Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

< Wikipedia:In the news

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.

Contents

Karl Lagerfeld in 2014
Karl Lagerfeld

How to nominate an itemEdit

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) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • 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.

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

  • 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

  • ... 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.
  • ... 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.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... 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)


SuggestionsEdit

February 22Edit

Disasters and accidents

Biodiversity lossEdit

Article: Biodiversity loss (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UN's FAO reports a decline in the biodiversity required for the world's food.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator and updater: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the latest in a series of alarming reports warning of a significant decline in biodiversity. Andrew D. (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Four new letters in DNA alphabetEdit

Article: Hachimoji DNA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists synthesize four new alphabets that can be used in DNA
News source(s): [1][2]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Drbogdan (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Cool concept, but so theorhetical as to what it could mean. If it were the discovery of four new naturally occurring base pairs, that might more significant, but this seems far too novel to have any real application now. --Masem (t) 06:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe The article needs work to explain what's new rather than just speculation. And the blurb needs work because the concept is four new letters rather than four new alphabets. The potential is enormous though. I suppose that evolution already tried and rejected this way of doing things but introducing alien DNA into our environment could literally change life as we know it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

February 21Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Ready) RD: Nick CafardoEdit

Article: Nick Cafardo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Boston Globe
Nominator: DBigXray (talk • give credit)
Updater: MensanDeltiologist (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with everything sourced. Sports Columnist DBigXray 05:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Don't see any pressing issues. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support short but okay; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SpaceIL Launches aboard SpaceX Falcon9 RocketEdit

Article: SpaceIL (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel to become fourth country to land a spacecraft on the moon after the launch of SpaceIL aboard a Falcon 9 Rocket
Alternative blurb: ​SpaceIL, the first commercial rocket, is launched aboard a Falcon 9 towards the moon.
Alternative blurb II: ​Israel becomes fourth country to launch a rocket to the moon
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/science/spacex-launch-israel.html
Nominator: Sir Joseph (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is historic because it's 1) going to the moon, and 2) it's the first non-government rocket going to the moon. I think in a few months hopefully when it lands we can also have a blurb, but just a successful launch is noteworthy enough. I think we can work on the blurb, mentioning Google prize, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Leaning on oppose until either the lander successfully lands on the moon (in 2.5 months) or there's some incident. Falcon 9 has launched before with payload so that launch is nothing really new. --Masem (t) 02:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • wait textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. Post it when it lands Openlydialectic (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In this case the launch already has the Beresheet module in Earth orbit, which is not just a regular payload, it had some people worried it wasn't going to make it. Besides, even if it was just a regular launch, it is newsworthy for the launch itself, it's the first commercial launch to the moon, make it or not, it's one for the books. Again, those saying wait or oppose are missing the point, the launch itself is newsworthy, regardless if it makes it to the moon or not. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Israel hasn't launched a rocket, they've paid SpaceX to launch their probe which will potentially land on the moon. The Google Prize has ended, so not sure why that would be mentioned. The launch is routine, landing on the moon is when this should be nominated. Stephen 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Going to the moon is not routine, so that's why it's newsworthy, itself, regardless if it actually makes it to the moon. I mentioned the Google Prize because I think it's an interesting aspect to it that people might find interesting. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait prefer wait too per above. Whether or not it successfully lands, it'll be news and we can post it then. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Jussie SmollettEdit

WP:SNOW. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (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: Jussie Smollett (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American actor Jussie Smollett is charged with filing a false police report after he said he was assaulted in a hate crime.
News source(s): [3] [4]
Nominator: HampsteadLord (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Has been one of the biggest news stories over the past 3 weeks. Reports suggest that this case, one of the most famous racial hoaxes in recent times, could impact how future cases are dealt with. The story has reached a certain threshold in the police investigation and appears to have reached its peak in terms of being in the news, so now is the best time to post. HampsteadLord (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. (1) We usually post convictions or sentencing, not charges filed. (2) This is a case that has drawn attention, but is really just about him and his career, no broader implications for anyone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. --Masem (t) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is of mild interest to probably another section of the main page but is not something I would expect to see covered in an almanac of the year's most newsworthy or notable stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, suggest snow close. Sca (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while notable since Smollett orchestrated his attack, and it now appears his racist letter he received a while back, it's not worthy enough for inclusion for a worldwide encyclopedia. Although, to an extent, I can see little support for inclusion for lots of media celebrities rush to judgement and support, and how they blamed certain people for this incident, which might be noteworthy in itself. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2019 (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: Peter TorkEdit

Article: Peter Tork (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator and updater: Xaosflux (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A few citation verifications (unrelated to the death) pending — xaosflux Talk 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now "A few citation verifications (unrelated to the death) pending" is somewhat understating the extent of the problems in an article in which 16 out of 35 paragraphs lack a single citation - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Working on (several people are) over 8 new citations added today, some unsourced info removed. — xaosflux Talk 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, on rereading my comment it came across a bit pessimistic and confrontational, apologies. Best of luck improving the article. One thing I like about the RD process is that it is quite effective at instigating improvements to a wide variety of biography articles. If its ready in time give me a ping and I'll drop by to switch to support - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. Looks like some chopping out needs doing, or forking, as this seems unlikely to be ready in a timely fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Trying - could use a few more hands, but may not make the fast RD cycle (at work now, so going a bit slow). — xaosflux Talk 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article is improved although citations needed. The songs written section is mostly unreferenced and could perhaps be omitted. Unlike Paul McCartney, Peter Tork was not known for his song writing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) PewDiePie vs T-SeriesEdit

Oh the weather outside is frightful... --Jayron32 18:32, 21 February 2019 (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: PewDiePie vs T-Series (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Pewd4life (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is being seen as a battle between individual creators on the internet and big corporations. This will determine the future of the Internet. Pewd4life (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongest possible support Highly important event, possibly the most important in the XXI century so far. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible oppose Who the hell cares who has the most subscriptions on YouTube? Before I clicked the link, I thought it was referring to a lawsuit with implications on Internet freedoms or somesuch. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm struggling to see any real-world implications for this event. If there are any it can be nominated for a blurb when they happen. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2019 (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.

2019 Dhaka fireEdit

Article: 2019 Dhaka fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A fast-moving fire killed at least 70 when it swept through a historic district of Bangladesh's capital Dhaka.
Alternative blurb: ​A raging fire kills at least 80 as it sweeps through a historic district of Bangladesh's capital, Dhaka.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: SamHolt6 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Just created, so give some time as other editors work on it. Around 70 people have died Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'll promptly support it when it's ready to go. It seems a very significant event with a big death toll.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's been a few hours since the last significant edit and I'm half-expecting to give it a little prod. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – pending article development. Alt1 offered per AP's 81 death toll, which may change (note present tense). Sca (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on merits. It appears that the article is being quickly developed. I recommend modifying the language of the altblurb; no need to use personification ("raging fire") for emphasis. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem – must admit the journalistic phrase "raging fire" is a cliché, and "fast-moving" would be fine. Note that around 16:30 the AP reduced its "at least" toll to 67. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Too short at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

February 20Edit

Arts and culture

International relations

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • One surviving female specimen of the Fernandina Galápagos tortoise species, which was thought to be extinct for more than 100 years, is found. (USA Today)

RD: Vinny VellaEdit

Article: Vinny Vella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Start Class article of an actor with everything sourced. IMHO ready to post. DBigXray 06:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RD: Fred FosterEdit

Article: Fred Foster (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone,The Tennessean
Nominator: CoatCheck (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nashville music legend who helped launch the careers of Dolly Parton, Roy Orbison and founded Monument Records. Country Music Hall of Fame (2016). CoatCheck (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ekkehard WlaschihaEdit

Article: Ekkehard Wlaschiha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The headline in the (German) obituary translates to "With Alberich to world fame" - live broadcast from the Met, and performance in the reopening of the Semperoper. - I found the article as an undersourced stub, it had been longer but that was copyright violation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Baghuz FawqaniEdit

Article: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces, U.S., France and UK.
Alternative blurb: ​The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK, defeat and capture the last territories controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Syrian Democratic Forces defeats the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator: Nice4What (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: 'Caliphate' being territorially defeated after 5 years is major news. Adding this post pre-emptively to avoid this being posted late (as was the case for North Macedonia.) When this happens (which it will per official sources, this is not WP:CRYSTALBALL) I suggest posting it as soon as the article is swiftly updated. Nice4What (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is very significant and the article appears to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, the last news I heard said it's on the verge of defeat. The situation will probably clarify within a day or two. Brandmeistertalk 09:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article on it's own doesn't explain it's significance vs any other battle in the ongoing civil war. I'm concerned about claiming "the defeat of ISIL" because their principal opponent declares it such. ISIL will be taking credit for suicide bombings for the next 20 years. From a quality standpoint, there are some large paragraphs with a single source, and the prose which is there is filled with the usual irrelevant anecdotal commentary like "The civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them". We're supposed to be reporting on the "final defeat of ISIL in Syria" but the article is highlighting 18 non-Syrians fleeing? Come on. The problem with WP:RECENTism is that the article gets fluffed up with this sort of reliably sourced but ultimately unverified factoids. When the Syrian civil war ends and either the SDF or Assad surrenders and admits defeat, then that's a post. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing and promote to blurb if/when the battle concludes. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing - the battle has not yet ended, but per above, if it concludes with the Islamic State losing the last of its Syrian territory, that's certainly noteworthy enough for a blurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reposted and support for Ongoing - BBC reports that civilians have evacuated and remaining militants have surrendered, complete capture is imminent. I certainly recommend posting it to "Ongoing" and later as a blurb once the battle has concluded. (I also tweaked blurb to cover add the UK, which I initially omitted; I've listed the countries in that specific order as it is US and France on the front lines, with air support from the UK. Wouldn't be opposed to replacing them with CJTF-OIR though most countries in the coalition aren't participating in this final battle, so I feel it'd be a little less accurate.) Nice4What (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment proposed alt-blurb 2 which doesn't pretend that ISIL will just pack up and go home. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
They have a home? Sca (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel that the defeat of ISIL territorially here is what makes this specific battle significant, alt blurb II just seems like another battle going on in Syria. Nice4What (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    You're free to leave a !vote to that effect. I would appreciate it if you'd not comment on my remarks directly, except if seeking clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    "I would appreciate it if you'd not comment on my remarks directly"???
    lol.
    Oppose Alt Blurb II for reasons states above ... This is how you wanted it formatted, yea? Nice4What (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – What happened to the caveats "so-called" or "self-proclaimed" – ?? – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Though I am not opposed to including these caveats, these caveats are primarily useful for proto-states, and per the lead of the ISIL article, it is a former (rather than current) proto-state. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

February 19Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports
  • The opening round of the Aeroflot Open, an international open chess tournament, is postponed a day after 45 minutes of play as a bomb threat locks down the Moscow hotel hosting the event. Similar threats also shut down cinemas, shopping centres, and theatres; thousands are evacuated. (Chess.com) (Chessbase)

Bramble Cay melomysEdit

Article: Bramble Cay melomys (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Australian government declares the Bramble Cay melomys extinct.
Alternative blurb: ​The IUCN declares the Bramble Cay melomys extinct.
Alternative blurb II: ​The IUCN declares the Bramble Cay melomys extinct, the first recorded mammalian extinction due to anthropogenic climate change.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Australian government declares the Bramble Cay melomys extinct, the first recorded mammalian extinction due to anthropogenic climate change.
News source(s): National Geographic, Washington Post, BBC, New York Times, The Guardian.
Nominator: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mikeybear (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is well-sourced but a bit short. Described in the news as the first mammalian extinction directly attributable to climate change. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: It is no longer a stub. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Has the IUCN formally declared it to be extinct? That's what the infobox appears to be claiming. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    It has: citation to IUCN added. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Then one would imagine the blurb should reflect that, rather than just a recommendation of the Aussie government. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    The IUCN declared this extinct some years ago. It hit the news then, but we didn't post it. It's hit the news again because of the Australian government statement (which in some ways is bigger, because it actually affects policy, whereas the IUCN assessment is widely used but not legally meaningful), and so I think we should take the opportunity to post it. @Black Kite: That's why I didn't propose the alt blurb you have now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the guardian is calling it the "first mammal species wiped out by human-induced climate change". Article is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    I suspect that fact should somehow be factored into the blurb to give it context as loads of animals go extinct for various reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Added altblurb2. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The IUCN declared this species extinct in 2015/16. [5] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: Nonetheless, it is in the news again because of the Australian government's action, and we didn't post it when the IUCN changed its categorization. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Above, you said it has legal ramifications. What exactly? Does it affect any other nations? I could be convinced to change my mind if there is some regional and international consequences to this announcement. Otherwise, if this only affects Australians, there is nothing to see here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: The Australian government designation is what affects protection for the species, including land regulations in its habitat: which, arguably, is limited in its impact. However, that doesn't change my basic point; this is a documented extinction that is very much in the news globally right now, so we should post it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not even clear from news reports (which also confirm that Queensland state government confirmed the extinction way back in 2016) what, if any, the ramifications are. The article contains nothing related to what impact this will have on legislation. The BBC also confirmed that "Australia has one of the world's highest rates of animal extinction" so I guess there are plenty more such stories round the corner. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith, but it appears that this news broke several years ago. Had this not been the case, I would have been willing to support on its merits. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drop in the ocean This creature is a variety of rat that lived on a tiny island -- the size of a large garden/small farm. It has been flooded to extinction but there are still lots of close relatives in the region. This is quite insignificant compared to the global scale of biodiversity loss as reported by the UN today. See the nomination above. Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Namvar SinghEdit

Article: Namvar Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with everything sourced. A notable and awarded Hindi author DBigXray 08:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Seems decent enough. I found nothing to object to that is not fixable with some light copy editing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Short but Ok enough. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satisfactory, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Question is it "minimally comprehensive"? "Literary works" says he wrote 12, lists three. There is a mention of his communist party involvement getting him fired, but no details about that period in his life. I'm not opposing, just asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, I was able to find RS mentioning these 3 books as his popular works. If me or someone else finds more referenced books, we can certainly add along with the refs. Regrading his communist activities, the reliable sources I found thus far, only mention it as such, hence it is mentioned as was sourced. ITN RDs need strict BLP compliance before being promoted to the Main page.--DBigXray 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Vanamonde, can someone give the credits? Regards. --DBigXray 04:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Done, FTR. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don NewcombeEdit

Article: Don Newcombe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Nohomersryan (talk • give credit)
Updater: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, but doesn't appear to be terrible otherwise (not overly long and nothing that would be too hard to source - will work on). Nohomersryan (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Aw man. I can work on this one too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be ready to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No issues that I can see. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't see issues either.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) RD: Karl LagerfeldEdit

We also have rules which enable us to post blurbs for clearly transformative figures, and it was adequately demonstrated that this was the case here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2019 (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.

Closing a second time. There was a clear clamoring for a blurb, with a solid consensus that the original discussion was closed too soon. The additional comments clearly shifted the consensus in favor of the blurb. As an aside, the feed was getting stale (it had been 5 days since the last blurb posting), and there's little harm in posting this as a blurb. Let's all really let this one drop now. --Jayron32 15:24, 20 February 2019 (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.

When the length of the discussion exceeds the length of the prose in the article, it is a good time to close. RD is fine, no consensus for a blurb. --Tone 08:06, 20 February 2019 (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: Karl Lagerfeld (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, best known for his creative work at Chanel, dies at age 85.
Alternative blurb: ​German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld dies at the age of 85.
News source(s): [6]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)
Updater: Nice4What (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Iconic fashion designer. BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was a major figure in the fashion world, which makes him also qualify for a blurb. By the way, this is a breaking news in most media at the moment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Icon in the fashion industry, should be posted to RD but a blurb could be sufficient knowing how important he was. Nice4What (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd proposed something of the lines "German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, best known for his creative work at Chanel, passes away at age 85." Nice4What (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Use dies not passes away - see MOS:EUP. O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll change the blurb. Nice4What (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, strongly Large sections of this article lack references. I don't care to opine on whether to blurb or not. But if we do, something should first be done about the WP:CSECTION. IMO, a separate section for controversies is inherently undue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not seeing the level of coverage I need for a blurb, if it's getting wall to wall coverage in a day with video of Merkel laying flowers at his casket I can reconsider. Oppose RD for now on quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Seems somewhat unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Saying you want to see a "video of Merkel laying flowers" makes it seem like you don't know much about Lagerfeld... he is one of the most recognizable icons of the fashion industry, not necessarily a German hero. Coverage is also everywhere [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Nice4What (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm shocked, genuinely shocked, that you were able to find links to articles talking about his death. Stunned even. That is not the same as widespread coverage. I stand by my oppose. Have a nice day. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Chill out 😂 The news of the death is definitely widespread, I don't know how you can't see that for yourself. Nice4What (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Icon (including iconic) has become one of the two most overused words in the English language – the other being clearly. – Sca (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    It seems the BBC have it wrong, clearly. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yup, and a host of others, including, alas, the AP. The good news is, Reuters and the Guardian resisted the rush to devalued language. Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Au contraire: both Reuters and Guardian regard him as a cultural and/or fashion "icon". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Well, in headlinese, at least. Reuters: "creative genius," Guardian: "fashion designer." – Sca (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think we all read past the headlines, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Oh dear someone taking my sarcasm seriously again. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Clearly, you're in over your head. – Sca (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or at the very least RD. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article sourcing quality only. Would support a blurb here given. --Masem (t) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Consensus is that blurbs should be reserved for cases in which the death itself could be the topic of a full Wikipedia article. This is explained in WP:ITNRD, and I strongly suggest the nominator and all the pro-blurb notvoters here read it, and then withdraw their nomination and their notvotes. Furthermore, dying when super old is the opposite of what blurbs are for. Abductive (reasoning) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say that a blurb needs its own article on the death, but I would say is that the blurb is needed when the death itself is the story. Being old and dying of being old does not require extra explanation in the way that a murder, suicide, or accident would. --Jayron32 15:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    He wasn't "super old". He was 85. He was still professionally active last October? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Say what you want, consensus says blurbs are for huge death events, not some old person dying. Abductive (reasoning) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    We had a blurb for Aretha Franklin when she passed away. No separate article, no unusual death... so your point doesn't have a standing. Her death and Lagerfeld's are undeniably significant. Nice4What (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    He's not "some old person dying". He's a very notable old person dying. His longevity has contributed to his notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    All Wikipedia articles are about notable people. --Jayron32 16:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, quite. Not just "some old people". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    It is patently untrue that consensus says this. Deaths of major transformative leaders in their fields may be posted as well. ghost 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality; referencing is a mess. Would prefer RD when it is cleaned up, as there's nothing particularly unusual about the manner of his death that needs explaining. --Jayron32 15:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Deaths don't have to be unusual to be posted. See Aretha Franklin. Nice4What (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why am I forced to repeat, in perpetuity and for all of time, every mistake I made in the past? Just because we didn't do the right thing in the past, doesn't mean we are forced to keep repeating that wrong thing over and over again every time it comes up. Why would you suggest that we are forced, based on doing something wrong in the past, that we now have to do the same wrong thing over and over? That seems like an unusual rationale. --Jayron32 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I thought the Franklin blurb was wholly deserved. Not wrong at all. Although I also think Lagerfeld's influence on popular culture was far less in comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    We're going to have to disagree on that. If all we have to say in a blurb is "So and so died" and that's it, then that's a waste of text space. That's what RD is for. It's a list of "so and so"s who died. The fact that I liked someone, or found their life's work more interesting to me is not a reason why I think their death bears more attention. ITN has only one purpose: To tell people about Wikipedia articles they should read. That's it. It's not an award that we give to some people because we find their life's work important enough to bestow a special honor on. ITN exists only to say "Something happened recently. Here's a Wikipedia article about it to learn more." I repeat again: It is not an honor to get a space in ITN, and it is not a greater honor to get a blurb over an RD link. They are exactly equivalent ways of linking to an article on the main page. The only reason a blurb is needed is so people have context for why the link is there. If the link is there because someone died, and all we have to say is: "they died", then RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    If RD and blurb are "exactly equivalent ways of linking to an article on the main page", I'm really not sure what we're discussing here. But I don't see anyone proposing the blurb "Karl Lagerfeld has died." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    The AltBlurb has his age, which is hardly relevent. The main blurb has his age and job description. Having an age and a job description should not be the minimum requirements for a blurb; else every RD would have a blurb. --Jayron32 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Whether someone gets a blurb and what's in the blurb are two separate questions. If all we're trying to do is get the reader to read the article it shouldn't matter. Certainly Chanel could be mentioned. The fact that he was German many readers may not even know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Aretha? Seriously? You better think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.21.193 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, also Oppose RD until such time that there is at least one reference per paragraph. Still several unreferenced paragraphs at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, The New York Times calls him "The Soul of Fashion", "Designer Who Defined Luxury Fashion", "the most prolific designer of the 20th and 21st centuries", "the shape-shifter" and says "he achieved an unparalleled level of fame and created a new kind of designer".[12]--Cyve (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Not convinced of Lagerfeld's broader significance, and expect coverage to fade soon; death at 85 of pancreatic cancer seems unremarkable. Support RD when ready. Sca (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb clearly a world transformative figure in his field. meets our normal definition. I know he won't get it though because fashion falls out of our editing demographics interest, unlike geeky comics in which Stan Lee was posted. Food for thought. I notice Lee had barely any opposes while it was a battle to get Aretha Franklin on and it'll be impossible to get any fashion figure on. . Such is life. GuzzyG (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Strongly agree that the blurb is facing opposition because it's outside of most editor's interests. Truly felt like the support for a blurb would be a no brainer (after the article is updated a bit more). Nice4What (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nice4What: you've commented at length on nearly every contributor who has opposed a blurb for this nomination, and now you're questioning our motives. Absent any hard guidelines, all considerations are valid, and mine is Thatcher/Mandela. I'd kindly ask that you strike your remarks above, as you do not know me, or anything about me, or what motivates my opinions. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: I've commented a lot since I proposed the blurb and think it should be posted. I feel when people make comments such as "not a transformative figure", "not seeing the level of coverage", and "not convinced of broader significance", it's clear that this topic is outside the scope of their personal interests. I will not strike my remarks... it seems you have more of a problem with what was said by User:GuzzyG than what I wrote. Nice4What (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb (RD is sufficient) and Oppose RD as the article has many missing references. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Not a transformative figure. Also I'm truly saddened by GuzzyG trivializing the work of Stan Lee to just "geeky comics". That would be akin to me saying Karl is just some "old white guy who makes overpriced clothes". (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Just like you dismissing someone who the New York Times called "The Soul of Fashion", "Designer Who Defined Luxury Fashion", "the most prolific designer of the 20th and 21st centuries" as "not a transformative figure". Doesn't feel nice when editors talk about fields outside of their interest hey? I think you need to explain why the niche interest of comics (or are we going on best selling popular film?) has had more of an impact on human society then fashion itself. And how a young, white, computer specialist, western driven website would lean more towards instantly giving it's top honour for deaths to a comics writer but haggle over the "Queen of Soul" and completely reject a fashion designer. Not surprising in the least. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I don’t give a crap what other people’s opinions are on his level of popularity, the fact is this has been covered by the likes of CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and the BBC. His influence on fashion and pop culture at large is indelible whether people like him or not, or even notice it. This wasn’t some random German expatriate. He ran two multi-billion dollar luxury brands and is considered an icon or legend. People don’t know a damn thing about fashion know who he is. If the article needs fixing then be bold. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD & blurb Create a list of the three most transformative leaders in the world of fashion alive last week. Is he on it? Not even close. ghost 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Stop trolling. Trillfendi (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Are you calling the New York Times wrong in their assessment of him? What makes your opinion of his transformative status more reputable then the number one newspaper in fashion city? GuzzyG (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't saying that before, but I will now; Vanessa Friedman's take was wildly out of sync with every other obit I read today. And until she choose to register her opinion here, it is worth nothing. ghost 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    SO you admit your opinion is whimsical and when you get questioned you say things out of spite on something obviously false (read every other obit). No more needs to be said. GuzzyG (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed that this must be trolling. Who else than maybe Anna Wintour would be the top three? Lagerfeld was certainly not a nobody. As BBC had reported what model Claudia Schiffer wrote, "What Warhol was to art, he was to fashion; he is irreplaceable." Nice4What (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Please observe WP:NPA and do not accuse other editors of trolling. (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Should've replied to the initial remark rather than my agreement. Nice4What (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb outside my realm of interest, but the coverage seems to indicate that he was significant enough to merit a blurb. At any rate, it would be nice if people would stop claiming that a death event itself must be significant in order for a death to receive a blurb. That is absolutely not how this works. Lepricavark (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support blurb once up to scratch. There is absolutely no doubt at all that Lagerfeld is considered transformative in the fashion industry, it seems to argue to the contrary is to personally disagree with just about every reliable source covering this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Per TRM above I know nothing about fashion, but the usual news (and specialist) sources available certainly agree that he was a leading figure and certainly hits the transformative threshold. And since I know nothing about fashion, I am going to go with what reliable sources indicate. And while there is going to be an aspect of 'bigging up' in any obituary, there are more than enough sources from his lifetime to support a blurb. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've gone through the article and editing his early biography, removing a great amount of unsourced material, adding in new information about his career, and citing sources. I hope that anyone who opposed the article due to its shape before reconsider their vote, or go edit the article to further improve it. Thank you. Nice4What (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Looks a lot better - I’ve struck my opposition to RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Pinging users who opposed based on previous quality: Coffeeandcrumbs, Masem, Jayron32, Mjroots. Nice4What (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment 12 hours later and already off the main page of the CBC, Washington post, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, times of India, Spiegel .... no longer news, no longer a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Haha. The irony. Quite a ploy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Seems you're still not reading what reliable sources have said about Lagerfeld's indisputable significance... Nice4What (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    Every individual with a Wikipedia article is significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    The german variant of Spiegel has 4 stories about him in very prominent position at this moment. So, not really true to claim it is off their main page. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't read German, and this is the English Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    So? You make wild claims that are blatantly untrue. Looked at CBC, there is a link to a Lagerfeld story on the main page. Looked at WaPo, Lagerfeld content on the main page. You don't want this as a blurb, fine. Making stuff up is not though. And you basically telling me that all non english sources are ueless because you can't read them is, quite frankly, astonishing. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Looking at https://www.cbc.ca right now, Lagerfeld is not on the main page anywhere. Why do you tell such needless lies? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Apologies, i assumed you meant CBC news. Is that not the main page to look for news on the CBC? Genuinely sorry if it is not. But there is a link there anyway. And you may want to tone down the rethoric when you yourself just made multiple dubious claims. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: You refuted only one of their sources, sounds like a weakening argument. You're very persistent in your belief that this death doesn't meet your personal "level of coverage". The IP address was able to find stories on the other cites and made the point that you're dismissing international sources. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Nice4What: I'm afraid you've got it backwards, I checked the sites I cited before citing them, the IP user is a lying liar who lied when calling me a liar, and I proved their lying lies to be lies. There is no reason for me to further debunk the lies of a documented lying liar. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: You need to calm down a bit. I just checked what the IP claimed and their claims seem to be rather true. There are multiple stories on Lagerfeld at Speigel, I found three articles about Lagerfeld at the Washington Post main page as they claimed, and their CBC News link also includes stories about the death. I obviously don't necessarily agree with the IP since they are indifferent about the blurb, but repeating the words "lying liar" doesn't further your point. Nice4What (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Ok seriously, LaserLegs are you 12 or what? I have seen a link to Lagerfeld on the CBC news site on the side bar there, Spiegel full of coverage and the WaPo had a story and a video about him when i looked (all of which may well have changed by now, i really don't care either way). I don't get what set you off here. I really don't care if this gets posted. Totally neutral. But your antics... wow. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Also, where have you 'proven' anything? When i admitted and apologised for a misunderstanding about having looked at the news section of CBC for news instaed of the generic CBC page? Oh yeah, shame on me for for that. You totally cought me... But whatever, If it makes you feel good to accuse me of being a liar, then go ahead. Really couldn't care less. Anyway, have a good night non the less. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Post RD now and discuss possible blurb later. The article is ready for RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD, please continue blurb discussion Yes, I !voted but there's clearly article improved and consensus to post the RD minimally. --Masem (t) 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per The Rambling Man's rationale. The quality seems sufficient now but I haven't looked at the article's references closely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the German Wikipedia has not done a blurb for Lagerfeld. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Do you know if they ever do blurbs? There is a very large dedicated section only for deaths on the german main page. Not attached to ITN like on the english language Wikipedia but its own thing. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    A dedicated section only for deaths, right below "In the news"? Why didn't we think of that?? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    The use of sarcasm really helps to bring ones own point across. Anyway, you have no clue how the german Wikipedia works internaly, how they do their version of ITN, RD and what have you. You don't speak the language so really should not point at something you know nothing about to use it as an example to support your own position. You may be right that they did not deem important enough. But they may well just do it differently. Just because something works in a certain way here does not mean it works the same way on every other Wiki. And besides that, it really should not make any difference what they do as you yourself pointed out to me, this is the english Wikipedia. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    The de wiki is the second largest Wikipedia (excluding bot generated Wikipedias) and it has a dedicated ITN feature in which Lagerfeld does not have a blurb. Nor is there a blurb for him in the ES wiki. I think the best think for you to do is to stop telling lies about me. --02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    And it has a dedicated, stand alone RD section, unlike this place. But hey, you want to claim expertise about something you don't know, fine by me. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    With your previous comments about Merkel, it seems you don't understand that Lagerfeld's nationality was not significant to his identity. He spent most of his life in Paris, moving there when he was fourteen years old. Also, what does it matter what the editors at the German Wikipedia choose to do if they have different processes/guidelines? Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
"O Freunde, nicht diese Töne! Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen und freudenvollere!"Sca (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • RD is reasonable. Death is gaining widespread coverage and article is now of reasonable quality so blurb may be warranted. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2019 (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.
  • Post-closure comment, it's a shame that a majority was reached to post it as a blurb (from what I counted) with many of the votes for "Oppose" being based on the article's original quality, which was then updated/fixed. I truly believe that the blurb should've been posted rather than a closed discussion. Nice4What (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    (Post-closure) On Wikipedia you just have to learn that if the field is not white male high culture (painting/cricket/composing or similar) or white male geek culture (video games/comics or similar) it just doesn't have a decent chance. [13] articles purely dedicated to his influence are still being posted, but barely anyone on Wikipedia is into fashion and that's all that matters. Someone like Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman will almost certainly pass. Anna Wintour will be denied too, it's a bad reflection on us. GuzzyG (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Just to get the numbers right, prior to the close, there were (at my count) 10 people with clear supports for a blurb, 9 people who supported RD only/Oppose Blurb, and 3-4 others who either didn't care, opposed any posting, or whose preference was unclear. It was a bare majority that supported the blurb, and such close margins are within the admin discretion, based on their reading of the rationales supporting either side. This could have gone either way; it is hardly a clear consensus regardless. --Jayron32 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After further reflection, if the nom were re-opened, I would probably support a blurb after all per TRM. (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Am even more surprised that this was closed because of the large amount of discussion. Seems somehow counter-intuitive. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tone: Could the closure can be reverted and to allow the blurb be posted? I would look past the clutter made by the same users refuting the death's significance. This man was an icon and was the leading figure of the industry. This is not just a "somebody" who passed away, this is a transformative figure who continued to work and influence others until age 85. The article was in terrible shape and as stated, greatly improved in quality. Nice4What (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not that it matters but i would also switch to supporting a blurb. I know nothing of fashion and care even less about it but, per TRM, if reliable sources make him out to be this huge figure in his field, then that is good enough for me to support a blurb. 91.97.252.62 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. I had no dog in the fight, and RS consistently referred to him as a fashion "icon" or a fashion "legend". This, certainly where I'm from, equates to "transformative" in the field of fashion, precisely what would deserve a blurb. Still, Carrie Fisher eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not too familiar with this field, but I would have leaned support for a blurb. The spike in views that the page is getting now suggests to me that he must have been pretty transformative. Besides, the blurbs haven't changed at all over the past several days... Ahiijny (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    I did not Support before this nomination was closed (after 20 hours, 26 minutes). Having considered the arguments on both sides, I too would have supported a blurb, even without use of "the i word". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on the recent shifts in consensus, I am posting this as a blurb. I know I participated in the discussion, but as my preference was to go the other way on this one, this should avoid any problems with involvement. My preference is clear, but I can also see where consensus is not with me on this. --Jayron32 15:24, 20 February 2019 (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.
  • Post second closing comment (since that's what we do now). Wow, closed, more complaining, and blurbed. It pushed El Chapo out of the box, even though we have a dedicated space for obits. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    "It pushed El Chapo out of the box" as if that wasn't inevitable? It's been a while since something was posted... and equating people changing their votes as "more complaining" isn't the right way to look at things. Nice4What (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - This is clearly an iconic person within his field of work. I comment since I was not the one suggesting the blurb. BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    Blurb has already been posted but I appreciate the support :) Nice4What (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2019 (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 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Wallace Smith BroeckerEdit

Article: Wallace Smith Broecker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scientist that coined the phrase "Global warming". Article is not fully soruced. Masem (t) 00:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George CawkwellEdit

Article: George Cawkwell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [14]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - One award is unreferenced. One reference is permanently dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @SirEdimon: Unreferenced award now referenced. The permanently dead link - the only source I could find was [15], and I'm not sure it meets WP:RS --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    DannyS712 This is dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @SirEdimon: I meant the only replacement source (a like link to replace the dead one) is the one linked above --DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"George Cawkwell Christ church" and "George Cawkwell Auckland" fared well for me. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The ref is fine.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: I disagree. The source in the nomination, despite leaning a bit primary, can at least be believed since it is from Cawkwell's university-college. A search of `"tickleme.info" -site:tickleme.info` doesn't lead me to anywhere mentioning it, and especially considering the .info TLD which I rarely tend to trust I very much doubt it's reliability. I've replaced the reference. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
DatGuy You maybe right, but I think, taking out this specific ref will not damage the article. It can be replaced by a more reliable source.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - All refs issues resolved. Article is fine for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Concerns solved. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Wells (director)Edit

Article: Peter Wells (director) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [16]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)
Updater: SirEdimon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Article is almost completely unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now at Peter Wells (writer). Needs a bit more work. —Hugh (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bibliography unreferenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Support now improvements to referencing have been done. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - All refs issues resolved. Pawnkingthree, Hl (sorry for ping you, people) if you could give it a look.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've tidied it further and given the refs sensible names. I think it's ready to go. —Hugh (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) The Independent GroupEdit

Not going to have any chance of gaining consensus unless something else major happen, in which case it can be renominated. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (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: The Independent Group (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, seven Labour MPs leave the party to form The Independent Group.
Alternative blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, seven Labour MPs leave the party to form The Independent Group in protest against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and failure to deal with antisemetism.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Absolutelypuremilk (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major split in Labour party. Accept that my alt blurb may be seen as non-neutral by some, so please state which blurb you prefer. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose internal politics. If it impacted Brexit then I’d reconsider otherwise it’s just a thing that affects a handful of people who didn’t see this coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a parochial political in-fighting. A split in a party in the minority is unlikely to result in any substantive shift in government. Good faith nomination but a consesus to post is unlikely to form.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. This isn't really that significant yet, but it might become so if it attracts a significant number of MPs from across the house - expecially if it does so in a way that impacts Brexit - or it could fizzle out. If it is posted, the blurb should probably include "United Kingdom" in there somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Blurbs reworked to include UK. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment th BBC report I read says they are describing themselves as not a party, are all those categories therefore incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Issues with the article should be directed to the article's talk page. The above does not impact on the nomination, which does not claim that they are a political party, but merely names the new group. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Um, see below! If people are mistakenly thinking something because the article is erroneous, and voting accordingly, it needs to be mentioned. It wouldn’t be right if people read the article and suddenly believed we have a new party in the UK when they themselves are saying we don’t, wouldn’t you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is the first time a new party with multiple MPs has been formed since the 1980s and the reasons surrounding its formation are also noteworthy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. If this proves significant in any fundamental way, then sure. But for now it's just a side show to the ongoing Brexit shenanigans.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Coffeecrumbs. Parochial political spat. Sca (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is quite domestic politics. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most arguements above in agreement, but would also add that seven out of 248 (I believe) Labour MPs is a drop in the bucket. In contrast, as a hypothetical example, if 100 or more of those all dropped into a brand new party, that might be more significant. --Masem (t) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is something which has been spoken about for months and has finally occured - agree that seven isn't a very significant number but is nonetheless a major story in UK politics. Successfulwd (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose At the moment, this split is insignificant. There is no evidence thus far that they intend to form a new party or even run in the next election, and seven party members is not sufficient to reach the level of significance. If further developments arise, such as more members joining them, and this group organizing to contest new elections, then perhaps significance may be reached at that time. But as of now, significance has not yet been reached. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC))
  • Wait. Let's give this a bit more time. I suppose this could make some outsized waves, but we would have to see. Article seems pretty good though. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor spat affecting a tiny minority within a minority party. British MPs resign the party whip or are suspended all the time (prior to today, there were already 5 independent former-Labour MPs who've resigned from the party plus one who's been expelled); all that's mildly unusual here is that seven of them have done so on the same day. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent and the fact that Labour is not in a coalition or confidence and supply means this splinter will not affect the balance of power in this Parliament. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (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: Paul Flynn (politician)Edit

Article: Paul Flynn (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: UK MP for 31 years. Start class article with decent sourcing. DBigXray 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's a dreadfully constructed article but what's there is almost entirely cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know that I would call it "dreadfully constructed" but the structure could be improved and there are a couple of sections boarding on proseline, but what's there is comprehensive and cited. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the sentiments above. This article could really benefit from exposure on the Main Page, leading to a proper copy edit by the masses. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Largely an unsung Labour stalwart. No one can deny his dedication in serving the people of Newport. Any ideas on improving the structure welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

February 17Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ethel EnnisEdit

Article: Ethel Ennis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Baltimore Sun
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)
Updater: SirEdimon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Please, let us try as much as possible to feature women and people of color. This article needs work. Nominating now to solicit team work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I think I fixed all the refs issues. Please tell me if something else needs to be done.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good now, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Patrick CaddellEdit

Article: Patrick Caddell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, AP
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American political operative, best known for his work on Jimmy Carter's 1976 campaign, dies at 68. Davey2116 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for RD, although I dislike sections that consist entirely of a short sentence and lengthy quote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Ditto. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Bass (artist)Edit

Article: Sam Bass (artist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [17]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready to post--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


(Posted) RD: Ken NordineEdit

Article: Ken Nordine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WBEZ.org
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted voice over artist. Article appears to be in good shape with no contentious issues. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The article is not in horrible shape, but there are a handful of spots that really need a cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose plenty of unreferenced items in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved the discography to a new page, which is where most of the unreferenced items are.yorkshiresky (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the decision to split the discography while leaving a selected short list. His list of credits is rather long. This is good to go. I wish we could get a voice sample though. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruno GanzEdit

Article: Bruno Ganz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Swiss actor. As usual, refs issue. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Significantly under referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Will work on it, but too nice weather to do it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I added refs, and commented out awards without one. Please look again. Obituaries in major English papers. We'd look silly not to mention him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Well referenced. @Gerda Arendt: take another look at the awards section. I think you broke your comments.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Internationally known for his performance in Downfall (Der Untergang). Sca (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sca, nobody here is interested in that. Only if it and everything else has a reference. Please add some, if you can, to the awards commented out, and to role descriptions added late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One the greatest German-speaking actors of all times and the article is well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Well done to everybody who helped get the article up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li RuiEdit

Article: Li Rui (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I think Li died on February 16. The bot failed to archive and create new date section at midnight. The article is referenced and ready to post IMO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Bot isn't working, I'll leave a note on the operator's talk page; moved from February 15 per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Small, but in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

February 15Edit

Armed conflict and attacks
Business and Economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Dave Smith (archivist)Edit

Article: Dave Smith (archivist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well sourced, start class article. DBigXray 04:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Short but sweet and well referenced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  Posted --Tone 10:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lee RadziwillEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:30, 18 February 2019 (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: Lee Radziwill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18][19][20][21]
Nominator and updater: Willthacheerleader18 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American socialite, sister of Jackie Kennedy Onassis. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Significant gaps in sourcing, some explicitly tagged but most not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - way too many {{fact}} tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sourcing of article has improved but still a couple of citations needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Page is now at Lee Radziwiłł (with diacritics). —Hugh (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (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.

(Closed) 2019 American State of EmergencyEdit

Good faith nomination, but as with most Trump themed nominations, this was Dead on Arrival. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2019 (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: 2019 American Declaration of a State of Emergency (talk, history)
Blurb: U.S. President Donald Trump declares a national emergency in the United States over the issue of the U.S.–Mexico border.
News source(s): [22]
Nominator: ExclusiveWillows (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notable event that according to the New York Times will set a massive precedent on executive power, it has received widespread attention in popular culture and the press, and it will be notable in the long-run. It also fulfills Trump's signature campaign promise. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, article quality but that can be improved. But moreso this is 100% partisan politics, wholly expected (since its been rumbling for month+ on this) , and we know that this is not like declaring martial law or to respond to disasters but simply a way to access gov't coffers. --Masem (t) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article as it stands now is entirely slanted towards a point of view opposing the National Emergency and is not objective at all. The nominator has attempted to revert even minor revisions to the article that attempt to correct this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something like the 100th SOE Trump has announced out of similar partisan battles. And it seems to have already left the news. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The DTs yet again. Sca (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support on significance. This is most certainly in the news, whether anyone likes it or not, and it's a totally bogus state of emergency in a country with incredible influence over international affairs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on all counts. The ginger whinger has tried some trump card for Mexican takeout? WHAT? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ExclusiveWillows, let's bang this thing out before we renominate. We have to make quite a few improvements before we renominate. I have a something in my sandbox for when we get this done. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 00:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why haven't we put all of the other national states of emergency on the front page of Wikipedia when they have occurred? I agree that this should be in the Current Events section (as it already is), but this should not be ITN (if I have my acronyms right). -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2019 (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.

ReferencesEdit

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: