Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2019

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

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): [1][2][3][4]
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): [5]
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.

February 14Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Andrea LevyEdit

Article: Andrea Levy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: SusunW (talk • give credit) and Coffeeandcrumbs (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: One for Black History Month, please Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support looks just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support; "weak" because born in London to Jamaican parents who sailed to England on the Empire Windrush in 1948 sounds dubious (I can't find any source that her mother sailed on the Windrush in 1948, and it's certainly not cited), and if even the first sentence contains an error it throws the accuracy of the rest of the article into question. ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
From The Guardian obituary - "Levy was born in London in 1956 to parents who were part of the boom in immigration that shaped postwar Britain, her father arriving in the UK on the Empire Windrush in 1948 and her mother following shortly afterwards." I've removed the date, if somebody insists on a time period, "post-war" could be used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So that's a source for her father; where's any indication that her mother sailed on the Windrush? It's not as if there was only one passenger ship sailing the transatlantic route in the 1940s. ‑ Iridescent 12:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that (at least in the current version). I note an IP tried to fix this but was reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: she came on a banana boat. I've added the source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many quotes. What we have here is not a biography which is what is supposed to be. It is simply a collection of quotes from reviews. The article is unsatisfactory in general.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to improve the article much until this evening, though I will say it is in much better shape than many RD nominations I have seen, which require extensive work before they're ready. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW:, @Megalibrarygirl:, @Rosiestep: - can you help with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Support – Great work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the awards section is completely uncited, and I'm not certain the sole citation in the second paragraph of the "Work" section supports all the information there (and if it does it will need to be checked to make sure we're not relying too heavily on a single source). Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Her awards looked like they were cited in the preceding sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Support my concerns have all been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment, I do not know if I can support as a contributor to improving the citations and text, but I believe we have now addressed the concerns previously expressed and think that it should move forward. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've given the three of us who have worked on the article to address the above issues credit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ready now. Great work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Pulwama attackEdit

Article: 2019 Pulwama attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​38 security personnel were killed in an attack near Pulwama, Kashmir.
Alternative blurb: ​38 security personnel were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Pulwama in Kashmir.
Alternative blurb II: ​Two separate bombings in Khash, Zahedan and Pulwama, Kashmir left 27 Revolutionary Guards and 38 security personnel killed, respectively.
News source(s): The Times of India, AP, BBC
Nominator and updater: Nizil Shah (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the deadliest terror attack in India in last few years. Better blurb is welcome. Nizil (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Suggest changing the blurb to:
Around 40 security personnel were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Pulwama in Kashmir.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Death toll varies from 36 to 44 in different sources so I had written the lowest. The numbers can be updated as exact numbers are known. I think the article should be linked differently in your blurb. I have posted altblurb. -Nizil (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is why it is better to use a round number. I can live with linking the article to the "suicide bombing attack" key phrase. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Updated number to 38 as per list released.-Nizil (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - long enough and good coverage. Also recommend at minimum autoconfirm protection, ASAP. Juxlos (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news. Will have long lasting impact on relation between India and Pakistan Sherenk1 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Now death toll rises to 44, please consider it too.-- Prongs31 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Also major news in the UK. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the number killed is a bit of a mess within the article, various points claim various numbers, starting with 49 and ending with 38. And since we don't start sentences with numbers, it would probably be ideal to start with "At least 38 people..." just to cover both scenarios. The rest of the article is satisfactory for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – AP says 41. BBC 46. (Added above as sources). Blurbs should be in present tense. Sca (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the deadliest attacks since Kashmir insurgency began and is also receiving massive media coverage. As far as death toll is concerned, I'd say that the blurb should be updated to 49 deaths. Amir (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A major attack which will have profound effect in the domestic affairs of India, and the overall diplomatic and security situation in South Asia. Bharatiya29 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ:, Someone changed Kashmir to India-controlled Kashmir. Kashmir is a disputed region so better use word India-administered Kashmir or neutral Kashmir as proposed in the original blurb. Controlled implies forceful occupation.-Nizil (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    I have moved your comment to WP:ERRORS — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I suggested new blurb above, it is sufficient to merge two suicide bombing attack , 2019 Pulwama attack and 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombing.Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, not a good idea. I do not see a clear connection between the perpertrators. These should be separate line items as they occurred in two separate non-bordering nations. It appears to be mere coincidense that the two events are similar and occurred within days of each other. They are both ITN-worthy events in their own right.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Jammu & Kashmir is not Indian-administered". Jammu and Kashmir is the state of India. Kindly check the sources. Unless and until, it's not verified or disputable or debatable, it's not proper on Wikipedia. It doesn't have verified the source.

Here it is Hindustan Times-Pressure mounts on UK to retract ‘India-administered Kashmir’ remark Times of India - Indians protest British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt's "India-Administered Kashmir" phraseShwetamits (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Airbus A380 cancellationEdit

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: Airbus A380 (talk, history)
Blurb: Airbus announces the cancellation of production of the Airbus A380 airliner starting from 2021.
News source(s): Airbus, BBC
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While seemingly a marketing decision, this marks an era in the aviation history. Article updated. Brandmeistertalk 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure it really does "mark an era", after all there will still be plenty of A380s flying around. If this was about the last one being retired, I think it would mark the end of an era, but just announcing that they'll stop making it in two years time is not really anything to write home about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I mean that after 2021 there will be no more new A380 which is a short and rather unexpected production span (merely 16 years) compared to many (if not most) other airliners. Boeing 747, for example, is still in production, since 1968. Airbus A320 is being produced since 1986. Brandmeistertalk 11:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • No, that's really not that remarkable. The 717 was only in production for eight years, the 707 for 22 years, the A310 for 15 years etc. This isn't special. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Except that they weren't as large as A380, of course. Brandmeistertalk 12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I really fail to see how that makes this anything more than a piece of random trivia, better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so quick to deep-six this. If we were rolling out a new highest-capacity plane, even by a negligible margin, that would warrant posting (IMO). Here we have a rollback in the highest capacity plane in production from 850 to 650. Why? Is is just not needed? Then why was it ever built? There seems to be a story there worth telling, and the article does a fine job of it. ghost 13:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Things moved on. No big deal. Certainly nowhere near ITN significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    You already cast your vote and made your rationale known. You present no additional arguments here. There's no need to reply to every comment by every other editor. ghost 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I answered your questions. If you don't want to have questions answered, don't ask them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Perhaps significant for (some of) the countries in which Airbus planes are manufactured/assembled, but not for the big aviation picture. Jumbojets will be around for a long time. Sca (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing the significance here for an event that is still two years away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it was the stoppage of A380s today, the end of production of a product like a plane really means little. It would be different if Airbus was going out of business and producing its last plane (an event equivalent to Ford producing its last vehicle), but Airbus will exist after stoppage of the A380. --Masem (t) 15:53, 14 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 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • Exploration of Mars
    • The mission of NASA's Opportunity rover on Mars comes to an end. The rover stopped communicating in June 2018 after a Martian dust storm, and attempts to reestablish communications have not been successful. (NASA)

(Closed) 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombingEdit

Despite probably being posted if the quality would've been at this point when it was nominated, the story has become stale and a bit overshadowed by the posted Pulwama attack. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:23, 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: 2019 Khash–Zahedan suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​27 Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps were killed in a suicide bombing on the KhashZahedan road in Sistan and Baluchestan Province
News source(s): NYT, BBC
Nominator: Saff V. (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am going to improve and edit the article Saff V. (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This article may have POV and neutrality issues. Maybe all it needs is a copy edit. It reads as confusing and garbled to me. However, it does appear to have good sourcing.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Support The article has improved since I reviewed it a few days ago. The news is significant. Iran has largely remained unscathed while it's proxy states have suffered major losses. An attack on Iranian soil leading to the deaths of so many Revolutionary Guards is significant news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and newsworthy. --Mhhossein talk 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: Would you please consider posting it? It's already late...--Mhhossein talk 17:21, 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.

(Posted) RD: Hans StadlmairEdit

Article: Hans Stadlmair (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: conductor and composer, MKO for almost four decades, 6000 concerts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Well referenced. One award is not referenced, but I suppose it's easy to fix.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The award is referenced now, and I'll look for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Sufficient detail and referencing. Good to go. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sufficient quality, its ready for the main page --DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Harrison (footballer)Edit

Article: Eric Harrison (footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Footballer and coach responsible for Fergie's Fledglings. I have expanded and formatted the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No apparent issues of concern. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been good to go for nearly nine hours folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bibi FerreiraEdit

Article: Bibi Ferreira (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Globo
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (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: Working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I didn't nominate this one because it's still a stub and my Portuguese no es bueno. (I know that's Spanish.) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was about to nominate it, but I was without time to work on the article and I thought it would be better to improve the article before nominating it.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support lead could use a little expansion, but the article, while short, is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I expanded the lead slightly to give the scope of her career. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article could be expanded but the article, despite being short, is well referenced and Ferreira was one the greatest actresses in the history of Brazilian theater.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of NASA Opportunity rover missionEdit

Article: Opportunity (rover) (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA concludes the fourteen-year Opportunity Mars rover mission after being unable to wake the rover from hibernation initiated by a June 2018 duststorm.
News source(s): The Verge, NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: NASA is set to give a press conference in about 3hr here to formally state they ended the progrm, but NASA is no longer actively seeking to wake the rover. I note that this is NOT an ITNR, but the lifetime of the rover is a significant human achievement. (If we are worried about a blurb, this may be a rare case of calling it an RD, but I don't think that would be easy to persaude). Unfortunately, due to how we have a summary-style approach to the Opportunity article with several sub-articles, there's some sourcing problems on the main article. Masem (t) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait until after the press conference is held making the official announcement, and oppose unless and until that information is properly added to the article; when those conditions are met, I would be fine with posting the article on the main page. It's in good shape. --Jayron32 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the other way round to Jayron, but the same, we can't post something that hasn't happened, but once it has happened, we can post it assuming someone makes a lot of changes to the article, tenses, updates etc. Premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Support a seminal rover, and an updated article. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Officially declared dead. Will be updating in moments here. --Masem (t) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Good work. I wonder if there's any mileage in looking at ITNR for an additional entry on space entities which have passed their sell-by date. Or perhaps they just speak for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    This is unique, I feel, due to the fact NASA pulled 55x more mission time out of this than planned. If it died after 4 months after a 3 month-expected start, ehhhhh. I think this a "best judgement" case here, on merits alone. --Masem (t) 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. NASA has released a statement that they are officially considering the rover to be dead and detailed all the efforts the agency went through to reestablish contact with it since it entered protective hibernation on June 12, 2018. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news.    — The Transhumanist   00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I refer you to the words of Maggie Smith:

...The world is at least
fifty percent terrible, and that’s a conservative
estimate, though I keep this from my children.
For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird.
For every loved child, a child broken, bagged,
sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world
is at least half terrible, and for every kind
stranger, there is one who would break you...

Two of the four items on ITN now are good news. I would even argue this is positive news; the conclusion of a highly-successful mission.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This. I consider that while its a shame we could get another 14 yrs out of it, we did get 50 times more out of what was planned due to some human ingenuity. --Masem (t) 03:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The Transhumanist We can only consider what is nominated, and we have no control over the goings on in the world. If you would like to see more 'good' stories, I invite you to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that Transhumanist comment was meant for the Haiti story. There is a duplicate comment there from an IP minutes earlier. ghost 13:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I will note that, regardless of which story Transhumanist was talking about, I have seen zero articles he improved and nominated in the past 2-3 days to fix the perceived problem he has. It's one thing to note the existence of a problem. It's quite another to note the existence of a problem, and then demand that other people, who have no more authority than you do, fix that problem. If Transhumanist had really wanted the problem fixed, he would have actually fixed it. --Jayron32 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Haitian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Haitian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, Deutsche Welle, The Miami Herald
Nominator: ZiaLater (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Seven consecutive days of ongoing protests occurring in Haiti with thousands of demonstrators and calls for a transitional government. At least four dead and dozens injured. --ZiaLater (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait this may have been already ongoing for seven days but it's just really hitting significant news coverage now. The article doesn't really articulate a week's worth of serious activity either. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news. 2600:1:9810:BFFE:614E:1B8B:67B1:AE75 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Struck invalid comment. Please bring general concerns like this to WT:ITN instead of disrupting this page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article isn't in bad shape - could be better but not bad - and it's quite reflective of Venezuela right now, if with a decade's less warning. It can definitely sit in Ongoing. Unfortunately, not many good news story are ongoing, it's mostly protests, odd politics, and international sports (1 bad, 2 neutral). Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news, sufficient article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support News coverage has now increased to a level sufficient for ITN. The article is well referenced.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) North MacedoniaEdit

Article: North Macedonia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Prespa Agreement comes into force, ending a 27-year naming dispute with the Republic of Macedonia renaming itself the Republic of North Macedonia
Alternative blurb: The Republic of Macedonia changes its name to North Macedonia, ending a 27-year naming dispute after the Prespa Agreement comes into effect as Macedonia begins the process for its accession into NATO.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Republic of Macedonia changes its name to the Republic of North Macedonia as the Prespa Agreement comes into effect ending a 27-year naming dispute.
News source(s): RadioFreeEurope, Washington Post, The Guardian
Nominator: Nice4What (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This has been nominated many times before and delayed, but Greece has finally ratified the NATO accession protocol. The agreement is therefore in effect, with a deadline of 15 February for all name changes to be implemented. The only other delay I can see will be waiting for North Macedonia to notify the United Nations of the official name change, but that will be in the coming days.
UPDATE: Country is officially renamed North Macedonia as of 12 February (see new sources added). Nice4What (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Time to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the necessary updates yet. --Tone 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not trying to stall this clearly-going-to-be-ITN story, but from the above article "With Greece's ratification of the NATO accord, the former Yugoslav republic will now write to the United Nations, its member states, and international organizations, formally announcing the name change. A government spokesman told the AP this would happen "in coming days."" It sounds like that letter will be the point of official change? I don't know, the situation seems to change a new bit of this story comes up. --Masem (t) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Macedonia's accession into NATO, which per sources was the final obstacle preventing the Republic from using the name, was a success. If I'm not mistaken we posted Montenegro's accession into NATO as a standalone story, but I'd recommend an altblurb that adds Macedonia's accession as a footnote. It's not easy to make it succinct, but it is noteworthy enough to put it somewhere in the blurb. I do agree with Masem that we should probably watch for developments over the next few days, but that shouldn't be an issue large enough for the nomination to go stale. If the UN adoption of the name is the real point of official change, we can modify the blurbs to mention that if necessary. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the whole mess. I'm reading this BBC article (from last week) [6] that says that NATO accession is not yet there (but virtually guaranteed), but Greece being the first to ratify it validates the naming of North Macedonia? It's also odd that no big sources are covering this above event; they've got coverage from last week. You would think this is 100% the type of story BBC and NYtimes would be covering today if today was the milestone we've been waiting on. Also wholly separate but to help guide, there's an RFC [7] and a move request [8] related to the naming. Going by the move request, it sounds like the official date the name change takes effect is Feb 15 (this Friday), but I can't easily find a place to confirm that. AGain, this entire situation is clearly ITN, and I have little doubt anything will change the trajectory of this. But that said, given that we appear to be waiting on the name change (potentially), our ITN should align with that. --Masem (t) 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly about as confused as you are, but to the best of my knowledge, the guarantee of their accession into NATO was what they were waiting for before adopting the name change. I will clarify that my support !vote does not mean that I think we need to post it now, but I didn't vote !wait because I don't expect the nomination to go stale before we post it. I'm going off of the previous ITN nomination which I voted !wait on as it cited a BBC article which, if I'm not mistaken, said that Macedonia won't start using the name North Macedonia until their accession into NATO. Now that there's no obstacles to their accession, what I've read up to this point leads me to believe there's also no obstacles to their name change. That being said, I'm more than happy to wait a few days for further clarification. I don't expect that we post this today, tomorrow, or the day after that, but I do think that - unlike all the prior attempts at posting this - we won't need to close the nomination. If it is confirmed on February 15th, we can post it then. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I don't know who added the alt blurb, but North Macedonia didn't enter NATO, Greece has just signed the NATO accession protocol. The other 28 member states have to do the same. Nice4What (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You are correct; for all intents and purposes, the blurb is to be regarded as being in the future (for now). Both the part where Macedonia changes their name to North Macedonia & the part where Macedonia joins NATO are technically still (near) future events. The latter paved the way for the former, which should be happening in less than a week. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until Friday. Both the name change and ascension to NATO are significant, but given timing and confluence, we should just post together. ghost 13:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Meh. Sca (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Man, people are just itchy to get this posted; so far every nomination has been an incremental step along the way towards the name change. If anything, these repeated nominations are just going to annoy people into voting against it when the time does come. Our current article even says "it is scheduled to be renamed to North Macedonia." Let's wait until the new letterhead is printed up and it's all done before we post this? --Jayron32 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENTS - North Macedonia did not enter NATO, the process has not even began yet. Also, Should this wait until the page has been moved to North Macedonia and all relevant changes done? --Michail (blah) 00:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Reposted discussion since official reports indicate the name change has officially occurred, so there may be no need to wait anymore (in regards to the original blurb, the Alt Blurb about NATO won't happen for another year...) Nice4What (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support now From the move discussion, this official document appears to confirm the name change as official as 12 Feb. --Masem (t) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose – We cannot post until the page is moved. Otherwise, we would be sabotaging the move discussion. We would need an admin to speedy close the discussion before hand. ITN cannot blurb a name change until the name of the subject article is also renamed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comment The current state of the relevant RFC to move the page seems to have very overwhelming support, (near unanimous !votes for moving it, and all !votes since the official adoption were fully unanimous in their support) so I think it would be appropriate for an administrator to close it per SNOW. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 05:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment & Support MSGJ has renamed the country's article to North Macedonia (which probably says a lot about his/her political biases, seeing how it took half a year after the official renaming for the WP:Commonname to be satisfied in the case of Swaziland/eSwatini), so I think we're ready to go and post this. Finally. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is in the news now as an official complete event. The article has been moved. The time for posting is now. The posting admin can figure out the exactities of the blurb. LukeSurl t c 10:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I stroke alt 1 as premature and suggested a new blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted --Tone 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Tone: I didn't want to rush to ERRORS before asking - why is "Prespa Agreement" capitalized? The article is named "Prespa agreement". --DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've seen both in RS. Given the brevity required of the MP, "A" seems more natural. ghost 12:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pedro MoralesEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:48, 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: Pedro Morales (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, CBS Sports
Nominator: LM2000 (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.

 LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose– I generally trust the sections cited to an offline source as generously contributed by an IP in 2012 (diff). Those sections have remained largely untouched. However, since then 3 additionals sections have been added: Early life, Legacy and Personal life. These new sections are generally constructive and sourced to online sources. However, a spot check of several of these sections reveals that our article drifts away from what the sources say. For example, in the Early life section, a sentence reads: "In New York he also became a professional wrestling fan, witnessing Miguel Pérez, Sr.'s run as one half of the only undefeated NWA Capitol (WWWF's predecessor) World Tag Team Champions along Antonino Rocca." However, the source only says "he became a wrestling fan following the tag team of Antonino Rocca & Miguel Perez." I will change my !vote to support once we go over these three sections for verification and cite any other stray uncited claims. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The results of his matches in the article, which are what is being sourced with the offline reference, are congruent with our online sources as far as I can tell. Being a wrestler from the pre-internet era, that is as good as we can get since WWE only lists a select few. And, in any case, what makes him notable is easily sourced. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, in regards to Rocca/Pérez, that bit of trivia is not false. Their titles were replaced and they did not lose them. It's superfluous to Morales, but not something that would make the content unreliable. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have finished verifying the Early life section. But there are more issues possibly in the Legacy section and definitely in the Personal life section. It says "Morales married his wife Karen in 1966." The source gives no date. Our articles says his son was born in 1974. But we can not be sure from the same source whether he was born in 1973 or 74. These are uncited claims and original synthesis not contained in the sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like there needs to be serious evaluation of the article versus verifiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 13 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 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) RD: Lyndon LaRoucheEdit

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: Lyndon LaRouche (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: Ad Orientem (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: Subject was a famous fringe political personality and perennial American (Democrat) presidential candidate. Article needs a short section on his personal life and death but is otherwise both lengthy and decently referenced. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 13 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) El ChapoEdit

Articles: United States of America v. Joaquín Guzmán Loera (talk, history) and Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán (talk, history)
Blurb: Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all criminal counts and scheduled for life imprisonment.
Alternative blurb: ​Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all ten criminal counts, including one mandating life imprisonment.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all criminal counts in the United States, including running a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
Alternative blurb III: ​Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of 10 criminal charges, one mandating life imprisonment.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: MX (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Biggest drug lord ever convicted. Found guilty today of all counts and is scheduled for life imprisonment. Article is updated with what we have so far in the news. MX () 17:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

MX, what do you mean "scheduled" for life imprisonment? Is there any other potential sentencing outcome? Don't we usually post sentencing rather than convictions? The article's lead is insufficient in describing the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is clearly an ITN-appropriate story, but I will point out that no sentence has been handed down yet. --Masem (t) 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
His first count, Continuing Criminal Enterprise, already holds a mandatory life imprisonment without parole. He was found guilty of all charges. Sentence is scheduled for June but IMO this is more newsworthy since we already know how June will play out. MX () 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough on that point. Added an altblurb so we know that minimum he will get is life (barring a plea bargain) --Masem (t) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news now, and the article is of sufficient quality with an update. If it's a mandatory minimum life sentence, I think we know enough to not wait for sentencing. The conviction is the bigger deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. I tweaked the phrasing for clarity. --Jayron32 19:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As noted above, "it's in the news now", and June will be a non-story (a confirmation and little more). Can I suggest a blurb (which ever is eventually gone with) that is phrased "all criminal charges" not "all ten", as the latter suggests the reader is already cognisant of those charges. And it might avoid an appearance at WP:ERRORS. Or even WP:ERRORS2 :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the reason to say "all ten" because it tells the reader a rough idea of the scope of the trial. "All charges" could mean as few as ~3, as many as.. well, there's no reasonable limit if they included manslaught-type charges. -Masem (t) 23:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Historic. Significant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per others. Appropriate. Spengouli (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3 (Succinct.) – Yup, off to the slammer. (Three more sources.) Sca (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support its ITN now, sources and quality good, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – good news.    — The Transhumanist   00:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not for El Chapo — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon BanksEdit

Article: Gordon Banks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Dumelow (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: England's 1966 world cup goal keeper. This is a good article, update needed - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support could use more on the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, but article is in very good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-referenced article, currently a GA. Death section can be expanded as more details are known. MX () 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think this was ready, I see five “citation needed” tags. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Very surprised those "slipped through the net", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Can't be Pele's edits then huh :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
But great to see Bruce Rambolaar, diving across to the article's far post there, to save the day. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

February 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • Mars One, a private Dutch organization that had claimed it would send humans on a one-way trip to Mars starting in 2024, releases a statement saying it has been declared bankrupt. (CBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Ricardo BoechatEdit

Article: Ricardo Boechat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: 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: One of the most important Brazilian journalists. Article is short, but well referenced. He died on monday, but just now I had the chance to nominate it. --SirEdimon (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's just above stub, but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan WildEdit

Article: Allan Wild (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: New Zealand architect and academic. Article is short but looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joe SchlesingerEdit

Stale and withdrawn (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 15 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: Joe Schlesinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/schlesinger-obit-cbc-new-1.5014534
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) 10:44, 12 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: Sibghatullah MojaddediEdit

Article: Sibghatullah Mojaddedi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: Article is updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

He died on the 9th and news came out on the 9th. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
So you'll be updating the article then? Stephen 23:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely read this wrong. The page diddoes not contain a proper update at all. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 21 SavageEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 22:40, 11 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: 21 Savage (talk, history)
Blurb: ​21 Savage is facing deportation for being in the United States illegally and being a United Kingdom national.
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Ed. Jishnu (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This has been going on for the past week or so but is still ongoing with frequent updates. Ed. Jishnu (t)Ed. Jishnu (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Masem Did you link the wrong article? The comment doesn't really fit. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
On second glance, this seems to be a copypasted nomination. Apologies for the mention. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition, @Ed. Jishnu: there is a nomination here for the 61st Grammys. Is that what you meant? Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@DatGuy: No, I meant 21 Savage's deportation. I was just using Masem's post for a template on how to make a nomination for the news, sorry.Ed. Jishnu (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
There should be two expandable boxes on the header of the edit page of *this* page for the basic template format. TRying to copy and paste existing ones can get into problems. --Masem (t) 19:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose people overstay their valid visa duration all the time. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. (Also, the somewhat hagiographic article contains 11 paragraphs that begin with, "On such-and-such a date," etc.)Sca (talk) 21:55, 11 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 10Edit

Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Maximilian ReineltEdit

Article: Maximilian Reinelt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Welt, BBC
Nominator and updater: Joseph2302 (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: Short article, but covers all the information online about him Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 61st GrammysEdit

Stale.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:24, 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: 61st Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the Grammys, Childish Gambino's "This Is America" wins Record and Song of the Year, while Kacey Musgraves' Golden Hour wins Album of the Year.
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Article is not ready, needs more details on the award/nomination selection process and the ceremony, it is not ready to go. (However, past years we have had a failure of a proper update, not necessarily expecting one here) We normally only do Record and Album of the year, but with This Is America winning both Record and Song, might as well include both Masem (t) 05:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty far from ready! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This would be at least the fourth year in a row that the Grammys were not improved enough to be posted, which to me means we may have to consider ITNR (not preventing future Grammys but they would be more carefully vetted first). --Masem (t) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Certainly worth removing from ITNR. What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 11 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: Walter B. Jones Jr.Edit

Article: Walter B. Jones Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Nohomersryan (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: Sitting US congressman dies in office. Article is in decent shape. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 72nd British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Article: 72nd British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 72nd British Academy Film Awards, Roma wins four awards, including Best Film.
Alternative blurb: Roma wins four awards, including Best Film, at the 72nd British Academy Film Awards.
Alternative blurb II: ​At the 72nd British Academy Film Awards, Roma wins Best Film and 3 other awards, and The Favourite wins 7 awards.
News source(s): The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose All the tables lack references. We need some more prose in the "Winners and nominees" section to summarize some major points contained in the tables like the very fact pointed out in the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
To add to the above, there should be some details about the ceremony, even if the BAFTA lack the glitz and glam of the Oscars. --Masem (t) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Added altblurb2 mentioning The Favourite 's 7 awards (only Roma 's Best Film award is ITNR, but mentioning the 7 awards gives a more accurate summary of what happened). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment re italics: In blurb and altblurbs movie names Roma and The Favourite should be in italics (per MOS), but for some reason the non-italic fields appear in italics and vice versa in the blurbs (but not once the blurb gets posted). I've 'fixed' this for the movie names in altblurb2 (which I created) so ironically they currently appear in non-italics (but I've left the blurb and altblurb1 'unfixed' just in case it's somehow deemed inappropriate for me to add such a strange 'fix' to somebody else's blurb/altblurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Blurbs are displayed in italics, so titles that then further italicized "flip" back to normal. This is fine, as admins posting these blurbs will copy the wikicode from the blurb to use. So you shouldn't actually try to fix this, it is just a net result of the nom template. --Masem (t) 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Added ref for all the winners/nominees and added a blurb for the ceremony. yorkshiresky (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support at last some prose about the event itself. It's terribly formatted but its presence may just about be enough to push this onto the main page, and meanwhile, the Grammys article languishes in abject mediocrity. Good work United Kingdom! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

February 9Edit

Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Sports

(Closed) RD: Huang Erh-hsuanEdit

Closed as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 12 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: Huang Erh-hsuan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9]
Nominator: DannyS712 (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) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The page is short, but it has no WP:RS or WP:MOS issues. Add a little more information about their career and it should be fine. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 09:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    Roughly 900 character of prose is stub. We shouldn't be supporting stubs for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 11 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) RD: Mick KennedyEdit

Closed as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 12 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: Mick Kennedy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]
Nominator: DannyS712 (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) 22:47, 10 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: Katharina LindnerEdit

Article: Katharina Lindner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)
Updater: 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.

 DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL, tag! Sorry, can you take a second look. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ron W. MillerEdit

Closed as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 12 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: Ron W. Miller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [12]
Nominator: DannyS712 (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) 22:47, 10 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) RD: Patricia Nell WarrenEdit

Closed as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 12 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: Patricia Nell Warren (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [13]
Nominator: DannyS712 (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) 22:47, 10 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: Tomi UngererEdit

Article: Tomi Ungerer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): FAZ
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: iconic illustrator, for children and adults - there could be much more, including a load of awards - see de - but better short than ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Article seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fernando ClavijoEdit

Closed as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 12 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: Fernando Clavijo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USSF, MLS
Nominator: SirEdimon (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: FIFA World Cup veteran. Part of the squad who represented US at home at the 1994 World Cup. Member of the National Soccer Hall of Fame . Former coach and technical director. The article has ref issues and I intend to fix it as soon as I have some time. --SirEdimon (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't seem to find many sources for MISL statistics, etc. I wonder where they were found in the first place. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose serious referencing problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I fixed the referencing problems. If there any others refs missing please tell me and I'll do my best to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:51, 10 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: Cadet (rapper)Edit

Article: Cadet (rapper) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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: Stub, needs expansion and tidying up. (Post-nom note: has been expanded, and referenced, quite impressive actually). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the discography section needs referencing - I'm take a look for sources for that shortly. Other than that it looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Actually it seems the source you added was removed by Lopifalko with the bizarre edit summary "No source needed". Not knowing this I added a different source, so the section is cited again. Anyway Support. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Why is "No source needed" bizarre? I am under the impression that discographies do not need sources, but I have never seen policy on that, just not aware of having ever seen a discography section sourced. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Definitely bizarre. Have you ever looked at any discography FLs? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not only that, isn't it odd to remove reliable sources citing facts in any case? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could someone check this properly please; the full name was cited to Instagram and the place of death is currently given as Crewe, Cheshire when actually it looks more likely to be Betley, Staffordshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Location of death appears to have been fixed some time ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Full name is referenced to the BBC. Who knows where they got it from.... Instagram probably. Any other issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I fixed both of these; I do happen to have expertise on where Betley is; I don't have expertise to check the remainder. In case it is unclear to the posting admin, I object to posting until someone with that expertise checks it thoroughly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubted you knew where Betley is, never up for debate. But what a curious position, you object wholesale until an "expert" checks it? How many other RDs have you made such a request? Is that now a thing, to request "expertise" to check the bio of a dead rapper? A Nobel laureate? A ex-professional footballer? Either the sources are RS and verify the content, or they're not or they don't. It doesn't need "expertise" to check this, anyone can do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Well, I doubt it's necessary to be an expert on the subject to know where a village is located, but the article seems fine and referenced well enough. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, well-sourced. Unfortunate that GRM Daily is still a red link. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure that the comments of Espresso Addict seemed resolved, where was the rush to post here? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've removed one obvious BLP violation. Much of the career still appears sourced to primary sources such as Youtube videos. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing wholly inadequate for a BLP. Relies almost entirely in certain sections to primary sources. Primary sources should be used sparingly. I encourage the posting admin to reconsider their review process and self-correct. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've pulled this one for now, seems I jumped the gun. Please let me know if/when issues are resolved and I will repost. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sources include Instagram and Youtube and this needs to be fixed before it is posted. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There are still three YouTube videos which are regarded as WP:PRIMARY, although the one of "Behind Barz" as a source for his faith being Islam could be removed as there are two others. I'm not sure why the other two can't be used as evidence of the song's existence, but I'm unable to find any alternative sources yet for the "2.8 million views" and "2.1 million views" respectively. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree. We have made significant progress enough to post. The remaining are acceptable uses of primary sources. I change my !vote to Support --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
So, in the absence of any fresh objections, I've changed this to "Attention needed". The YouTube view counts could be commented out if they are seen as a real problem. Personally I don't see the issue. No-one ever verifies these figures, but they seem notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Reposted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

February 8Edit

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Walter MunkEdit

Stale (and withdrawn I guess) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Walter Munk (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) 19:46, 9 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: Albert FinneyEdit

Article: Albert Finney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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: Needs plenty of work The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now per nom. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose big gaps in referencing. --Jayron32 18:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe I fixed all the referencing issues. Hard work, but Finney deserves it. If any refs issue still persist I'm willing to fix, Finney was a great actor, I'm a huge fan and I think he deserves the Main Page.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely fixed referencing. Not essential to posting as RD, but you have duplication sections related to awards and honors. One should be a high level prose summary, though and nix all the nominations (the table supports that). --Masem (t) 04:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. On a quick glance, I think this still needs a bit of work. The career section is a little chaotic and suffers short paragraph syndrome. The duplicate awards summary (the one in prose) is far too long given that the table exists; it should just be a high-level summary. I've tagged a missing source for his 3rd wife, who doesn't appear to be mentioned in the main text. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I included the source for his 3rd wife and his son. Actually, I didn't do much work on the article's structure and writing. I most included missing refs as in my understanding that's more important for a RD as BLP violation is a serious issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if I could support my own nom, I would do so now, weakly. Fantastic work on referencing, just a few gaps, but orders of magnitude better than when I nominated it, so thanks and well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most well-sourced articles I have seen here. Don't think the duplication is a big problem and could be fixed in slower time if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Nelson firesEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:07, 11 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 Nelson fires (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 3000 residents of Wakefield, New Zealand, were evacuated as wildfires spread across the Nelson area.
News source(s): NZ Herald
Nominator and updater: Sheldybett (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Sheldybett (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith, but this nom is far too early, both in terms of impact and article quality. ghost 12:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GCG, however in case this changes I have fixed the blurb to make it clear this is in NZ, there is a well-known city of Wakefield in the UK too. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose local event and article is not substantial enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article consists of a single 3-sentence paragraph. There's no way we should link that from the main page. If and when the article has been expanded to a reasonable level of comprehensiveness, ping me and I will reassess it. --Jayron32 18:41, 8 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) 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicidesEdit

Article: 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bruce McArthur is sentenced for eight murders, making him the deadliest known serial killer in Toronto and the oldest known sexually motivated serial killer.
Alternative blurb: ​Bruce McArthur is sentenced for eight murders in Toronto, making him the oldest known sexually motivated serial killer.
Alternative blurb II: ​Bruce McArthur is sentenced for eight murders, making him the deadliest known serial killer in Toronto.
Alternative blurb III: ​Bruce McArthur pleads guilty for eight serial killings in Toronto and is sentenced to life in prison.
News source(s): Deadliest in Toronto: Gillies, Rob (1 February 2018). "Suspected Serial Killer and Mall Santa Looked 'So Normal and Business-Like,' Clients Say". Time Magazine. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-02-04. Retrieved 2 February 2018., oldest Canadian serial killer & oldest sexually motivated serial killer: Kennedy, Brendan (29 January 2019). "McArthur is the oldest confirmed serial killer in Canadian history. His age may have helped him hide 'in plain sight'". The Toronto Star. Toronto: Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 6 February 2019., sentenced Feb 8, 2019: "Serial killer Bruce McArthur will have a chance of parole in 25 years, when he's 91, judge rules". CBC News. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 8 February 2019. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
Nominator and updater: Reidgreg (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sentenced today (Feb 8), substantial updates since guilty plea Jan 29. Easily 50+ news items on subject in that period, including international coverage (CNN, BBC, Washington Post) Open to ALTs. Reidgreg (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment better altblurb3. We try to avoid superlatives in blurbs. --Masem (t) 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • ALT3 is fine with me. Thanks for fixing the tone, even writing in present tense feels weird. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is ready for posting, refs are good. Has received attention world wide.BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article, alt3 preferred. --Jayron32 18:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted alt3 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, all! And thanks to all who patiently educated me through the process! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • WTH?! Since when do we post blurbs less than three hours after being proposed and with only two(!) supports? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear... this needs to be pulled. There is nothing even remotely close to a community consensus to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The conviction was nominated before, but judged too early as it wasn't the sentencing. The previous nom deemed this otherwise ITN-appropriate. --Masem (t) 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
So this blurb was approved in another discussion somewhere in the past? This all sounds highly irregular. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarification, I am neutral on the merits of this nomination. Over the last couple of years ITN seems to have been moving away from what I will call Murder & Mayhem crime stories. On the other hand Canada is not exactly known for this sort of thing. My objection is purely procedural. On which note, I am also not implying any deliberate impropriety. I haven't seen MSGJ around ITN much and they may not be aware that we have a somewhat higher bar for posting blurbs, as opposed to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe the pattern was established per WP:SOMEFLOODS which was posted in 5 hours with zero loss of shit. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not see that, but it also looks to have been posted rather too quickly given only two supports. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
That looks more like 35 hours to me. But then maths was never my strong point. But there is a common theme running through a lot of these premature postings. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that common thread myself. Is there an appropriate venue to politely discuss this common thread? ghost 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The talkpage here would be a reasonable place to start I guess? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Aye, I would have supported this is well, but that was posted a bit quickly. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I updated the article and nominated it minutes after the sentencing. I expect either my exuberance to get it listed was contagious or that editors had grown weary of my whining about the earlier (failed) nom. My apologies if I stressed a volunteer into acting outside established practises. I'd also like to thank Ad Orientem for their due diligence with the error report. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Reidgreg as far as I can see, no-one can take issue with your approach here, the nomination was just fine. We do tend to wait more than a couple of hours before posting such items as we allow sufficient time for a consensus to "develop" rather than simply acting after the first two votes are cast (this is sometimes okay for RD when all we're debating is the quality of the target article, but usually for the main ITN stories, we look for both quality and significance). So in short, you did nothing wrong at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support based upon the previous conversation and the overall merits of the case. This is a high profile serial killer case in a city/country that is not exactly known for them. I have no real stance on the fact this was posted so quick (I don't believe it should be pulled), but maybe in the future it should be held back a few hours to ensure the consensus is still there to post it. --PlasmaTwa2 22:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. Folks here were correct to wait for sentencing. It was listed 8–13 February and received more page views than it's likely to get again – 185,000 while on the main page, when it normally gets 400 daily. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

February 7Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections
Science and research

(Posted) RD: Jan OlszewskiEdit

Article: Jan Olszewski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Super Express, Reuters
Nominator and updater: Kpalion (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.

 — Kpalion(talk) 10:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Not much I can verify, but the few that I did were good. The last section "in pop culture" is uncited. ghost 12:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ghost, can't have an entirely unreferenced section in a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've hidden the unsourced section for now. Are there any other problems? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) International Contact Group on VenezuelaEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:06, 11 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: International Contact Group on Venezuela (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Contact Group on Venezuela is formed in Montevideo, Uruguay. Bolivia and Mexico decline to sign the final text of the Montevideo declaration.
News source(s): Bloomberg, ANSA, UPI
Nominator: Chetsford (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I previously nominated this when it was just the conference. At the time it was declined, many of those so declining saying we should wait until it occurred and actually produced something. In that spirit, I'm now resubmitting. Chetsford (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This ran at DYK the other day. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose since I'm not even sure what the "declaration" was, it's hard to understand the significance of either this meeting (which barely a dozen countries attended) or the reluctance of everyone to sign up to the declaration. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
it's hard to understand the significance of either this meeting (which barely a dozen countries attended) No problem. Just one minor point of correction, it was 13 countries, but I understand your apprehension. Chetsford (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Where I live, even 13 is "barely a dozen". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
A bakery? j/k Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 8 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: John DingellEdit

Article: John Dingell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Detroit News, BBC
Nominator: Muboshgu (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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Article should be in great shape after a few minutes. Should we consider a blurb, given he was the longest-serving member of Congress in history? Davey2116 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think he should get a blurb. He's not a household name, and he was 92 years old in hospice care. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Well referenced article. I don't think he meets the criteria for a blurb which is set very high. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ref 41 needs sorting out (presumably it was a courtesy link?) and the material on Gallo needs citing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Espresso Addict, done! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD – Fifty-nine years is a long time to serve in an elective office, but since he died at 92, four years after retiring, probably not blurb material. Sca (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Committee Assignments section needs a ref but that's not enough to hold up posting. Article is solid and well referenced overall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emiliano SalaEdit

Article: Emiliano Sala (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Nominator: Stormy clouds (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: Dorset Police have confirmed that the body recovered from the wreckage is that of the Argentine footballer. Previous nominations were closed on grounds that there was no official confirmation that Sala had died - unfortunately, this is now the case. I am unclear on procedure, considering the death is not recent, per se, but believe we go with the date of the death's announcement. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support looks good, and I haven't seen any issues with the article itself.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, now we have confirmation, and the article is good. --Masem (t) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and mark as ready. Also, yes, we go with the date of the announcement as the date of the story when the announcement is more than about 2-3 days after the date of death, as it obviously is in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank RobinsonEdit

Article: Frank Robinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYDN
Nominator: Muboshgu (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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: A few sections need a few more references, but otherwise the article does an adequate job covering his baseball career. SpencerT•C 20:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, yeah, I'm working on it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, what do you think of it now? It's not GA quality for sure, but I think everything is sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good, thanks for putting that together. Support. SpencerT•C 21:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks in good shape. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is one sentence in the honour section I've tagged as needing a citation, but it should be pretty easy to source for someone familiar with Baseball. Once that's fixed it should be good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, thanks for pointing it out, I had missed that one. That sentence is now sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article seems fine to me. SirEdimon (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Fully referenced now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. There still seems to be a citation needed tag? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Espresso Addict, not any more. I cited it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

February 6Edit

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Manfred EigenEdit

Article: Manfred Eigen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Manfred Eigen, 1967 Nobel Chemistry Laureate, Dies at 91". The New York Times. 7 February 2019. Retrieved 7 February 2019.
Nominator: Sentausa (talk • give credit)
Updater: Grimes2 (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: C-class article and reliably sourced. sentausa (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on quality; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull too many of those awards are unreferenced, wasn't ready, shouldn't have been posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Now sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Since you tagged it, @Martinevans123 has added sources to every award. Would you reconsider marking this as "attention needed"? (I didn't change it myself since I supported it) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it's better now, thanks. Of course it should not have been posted with so many award claims unreferenced, but thanks to Martin for taking the time and trouble to sort that, without even a sniff of a copyright infringement! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Oooh, subtle. Still searching for some YouTube videos, though.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ... as promised (only 113 to choose from)

(Closed) RD: Yechiel EcksteinEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 9 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: Yechiel Eckstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Jpost: Israeli-American Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein dies at 67
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 and reliably sourced. DBigXray 18:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not got time to check this in detail now, but my immediate thought is that the article appears biased in its presentation because of the large criticism section, while the awards are buried under personal life. The lead is also slender. The personal life needs some clarification -- was he married twice? His son daughter has an article but appears to only be mentioned in the infobox. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback Espresso Addict. I have moved the awards to its separate section. removed mention of "first wife" since it is not supported by refs. added a line on daughter. --DBigXray 19:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Espresso Addict, lead is expanded please take a look if this can be supported now. --DBigXray 07:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I've left a comment on the talk page in response to your query, @DBigXray:. On a closer inspection there's a bit too much reliance on the official obituary at the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. There's a NYT obituary, which I've now linked, which might be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have added better sources as Espresso Addict suggested above. --DBigXray 05:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Good to go — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose some dabs in there, and use of unreliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Was there anything particularly unreliable except the date of birth (now fixed) that you had in mind, @The Rambling Man:? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done The Rambling Man, I went over the refs once again to improve them. Please reconsider the !vote.--DBigXray 05:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have marked it as ready since all the reviewers including MSGJ have now supported this. --DBigXray 07:16, 9 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) RD: Paul DewarEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 9 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: Paul Dewar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [15]
Nominator: Fulserish (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.

 User:Fulserish
  • Comment. Not yet fully updated; some sourcing needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose still some more sources needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I took care of the last couple of CN tags. Article looks good to go now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's still quite a bit of uncited material under Member of Parliament, as well as a problem with short paragraphs. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:55, 8 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) RD: Rosamunde PilcherEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 9 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: Rosamunde Pilcher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [16]
Nominator: Clibenfoart (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.

 User:Clibenfoart —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 8 February 2019

British author who sold over 60 million novels.

  • Looks good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the so-called "partial bibliography" section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Bibliography is fully sourced now. I've removed the other unsourced material in the text. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 9 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 5Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Mel TomlinsonEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 9 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: Mel Tomlinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [17]
Nominator and updater: Connormah (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 in good shape. Connormah (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is already older than the 4th RD posted. See the discussion I've initiated on the talk page about this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 9 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) RD: George KleinEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 8 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: George Klein (DJ) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (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.

 ghost 18:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The prose is not the greatest quality, but it seems to have been expanded since TRM commented (although more would still be good) and it is sufficiently sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The expansion has barely improved the description of why the subject is notable. There's considerable vagueness & some confusion in detail eg what's the title of his second book? Also the addition of the mail fraud appears potentially undue weight. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:11, 7 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 4Edit

Armed conflicts and attack

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
  • 25-year-old Australian footballer and refugee from Bahrain, Hakeem al-Araibi, is ordered to defend an extradition order back to Bahrain in a Bangkok court, after being detained upon arrival in Thailand for his honeymoon with his wife in November 2018. International community is treating it as a human rights issue; a campaign to free al-Araibi and return him to Australia is growing. (news.com.au)

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Leonie OssowskiEdit

Article: Leonie Ossowski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Bayerischer Rundfunk
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: Article expanded and sourced. Writer, entertaining and enlightening, who received notable awards, whose script was made an award-winning TV play, and whose novel is school canon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hakeem al-AraibiEdit

Withdrawn by nominator, no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 6 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: Hakeem al-Araibi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Refugee footballer detained in Thailand on honeymoon from Australia in November; court rules on 4 Feb case to be heard of extradition back to Bahrain. Human rights issue gaining traction around the world and being compared to case of Rahaf Mohammed.
News source(s): news.com.au The Conversation SBS News
Nominator: Laterthanyouthink (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. More to come. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest withdraw. The incident itself is unlikely to gain support, but this stage is especially unremarkable. ghost 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - interesting story, but nowhere near the significance required for ITN, especially not at this juncture. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the opinions. What happens next? Is the nominator supposed to add (Pulled) to the heading, or is it someone else's job to do this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:50, 6 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: John Otho Marsh Jr.Edit

Article: John Otho Marsh Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Well sourced.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Emiliano SalaEdit

Once again, too soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 5 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: Emiliano Sala (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Mjroots (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: Per previous discussion and consensus that the story was not worthy of a blurb, renominating Sala as a RD item. Death is now certain, although his remains haven't been recovered yet. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not opposing this one, but how can this be a recent death? - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Eugen says, he died on 21 January. It's too long ago to be considered a recent death, and the entries currently on the list are all more recent.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the case of disappeared individuals, we go by the date their death is confirmed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Ah OK, but actually his death hasn't been confirmed yet. The news is that a body has been sighted in the plane wreckage. They don't even know if it's him or the pilot yet. I suggest we wait until his death is officially announced then.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Premature They saw one body in the plane, but no one has officially confirmed its identity (remember there was a pilot too). I read that we should have an official statement by tomorrow. --Masem (t) 17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "There are no survivors" - Sky News. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's from the private agency that continued the search for the plane after authorities stopped, but its not the official word. (And I would expect them to have observed two bodies in there before making a statement liek that). Again, we're told to expect an official statement in less than a day, we can wait on the official statemet. --Masem (t) 18:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Premature No official confirmation for his death has been made yet, only 1 body is seen in the plane and no one has confirmed if the body is Sala's or the pilots. The article cannot claim that he is dead without any official confirmation of his death. We will have to wait till it comes. --DBigXray 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note His death is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Emiliano_Sala--DBigXray 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Premature, as per Masem. The questions I raised previously, about the official route to change "disappeared" to "officially dead", will probably evaporate. I suspect we will simply follow an announcement in the press. But it may be several days before lifting the wreckage is even attempted. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 4 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.
  • Comment - body is confirmed to be that of Sala, nomination is above on today's date. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Matti NykänenEdit

Article: Matti Nykänen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yle.fi
Nominator: 85.194.243.137 (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: Four-time Olympic champion, and according to Yle, "widely considered the best male ski jumper of all time". 85.194.243.137 (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose career section unsourced, article doesn't mention about death or causes. please fix--DBigXray 08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The death is now mentioned, although a cause is not officially given. Definetely an important person and one of the greatest in his sport. --Clibenfoart (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just posted before seeing this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull BLP violation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled Multiple unreferenced claims. Stephen 08:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

February 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sports

El Salvador ElectionEdit

Article: Nayib Bukele (talk, history)
Blurb: Nayib Bukele is elected President of El Salvador.
Alternative blurb: Nayib Bukele is elected President of El Salvador.
News source(s): [19]
Nominator: Kenmelken (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Article still tagged for needing references, but has already seen some improvements. Needs a little bit more work to be ready. There is also an article about the election itself, but it is woefully far from ready for Front Page. This article could possibly get up to standards before going stale. Kenmelken (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Altblurb to link election article. Also Bukele's image is in image prot queue since this is ITNR. --Masem (t) 19:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - Articles are in bad shape. They need to be greatly improved before going to the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don’t see any issues. AbDaryaee (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the normal target link in these circumstances is the election article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose target should be the election, and that article needs more prose. ghost 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The election article is a stub plus tables, whilst the biography has a big orange tag. Nowhere near ready. Modest Genius talk 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Improve, then support on merit - Needs improvement before it's ready for the main page, but I don't want to see this snow-closed. On its merits alone, I support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @BrendonTheWizard: This is listed at WP:ITN/R so article quality is the only thing that matters - there is automatic consensus that it merits posting when good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LIIIEdit

Article: Super Bowl LIII (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In American football, the New England Patriots defeat the Los Angeles Rams in the Super Bowl (MVP Julian Edelman pictured).
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)
Updater: Dmoore5556 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: MarkZusab (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment we usually also include the MVP. Also obviously prose description of the game will be required. --Masem (t) 02:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll add the MVP once we know who it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Added. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)q
  • Wait until a prose summary is added and citation needed tags are answered. SounderBruce 03:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose background section is missing refs --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Stephen and Amakuru: do stop edit warring over the blurb and discuss it here! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    As usual, @Stephen: thinks WP:BRD doesn't apply to him. I reverted twice, and yes perhaps I should not have done, but the second time I have a full reason. Stephen's now instated his dispute change three times. Totally absurd behaviour from an experienced admin. Anyway, as I said in my edit summary, we should match the format used in last year's entry, and certainly we shouldn't be pointing a link to Super Bowl LIII when the link text says a different article, Super Bowl. That's an WP:EASTEREGG and is confusing for readers. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining. My only comment is that "LIII" is not easily readable by someone unfamiliar with the game — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Surprised this is not on the Main Page already. In deference to the many people who might not understand "LIII" as Roman numerals - why do they do that? - perhaps "the 53rd Super Bowl"? 213.205.198.144 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality looks fine. --Jayron32 14:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Waiting for image to be protected. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Image now protected. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: please can you change the link to include the text LIII (or 53rd if you prefer that) as was originally proposed here and per the discussion above? I was unable to revert for a third time due to being in an edit war, but that's the way we did it last year and I don't see consensus for anything else. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
ITN blurbs never include the year or competition number of an event. There's no need to include it here either; it's obvious that the blurb refers to this year's event (more obvious than the roman numeral!). Modest Genius talk 16:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Modest Genius - it’s not needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Modest Genius is quite correct. The roman numerals might not be understood by readers. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Right.... we never the numerals, except for every single year.[20][21][22][23][24] <sigh> Anyway, can we at least put the word "the" into the link, i.e. change it to the Super Bowl so that the link isn't quite so incorrect? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Huh. That's really weird - how did no-one spot that error in previous years? (Yes I consider it an error.) Anyway, if something was done incorrectly in the past, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it now. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a need to do so, although another admin may do so if they wish. In general, we don't include the year/competition number in other sports postings. The fact that it may have been done with past Super Bowls doesn't mean it should continue if we don't do it for anything else. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you IF the subject was up for formal discussion. Absent a change being specifically proposed, we shouldn't break from precedent for this event in deference to precedent for the more general category of events. ghost 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a lot of unsourced paragraphs in the article, including most of the prose summary. This seemed to have been rushed a bit too fast, though I don't blame editors for not being all that enthused about this particular game. SounderBruce 22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled by User:Amakuru ([25]) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Pulled. I stayed up until 3.30am watching this game, and I have to say I enjoyed it a lot. Outstanding defensive play is just as admirable as free scoring offensive shoot outs, and the tension involved when both sides know that one score could decide the whole game is exciting to watch. User:SounderBruce is correct, though, in that the article does not meet sourcing standards for the main page so I've pulled it for now. Hopefully the issues can be resolved quickly and it can go back up.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As a comment, recaps of sporting events do not need to be sourced, in the same manner that we don't require sources for plot summaries of works, as long as nothing interpretative is used (as the event can be re-viewed to confirm) That said, sourcing of the game's events in this case should be very very easy with how much coverage it gets, but it is not required. Other sourcing problems are legitimate though. --Masem (t) 00:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
To build upon this, when I update the game summary for the Grey Cup article each year, I usually just use one source for the entire summary. That works fine. --PlasmaTwa2 01:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've considered the arguments above, and have made a few fixes to the article. I'm going to restore it because the most convincing argument is that a game serves as a primary source for itself. Anybody can watch a recording of the game and see the events unfold. This is analogous to the way that a book serves as a primary source for its own plot summary. No secondary source is needed unless there is analysis or opinion. To that end, I have removed whatever analysis or opinion I could see that didn't have a reference. For a better explanation, see Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen DuncanEdit

Article: Carmen Duncan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): news.com.au Actor Carmen Duncan dead at 76
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, working to have now added refs for everything. DBigXray 18:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - All sections are unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
SirEdimon can you please take another look and reconsider the !vote, the article as it stands now is fully sourced. --DBigXray 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Issues resolved.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on quality. Good job with the sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      Note: marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kristoff St. JohnEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 8 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: Kristoff St. John (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline, NBC News
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: Needs work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:08, 4 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 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Art and culture

Law and crime

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Walter James EdyveanEdit

Article: Walter James Edyvean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: American bishop, I've expanded the article a little and added some missing refs. It is short but sufficient, I think - Dumelow (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support I'd prefer if it were a bit more expanded / had more references, but its okay --DannyS712 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

February 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • Three students at a school in Johannesburg, South Africa, are killed after a footbridge connecting the main school administration to various class rooms collapses. (AA)

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Clive SwiftEdit

Article: Clive Swift (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, The Independent, BBC, Radio Times
Nominator: Martinevans123 (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: British stage, radio, film and television actor Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose can't use that fair use image here, and several [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There are three [citation needed] tags. Feel free to remove the entry, comment it out for now or even find a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, doing other things, just expressing my opinion. And that fair use image is a copyright failure, so I'm sure you'd like to see that resolved soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I've removed the image and cited the paragraph that was missing inline sources. All looks good now. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • support. Referencing issues have been resolved except for one citation needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wade WilsonEdit

Article: Wade Wilson (American football) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): usa today
Nominator: DannyS712 (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 football player, DannyS712 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has severe issues with its references. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Susmuffin and The Rambling Man: See the improvements made since then. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Still seeing at least two whole paras without a single inline ref. Maybe more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Has been referenced by others. IMO (COI noted) its ready, what do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Note: I have marked this as "attentioned needed" because no opposition has been expressed since it was greatly improved. I didn't mark it as ready since I'm the nominator --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. Looks good to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull nope, numerous paragraphs without citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    There is no requirement for every paragraph to have citations. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's a BLP, and it has masses of unreferenced text. Please pull it, it's an embarrassment and a violation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Pulled. --Tone 09:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Tone: All {{cn}} tagl have been dealt with (thanks to User:Tecmo). Could this be reposted? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This is now older than the oldest item in RD, that's why we cannot repost. But thanks for fixing the reference, the article is better now. --Tone 15:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 AFC Asian Cup FinalEdit

Article: 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​​In football, the AFC Asian Cup concludes with Qatar winning the final against Japan.
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian, CNN
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: S.A. Julio (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: AFC Game. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait until the addition of a prose summary. SounderBruce 16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Support, as I have added a prose summary. SounderBruce 00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news in sports and geopolitics. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go, decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Still good to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Still good to go 10 hours later... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) US suspends INF TreatyEdit

Article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States suspends the Cold War Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty over claims Russia has violated the treaty.
Alternative blurb: ​Russia announces the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in response to the treaty's suspension by the United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​Russia announces the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in response to the treaty's suspension by the United States, which claimed Russia has violated the treaty.
Alternative blurb III: ​Russia announces the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in response to the United States announcing plans to withdraw from the treaty.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Russia announces the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in response to the United States suspending the treaty and announcing the plans to withdraw from it.
News source(s): NYTimes, Reuters
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is not yet updated but as I write I think there are editors working on it. In terms of timing, I think this action is the point-of-no-return, compared to just an announcement that they plan to leave the treaty, from what I can tell from sources. There may be further negotiations with Russia to clear up the matter and unsuspend it, and there is statements that the US will make certain military moves on the EU/Russian border over the next six months with this, but I am pretty confident this is the right point. Masem (t) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment In the previous nomination it was argued that the better timing would be when Congress decides to withdraw (which seemingly hasn't happened yet). If Pompeo suspends, he may reconsider as well. Brandmeistertalk 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I hate how news reports tend to overlook the mechanics of these things... Per Reuters, US is suspending how it will hold up its side of the treaty (eg it's planning on moving NATO forces around against bounds of the treaty, etc.) and will plan to formally withdraw in 6 months should Russia not come to compliance. So no act of Congress is necessary to suspend (that will be needed in 6 months), so this should be a question of the suspension is as significant. Given the way this is being covered, I'd argue this is, as will be if US withdraws in 6months time. --Masem (t) 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That's alarming. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to report Russia to international agencies and demand third-party inspections, but we can only observe, as usual... Brandmeistertalk 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Now Russia says it suspends the treaty in return, added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 10:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose more sabre-rattling, let's wait until the leaving actually occurs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The United States has not actually left the treaty. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I point out above that yes, this is not the same milestone as Congress okay'ing leaving the treaty; that mark has been set for 6 months from now, and should that happen, that's definitely an ITN. My point is that this is a rather novel change in that the executive is willfully suspending the treaty and will move its forces around in technical violation of it. Now whether that's a milestone for ITN or not, it is a point to be debated, but I will argue this is a significant enough change to be itn-worthy. (outside of article quality which I haven't checked recently). --Masem (t) 22:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support significant milestone, and the leadup to the event made news too. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – More political posturing on the part of what's-his-name? – Sca (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait / Support - Wait until it's confirmed, as The Rambling Man and Masem have rightfully pointed out. If it actually happens, it should be posted swimmingly. When the USA and USSR signed the treaty it quite literally went down in history, and it would be significant if the US decided to scrap it. The US has been floating this for a while, but now that it's been announced by the US secretary of state that they are in fact going to do pull out of it, we shouldn't have to wait for too much longer. (Update - though America has not yet pulled out of it, Russia announced they will be developing new missiles, so it makes perfect sense to post it now.) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 Historical event. 1960-s tier Arms Race has just began and people here are arguing whether to post it or not. Jesus. I bet if the Christ made a second coming people here would be voting oppose until he'd be killed again to verify his Godhood, at which point they would say it was already stale and vote oppose anyway. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nobody questions the importance of it. It's just that neither Trump nor Pompeo even have the power to make or break treaties. He needs the consent of 2/3 of the Senate to do that, and I'll only support a blurb that mentions that the US has only announced its intentions to suspend it. Of course it's important; I'd go as far as to say this paved the way for a "Cold War II." The only objections are based on the fact that the US is still in it. That being said, Russia has responded by doing the same, and Putin actually does have the authority to declare that Russia can and will being developing new missiles (which he has, according to new sources). As a result, I support posting the blurb at this time, provided that the language of the blurb does not inaccurately state that the US suspended it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You deeply misunderstand the nature of what just happened here. Trump didn't leave the treaty, as he has no power to do so, but he SUSPENDED IT FOR 90 days, which he has the power to. The current alt blurb 3 is therefore inaccurate and misleading. Over the course of these 90 days the US will leave the treaty by the means of a senate vote. Only a fool would think the Senate would not vote in favour of it given the red scare-tier climate in the US Openlydialectic (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    References: New York Times, Associated Press, Sputnik, SCMP Openlydialectic (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Only a fool would think the Senate would not vote in favour of it" is obviously WP:CRYSTAL. He needs 60 votes. He doesn't have 60 republicans. Maybe he will in fact get enough people from the opposition party to support his proposal, and maybe he won't. The fact of the matter is there's not been a vote on it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That may be so, but the fact to the matter is: Trump has already suspended the treaty, and that's what we absolutely have to put in the blurb. If the blurb just states that the US announced plans to withdraw from it without mentioning the fact that they've already suspended it, that blurb would be highly misleading Openlydialectic (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would move to support, but only if a suitably succinct blurb was offered. Right now, what we have is horseshite. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You're fully able to write one yourself (or at the very least give an idea of how we can make them less "horseshite" as you put it) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support any of the altblurbs, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted a version of altblurb III. Suggested improvements to wording welcome — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: don't you think it's heavily misleading to post the blurb stating that Russia suspended the treaty without mentioning the fact that America suspended it too? That's... just... Radio Free Europe-tier work. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't understand your last sentence but I did say I was open to improved wording. I'm not a fan of the current wording, especially with the double "announces" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The United States suspends the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In a mirror response, Russia suspends the treaty as well. emijrp (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    This. But I guess that would show the US in a bad light, so that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    How about: Both the United States and Russia suspend the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'd support something like that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Updated accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    I have no idea why we're trying to diminish that the US started this. They suspending INF over claims Russia violated it, and Russia suspended in response. The order of the events is significant to the story here.the first altblurb is pretty much the right one (less a few words). --Masem (t) 14:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Masem: Welcome to 2019 when much of Wikipedia has already been compromised by the US/Transatlantic special interests. You might wanna look up the articles about the White Helmets and the Wikileaks too. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy HardyEdit

Article: Jeremy Hardy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Daily Telegraph
Nominator: SchroCat (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.

 SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • A marker for now. Mostly OK, but needs some work on refs - particularly the filmography - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, all reffed up to date, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)