a somewhat similar incident, involving a 747, occurred Saturday in the Netherlands. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2021 Texas power crisis[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. SpencerT•C 20:25, 20 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: 2021 Texas power crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): (Wall Street Journal), (NBC News), (CNBC), (Australian Financial Review)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Nominated yesterday for on-going and had no consensus to post. President Biden just declared a disaster emergency in Texas over the issue. This deserves a second !vote for the ITN on-going section. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is literally a blurb right now, and we already voted not to put this ongoing yesterday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday's vote was before Joe Biden declared a disaster emergency. Please keep that in mind. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the person who nominated this originally. The broad consensus during the original nomination was to wait until after the storm shuffled off ITN before nominating again. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Recant nomination as the person who nominated this time, I recant it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2021 Australian Open[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Novak Djokovic wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, Naomi Osaka and Novak Djokovic win the Women's Singles and the Men's Singles, respectively, at the Australian Open.
News source(s): Yahoo, Guardian The New York Times
Credits:
Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article is being worked on, see talk for discussion about page improvements and changes (prose will be present in each event section). Men's final is scheduled for 21 February at 7:30 p.m. local AEDT (3:30 a.m. EST) and winner will be added to blurb when it concludes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 10:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose target article appears to have no prose about the final, just a scoreline The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the men's singles final is decided and post a combined blurb. The article can be expanded with prose in the meantime.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    There would be no need to wait if there was any prose to speak of in the women's articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    Kiril Simeonovski, thanks for your patience. I'll be updating with prose today and it should be ready in that regard by the time the men's final is held. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait the ITNR for this says that men's and women's results are posted together. So wait until men's tournament is over, tomorrow. Also currently opposing on article quality, as I agree with points made by TRM. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that means they have to be posted together simultaneously. The note is to ensure that both men's and women's champions are posted (if quality is sufficient). If the women's article was sufficient, there'd be literally no benefit in not posting it already. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment When i support it to be posted because it is ITNR, I agrees with another user to wait for men's final. A nominator or other users can amend the original blurb once final men's results released. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - Wait until the men's result is posted. But for now we need to expand the prose for the other finals. HawkAussie (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose reiterated, now both results are in, neither are given any kind of prose summary in any linked article I can see. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What 'bout the third paragraph in the lead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Well there are just two problems with that: 1) there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the main part of the article and 2) if that's the extent of the summary of what happened in the final, like one sentence per each of men's and women's, it's far from adequate. Hard fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, TRM -- quick check. The bolded article has a section for all events e.g. men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles etc. I can give the men's singles and women's singles a pass. Do we need to fill all the other events? Let me know. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    You can't really give a pass for just a heading and a single-sentence update. We're looking for prose summaries of the finals here, not just a load of stats. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, have given the men's singles event a prose update here 2021_Australian_Open. Definitely more than a heading and single sentence update :) Ktin (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Ktin - I am currently doing the same for the Women's singles. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    PCN02WPS, nice! Did some minor adds -- Women's singles looks good to go as well. Ktin (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Concerns listed above seem to have been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment prose now added in all events. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Masem: -- please can I bother you again to work your magic when convenient, for a composite picture of both winners. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull Articles have prose problem still. Tucker Gladden 👑 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    TuckerGladden, what parts of the article still need work, in your opinion? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    PCN02WPS I just looked over the article again, it looks better now. Support. Tucker Gladden 👑 02:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good job with the finals write-ups. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) First human H5N8 cases[edit]

Consensus appears to be that this is premature. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:10, 21 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: 2020–21 H5N8 outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Russia, the first cases of human infection with the H5N8 bird flu were detected (Post)
News source(s): TASS, Interfax
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Important for alerting the global community about a potential pandemic. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aside from any notability concerns (which I certainly have), the target article isn't in the best condition, with 2 cn tags and a clarification needed tag. Gex4pls (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Then the article must be supplemented or rewritten. The event itself does not become less important from the quality of the article. Or we can link to an article about the virus itself. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Well it's not just that. Unless something else becomes of this, this would just become another short story similar to the Eluru Outbreak from a few months back. I realize that this is a first for H5N8, but unless this becomes another pandemic I don't see any importance to this. (not to mention that, according to the moscow times, the virus can't even transmit between humans yet. 1)Gex4pls (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as this is probably a premature nomination - right now I can't find any news that this has resulted in any fatalities and the Russian cases have been described as "mild" according to the article. I don't believe that a bird-borne disease that has still not caused any human fatalities is notable enough. Besides, ITN on Wikipedia is meant to report on what has happened, and not what may happen, so alerting the global community about a potential pandemic is not what ITN is meant for, though the nomination is obviously done in WP:GOOD FAITH. It's WHO's job to warn people. Not our job. 45.251.33.97 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. There are many different influenza subtypes, and frequently these infect humans. Let's wait and see if this becomes a bigger story. SpencerT•C 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on importance Russia has said it's the case but this doesn't looked to have been picked up by news agencies in many other countries. And it's currently 2 sentences of that article. Also there are multiple citation needed and clarification tags that would need to be fixed, so opposing on quality too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

February 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Dianna Ortiz[edit]

Article: Dianna Ortiz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, 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 nun tortured in Guatemala, whose case led to massive legal repercussions for Guatemala and revelations of CIA funding after intervention by Bill Clinton. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Ann Rowan[edit]

Article: Barbara Ann Rowan (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: First Black woman to be a prosecutor with SDNY. Died in October but her husband who had COVID at the same time did not announce until now; news coverage dates to Feb 19. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced, meets minimum depth of coverage standards. SpencerT•C 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted by TJMSmith as their first post after making Admin. Congrats on your Adminship TJMSmith. Looking forward to your work here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arturo Di Modica[edit]

Article: Arturo Di Modica (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Artist with works including Wall street bull. Basic edits done and article seems to meet hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced, quite good depth of coverage for an artist article. SpencerT•C 05:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Has everything I would expect for a biography of his life. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I’m concerned many if not most of the images included are copyvio. I’d like to check in at the Commons on that before this is posted. I’ll inquire at their copyright help desk now. Ping AllegedlyHuman who I think may have useful knowledge here. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. They were all uploaded by the same user Artislife1406 on Commons with no evidence of licensing. I've removed them all from the page; they should be taken down on Commons as well and this user should be blocked (or provide a very good explanation). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for checking it over; that resolves my concern here and I initiated the Commons conversation. Inexperience may be the explanation but I do hope they will take some time to learn the copyright policies before making any more uploads. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clotilde Niragira[edit]

Article: Clotilde Niragira (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Iwacu Burundi (in French)
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: Burundian politician. Actually an article I created in November 2017 as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World ContestDumelow (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage with descriptions of what she did in her political roles. Probably a model article for what I would consider appropriate depth of coverage for a RD nom for a politician. SpencerT•C 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Everything seems fine, just a bit of a red link overload on this one. There are 7 in total, maybe that's fine but it just really doesn't look right, especially for an article of that size (which is adequate, btw). Gex4pls (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Interested editors really need to step up and create missing articles on Burundian politics. Not this article's fault, however, and in fact it's good to have something rising above the mold. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Always good to have some coverage of Burundian politics. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerold Ottley[edit]

Article: Jerold Ottley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Salt Lake Tribune; KTVX (ABC)
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) 14:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2021 Texas power crisis[edit]

No consensus to post. Ktin (talk) 04:05, 20 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: 2021 Texas power crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: For those of you frustrated by the inclusion of February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm into ITN. This article covers more in-depth about the millions of people left without power, which as many pointed out is certainly the more newsworthy aspect of this storm as opposed to the death toll itself. Unlike the storm, this event is ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I most definitely see a significance in millions of people without power, millions of people without reliable access to clean water, and extreme food shortages, and the event is, indeed, ongoing. There is also the matter of the allegations of wind turbines and such by some pretty prominent officials. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Notice. This was nominated at 22:51 (UTC), nighttime in Europe. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm an American. I'm not trying to push an agenda; I'm just unlikely to be nominating this at 3 in the morning local time. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Putting aside the regional opposition stuff, since I realize that is going to drive some editors up the wall: A lot of the article uses the past tense, namely in describing the power outage at its peak. I don't know if we can call this ongoing, since it seems to be getting resolved pretty rapidly.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The "generator-loss crisis" portion of the power outage is over.[3] There are many without power, but it's due to things like trees knocking out power lines, not due to the problems with generation. Most of those are expected to be fixed within a couple of days. There are other ongoing issues that are side-effects of the sustained loss of power, such as with boil-water orders due to power loss at water-treatment plants, truck-delivery issues due to gas/fuel stations losing power, etc. Some of these are expected to last into next week. Not to mention the many who had pipes burst due to loss of heating in their homes. Some of these will take weeks to repair due to demand on plumbers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The usual kind of fallout from an environmental disaster. We generally have not posted that sort of thing on ongoing. Ongoing is more for actively evolving conflicts where notable events are likely to happen over an extended period of time.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We didn't post the European snow system late last year that caused similar outages, it would be systematic bias to post this. Further, the blurb for the storm is still sitting in the box, there's zero need for an ongoing at this point. --Masem (t) 23:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Was it nominated? If not, you've really nothing to complain about. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes it was, I nominated it. --Masem (t) 00:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
So because the European snow system wasn't posted, neither should this one? Or maybe last years thing was a mistake? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose add this to the current blurb if you want but no OG till the blurb rolls off. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Ongoing" is silly. No need for that at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Please elaborate. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Really? It's A storm. It's A power crisis. It's already diminishing, and will be fixed soon. Not ongoing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment I've seen a couple replies touching on this point, so I'll ask you: if it's seriously an issue enough to change someone's mind over, I have no issue specifying in the nomination that this should not enter ongoing until the other article on the storm rolls off ITN. I thought about saying it in the initial post, so if there's support for that I'll add it in. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You can self-close for now and re-nominate once the blurb rolls off. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as other disasters aren't given this treatment. We don't put hurricanes onto ongoing when they have a serious impact over large areas so this shouldn't be either. One blurb for the storm is enough to tell people it was really bad. NoahTalk 03:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose frankly I'm astounded we have an article on the storm and the power cuts. ITN isn't "In the American News" much as some people want it to be. Joseph2302 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

RD: Philippe Chatel[edit]

Article: Philippe Chatel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde (in French)
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: Famous French singer-songwriter and author of the musical Émilie Jolie. Significant musical and written contributions to French culture, and a widely covered death across France. Jmanlucas (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2021 Myanmar protests[edit]

Article: 2021 Myanmar protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: This removal is addressing the current state of the article. Opposes which do not address the article content are therefore invalid and should be ignored. The last protest added was on 2/14 when "hundreds had gathered at a power plant in Myitkyina that had become occupied by the military". This is older than the oldest blurb in the box. An update on 2/17 describing "many cars mysteriously broke down in busy streets of Yangon in a staged demonstration" is an act of passive resistence but not a protest. If there are ongoing protests in Myanmar, the article is not being updates with "new, pertinent information" as the Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section stipulates. Again, this nom is about removing the article due to it's staleness, not whether or not the item is being covered by WP:RSLaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment forgot to add this: content changes to the target article to date --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Similar situation to the indian farmers protest nom a couple weeks ago, lots of updates but nothing substantial, new, and important. I do see the protests escalating in the future, but if that is not reflected in the article then there is no point in it even being in ongoing to begin with. Gex4pls (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal by the looks of it, nothing substantial has happened for almost a week, so not needed on ongoing ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still going on. [4] [5]Sca (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment article not updated --LaserLegs (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There have been updates to the article regarding recent police and military response to the protests (obviously indicating that these protests are still ongoing). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that they're still going on, the question is if that's being reflected in the article. I think that the most recent update about 2 civilian casualties today does reflect this, but I will wait for more similar updates to change my !vote. Gex4pls (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The police disrupted a group who were interfering with government business. Not a protest. Update the article about protests not police activity or mean tweets. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Riot police in Myanmar shot dead two anti-coup protesters and injured several others on Saturday". Associated Press. Yes, this is still a protest. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant. If the content isn't in the target article, the target article is stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article, citing that very source: "On 20 February, two protesters were killed and at least two dozen more were injured in Mandalay by the police and military in a violent crackdown." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Two demonstrators killed by govt. forces. [6] [7] [8] [9]Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SOFIXIT applies, this is still front-page news in most sources, ex. Guardian BBC CNN so instead of proclaiming "opposes which do not address the article content are therefore invalid"; nominator would do better to take a few minutes to fix it since by all measures this is still ongoing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
yellow tickY Partly done I've added a few sentences in the "International reactions" section, suggest others do the same elsewhere and then this can be speedily closed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Invalid oppose, does not address article staleness issues and I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix it, I did my part cataloging the content edits and demonstrating the staleness. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I literally added information about something that happened today. You are however correct, it's easier simply pointing out a problem than fixing it (observation which is true even outside of Wikipedia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually cataloging the content changes and prying poor quality articles out of the ITN box takes considerable effort thank you for sarcastically denigrating my contributions. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You might also want to reconsider your links. NOTREQUIRED literally states: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." i.e. exactly what I said... As for "prying poor quality articles out of ITN" I don't think this is anywhere near poor quality; compare with some of the more egregious POV-pushing attempts on COVID-related articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, you demanded that someone else "fix it", I made no such demand of you. I'm simply highlighting the staleness of the article. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I literally did fix (part of it). But let's not wikilawyer about who is asking whom to fix what. I'm just saying it is a more productive spending of time to argue about whether this should be removed from ITN than it is attempting to fix it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal Wikipedia:In the news#Ongoing section is clear: "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." So I agree with LaserLegs, unless the information actually gets added to the article (rather than just linked here), then this article doesn't meet the criteria for staying on the ongoing section. The onus is on the people who want it to stay on the Ongoing to maintain it, so that it complies with the Ongoing criteria, not the other way round. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There is literally information in the article right now about protests that happened yesterday. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A one line update about the authorities shooting two people with zero details about the crowd size. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
...yes? Do all updates need to include the crowd size? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, for the record, more than two were shot. Two were killed, 40 were injured. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It's an article about protests, so yes, details about crowd size, location, escalation, etc are pertinent information and a one line update provides little value. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
How's that crowd size? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ITN ongoing doesn't require the article to be FA-level. If there are minor issues it's probably easier to fix them as per WP:BOLD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Removal - Just not significantly updated. STSC (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Note Content has been added since this nomination about events that happened since the 17th, and even as far as what happened today. !votes saying "just not significantly updated" are therefore non-representative of the current article. The most recent update to the article is about an event which happened today (and before that there are plenty about things that happened yesterday or the day before), so clearly "Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status" is well out the window... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Condemnations aren't protests. Kindly review the content changes to the article and point out the ones where "new pertinent information" about protests was added, as per the guidelines WP:ITN#Ongoing_section. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Right here. Or you want specific examples? This for one? This for another? I fail to see how the condemnations which are directly linked to the protest are not "new pertinent information". Even if we're going for a wikilawyering letter of the law reading and completely ignoring the spirit, ITN ongoing requires that the article, not some arbitrary sub-part of it, be updated ("maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news"). The protests (and international reactions) are "a story which is itself also frequently in the news", and the article has been updated with such information very recently. I rest my case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • "Huge crowds gathered"? How huge? Gathered where? This is an article about protests, a one line addition that doesn't communicate any real information isn't helpful. If you could just point me to the "spirit" section at WP:ITN it'd be a tremendous help, I'm just trying to apply the guidelines as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal As of now, there is new information dated from 20 February, 21 February, and 22 February. This is being sufficiently updated. Perhaps it wasn't when it was nominated, but the situation has since changed, the article is being actively updated, and as such I see no reason to remove it at this time. --Jayron32 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Jayron32.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment fair enough (to both) I'll keep monitoring it. One of the problems with OG items (like the Venezuelan story) is that as it gets stale, someone will pop in a few edits when it gets nominated for removal but over a long timeline there is a pattern of staleness which can't be ignored. That's not happened here yet, but it's something to keep an eye on. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Substantial additions in the last 48 hours [10], still very much in the news. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Đorđe Balašević[edit]

Article: Đorđe Balašević (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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: Well-known Serbian recording artist, musician, singer-songwriter **Updated: added more citations, article is completely sourced now** Vacant0 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Several claims missing citations. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: I've added more refs and text and the uncited text was mostly removed. Vacant0 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm still seeing what looks to be an average of about one citation per paragraph. Let me be clearer: There should be almost no sentences without citations, as every sentence should be adding new information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, got it, I will add more citations to the paragraphs that I can find. Thanks Vacant0 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added the sources, article is completed now. Vacant0 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Support Article is better now. Good work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. :) Vacant0 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many of the body paragraphs are almost entirely unsourced, will certainly require a lot more work. Gex4pls (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article properly sourced and it's a notable person. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now great quality, and it's certainly a notable person. byteflush Talk 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Great work since the last time I checked. --Tone 09:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing[edit]

Article: Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
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: Burmese woman who became the first known casualty of the 2021 Myanmar protests Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose BLP1E with article created after her death (declared brain dead on 12th, article created on 16th). Absolutely no personal details in the article. This information should be folded into 2021 Myanmar protests, this article to AfD, and this event could at best be used to nominate as a blurb for the protest article (it is already in Ongoing).130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Entire article is a violation of WP:BLP1E, we certainly shouldn't have it on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose an RD wikilinked to Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. Support a blurb wikilinked to 2021 Myanmar protests. I have tagged Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing with a merger discussion. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The content is actually about the killing of Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing. STSC (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Porfirije becomes the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Porfirije, Serbian Patriarch (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Porfirije is enthroned as the 46th Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters,
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We posted about previous Patriarch Irinej. DragonFederal (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Courtesy link. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well known and influential religious leader. 3/4 of the pope, good enough. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We didn't blurb the last patriarch dying, when we would for the Pope or the Ayatollah of Iran. There's a reason. The Serbian Orthodox Church has 8 to 12 million followers according to our article. I'm quite sure the 3/4 of a Pope comment is referring to the size of global orthodoxy, which with the large Russian numbers is more than this. The Orthodox communion is looser than the Catholic one, with no one global leader, just a Primus inter pares in the spiritual home once called Constantinople. With all due respect, the Serbian Orthodox Church is smaller than the LDS Church, and about 1-2% the size of the global Catholic Church. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:( Jeromi Mikhael 11:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Semi-good article, important for Eastern Orthodoxy and SPC. Vacant0 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A good and very thoroughly referenced BLP as bold link. I'm unwilling to disregard this on the grounds that it affects merely 10ish million people. That is still many, and the separateness (autocephaly) of Orthodox churches means that this person is the religious leader of a historically and culturally distinct group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding, the link to the Serbian Orthodox Church cannot go up in it's current state. Even if it's not a bold link, it is still far below what should be featured on the Main Page. Suggest remove second link.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Disagree with using “historically and culturally distinct group of people” as a qualifier as you open up a very broad qualification. I agree with you that perhaps the second link can be looked at. The 10 million alone is a major reason to include the new Patriarchal leader in the news blurb. Just my take. OyMosby (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Porfirije, Serbian Patriarch article is mediocre and the Serbian Orthodox Church article has swaths of unreferenced prose. Even if you convinced me that the leader of a private club with ~10 million members was notable, the articles aren't up to scratch. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support target article is just fine and this is far more significant and long-lasting than a bit of snow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It is notable enough, even more so because he holds somewhat differrent viewpoints compared to other high-ranking member of the SOC and the article is semi-good and there is space to make it better. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good article and a relevant event. Elserbio00 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Though someone should verify if the blurb as is passes MOS:JOBTITLES or if List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church should be linked before it goes to the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support FAR less significant figures and topics have articles on Wikipedia News Blurb. Surely we can spare a few megabytes more.... Yes Orthodox Christianity is not one unified organization like Catholicism and the Pope, so 3/4 of the Pope is incorrect. He represents the Serbian Orthodox Church not all Orthodox Christians. However 10 million people is a gigantic number of influenced people. Also wasn’t the previous Patriarch noted in the news box before? Regardless my first argument alone should be enough. I agree with AllegedlyHuman that the blurb should be double checked. OyMosby (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting. I modified some sentences so that not every sentence begins with "Porfirije is" or "Porfirije did", and there is still plenty of room for prose improvements, but the content is solid. --Tone 16:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment We should keep this blurb up, but use an image of the Mars rover instead of this man. We have pictures of people probably 80% of the time on the ITN space, a picture of an interplanetary voyager is more novel and interesting. 1779Days (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Also I think they wanted List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church pipe linked as the article with Serbian Orthodox Church being the link name, instead of general Serbian Orthodox Church to specify the subject matter. OyMosby (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll pipe that one as well. I am neutral on the image, I was not the one who changed it. --Tone 17:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
By piping I think what was meant was Serbian Orthodox Church links to List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church. You had linked 46th Patriarch. Also could the inage be changed back? @Tone: Thanks OyMosby (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of image - I'm in support of restoring the Mars image due to its far reaching and long-term significance... as much as I can't stop looking at Rasputin here. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


Cloning of the Black-footed ferret[edit]

Article: Black-footed ferret (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Scientists annnounced the first succesful cloning of the endangered black-footed ferret. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists introduced the black-footed ferret Elizabeth Ann as first succesful cloned endangered North American animal.
News source(s): Denver Post; The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

 --Melly42 (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Very little would be posted if "general significance" was required. That said, is this a first for an endangered animal? 331dot (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Lacks consequentiality. Little or no impact on humankind. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sca Same difference. I would say very little of what is posted has an impact on humankind as a whole. "Consequentiality" is relative. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Of passing interest only to a very narrow, specialized audience. ITN is for the Big Picture. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Please point out where that is written down somewhere. Very little would be eligible for posting with that criteria, so I'd be interested to see it. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • First cloning for a North American endangered species, per NYTimes. --Masem (t) 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's the second (after a Przewalski's horse in 2020) and first North American animal. Seems that the cloning of endangered species has not much significance for the main page in general as not even the Przewalski's horse Kurt has its own article. --Melly42 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
But the human being Nikolay Przhevalsky does. – Sca (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A truly significant scientific event would have its own article (i.e. Dolly (sheep)). This event currently has one paragraph in prose in the article and no mention in the lead. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It has an own article: Elizabeth Ann (Ferret) --Melly42 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Why was that article not included with the original nomination? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2021
Because I was not aware that there was already an article on Elizabeth Ann. --Melly42 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would make an interesting DYK. The Elizabeth Ann article is quite the stub, but the black footed ferret article is ok. However, the simple fact of being the first north american endangered species to be cloned feels very overly specific, and not altogether notable (unless this somehow saves Black footed ferrets from extinction, in which case I'd probably support a blurb for "first endangered species repopulated using cloning" if that were to happen). Gex4pls (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prince Markie Dee[edit]

Article: Prince Markie Dee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Rolling Stone
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) 10:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: U-Roy[edit]

Article: U-Roy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Guardian; Variety
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) 02:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) February 13–17 winter storm (Winter Storm Uri)[edit]

No reason to continue additional discussion; consensus to post is strong. SpencerT•C 15:23, 19 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: February 13–17, 2021 North American winter storm (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A winter storm in North America leaves 33 people dead and several million others without water or power, especially in Texas. (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Multiple records were set across America as a result of this storm. Affected Mexico as well. FIVE MILLION PEOPLE are STILL without power. People are DYING across Texas. The previous close was rather premature, and the article is no longer a stub. 23 people dead is a lot dead. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 01:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as it wasn't the typical Winter Storm. Also I know nominators are auto support since they nominated, but this was a re-nomination, so I feel like my vote isn't a formality, but a real !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The coverage just within the United States seems a bit unbalanced... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly support clearly a historic winter storm for the US and Mexico, and the worst one since the Blizzard of 2016. The US saw over 5 million blackouts and Mexico saw over 4.7 million. 23 people were killed also. Many all-time records in the US and Canada were broken for record low temperatures and record high snowfall. It produced 5 tornadoes, killing 3 people. Overall, one of the worst winter storms in decades, likely to become the US's first billion-dollar disaster of 2021. Definitely deserves a place in ITN. HurricaneCovid (contribs) 01:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly support This is quickly becoming an unusually large compound disaster - for example: millions under boil-water orders and no power to boil water[1]. Victor Grigas (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This has proved to be a much more significant story than first appeared, with the collapse of the power grid in Texas, and the article quality is much improved. P-K3 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support – This storm broke records all over the place, ranging from the scope of Winter Weather Alerts (170 million Americans affected, which is very unusual) to the blackouts. The storm left close to 10 million people without power, and roughly 4 million people in Texas still remain without power or clean drinking water. A blackout of this magnitude has not happened in the U.S. since the 2011 Southwest blackout, and this is one of the worst blackouts in the modern history of the country. The article is in much better shape now, and the sections pertaining to the hardest-hit areas and the blackouts are much-better developed now. And any arguments that this should be failed on grounds of this storm happening in the U.S. or North America are pure nonsense – a historic event is historic. Pure and simple. And what this storm did in North America is a very far cry from even above-average winter storms. Any event of this magnitude deserves an ITN mention. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Really serious event that has left a large amount of damage in its wake for storms of this type. NoahTalk 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support far from a routine weather event, this is unusual weather in a region unaccustomed to it and is having severe consequences. Oppose including the name "Uri" in the blurb for the usual reasons --LaserLegs (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: We are discussing it right now, but the FCC and Homeland Security Bureau are using Uri as the name. [11] NoahTalk 01:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, they are using The Weather Channel's name for the storm, it has not been given a name by the US government like hurricanes are. TWC's criteria for naming a winter storm is very different than that of the government's naming of a hurricane. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Left me without power for a day or so. Tucker Gladden 👑 02:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucker Gladden (talkcontribs)
  • Support however, the blurb figure of 23 deaths is not found in the article, nor was it ever in the article as far as I can see. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, though specific name should be left out per LaserLegs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The power outages have been sounding apocalyptic. People in Texas are bringing farm animals into living rooms. Also, the biggest cold wave in decades. 142.120.100.241 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The storm may have caused problems but the compounding factors were the state of the electric grid in Texas, which is, sadly, the state's own fault (just as the issues in California's power outages are). This should not be a story we should be posting for that purpose. --Masem (t) 05:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I will add that while there are deaths directly attributed to the weather (when this was first posted), most of the additional news and deaths associated with this are all related to human-made decisions - maybe not those made in the last few days but resulting from years ago but still human made decisions that could have been altered to avoid the issus. Further, the issue has been strongly politicized (the "attacks" on renewable energy, the questioning about where Sen. Cruz was going, etc.) making the story more political than a typical weather-related disaster that we would post. And as it is American-related politics, something we have to be acutely aware of of excessive attention in the media, we should avoid posting stories that get that added emphasis. --Masem (t) 05:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Masem, being someone's "own fault" is not a criteria for not posting a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Human faults are not the issue (eg dam breaks from bad engineering would be posted), it is the politictizing and misinformation that immediately started to try to downplay the issue rather than immediately seek relief and remedy that make this a non-story, atop the fact that its winter in the US, it snows, it gets cold,and people still die from that every year. --Masem (t) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted underneath the Mars news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose it's cold, and people suffer. It happens every winter. Just because it's Texas, it doesn't make it more important. Heavy bias here, and good to see discussions being conducted in quicktime while the rest of the world sleeps. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Historic storm, widespread and severe effects, lots of RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting strong oppose this same article was rejected from ITN a few days ago, as not ITN-worthy. A few support votes shouldn't overwrite a much longer discussion. This seems like an admin supervote to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) 2020–21 North American winter for the same article had a clear consensus not to post (1 support linked to a non existent policy, compared to 6 opposes based on policy). Ridiculous that we allow someone to create a new nom, and then for an admin, The ed17 to override the previous consensus, 5 hours after it was posted, at a time when only people in North America would be awake. This should be pulled, and a proper WP:CONSENSUS gained for it. Because this stinks of US-bias to me, as a few North American people were able to override a consensus made by a worldwide group of people a few days ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Also opposing on quality- the sections on Canada and the Great Lakes are almost non-existent. Considering it's meant to be about a North American storm, it is almost entirely about the US.... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It most certainly did not have clear consensus not to post, it was speedy closed in 43 minutes. As for the Canada section being orange tagged for expansion, the storm was largely a non-event around the lakes. We're posting this because of it's impact in a region not usually impacted by storms, as evidenced by their lack of preparedness. Why are the opposes struggling with this? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, as LaserLegs said, the previous nomination was closed so quickly there was no consensus established. Also, more information has come to light and the impacts are more widespread than that first nom. This should not be portrayed as a supervote.-- Fuzheado | Talk 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I realise consensus can change, I just don't think posting 5 hours after nominated when post of the world is asleep is a fair representation of people's views. I also think that the article has glaring omissions, as it only really covers US. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support widely covered in the news for multiple days. The posted blurb wording looks good. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Post-posting scepticism The Proud Boys find they have no snow shovels. Oh bother. The Texas Interconnection failure would have been a story in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) But just read User:Joseph2302 comments above, so changed !vote.
"States have to vote blue for me to think the people in them deserve to live." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well I'll just re-iterate that there was no strong consensus not to post last time because it was speedy closed in 45 minutes, re-opened (by me) and speedy closed an hour later and when that did not happen, a consensus actually developed. Perhaps we should speedy close this one as "strong consensus to post"? Or because you didn't get your way should we discuss it to death and try desperately to pull it back down? Let me know your thoughts. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Joseph2302:, One thing I have learned over the last year on Wikipedia is that consensus can change. (if you want some examples, ask me about it on my talk page. Here isn't the place for that). I am slightly concerned that you called this "an admin supervote". That can get you into major trouble. (In short, I did that back in November/December and had 2 attempts to get me banned from Wikipedia. Please tread carefully with that accusation. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe the admin was unaware of the previous discussion, but speedy posting something seems odd to me. And if this article wasn't about the US, nobody would consider posting an article with 2 almost empty sections in it. But it's the US, so WP:BIAS of ITN allows it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Sometimes what makes weather exceptional is not the actual objective weather in itself but the environment it strikes. To refuse to recognise serious impacts based on political boundaries is itself a form of bias. A disaster -- I think I am safe in calling this a disaster, in that we will be fortunate indeed if the deaths do not reach three figures -- is no less a disaster when the major factors which tip the balance are human caused. In fact, more than half of all disasters posted at ITN have had significant human components which made them exponentially worse, even for something as basic as hurricane flooding. Never mind that the temperatures will ameliorate after Saturday, this one will be unfolding for weeks yet to come. (Water issues on that level are not solved overnight, and for some the health consequences will linger a lifetime.) Ironically, even the shift to smartphones is complicating the issue: landlines with cords used to draw all the electricity they needed from the phone line, making them much more resilient for communications under these conditions. Incidentally, I currently live in a part of the world where this level of winter weather is habitually shrugged off -- people here were laughing until they realised that the Texas power and water infrastructures were collapsing, including hospitals -- but I also recognise that winter weather is not taken carelessly, even here; and consequently houses and infrastructure and heck, habitual winter clothing here are built for it. Then again, I don't know if we would do particularly well if a category 2+ hurricane were to strike us, even without lingering. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the previous discussion, it should have no bearing on this one. It was speedily closed (as I predicted it would be) because it was before the full facts were known, and we got the typical comments along the lines of "yes it's cold outside, put on a jumper." Now that the article has been expanded, and there are millions of people without access to drinking water, it's appropriate to post. P-K3 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Isn't snow made of water? Aren't there millions of people without access to drinking water around the world every day? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think you're being unnecessarily glib towards people with burst water pipes, flooded homes, food shortages and no heat in freezing conditions, but I'm clearly not going to change your mind on this one.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Those people have FEMA and the U.S. National Guard to rely upon, they being in a developed country. Others are not as fortunate.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This comment is incredibly facetious. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Article is high quality and news sources are covering the story. There's no other criteria that are worth considering. --Jayron32 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Funny, I looked at the World news page on BBC and saw Latifa, Mars, Myanmar, Iran, vaccines, fallen Alps hikers, Somalia, Pakistan, and then Ted Cruz. Hardly headlining. New sources are also covering a dog which won a medal and Harry & Meghan not returning to the Royal Family. Other criteria certainly need consideration otherwise we'd just be a Trump/Kardashian ticker, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, While your observations are amusing, they're not really adding to the discourse. Instead: on the BBC News front page right next to a Ted Cruz headline is a video story with the caption: "He's 92 so we wrapped him tight like mummy. Like so many desperate Texans, Henry is struggling to stay warm without power." So yes, this issue is serious, globally covered, and not just about melting snow to make drinking water. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    You made my point perfectly. It's something like the 12th story and well down on Meghan and Harry. Per Jayron, we should be posting Meghan and Harry, right? And honestly, if you can't contextualise this bit of snow with Covid still killing, what, 2,500 Americans per day, there's little hope. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support but as before, would prefer a broader article also covering the storms in other countries. Banedon (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Sigh. At this point, it's a bygone, but it seems once again that ITN/C can't free itself of the seemingly irresistible impulse of systemic bias. Fact: Winter storms of this magnitude happen with considerable regularity and frequency, and we had similar events which occurred in the U.S. in 2015 and 2016 which we did not post. Fact: As TRM pointed out, this event is getting limited coverage on websites and news sources outside the U.S., which would make sense because a similar event in England also did not get posted. Fact: We have some very enthusiastic editors in the weather space here. That's great. But we need to avail ourselves to avoid hyperbole and viewing events in the political space as more important than they actually are. "Apocalyptic"? Seriously?? And who really gives a shit whether or not Ted Cruz took a vacation? That has no bearing on the newsworthiness of the event as a whole, nor does Greg Abbott's insipid attacks against renewable energy. I'm not one to call for a story to be pulled, but anyone who thinks that ITN is far-removed from the days of U.S. systemic bias is truly, truly mistaken.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
As the article itself mentions, this storm isn't just affecting the U.S. but Canada and Mexico as well. Additionally, you must agree as we all do that at some level of severity, an extremely localized event (i.e. a meteor vaporizes Texas) is worthy of posting regardless of the lack of "international impact," even though you may personally disagree over whether this event crosses that threshold of severity. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Your comparison is ludicrous. A meteor has not vaporized Texas. Of course if an event of that magnitude happened, it would be posted, because that would entail the deaths of over 28 million people.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware it's ludicrous. For argument's sake, I chose the most extreme example I could think of that obviously you would support, just so you would admit that at some level, you would accept a region-centric story making it to ITN. Obviously this story is not tantamount to that, nor did I imply it was, but at least we agree on something: at some scale, "international significance" does not need to exist for a story to still be noteworthy around the world. For me and several others, this story is past that point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to comment on this last night but figured would wait to see if it happened, and it did: From nomination to posting was 4 hours, all within the US nighttime period, about a US-centric story. As soon as Europe woke up, we got the opposes that would have been expected if more time was appropriately given to discussion before posting given the time factors. Admins have to be acutely aware that breaking stories specific to a region (for Europe, early in European time, or for US, late night US time) probably should be given a few more hours of discussion until the other sie of the world has time to consider if the topic is too regionally focus to post. --Masem (t) 13:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, utterly predictable, as is the slew of supports now the US is awake once again. Bias with your soup sir? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose – Old news, being superseded by gradual recovery from storm. Renomination seems to reflect personal situations rather than wider significance. Suggest this rather flabby blurb be pulled. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: This user recommends that all-caps words not be used, as they actually detract from points being asserted by calling attention to typographical gimmickry. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
BUT FIVE MILLION PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT POWER, SCA.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
That estimate is outdated. Today's Dallas paper says "substantial amount of power to be restored by Friday evening." – Sca (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - It was a loose-consensus at the time of posting, but now that the day has started in Europe/US, that consensus has held, and then some. Folks need to remember that whether something is "news" is always relative to how it deviates from the norm and whether it's in the public interest. So "people die every winter" is not a useful argument. Also, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments here are largely irrelevant - "how about when it happened in year X to region Y" or "there are millions without water living in Z." That's never been, nor should it be, the criteria here for judging whether it's on the front page. The fact is these types of catastrophic energy and infrastructure failures (power, water, transportation, food) are not common to Texas and contrary to statements above, are not "every winter." And the fact is, the conditions continue to be a threat for several more days ("Nearly half of Texans remain under boil-water advisories as water scarcity and freezing temperatures continue" [12] [13]) so this will continue to be in the news, perhaps even more so. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Far from "old news" the story is still very much in progress.[14] We regularly post major hurricanes to ITN, and this winter storm is much more unusual, particularly in terms of the area that has suffered major damage, from Oregon to Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and even North Carolina. There's already been international impact too, with Texas cutting off natural gas supplies to Mexico, threatening Mexico's electricity production.[15]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and honestly, some of the opposers here need to get some perspective. TRM cracks jokes at the expense of American dead, but he can't stop pumping when those killed are his countryman (11 comments for 11 dead!). Walt reminds us that similar events have not been posted, and provides links to events with a fraction of the causalities. Yes, there are places on Earth with limited access to water, and places where it gets very cold and there is limited or no power to produce heat. But suddenly thrusting these conditions upon a massive population without the experience or preparation to deal with them has proven catastrophic and (JFC, I can't believe I have to say this) newsworthy. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    Not mocking the dead, simply putting this into a global perspective. Oh and are you attempting to compare some snow with a terror attack, I'm not sure... Give over. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. What's the point of ITN if items like this don't get posted. -- Calidum 14:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Automatically blurbing exhilarating kayaking races watch by the world over with no discussions? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:21, 19 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: Ali Sadpara[edit]

Article: Ali Sadpara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ali Sadpara, John Snorri Sigurjónsson and one other mountaineer are declared dead after a failed search and rescue mission on K2, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Dawn
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: The unusual event leading to the deaths, the extensive search & rescue mission and the national tradegy it caused has all received wide coverage making it worth a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • RD only K2's lead says Of the five highest mountains in the world, K2 is the deadliest; approximately one person dies on the mountain for every four who reach the summit, which makes me think it's not so unusual for someone to die trying to climb it. Quality is not so great. It needs some reorganization into more sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sure there is a source somewhere for the list of mountains he's climbed, which appears to be the only thing in the article that really still needs a cite. Would support RD once that is cited. Oppose blurb regardless per Muboshgu's rationale. Mlb96 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Messy article full of bare links and weird structuring, many missing citations as well. Gex4pls (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb, support RD only He is don't really important. 110.137.166.20 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Quite a hyped event since the start of expedition and after they went missing, it became even more worldwide. USaamo (t@lk) 03:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Improvement, not deletion is needed.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose nowhere near a blurb, and the article is in terrible condition, tone issues, far too many inline external links, unreferenced claims etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb Caused a bit of fuss amongst mountaineers and a trending topic in himalayan countries. But Oppose due to article conditions :( Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - If it were Mandela climbing the mountain, that'd be a different story. In all seriousness, per Muboshgu, it seems that deaths upon K2 are sadly frequent, and this would be an assumed risk for a mountaineer - a bit like cave diving, in that sense.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only – Sad, but a blurb would be overplaying an event that does not affect a significant number of people. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD Not a case of WP:BLP1E, and the article reflects that and is otherwise in OK shape. Would also support RD for John Snorri Sigurjónsson if that article were in better condition. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too much recentism in the lead. Details should be moved to the body, leaving a summary in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) NASA Mars 2020 (Perseverance)[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Mars 2020 (talk · history · tag) and Perseverance (rover) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​NASA's Mars 2020 mission craft, containing the Perserverance rover (pictured) and the Ingenuity helicopter, successfully lands on Mars. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Preparation nomination - landfall is within the next 4-5 hrs as I type this up. This is affirming that barring the landing event that the articles (mission + two probe craft)t) looks to be in good shape (to me) and that once landfall is confirmed by sources it should be ready to go. The other two Mars missions from last week have scrolled off; I would have combined this with those if they were still on. Masem (t) 14:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Important event, probably 3/4 of the moon landing. Waiting for the live stream as I type this up. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support by precedent (previous Mars probes were posted about a week earlier), and off intrinsic significance. Comment: image of Perseverance rover in clean room may be replaced by images of Perseverance during Mars descent, or landed on the surface (if they ever get images of those). Osunpokeh (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • On the image, there's only one NASA craft going, so we're not going to have an external image of it in descent (any such image would be an artist's rendition). Yes, there will likely be a "selfie" once Percy is on the ground and tested operational, but that's not going to be today, probably. --Masem (t) 17:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Possibly the Atlas V rocket have external cameras anywhere? Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, and articles appear to be in good shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Mars 2020 article is fine, but the Perseverance article has one uncited paragraph and a few uncited sentences, while the Ingenuity article has a tag and probably needs someone to do a quick pass over the article and update it. The last two articles are pretty close, though, so I don't think it should take long to fix these issues. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – after landing — Just one cn tag near the end of the Perseverance article, and the sentence it's attached to doesn't seem particularly necessary. – Sca (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Touchdown is successful. Will get to updating. --Masem (t) 20:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support landed and tweeting! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support Touchdown has been confirmed! Strongly support, this needs to be on the front page. (Twistedaxe) 21:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support Wow, just saw it land. Applause in control room. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Percy already sent back some images (seen in the mission control room live feed) but not yet posted, so we may have those soon. --Masem (t) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting. The updates are as they are ... well ... landed. The rest of the article is good. --Tone 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Tone typo posted too....! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Where? :o --Tone 21:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep trying.... ;) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 10:55, 19 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:

  1. ^ "Texas weather: Residents told to boil tap water amid power blackouts". BBC News. 2021-02-18. Retrieved 2021-02-19.