Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2020

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.

February 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Tony FernándezEdit

Article: Tony Fernández (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Shehnaz AnsariEdit

Now stale.
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: Shehnaz Ansari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TheNews
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A sitting MPA shot dead. Guy in the Mall (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2020 (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.

(Stale) RD: A. E. HotchnerEdit

Now stale.
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: A. E. Hotchner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian obituary
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Centenarian writer and editor, friend and biographer of Ernest Hemingway and of Paul Newman. Few sentences in the middle of the article need sources. Blythwood (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2020 (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: Caroline FlackEdit

Article: Caroline Flack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Telegraph, Deadline
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: English radio and television presenter. The article has some issues, but it's being heavly edited since she was "very famous". --SirEdimon (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Confirmation of death and article is citated correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.148.126 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks good enough Spiderone 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Article now good enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry to "do a TRM", but Filmography is wholly unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above (and no need to apologise for maintaining standards, particular for a BLP) but also the "Strictly Come Dancing performances" table is completely unreferenced as well. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Is that table even necessary? Do people really care about each "performance"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It feels like something that should be saved for an article on the show, if at all. A few lines of prose about appearing is really all a biography would merit. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's become standard practice to copy out the results table extract to the contestant's own article, but usually in collapsable form. As a series winner the table deserves to be included for Flack more than for most. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It feels a little undue, especially if there's already cited prose describing the course of the show (and we do have a paragraph-length summary of its run so it's not like it isn't covered); ultimately if it's uncited material in a biography we should be looking for a good reason to include it, and other articles doing it isn't enough. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    There is no reason, as far as I know, for it to remain uncited. But, as Kingsif says below, WP:PLOT. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yeeeeah, I disagree that's standard practice. Summarize how far she got, etc. but you have the link to the series article right there. Unless there is some specific facet of her appearance on one of those shows that had more impact on her life/career, the summary is just fine. --Masem (t) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support barring filmography refs, most if not all should be easily available on the BBC and ITV websites. Strictly Come Dancing might not warrant refs because of WP:PLOT Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ography section has to be sourced, and I don't understand why guest appearances are broken out separate, they're all still television appearances. --Masem (t) 00:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, there is zero reason to have the dancing show table there. Linking to the season article where those results are present already are fine. Her article should summary her appearance on the show, but not the details. --Masem (t) 00:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      Agreed. Axe the dancing show table,it's undue in this article and per WP:NOTSTATS, doesn't add to understanding the BLP when the biog already covers the important detail in prose.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Filmography table is now 95% referenced, "guest appearances" section is halfway there. PotentPotables (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added references to the remaining parts of the Filmography table. I have also added a reference to the Radio table and some to the Guest Appearances list. I could not find sources for the three that are left uncited for now. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support referencing seems to have been greatly improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm DennisEdit

Good faith nom but consensus is against posting and is unlikely to change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2020 (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: Storm Dennis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Alternative blurb: ​The British Army is deployed for rescue efforts as a Bomb Cyclone hits England.
Alternative blurb II: ​Storm Dennis, a bomb cyclone, becomes strongest winter storm ever in North Atlantic.
News source(s): (UPI) (USA Today)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Current Weather event that is bad enough the British Military is doing rescue efforts. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing because OG items need to be "continuously updated". I'd consider a blurb pending update, the article has no impact section as yet to justify one. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The article now has an impact section. I added a second alt blurb as the storm is possibly the strongest north Atlantic winter storm ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's windy and wet, and inconvenient. And it'll be all over in a matter of hours, so ongoing seems overkill. At most, if dozens are killed, we could look at a blurb. Otherwise, it's modern weather business as usual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment (Question) How is a storm setting records in the North Atlantic "weather business as usual"? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
      • As I noted, I'll await its impact, if any, before suggesting it should be posted. Much like Ciara, it'll most likely be a storm in a large teacup. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's kind of windy outside at the moment, but doesn't feel as bad as last week yet. If my wheelie bin has blown over by tomorrow morning then I might consider supporting.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that a blurb on Ciara was rejected and the article's lead forecasts: "Despite its intensity, the effects from the Storm are not expected to be as notable as Storm Ciara," I would only support this if the article itself was well developed, which at the moment, that seems half-way. Sleath56 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – powerful storm, yes, but not especially impactful which is the most important element for ITN. If it were a world-record intensity I believe that would warrant mention solely on meteorological merits but that is not the case here. National militaries routinely respond to disasters to assist affected persons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Amakuru – and of course we must accede to the expert advice of the preceding user's post. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the article could be expanded, three deaths is not significant for a weather disaster post. --Masem (t) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (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 conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Bonnie MacLeanEdit

Article: Bonnie MacLean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle, Paste Magazine
Credits:

 7&6=thirteen () 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment She appears to have died on February 4, but it has only been reported on the 12th.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)}}
  • Weak oppose Article is currently extremely light on what she actually did and could use a small expansion before posting. Kees08 (Talk) 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment P-K3 Added content. 7&6=thirteen () 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ex-Tropical Cyclone UseiEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:17, 16 February 2020 (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: 2019–20 South Pacific cyclone season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ex-Tropical Cyclone Usei makes landfall on Lord Howe Island and heads toward New Zealand.
News source(s): (NASA) (ABC News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is a current Weather event that is out of season. Normally Tropical Storms/hurricans/cyclones are mentioned in this section. It has officially made a landfall also on Lord Howe Island. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Not out of season at all. It's peak cyclone season in those waters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uesi has very little impact at all, plus no article of the cyclone exist. INeedSupport ❄️ 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi does not have its own article, and I don't think the season article should be approved in its place. Also, despite making landfall on Lord Howe Island, no significant damage was reported. If there had been significant damage on New Caledonia or Lord Howe Island, then I would probably support the nomination. As a point of technicality which was also mentioned by HiLo48, Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi was not an out-of-season event. February–March is peak tropical cyclone season in the Southern Hemisphere. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as Uesi is no shere near the level required for in the news with barely any impact reported.Jason Rees (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing any real newsworthiness to level of encyclopedic main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the first I'm hearing about any cyclones, considering I live in New Zealand, so this could hardly be news anywhere else if it's not here. There has also been hardly any damage, so the notability is not there.  Nixinova  T  C   22:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose Not a notable TC by any means. NoahTalk 23:39, 15 February 2020 (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

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Coastal GasLink Pipeline protestsEdit

Article: Coastal GasLink Pipeline#Protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following several days of protests blockading rail lines across Canada, Via Rail announces the shutdown of most of its passenger rail service until further notice.
Alternative blurb: Via Rail, Canada's only nationwide passenger train service, announces a suspension of all services with the exception of two northern routes after several days of protests opposing a gas pipeline project in British Columbia that crosses the territory of Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests shut down the Canadian passenger train service Via Rail.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests shut down Canadian passenger train service and much of the Canadian freight rail network.
News source(s): CBC, Global News, CTV, BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits:
Article updated

 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:7504:B465:858D:639A (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • technical note: I use a shifting IP with Rogers telecom. If I make a future comment as original nom and my IP has changed, I will use the tag (~AH1) in my comments prior to my IP signature, to indicate my former editor's account. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:7504:B465:858D:639A (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Lengthy and high-quality article, major news event and first entire rail stoppage in the country in decades. Obvious yes from me. 122.60.66.191 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose only related to a single country, namely Canada. This event needs to involve other countries, like US or UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.191.96 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Pardon? WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the same IP block that nominated the Trump impeachment for removal hours after the CAA protests were removed. I think it can be safely ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unlike past protests we have posted, this is more a sit in, nonviolent protest of interminable size. Not in the same class as others, --Masem (t) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm changing to a Support on improvements based on the explanations better in BBC than our article of the extent of the impact. Both freight and passenger trains schedules are disrupted so to me, this is like the Yellow vests movement from France that we did support. But the article needs improvement to address that scale of impact. --Masem (t) 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unsee coverage on major RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article is good enough. Front page at cbc.ca. Via shut down all passenger rail nation wide due to protests in the BC interior this is actually a pretty big deal. Why the hell are anti-pipeline protesters interrupting rail service? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on quality, article appears to be fine. On significance, while these protests may be behaving differently from how protests would occur in other parts of the world, there's a long tradition in Canada that this is how First Nations protest. While it's been done before, I don't believe they've ever shut down our national rail service before, however, and that is where this rises to the level of significance required for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I remember them closing the 401 out near cornwall years ago --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb 1's a good try, but it's not quite long enough. Just another 21 words and it'll match the length of all the current blurbs combined. —Cryptic 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good quality, updated, and the story is a major news story on several outlets. Added another Alt2 --Jayron32 16:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although it's a good article, it lacks sufficient notability to be shown as ITN, but yes in Current Events. Important for Canada, but little else. I think that the way to protest of "First Nations", as someone says above, has no relevance to consider whether it is important or not. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsee even on main CBC page today. Getting a bit stale, eh? – Sca (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Um, it is on the front page of CBC, and is likely to remain so until resolution. There is also a pretty good CNN article which explains the situation reasonably well. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
On my (PC) screen, the CBC site displays 30 articles, including one with the hammer-head "Trains vs. pipelines," but nothing on protests. – Sca (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Something you already knew, but which I should post publicly in case others didn't realize the irrelevance of your comment: News websites generally post a personalized view of their main page based on a number of factors, and whether or not a particular story appears prominently for you has little bearing on whether or not the story is being covered by in-depth articles. If one wants to know what sort of prominence a story is getting, one needs to look at the number, length, and depth of stories covering a topic from a wide variety of sources, not just what one's personal view of the world is. --Jayron32 12:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point-out, Jayron. Dodging those algorithms (Google too!) is one of the major reasons I clear cookies and caches multiple times a session and never use a news feed. Otherwise I find that I am just getting "echo-chamber" articles. (Disclaimer - I actually learned about this in the first place because I coincidentally happened to be in Toronto, in Union Station, waiting for a train, on the day when it started. I asked various staff what was going on, and they told me. I managed to get home on what turned out to be one of the last trains before the system-wide shutdown. Job-related travel has been ... interesting ... ever since. (Plus, February is always particularly busy for VIA Rail because the corridor includes more than a million university and college students, all of whom have a Reading Week equivalent during February (or early March on the Québec side of the provincial border), and at times it seems like most of them hold student rail passes.) In passing, Toronto Union Station is proximate to one of Toronto's Chinatowns, and Toronto has reason to remember SARS vividly. Here and now, the combination made for large crowds, with lots of masks.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on all my experience in ITN, my dropping in here will be the kiss of death. Nonetheless, for context, I will mention that CNR is the third largest railway in North America (not just Canada) by operating revenue and the fourth largest by mileage. During the past week, approximately half of its rail was blocked, and a third of its rail remains shut down. Additionally, during the past week, half of all the container ports in Canada were blockaded (two still are on an on-again off-again basis), and the CPR rail line was also briefly blocked. CNR has stated that it expects to lay off 6,000 people as a direct result. Those layoffs have already started. For reference, the total employment of CNR is 24,000.
(As an amusing note, US domestic policy considers Canadian oil "domestic". Twenty percent of that oil is carried at least partly on CNR rails -- so yes, much of that is at a standstill as well. Not quite so amusing is that much of Canada depends on heating supplies delivered by rail. There have been extreme cold warnings in Canada this week and last.)
As noted in one of the blurbs, VIA Rail is the only cross-Canada intercity passenger service: the VIA Rail domestic services which remain running serve fewer than 5% of all Canadians. Several of the commuter train lines for all three of Canada's largest cities have been intermittently shut down as well. (At one point last week, Amtrak had to cancel its Cascade service to Vancouver because of this.) There is no Canadian Greyhound (intercity bus) service in most of Canada by geography (shut down by Greyhound last October, including the cross-country routes). Contrasting with the 401 shutdown, where alternate roads were not blocked, there simply are no alternate rail lines for most of this region.
As to violence -- well, the last major Canadian protest which had (2) deaths was the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, more than a century ago. It involved 30,000 people (roughly 0.5% of the total population of Canada at the time) and had about 80 or so arrests. The current protests have already exceeded that number of arrests, with roughly 0.5% of the population of Canada protesting. The numbers involved are not really obvious because Canada is so large geographically compared to its population, because the protests are scattered throughout Canada (some of the larger protests were in Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, and London), and because the rail blockades and many of the arrests are happening in remote areas. Quite simply, Canada has 1/30 the population of India, but 3x the geographic size. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The only thing keeping this off the main page is the one sentence update. Expand it, we can rightly ignore the "it's only Canada" opposes per Please do not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country". You have the power to do it, just add some details and up it goes. Easy! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
?? I looked at it, and all the information was already there. I did clean up the structure of the article -- lede, sections, removed duplication of information, and so forth. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Update - article should be ready for posting. I also added an alternate blurb (3) to include the impact on freight rail traffic. For other impacts, readers can access the article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support for Alt1 blurb which provides the best context for the incident. The Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation page could use a bit more article expansion, but it's satisfactory that I'd support linking it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Quick summary of arguments.
Pro - extremely large-scale transportation/economic disruption in Canada, major First Nations protest, uniqueness within Canada.
Con - Non-violent, only affects Canada, does not appear in (my) newsfeed/news webview, and "stale".
Article is completely up to date. Event still continues in full this week, with no end in sight. Some administrator really should make an objective assessment of the validity of each of these claims sometime before the shutdown completes its third week. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Better article than many other candidates. While the logistic disruptions mainly affect Canada, the underlying conflict plays out the world over. Also, I consider "non-violent" a pro rather than a con.--89.206.117.140 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Rajendra K. PachauriEdit

Now stale.
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: Rajendra K. Pachauri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News18
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Needs copyediting and neutrality issue with one section should be fixed. Nizil (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (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) Antarctica temperature recordEdit

No consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2020 (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: Climate of Antarctica (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The warmest temperature in Antarctica is recorded at Seymour Island
Alternative blurb: ​At Seymour Island a temperature of over 20 °C (68 °F) is recorded in Antarctica for the first time
Alternative blurb II: ​A temperature of 20.75 °C (69.35 °F) is recorded at Seymour Island, the highest recorded in Antarctica.
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Record held since 1982 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:31E6:12F4:842B:25C (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Any major climate news like this needs to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Very strong support - This is MAJOR. This needs to be in ITN IMMEDIATELY! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality (several tags, and no mention of this new record). Neutral on significance - isn't it just going to keep getting incrementally warmer? Prior record was set...ONE WEEK AGO?! GreatCaesarsGhost 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Misread that. Prior record for Seymour Island was 1982. A new record was set on the mainland a week ago. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • support - newsworthy. BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when problems are addressed climate change is an existential threat to us all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Multiple tags and unsourced claims. Weak Support on merits once the various quality issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we're going to make this ITN each time it happens, then it may as well be in ITNR... -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arbitrary record? Obviously its getting warmer, global warming and all that, but just reading the Guardian, there's about four or five asterisks to add to this (its not mainland Antarctica, for example). I'm all for major irreversible events like if/when a major ice shelf breaks off, but this is just a trend here. --Masem (t) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose missing refs, weak update. Then ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ongoing? Antarctica is probably going to get steadily warmer for the next several decades at least...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Largely per Masem's arbitrary record about a trend argument. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Not significant news. Only related to single area, namely Antartica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - this is horribly misleading (the latitude of the site is such that it's meaningless in terms of "climate change") and should not be given the benefit of being on the main page. While "climate change" is a verifiable phenomenon, this sort of irresponsibly sensationalized junk should not be given any sort of visibility on Wikipedia. What other news organizations choose to do or ignore to further their own POV doesn't matter here. 66.76.14.38 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How the heck do you sensationalize a temperature reading? What sort of news are you looking for, water coming up to the doorstep of houses in Miami? WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article not ready, significance doubtful. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was leaning support, given that it's a record and the quality of the article, until the I read the comments here. 64S is not even in the Antarctic Circle! I guess WGR goes right out the window for certain subjects.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above. Just DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – At most a statistical footnote in the history of global warming/climate change. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2020 (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: Anne Windfohr MarionEdit

Article: Anne Windfohr Marion (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): American Quarter Horse Association
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Texas rancher and philanthropist. Refs look ok. Died on 12 February. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Looks good to go. --Jayron32 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've done some edits for tense & tone, but still seems to need some sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jip Orlando and Jayron32: Looks like EA added one cn tag; would either of you be able to take care of it? Kees08 (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I spent some time searching online and was unable to find citations for either cn tag. SpencerT•C 03:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I could not verify them either. In the interest of timing for posting, I have removed the uncited information. Removing them doesn't detract from the article much. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose two citation needed tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted just before it became stale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

February 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Trial of Maesiah ThabaneEdit

WP:SNOW. We could post a conviction or an acquittal, but ITN almost never posts investigations or charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (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: Maesiah Thabane (talk, history)
Blurb: ​First Lady of Lesotho, Maesiah Thabane, is being investigated for the murder of former First Lady of Lesotho, Lipolelo Thabane.
News source(s): [1] [2]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major event in Lesotho. This can effect world politics (Possibly if the Prime Minister steps down from pressure) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By long-standing convention, ITN doesn't post criminal investigations unless/until they result in a conviction. Nominate again if she's convicted (which may be years away). Also the article is barely a stub. Modest Genius talk 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not only because that we need a more longer article to start, but also this type of story we'd post at the point of either acquittal or conviction. --Masem (t) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. I disagree with the notion that we must wait for a conviction. Expand it and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Modest & Masem. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2020 (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 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Joseph VilsmaierEdit

Article: Joseph Vilsmaier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Film director of what was liked by Bill Clinton: Comedian Harmonists (film), - his article was writen in colloquial style, and practically without sources. There's more in German, but I'm tired. Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short but everything appears sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Any citation for the birth date or the one sentence in prose missing a citation? Kees08 (Talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Citetion added. More could be added from that bio if someone had the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Believe it meets the bare minimum to post, perhaps someone will expand once it is on the MP. Kees08 (Talk) 16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katsuya NomuraEdit

Article: Katsuya Nomura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Japan Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A titan of Japanese baseball. Holds numerous awards and titles. Elected to Japanese baseball Hall of Fame --TorsodogTalk 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - I see just few sentences needing references which can be easily fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I expanded some and added references. Hopefully it's better now. --TorsodogTalk 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Support - Seems fine to me now. I can't see and unreferenced statement. I think it's ready to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Delhi Assembly ElectionsEdit

Thanks to the nominator for suggesting this, and for their interest in the ITN process. It is gratefully received. But consensus will not form to post this item, so closing it now per WP:SNOW.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2020 (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: 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Aam Aadmi Party sweeps the sate assembly elections of Delhi, the capital of India
News source(s): New York Times BBC
  • Oppose with a few exceptions because of the level of press coverage, we don't normally post local elections, only usually national ones. Unless you can explain why this local election should be an exception to that, I see no reason to post this. --Jayron32 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but no sources are offered to indicate that this local election is in the news, let alone in the news sufficiently to merit posting. Merely having the national capital is not sufficient; we don't post elections for the Washington, D.C. city council or mayor. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2020 (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) Irish General ElectionEdit

Article: 2020 Irish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Fianna Fáil (leader Micheál Martin pictured) wins a plurality of seats in the Irish general election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Irish general election concludes with no party holding a majority of seats in Dáil Éireann.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Irish general election concludes with Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, and Fine Gael as the three largest parties, but no party winning a majority.
News source(s): The Irish Times[3]
Credits:

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: It seems the results are now final. Sinn Fein won the popular vote for the first time in history, though I don't believe we can/should mention this in the blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Two notes 1) According to the article, the blurb is incorrect as both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won 37 seats. That would not mean that Fianna Fail won the most, but that both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won the most, with a tie of 37. 2) There is no significant prose update of the results, just tables and charts and numbers in the infobox and stuff like that. I would expect a several-paragraph summary of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis in the lead, and neither of those things has been done yet. Until that is done, I oppose posting this. Fix that, and get the blurb right, and I would support this. --Jayron32 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want something done right, I guess you have to do it yourself. Article has been updated with sufficient prose now. Changing to support. --Jayron32 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Fianna Fail have an extra seat as one sitting member is "automatically" re-elected by virtue of their post; they have 38 sitting TDs as of this election but only 37 were returned by popular vote. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, then the article is wrong because it doesn't say ANY of that, and is reporting, both in the two numbers in the infobox AND in the graph in the summary section (Which, as I note, is insufficient, and there should be an extensive prose summary of the results), that the two parties have the same number of seats. So, there's a new reason to oppose the article as completely factually wrong. You should probably fix that if you want it posted. If you're OK with it not being posted, then don't worry about it and leave it wrong. --Jayron32 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a note in the article explaining it, note [a]. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Two things 1) The note entirely insufficient for posting this article to the main page, as it is not a multi-paragraph explanation of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis of that section in the lead. Unless and until you fix that problem, the existence or not of a footnote is still insufficient to post on the main page. 2) The note is ambiguous as it only says that the one seat was returned automatically and not contested. It does NOT say whether the seat was counted among the 37 or not. It could be read as 36 contested seats won, and 1 uncontested seat which adds up to 37. That's how I read it. Now, as I said, you have the ability to fix any of these problems if you want to see this article posted to the main page. That is a conditional statement, you don't have to fix the article, but if you don't, it will not be posted. Trying to argue with me is not fixing the article. Get on that. We're all waiting to see what wonderful prose you are prepared to write. --Jayron32 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see how you read this as an argument, I just pointed out something that it appeared that you overlooked. I'm not the nominator nor a contributor to the article, nor have I even supported its posting. The fact that the Ceann Comhairle's seat is not contested is in prose in the article's lead but I'll reduplicate it elsewhere if it'll calm you down. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but where in the prose does it explain how many seats each party won? It says that his seat is not counted among the 160 contested, and that there were only 159 contested. I knew ALL of that ALREADY, but you did not address the main concern: 1) Where, in the multi-paragraph section of prose in the results section, does it explain how many seats each part won? Where does it explain, in unambiguous detail in an obvious way, how that extra seat works in to the total number of seats won by Fianna Fail? None of that is yet there. --Jayron32 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. Generally would prefer to post a blurb on the formation of a government rather than just the election results. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    But the election result is what is ITN/R, not the negotiations to form a government which may take some time.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Comment: the wait might be weeks or months. The election result on its own represents a huge shift for Irish domestic politics. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    If we're posting it due to that shift then the Sinn Fein result should be mentioned in the blurb; Fianna Fail winning a plurality is not a shift from the norm on its own. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Jayron32 that this not ready to post yet, there needs to be more prose in the results section. I don't see how Sinn Fein can fail to be mentioned in the blurb as they made the breakthrough and seem to be the focus of the news coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Comment. As I understand it we try to avoid the term "plurality" in blurbs. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
We're used it in the past, but only when linked, because most readers are not familiar with it. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: the three biggest parties won 37, 37, and 35 seats (22-23% of the total), so it seems unreasonable to pick out any of them specifically. The blurb should simply say 'a hung parliament' or 'no party gaining a majority of seats' (altblurb added). I agree the article is not ready yet - needs a referenced paragraph of prose on the results. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But it's huge increase in vote share for Sinn Fein. Even they underestimated and did not field enough candidates. That's why the seat gain is more modest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess one seat was not up for election, though I'm not entirely clear on that point. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Correct, the speaker (from FF) automatically retained their seat. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Since any one of three parties could at least theoretically be the lead party, it seems reasonable to not pick out one in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not supportive of including Sinn Fein into the blurb, but am open to allowing a blurb that says "a hung parliament". I don't have any objections to saying that Finna Fael (?) is the leading party by virtue of being the incumbent. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at present: I think the lead para should at least mention something about the outcome in seats: 3 approx equal parties is noteworthy. And I think both currently proposed blurbs are poor: do many (any?) Irish general elections end with a simple majority for one party; and Fianna Fáil hardly seem to have won. My impression is that Sinn Fein are the big story: doing so well that they surprised themselves (didn't put enough candidates.) It's not all about them, but they seem to be the story at the moment. PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sinn Fein doing well does not mean they will lead or even be in the government, if the other two parties decide to form a coalition. Calling them out right now would be a very pro-Sinn Fein position to take. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support alt blurb 2: 3 party result is what needs saying (wish article lead said it too); worth saying now, rather than waiting. No wish to take or push a pro-Sinn Fein position; but I don't think talking, in the blurb, about another party, or mentioning no party at all is the right thing; blurb 2 balances things well, for me PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Lead now says what it needs to - no quality concerns remain for me --PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with 331dot. Mentioning Sinn Fein in the blurb would be UNDUE. No position otherwise for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until government is formed, even if that takes weeks to months. I don't recall whether we've posted "hung parliament" blurbs in themselves (though absolute majority-less parliaments appear to be the norm in Ireland), but even if Sinn Fein did have quite a night, its performance is secondary and not blurb-worthy unless it's part of government. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose When votes result in the absence of clear majorities (of parties or declared coalitions), then I think it best to post when the government is formed. Especially when there are "special" seats which are not determined by plebiscite (as in this case). Moreso when those same special seats are the crux of majority-or-not numbers. I've read multiple, totally contradictory articles about this election, and if we can't do better in a single-line blurb, then it's best to put it off.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    The place to make that case is at WP:ITN/R, not here.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment A substantial number of comments here are out of order. The only matter up for discussion is the quality of the article. The result of the election is known; the absence of a clear winner does not change that this is an ITNR event. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agree entirely.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 Now that the article has a section covering the aftermath of the election I don't see any reason to hold up posting this.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I want to support this, but there are only two sentences (in the 'government formation' section) concerned with the results, the rest is all stuff that people said during the election campaigns about who they might work with. Two sentences are not a sufficient update in my view. Modest Genius talk 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the outcome and future government isn't known yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    That isn't a valid oppose, the election is ITN/R, not the formation of the government.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb II - I think that blurb accurately summarizes what happened. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: A prose summary of the election results has been added to both the lead and the body. That should ameliorate some of the quality concerns noted above. P-K3 — Modest Genius: --Jayron32 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks - I've supported above.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Unreferenced, but as it's literally picking out the important numbers from the (referenced) tables and describing them in prose, I suppose that's OK. Weak support either alt1 or alt2 blurbs. Modest Genius talk 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted altblurb1 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Shouldn't it be "in the Dáil Éireann" – ?? – Sca (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
A little surprisingly, no: see Dáil Éireann#Title para 3 - PaulBetteridge (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good spot, whoever caught that. Modest Genius talk 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm CiaraEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:12, 16 February 2020 (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: Storm Ciara (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least seven people have died across Europe from Storm Ciara, leaving hundreds of thousands without power.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Sherenk1 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Article seems to be of reasonable quality. It probably lacks the significance we are looking for — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It is rare for EU to get storms like this, and for people to die, but I feel this is rather minor in the scale of thing. I am not outright opposed to this being posted, I just this its not as major an event as typhoons and hurricanes. (also updated death toll to 7 per BBC). --Masem (t) 15:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's certainly been windy here, and there has been plenty of travel disruption, but the destruction has been fairly minor in world terms albeit tragic for those directly affected. I don't think we would post a tropical cyclone or hurricane that had this level of impact. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was blustery and trains were cancelled and a handful sadly died. Not significant in the big weather scheme of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:24, 13 February 2020 (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) CIA code-breaking revelationsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 03:03, 16 February 2020 (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: C-52 (cipher machine) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Investigations revealed how the C-52 cipher machine had an intentional backdoor, allowing CIA and BND to read intercepted communication for much of the 20th century.
News source(s): Washington Post, Deutsche Welle
Credits:
 --bender235 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly of encyclopedic interest in my opinion, although while writing the blurb I came to think it could just as well appear as a WP:DYK. --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is kind of the CIA's job. It would be more newsworthy if they failed to do things like this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but this feels like the type of thing that could be DYK if more expansion on the current article could be made. --Masem (t) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: according to Crypto_AG#Compromised_machines, it's been definitely known since 2015 that these machines were compromised by Western intelligence agencies, and strongly suspected since the 1990s. The actual news here is the revelation that the company was secretly owned by the intelligence agencies as well. That's much less interesting than the blurb suggests. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support C-52 (cipher machine) is a no-go for me but Crypto AG is decent and the news that western intelligence agencies intentionally operated a public company for the sole purpose of distributing compromised cryptographic services is very interesting and would seem to be way outside their actual job. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Rather too arcane for ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (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

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) International football / soccer all-time recordEdit

Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2020 (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.

Articles: Christine Sinclair (talk, history) and List of international goals scored by Christine Sinclair (talk, history)
Blurb: Christine Sinclair breaks the all-time international goalscoring record in international football, with 186 career goals.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian CNN Fox News

At the CONCACAF tournament, Christine Sinclair shattered the all-time goalscoring record for any soccer/international football player, male or female, of any country. While the record was broken earlier in the tournament, she scored an additional goal before the tournament ended yesterday. (She did not score in the final game.) In the blurb I linked directly to her page, a second optional link in the template is to the list of her goals. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment we've posted a few soccer records in the past including world cup goal record and I think Messi's most goals in a season. This would be a great chance to combat systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose incremental change to record, not encyclopedic, just tabloid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this were a Soccer encycopedia, this should absolutely make ITN; since it isn't, I'm against it. If we post this then a lot of similar records would be postable, e.g. "most goals scored in friendlies", "most international goals by defenders", "most own goals scored in international competition", etc. Banedon (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from being incremental, records like this can be a function of how long a player has been playing. Sinclair has been playing international matches for 20 years, which is 9 goals a year. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I must say, I am bemused by the "definition" of systemic bias used here, as well as by the types of comparisons being made ... especially given that WP has a wonderful series of articles on cognitive bias. That being said, your reactions thus far are in no way surprising. I have no doubt someone is already itching to tell me that if I already knew this, why did I bother posting? Truth be known, I keep hoping for a shred of genuine objective analysis to show up, if only to demonstrate that it is not utterly extinct. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    All of the blurbs, and four of the RDs currently in the box feature men. ITN overwhelmingly features male subjects. Featuring a woman who broke a record in the worlds most popular sport -- especially since we feature Sachin Somethingahar batting whatever 100 centuries are in cricket -- would be a way to counter that. Thanks for flaming me, the only one who wasn't outright opposed (I'd not had time to actually read the article). I hope you feel better. I guess we can snow close this now. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    That would have meant more with a vote, LaserLegs ... especially since your phrasing actually parsed as the opposite of what you are saying here. "Systemic bias", as you said it previously, comes across as WP is biased toward posting soccer records -- which, you will notice, the subsequent comments followed up. You said nothing whatsoever about gender until now, and neither has anyone else. Sorry, but I can only judge based on what you actually write. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Did I just wander into an episode of Dynasty? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    ?? I ask because I am not that familiar with television shows generally (cut the cord without substituting subscriptions), and I am curious as to the application of the reference. Tell me on my talk page if it is off-topic here. I am curious, and I do want to understand. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Black Kite's observation that this record is a function of longevity more than anything else. Lepricavark (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose rather trivial. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be DYK eligible, otherwise I would have suggested it for there. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Probably moot at this point but it's worth noting we've posted association football records before—and for domestic football which plays more games and therefore could theoretically break records more easily, too. I don't see that this is less noteworthy for ITN than Messi's season record, or any of the cricket records already mentioned. And yes, I'm aware consensus can change, as it seems to be doing, but that's my reasoning. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is really good (GA quality) and story is being covered by major news outlets. Can't think of any criteria that this doesn't meet. --Jayron32 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Banedon. Not widely significant. Sca (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not a big fan of "career"/"lifetime" records as an ITN, since as long as you stay in the sport and do well, you can potentially surpass it; it is the per game or per season where you have a fixed time to break records that make more sense to consider significant. Or if there's a clear indication that the sport considers a specific record metric to be important (eg the 4 minute mile). --Masem (t) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not actually that remarkable considering she has nearly 300 caps.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2020 (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: Waqas HasanEdit

Article: Waqar Hasan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The last surviving member of Pakistan's inaugural Test team. Guy in the Mall (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nixinova: - I've added a line about it and a quote from the PCB of his death. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article updated, everything else seems to be sourced. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 92nd Academy AwardsEdit

Articles: 92nd Academy Awards (talk, history) and Parasite (2019 film) (talk, history)
Blurb: Parasite wins four Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director (Bong Joon-ho pictured) at the 92nd Academy Awards.
Alternative blurb: Parasite wins four Oscars including Best Picture (director Bong Joon-ho pictured), the first foreign-language film to do so, at the 92nd Academy Awards.
Alternative blurb II: Parasite (director Bong Joon-ho pictured) wins four Oscars at the 92nd Academy Awards, including Best Picture, the first foreign-language film to do so.
Alternative blurb III: ​At the 92nd Academy Awards, Parasite (director Bong Joon-ho pictured) wins Best Picture and three other awards.
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

One or both nominated events are 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 building out beyond the basic lists as the show progresses. Masem (t) 04:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support alternative blurb. MSN12102001 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I added the 2nd blurb because I thought the other one was a bit awkward to read. Anyway, Support due it being done every year and for the milestone. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The film's article looks very good so I'm including it as a target. --Masem (t) 04:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Wow (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd alt blurb The historic nature of the win should be noted & that blurb is less awkwardly worded. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The winning film's title isn't usually bolded. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Usually because the film's article is not in good shape for posting. I stated above I think Parasite is in above-average state for front page, so that's included in the nomination. --Masem (t) 04:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Bolding the film article isn't part of ITN/R, though, and recent winners (the last few years across most major awards at least) have been in good shape. Kingsif (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 A standard blurb was used for the BAFTA 1917 win (record wins, also won Best Director), so a standard one should be used here. Added alt3 in standard format. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Record wins is one thing, but we're talking a major first here, the first non-English film to win Best Picture, which wasn't the case for the BAFTA nom. --Masem (t) 04:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, it's my opinion that the standard format should be used, I guess it's not yours. While first non-English Best Picture Academy Award win is a big step for the US, I don't feel like it should be considered with the ITN/R nom. Kingsif (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. Not just a "big step for the US" but historic. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 blurb. Historic. The first Foreign Lang Best Picture is more notable for ITN as a highlight than the Oscars themselves. Sleath56 (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Either alt2/3. It should be noted why this is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The grammar in the first two alt blurbs is sloppy. The phrase "the first foreign-language film to do so" is being used as an appositive of "Best Picture"; the phrase is really meant to describe Parasite. The sentences need to be restructured. Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While discussing how to word the fact that it was the first international film, I will post, and add that it is a South Korean movie. Feel free to change later. --Tone 07:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppoze for now. No real commentary on the event. Once it's up to scratch k. That regard, I would support Alt2 including bolding of Parasite.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt 1 or alt 2; it is important to mention that Parasite is the first ever foreign-language film to win best picture. NorthernFalcon (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support any blurb that mentions that Parasite is the first ever foreign-language film to wen Oscar for Best Picture and this is exactly the main focus of all news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. There's still very little prose on the actual ceremony itself - just a few sentences and a pile of tables, at least one of which is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Looking at the previous years' (we have not missed posting these over the last 5 years from what I can see), there's not much more than can be expected to be added. The most lacking information is the "Ceremony Information" and comparing that to 91st Academy Awards: yes, the "box office performance" table is missing but that doesn't seem to be essential to the actual ceremony, and because the Academy early on made the decision to go with no host, there's no need for a "Host selection" section, leaving only ratings/viewership which might come today or tomorrow, the way those work. And having watched the ceremony myself, w/ no host, the Presenters section is basically a simplified recap of the event - there was little else to say outside of things like Enimem's surprise performance (which I know I added already to the article). Sourcing can be fixed, but the only table outside counting nom/wins that isn't sourced is the Performers which I think already is the same as the Presenters source, I'd have to check, but there's plenty of "live-blog" RS coverage of the show too to pull from if needed. --Masem (t) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      Looking it again, it turns out that many of the ceremonies, such as 89th Academy Awards are actually classified as featured lists. So are these articles actually lists rather than articles? And if so, are they actually eligible for ITN? (That's not a rhetorical question - I don't recall seeing lists at bolded targets before, but it might be fine). If it's classified as a list, then a full write-up isn't necessary I suppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      I agree the awards article is very bare bones and mostly table. Whether a list qualifies for an ITN blurb is an interesting conundrum which probably requires a more detailed discussion on WT:ITN. It could be dodged for now by simply de-bolding that link; the article on the film itself is good enough to be bold on its own. Modest Genius talk 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      But, the ITNR is the Awards, and again, compared to the past several years, the current article is not missing anything that can be currently added (no host selection process, nothing yet on ratings/viewership). It's not like a sporting event ,where a higher-level summary of the event can be written. In terms of elements like controversies or the like, there's nothing I can immediately recall unique to this specific awards (the long term stigma of #oscarstoowhite still hung over it). The fair question to ask is what else realistically can be added that otherwise is not already covered by both the general facet of the awards and the ceremony itself? --Masem (t) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      I agree that more needs to be done for these ceremonies. We should at least start a discussion which establishes whether a series of tables is sufficient enough for ITNR. And then we need to broaden that discussion out to other tabular ITNRs such as Templeton Prize. If it's good enough for the Oscars to just be a load of tables, albeit in a new article, then it's good enough for an existing featured list to be updated with a tabular update only. One presumes.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      I'm going to suggest taking this to ITN talk because that raises some ideas that better aligns academic and entertainment awards, but this specifically means a likely change in ITNR to have the target article(s) be the award winning thing, and not the award/award list/ceremony itself as the target. I can see that as a solution in the future. --Masem (t) 17:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment It's a little late now, but as this is still a ITN blurb, is there any reason why the point about this being the first foreign-language Best Picture hasn't been added yet? It's the most predominant point of the story in all RS. Sleath56 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove: 2019–20 Australian bushfire seasonEdit

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Thankfully much of the bushfire area has received record-breaking rain over the weekend which has extinguished most of the fires. Updates to the article have petered out as the focus moves from fire to floods. Stephen 01:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support scanning headlines, its clear the worst is over; dealing with remnants, floods, and cleanup will take a while but that is not appropriate for ongoing at this point. --Masem (t) 01:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The fire season isn't over, but the extreme fires that brought this to ITN are. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT•C 04:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Marked this ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb? - how about posting the end of the bushfires as a blurb? Banedon (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not easy to get the wording right. The worst of the fires that led to this being part of ITN have been extinguished by heavy rain, but the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is far from over. The second deadliest day of fires in Australia's history in fact happened on 16 February, later than today's date, back in 1983. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support good to know that this is finally almost over. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed. If someone wants to suggest a blurb, I suggest a separate nomination. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal I was looking at this this weekend, the updates to the target article had really petered off. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Add: 2019–20 East Africa locust infestationEdit

Nominator's comments: It seems there is a locust infestation ongoing in Africa and Pakistan. 190.189.120.70 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 9Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Mirella FreniEdit

Article: Mirella Freni (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Soprano, "Matchless Italian prima donna", known as Puccini's Mimi. - References were mostly useless (IMDb, YT) but hopefully replaced. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Yi Hae-wonEdit

Article: Yi Hae-won (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Head of the Royal House of South Korea Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support bare bones, nearly a stub but what's there appears (AGF on sources) to be okay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - a couple of uncited claims in the coronation section.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Alsoriano97: can you help with this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    @MSGJ:I have to apologise, I'm having a very busy week. I try to complete his article in the little moment I have but I certainly don't know if I will arrive on time for it to be published. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margareta HallinEdit

Article: Margareta Hallin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

Article updated

 BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support but I know of two below that I think are also ready. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks Okay. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Volker SpenglerEdit

Article: Volker Spengler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Zeit
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Actor best known for films by Fassbinder, especially Erwin/Elvira. - I expanded. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC) (t) 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Well referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Robert ConradEdit

Article: Robert Conrad (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Actor best known for Wild Wild West. As typical, -ology section needs sourcing but rest of body seems okay. Masem (t) 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment still waiting for references for the filmography — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom, prose looks alright, huge unreferenced table is not. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Pole Vault World RecordEdit

Article: Armand Duplantis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sweden’s Armand Duplantis breaks the World Record in pole vault with 6.17 in Torun, Poland
Alternative blurb: ​In pole vault, Armand Duplantis breaks the world record with a vault of 6.17 metres (20.2 ft)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not a majorly important event.  Nixinova  T  C   00:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I think broken records in the major track and field events are notable enough for posting. And we did post it the last time it was broken. The only thing is, there seems to be some confusion about the categories of records. We have articles describing an overall record as well as a separate indoor record. But the official World Athletics website lists indoor and outdoor as the categories. Our "overall" list seems to WP:SYNTH the two lists together, creating something that may not be the official record. Someone who knows more about this may be able to clarify though.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Nom for the posting in 2014 at the time the record had stood for 21 years. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Pole vault#History says: 'In 2000, IAAF rule 260.18a (formerly 260.6a) was amended, so that "world records" (as opposed to "indoor world records") can be set in a facility "with or without roof".' This means the overall record was also broken. Men's pole vault world record progression follows the official https://www.worldathletics.org/records/by-progression/15143?type=2 by marking records set indoors with 'i'. The new rule was not applied to older jumps. Both records since then were set indoors. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose sports trivia in general and the target article isn't detailed enough to compensate. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think that there may be some track and field records that merit posting(the 100m, for example) but I don't think this is one of them- at least where it was broken relatively soon after the last time(2014). In 2014 it had stood for decades. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A niche sport. Trivia record. I am afraid, this clearly does not meet the level of significance needed for ITN material. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Considering that only 3 vaulters in history have come within a decimeter of this height, any incremental advance is remarkable. Also, this is the exact opposite of niche - the all-time top 10 includes vaulters from six continents. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Micro-news. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The nomination is definitely appreciated, but this isn't what ITN is usually for. Spengouli (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This has made headlines around the world. I don't pay attention to sports and even I have heard of this record achievement. †dismas†|(talk) 03:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very old record. 2601:602:9200:1310:747F:9C93:85D7:9FEC (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • One assumes you are therefore supporting. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The arguments in favor of this are strong: the record is world-wide; it is irrespective of condition (indoor/outdoor/gender/etc.); the new record replaces records set in 2014, 2009 and 1993, so it is likely to stand some time (9+/-5 yr); there have been (apparently) only 2 other people throughout the whole, long history of the sport to come within 10 cm of the record; the sport is widely appreciated (it is an Olympic component).130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per IP:130 above. An Olympic sport is not really "niche". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, not ready yet. Unlike some sports, this is only the second time the pole vault record has been broken in 25 years. It's not a hugely popular sport, but it is one that most people are familiar with, if only from the Olympics. However, the nominated article has just one line of update and the rest of it is essentially WP:PROSELINE. That needs substantial improvement before it could appear in ITN. Adding altblurb. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article could use some expansion (more prose on the vault itself) but news sources are covering the story, and the article is well referenced. If more was added to the article on the record breaking itself, I would change this to full support. --Jayron32 17:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor incremental change. Just like the spacewalk, not encyclopedically valuable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Orson BeanEdit

Article: Orson Bean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times, Yahoo News, Breaking News, NY Times, Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

 7&6=thirteen () 13:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality - a few isolated prose statements need sources and the ology is unsourced. Also, as I'm sure this is going to come up, while an "unusual death", Bean was neither in his prime nor was near the top of his field, so an RD mention is fine here, not a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
All of the statements are sourced. If you have specifics, please elucidate. 7&6=thirteen () 14:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
First para of Early Life, first three para of Acting career... It's not too hard to see missing refs at the end of paragraphs. --Masem (t) 14:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. You and I are working from different versions. 7&6=thirteen () 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Television appearances still need to be sourced. I don't know how much TV Guide covers of what's there. --Masem (t) 15:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Seriously, you want every one of his credits referenced? WTH? Anything else? 7&6=thirteen () 16:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
That is the expectation for actors, particularly for any show where they were not a main actor (particularly for cameo/one-shot appearances) as otherwise that failed WP:V. The bulk of RDs on actors aren't posted because the -ology sections are unsourced. I just tried to spot check the TV guide list all the appearances on the WP article aren't in there, so we technically need those others documented. Also as a point, that list is mixing TV and Film appearances: They should be separated. --Masem (t) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD IMO article is in sufficiently good shape. Despite the very unusual nature of an old celebrity dying after being hit by a car, Bean wasn't really a transformative figure on the level of meriting a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, Bean's notability and accomplishments merit a blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb as not a household name nor a major news story. Oppose RD for now as the quality is sketchy. I'm not convinced Justrichest.com, which is cited over 20 times in the article, is a reliable source. And surely we can do better than IMDB or YouTube. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "selected" (by whom?) filmography needs references as a minimum, nowhere near ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Nohomersryan, "JustRichest.com" doesn't look like a reliable source. No other sources seem to talk about it. I also think the "Selected Filmography" is not particularly useful... who did the selecting, and given that many important films are already mentioned in the prose, this seems a bit superfluous if it doesn't list all his films.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality for blurb, for Support it for include in RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.224.32 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Since no one has yet proposed a "blurb", what exactly are you opposing?
Or what blurb do you suggest?
If you have better and comprehensive sources, by all means, put them in. this article should be able to be better developed, when the Sunday obituaries surface. 7&6=thirteen () 00:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD I've lost my dwarves, my wizard and my way. RIP. CoatCheck (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
To you opposers, Saad, Nardine (February 8, 2020). "OBITUARIES Actor Orson Bean, local theater mainstay who rose to fame as a 1950s TV personality, dies". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 9, 2020. looks like a reliable source to me. If that is not good enough, then close up your shop.7&6=thirteen () 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 14:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Without any of the required referencing on the -ology sections? --Masem (t) 14:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What? Pull. justrichest.com isn't a reliable source and the entire filmography section is unreferenced. Not good enough. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I cleaned up some of the language or wording in the Death section. Bean's notability and accomplishments should merit a mention. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull now. @Fuzheado: what are you doing? The issues raised haven't been addressed. Too many facts cited to unreliable source, and the ology has no sourcing at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull per above. The article has slightly changed since the above comments, but it's still not ready for the main page. Tagging with attention needed. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull – Large number of references to a likely circular source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    Replaced with {{cn}}. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull unimpressive circumvention of consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull Quality is unacceptable for Main Page. P-K3 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pulled with a courtesy ping to Fuzheado. Stephen 23:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
You folks cut out sources and marked it all up. You ignored the other sources. I will not call out what you did by name. Edit warring here is nonsense. Live with it. 7&6=thirteen () 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Cutting out unreliable sources and adding tags for needed updates is positive work that should be commended, not criticized. Our intent here is to improve the project; posting to the front page is secondary. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Strikes me that the unreliable sources were correctly removed and that we were left with a dog of an article. It shouldn't have been posted under such conditions. The pull was 100% spot on. I'm surprised to see such an experienced user arguing against that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep pulled - Good sourcing is good policy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Nakhon Ratchasima shootingEdit

Article: 2020 Nakhon Ratchasima shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Thai soldier has shot dead at least 20 people in and around city also known as Korat, north-east of Bangkok.
Alternative blurb: ​At least twenty people are killed in a mass shooting in Korat, Thailand.
News source(s): BBC, AFP, Guardian, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Just created. Incident is still ongoing Sherenk1 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing – suspect at large. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support once article is ready. Mass shootings on this scale, especially outside of the US, are sufficiently noteworthy for ITN, especially given the additional element of a soldier going rogue. Lepricavark (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support rare as rocking horse shit, this is certainly noteworthy and article scrapes minimum requirements. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Rambles. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb, this is certainly newsworthy. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ythlev (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb This is clearly noteworthy & the article’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt1 – but suggest we wait a bit to see if shooter apprehended or killed, as AFP says police have stormed his location with gunfire. – Sca (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • General Support on posting and quality, but I'd recommend waiting until we have more how the situation has resolved. --Masem (t) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Well, according to AP he's hiding in the mall and police haven't found him yet, so it could be a while, so ... post? (Haven't seen anything new on Malawi story at bottom since it was posted four days ago.) - Sca (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Posted The article is adequate and both the page and the blurb can be updated as required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentReuters quotes provincial governor saying 29 killed, 57 wounded. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Death toll updated in blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 7Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Lucille EichengreenEdit

Article: Lucille Eichengreen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): kz-gedenkstaette-neuengamme.de + Polish
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Holocaust survivor, who was active to let us not forget! - But please look at Santi below first. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Made a review a few hours ago. Found no issues to stop RD. Post.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune pardons a further 6,000 prisoners after doing the same to another 3,000 two days ago. The mass pardons this week follow an offer of dialogue with the protesters, the release of detainees arrested at demonstrations, the formation of a committee to amend the constitution and meetings with opposition figures. (Reuters)
  • A man is charged with raping a five-year-old girl inside of the United States embassy in New Delhi. The high-security mission in the Indian capital is one of the most secure in Delhi, with multiple layers of manned and electronic security. (The Guardian)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Nello SantiEdit

Article: Nello Santi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT + others
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The last maestro of Italian opera, 60 years with Opernhaus Zürich, had a contract for a 2020 production - I expanded a stub. Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose infobox says he died in 2016. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    TRM, ashamed, fixed, thou shalt not copy and then not change --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now that the date issue is resolved, a couple of things mentioned in the lede that don't seem to be included or cited in the body, but after that good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    Toscanini is cited in the body, NYT, but I repeated it now in the lead to be safe. Until today, I never even heard of one of the operas, and the Verdi mentioned is early, and not played as often as Traviata and Aida, but I simply dropped "rarities", - after midnight here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I made a review. Found no issues. Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Qasim al-RaymiEdit

Article: Qasim al-Raymi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Word had it that he was killed in a drone strike around Jan 30, but today, the US Gov't made this statement. There is no confirmed date when he was killed, but this should be considered the date to post. Masem (t) 05:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Has coverage across major news networks (CNN Politico) and is relevant to foreign policy. Doesn't appear to be any citation issues in the article either. Realtable (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is mostly sourced except for the "Family" section. Consider this a Support once that is resolved. -Zanhe (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged with [cn] and at least one disambiguation needed in there. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I did work a bit at improving the cites today, but I feel like the prose isn't quite there to make this a quality enough article at the moment. For example, it contains numerous assertions that something was "reported to" or "reportedly", without saying who was doing the reporting, or really assessing whether the things being reported are accurate or not, making these essentially WP:WEASEL statements.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject's death has been erroneously reported at least 3 times in the past. Current reports cannot agree on a date (27, 29 or 30 Jan. are possible), and only one party is claiming that he is dead (US & allies). I'd say we should pass on this, instead of possible running afoul of BLP.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Claudio BonadioEdit

Article: Claudio Bonadio (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6] [7]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Argentine judge in charge of some relevant judicial cases, overall in the later years. Updating. Alsoriano97 talk 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now; obviously an important figure but not updated to include death, and a number of sections need to be checked for BLP issues as to whether the sources back up the claims made. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li WenliangEdit

Article: Li Wenliang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN The New York Times The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The first person to warn the public of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose because he may not be dead.[8]-- P-K3 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until we have more information. Of the links above, CNN is now stating Li is in critical condition, while The Guardian states he "was declared dead at 2.58am local time".–FlyingAce✈hello 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    When I posted my oppose the claim of his death had been retracted - now it seems he has subsequently died, confirmed by the hospital.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Nitpick The news warned the public, this guy tried to warn some doctors. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support since his death is confirmed by all parties now. This news is all over Chinese social media, front page of BBC and CNN, &c. 72.209.60.95 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support given recent CCP newspaper announcements and frontpage coverage across mainstream media Guardian Associated Press Realtable (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are a few citations needed on parts of the article. Need those fixed before posting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Just added citations to the article. Realtable (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - significant death that's now reported worldwide. Article is fully sourced. (I've boldly moved the article to Li Wenliang as he's far more significant than the chess player.) -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD - thanks to Realtable for fixing up the cites.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jhon Jairo VelásquezEdit

Article: Jhon Jairo Velásquez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, CBS News, NY Post, Daily Star, Daily Mail
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Medellín Cartel's most famous and prolific hitman --SirEdimon (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - quite a few citations needed, and Education section has no cites at all. Need those fixing up before posting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - oppose until citated correctly  — Sushi.Bhai (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a number of citations (and issues of tone and writing) needed here. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Amakuru, Sushi.Bhai & Black Kite. I fixed all reference issues. I also removed some parts that couldn't verify or confirm in any source.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - thanks to SirEdimon for fixing the refs. It's undoubtedly a short and incomplete article, but I think it has enough bones to qualify for ITN. Would be interested to hear what issues of tone and writing that Black Kite found, I may qualify this support if it is shown that a serious improvement is needed, but good to go for now.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    Cannot speak for others, but those passages of narrative where he is called "Popeye" might be better as "Velásquez"? -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    PaulBetteridge Done.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Reviewed the article. Improvements made since nom. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ospedaletto Lodigiano derailmentEdit

Like the train, this one is not going to reach its destination. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2020 (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: Ospedaletto Lodigiano derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A high-speed train derails at Ospedaletto Lodigiano, Italy. Two people are killed and 27 are injured.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Comparatively minor. – Sca (talk)
  • Weak support article is disaster-stubby but the train left the track (it didn't hit something that wasn't supposed to be there) at high speed which isn't routine --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree that this doesn't seem to be significant enough to make it to the top of the news. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost just a one-line entry in List of rail accidents (2020–present) would suffice. I note a Mexican crash from earlier in the year with more than three times the fatalities doesn't even have an article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criteria. The cause of this one is likely to be something highly unusual and a "never event". Obviously I'm not putting forum gossip into the article, but am waiting for official statements to be reported by RSs. BTW, the seven dead in Mexico were not on the train. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2020 (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) Christina KochEdit

Closed as No Consensus -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (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: Christina Koch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Achieving the longest continuous spaceflight by a woman, astronaut Christina Koch returns to earth.
Alternative blurb: ​American astronaut Christina Koch returns to earth after 328 days aboard the International Space Station, achieving the longest continuous spaceflight by a woman.
News source(s): BBC News CNN
Credits:
 Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Considering how dangerous space travel can be, I'd agree that this should qualify for a blurb on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as incremental. The old record was only two years old, and four men have had longer flights. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Just 12 days short of the all-time US record set by Scott Kelly. This should be in the blurb. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment in the past, ITN has carried women who broke records, it's very odd now to somehow argue "incremental" is a reason not to run women's records. Especially since the thing itself is of ongoing impact: women staying in space and being able to stay in space, is an actively ongoing area of scientific research and human endeavor-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    "Incremental" is a valid default argument against running any new record, because a record of some sort is set every single day. This would need to be overcome by things like a large increase from the prior (a la Neymar's contract) or the breaking of an old record (Hugh Duffy's single season batting average). GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    A space walk is considerably more dangerous than playing baseball by several orders of magnitude. That in particular should serve as a mitigating factor in terms of notability.--WaltCip (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Default? Seems you are merely enshrining a personal definition for large and old. In human history, a day in space is large and a month is forever-long-ago. Drawing on sports for grasping what's going seems hardly sensible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    The default for all stories is don't post, because we only post a small portion of events. There are some guidelines for what sort of story overcomes this default (e.g. ITN/R) but mostly it is personal definitions. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I am "grasping" or my arguments are "odd." GreatCaesarsGhost 18:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry. I think you misunderstood in part, and a "personal definition" is basically the exemplar of idiosyncratic (odd). But more than that, multiple RS say this is significant, so there is no reason to use what's claimed to be personal definition. (On the misunderstood part, "grasping" was used in my comment just as a synonym for "understanding.") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Greatcaesarsghost. This isn't really an "amazing feat" sort of a record, it's just that they set the duration of the spaceflight and that's how long she was up for. Not really a groundbreaking or momentous achievement in its own right.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe if she had been up 12 days longer to take the "all-time US record" from Scott Kelly, but probably not, because space doesn't care about nationality (or gender). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Space is inanaimate so presumably does not care about anything, nor is it interested in news. Humans, on the other hand, have an active scientific interest in the biology and and psychometics concerning stays by women in space. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Alanscottwalker, is there any reason to think men and women would handle space travel differently? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, [9] and the BBC article for one talks about the study of women stays in space, indeed IIRC, basically every in-depth article since the mission was announced a year ago has been about the effects on and of woman in space. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW I feel more ambivalent on this today so will simply scratch my vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is fantastic, reliable news sources are covering the story. I can find nothing wrong with posting this by the criteria. --Jayron32 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The article is fine, but I just don't find this a particularly interesting record. The longest time in space overall would be notable, but breaking that down by gender or nationality seems pointless. We didn't post the first all-female spacewalk, which was part of the same mission [10]. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Doesn't seem particularly significant in the history of space exploration. – Sca (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
!!!!!ROWING KLAXXON!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, some would say this is somewhat vexatious and pointy, but certainly not me. An incremental record change for spaceflight is hardly up there with anything of real significance. Certainly none of it is as important as college football, let's be clear about that.... !! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's not rocket science. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike weightlifting, being in space doesn't need a women's division. Either float big or go home. Polyakov's still the queen, by well over a week. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    "Either float big or go home". I like it. Good advice. I'll pass that on to the astronauts up on the ISS    — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant achievement even if it is not a new record. It's also arguably a milestone in women's spaceflight. Realtable (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius, on its own it's not a particularly interesting record. Unless someone can point to some objective reason for it being interesting, I'm against it. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this have to be the longest spaceflight in order to be remarkable? Disregarding whether women's achievements in space deserve special consideration for now, surely not all acheivements have to be records to be notable. Realtable (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To be honest I wouldn't find the longest spacefight very notable either, unless it's a proof of concept of the "now we know humans can survive a flight to Mars" kind. I don't see gender as much of a factor. Perhaps if there's something like "it had been thought possible that prolonged spaceflight renders humans infertile. We know from male spaceflight that this is not true for men, and Christina Koch's experience indicates this is not true for women either". Without this kind of discovery, I just don't find it very interesting. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "achieving the longest continuous spaceflight by a woman" is not remarkable; "achieving the longest continuous spaceflight" is. © Tbhotch (en-3). 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. From the PC point of view, "by a woman" would seem rather sexist. – Sca (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
But it is remarked upon, (see eg., "single longest stay in space by a woman"; "breaking an iconic space record for womankind"; and multiple news sources). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I'm more a fan of humankind, though I do like women (if they can stand me). – Sca (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, the fact that the person in question is female has, as far as I'm aware, nothing to do with performance as an astronaut. (Both sexes are weightless in space, and physical strength doesn't seem to be a factor.) – Sca (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this is a notable achievement that is getting significant news coverage (cf Realtable's comment), and per Gamaliel. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support the article is pretty decent, the actual press has taken note of the story, and it's a good opportunity to counter systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius and InedibleHulk. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per The ed17. Jusdafax (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per InedibleHulk. Lepricavark (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2020 (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

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2020 Van avalanchesEdit

Article: 2020 Van avalanches (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 41 people are killed in a series of avalanches in Bahçesaray, Van, Turkey.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Took out a minibus LaserLegs (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now - article is only a stub, and needs a lot of expansion. Probably support once that's done, sounds like a major enough incident.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just joining in to say that I've added a bit more information to the article and will try to expand it further in the coming days, though I'm not sure if it's too late to include in ITN by now :) Skycycle (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support these probably rank among the deadliest avalanches in history. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It is ranked number 29. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The article is still quite short at ~400 words, but passable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support checks all the boxes.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though it is a tragedy, the avalanche does not rank in the top 25 in terms of fatalities. Even within Turkey, there were far worse avalanches in 1992 and 1993 and the article and Turkish media don't frame this as front-page news. TRT World, for example, doesn't put it on their main page for international news. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fuzheado. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support large loss of life, far important than some arbitrary spaceflight. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
!!!! SPACE STATION KLAXON !!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
There's at least some actual meaning and logic in my opposition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – This has been in the news for several days, and fatalities (which may increase) make it fairly significant. But article is quite thin, bordering on a stub. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support I concur, but then I'm not sure what is missing. Brevity is typically an indicator of incompleteness, but not as a rule. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support significant loss of life, somewhat unusual event, doubt we post many stories from Turkey. Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Kirk DouglasEdit

Article: Kirk Douglas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American actor Kirk Douglas dies at the age of 103.
Alternative blurb: ​American actor Kirk Douglas dies. After an impoverished childhood, he starred in 90 films, helped end the Hollywood Blacklist, and was one of the last remaining from Hollywood's Golden Age of cinema.
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter, Washington Post, The Guardian, ABC, CBS, LA Times, NY Times, Variety, BBC
Credits:

 BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Given his age (103), I wonder if we could consider a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Note I am adding a proposed blurb. Though long retired, Douglas was a giant in Hollywood's golden age and is a film legend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The article is almost ready. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb unless it becomes clear that the outpouring of grief, tributes, etc is the equivalent of what we saw for Mandela, Bowie, Prince, Carrie Fisher, etc. So far, it just looks like the death of a notable person, which is what RD is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not the customary standard for a blurb at ITN. What we generally judge is their place in history and their rank or importance within their field. If public mourning were the standard we might as well eliminate almost everybody outside of current celebrities and heads of state. In this case; Douglas was by any reasonable measure in the absolute top rank of film legends. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, That's not how I judge death blurbs. I judge it based on whether the death is an obituary or the death is a news story. Kobe Bryant is another good example of that. Kirk Douglas is of course a legend of Hollywood. But, I doubt we're going to see the same level of coverage for him as we saw for Kobe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
So you're just choosing to pretend the "major transformative leader" qualifier doesn't exist? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used. What is your evidence that this is an exception to that? Is there something in sources I can read about the manner of his death attracting a lot of attention? What about real-world events memorializing him that we'd need to mention in the blurb? Have there been significant numbers of those? The "major transformative leader" qualification is not a synonym for "I really like him and personally think he's important to me". To demonstrate that, you'd need evidence in the form of source text that shows that either the manner of his death, or the reactions to it, were above-and-beyond the normal "So-and-so died at age of such and such". What is your evidence for that? --Jayron32 14:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb needs improving, but besides of that I think its good to go. Jtnav04 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This is tough, but we need a better line in the sand on RD blurbs on celebs, and I don't think Douglas makes that. Legendary actor, no question, but was he one of the greats? Ehhhhhhhhh... its debatable enough that I'd advise againsta blurb. Oppose RD on article quality, at least one tagged section. --Masem (t) 00:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Bah! to Blurb "Health complications" at 103, what a scoop! Huge star, though, of course. Deserves credit, just not in a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - They don't come any bigger or more legendary. Jusdafax (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb One of the greats of the Golden Years of Hollywood, and one of the last of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment old man dies of old age is exactly what RD is for. Sourcing is better but not there yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Loved him as an actor (perhaps not so much as a person), but I can't really work up the enthusiasm for a blurb here. He wasn't just old, he was extremely old, and his career was long behind him by every conceivable metric. I understand the arguments based on his significance, but there's more to being blurbworthy than that, imo, like extended tributes or some surprise factor. Granted, I'll give you that I was surprised by his death because I'd figured he'd found the secret to immortality by this point. :p Nohomersryan (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - absolute legend, 'nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Legend, what's more unique is that he's one of the last surviving stars of the Hollywood's Golden Age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - One of the last surviving people of the Golden Age of Hollywood. --Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, but not the one proposed, since it implies his age was a factor. Better to focus on his having been "a legendary actor and one of the last from the Golden Age of cinema," as Olivia de Havilland is now. She's also 103, and was in 49 films, to Douglas's 90. --Light show (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • We cannot go in anywhere close to that much praise in a blurb. Blurbs need to be neutral if we're going to do one. --Masem (t) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The word "legendary" was used in a number of quotes in the article and as cited headlines from CBS and the LA Times. Without the word, it focuses more on his longevity. --Light show (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  Posted to RD while blurb discussion continues. El_C 06:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb didn't we post the dude turning 100 in OTD? I'd suppose his death is at least as notable as that. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any posting until those awards are fully referenced. Once that's done, a blurb is fine, other than the tedious and predictable Trump nonsense and more coronavirus cases tickers going on, Douglas' death is top news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
While I didn't add most of those, I can cite probably all of them in about 15 minutes if there's a way to. --Light show (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb some very famous people, regardless of how old they were when they died, are worthy of blurbs based on their notability alone. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • PULL – What the fuck? This is a shamble of an article. So much unsourced crap. No mention of Natalie Wood. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    I wouldn't really expect it to mention Natalie Wood, per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The source of that story is apparently an anonymous blogger, and the major reliable sources don't mention it. You're right that it shouldn't have been posted until the citations were fixed though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. The rules say: "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries ... the "recent deaths" section is usually used". He was a relatively major figure in his field, but per the comments on Daniel arap Moi below, not transformative in the Thatcher, Mandela mould. If that's the standard, then let's apply it across the board, not give Hollywood actors a free pass because more people have heard of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It's felt that ending the Hollywood Black List is transformative, as implied in today's LA Times headline, which focused on that fact, .."Spartacus’ star helped end Hollywood blacklist." --Light show (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Old actor dies. Not that important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - from his own article, he was ranked 17th in the list of greatest male American film actors of the classical film era. That's a very specific field that he failed to top or come close to topping; one wonders how far down he would end up if the field was opened up to all actors, of all nationalities, and of all genders. He also failed to win an acting Oscar. That's not significant enough to merit a blurb. However, I will grant that he merited a blurb discussion. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
If you look at AFI's ranking, the first 25 were all major stars. --Light show (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb helping end the Hollywood blacklist is a major transformative event of the American film industry, enough that it pushes him over imo. GuzzyG (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    A major transformative event "of the American film industry" indeed. But not of a major transformative leader in the world as a whole, as required by the guideline. There are only a handful of people eligible for such blurbs, and they are mainly the Thatcher, Mandela types, not every major Hollywood star of yesteryear.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, you're really testing the limits of good faith. The guideline clearly states leaders "in their field," not "the world as a whole." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Fine, I've struck that part. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of bad faith, but it was a bad idea for me to cite that page anyway, as it was written two months ago by one editor and may not necessarily represent what actually happens on the ground. I think setting the bar high for deaths through old-age is a good idea, either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral on blurb - I'm really not sure where to fall on this. He definitely was an accomplished Hollywood actor, but does that alone qualify him for blurb status? If we use Kobe Bryant and Carrie Fisher as a benchmark, the answer is yes. But we also did not post a blurb for Terry Jones, who was also retired and aging when he passed away. I know one thing for sure though; I completely oppose alt-blurb 1. That blurb sounds as though it's pleading to the reader for understanding as to why a blurb was posted, to the point of puffery, and many readers outside the United States won't have any clue what the Hollywood Blacklist or Hollywood's Golden Age is, or how relevant it is to contemporary society outside the U.S..--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was indeed at the top of his field and that field is acting, which is not an insignificant one and involves millions of people worldwide. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comment - By the way, I realize that this is something where TRM and I are going to be at odds, but we really need some clarification on death blurbs in terms of what constitutes being "transformative". Amakuru above uses the oft-repeated Thatcher-Mandela status, one that Kobe Bryant himself would fail if his death were not so sudden and unusual, as he never aspired to high office outside of his professional basketball career. But many people in that discussion argued that he was indeed transformative in his own sport. So there desperately needs to be some clarity on how "transformative" someone needs to be, either in the scale of their profession or in global society as a whole, rather than having it be up to the interpretation of whomever shows up to participate in a discussion that day.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    I would hold that no such clarity could ever be found. Given the insane fervor, erratic history, and constant whataboutism they cause, it would seem prudent to abandon RD blurbs all together (bearing in mind that IAR could be invoked when needed). We didn't NEED to blurb Kobe, Prince, Fisher, Thatcher, or Mandela. Trying to parse the borderline cases will always reflect the biases of the relatively small group that posts here. Seriously, we almost blurbed a Python a few weeks ago. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Clarification is easy. Just provide sources that show that 1) the manner of his death was significant enough that it received significant coverage and thus bears special note or 2) The events after his death such as significant memorial commemorations and the like, also need note. We don't need to decide for ourselves who is "transformative". The reliable sources will do that for us by reporting those things. We don't even need to personally have ever heard of the person who died. Just be able to read the reliable sources people provide, and judge by the evidence ourselves. --Jayron32 14:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    That's a reasonable argument, but obit writers tend to be most hagiographic when covering subjects that are the least known, as the audience needs convincing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    No, obits, no matter how much purple prose they use, are not memorial commemorations. I mean, are there events where thousands of people showed up? Did someone create a makeshift statue where thousands of people have been laying wreathes? Did the funeral cause a riot that had to be broken up by police? That sort of thing would need explaining in a blurb. The existence of an obit means nothing for blurb-worthiness. Everyone gets an obit. --Jayron32 15:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Keep in mind, there are two allowances for RD blurbs, transformative is one, the other is "unusual death", and that is why Kobe was covered (as was the case with Prince, David Bowie, and Robin Williams), though obviously the unusual death needs to be of a significantly recognizable figure, not some random B-list actor. Douglas' death here is clearly only to be considered if he was a "transformative" one. --Masem (t) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    As noted above, quite a few major news media have considered his helping end, or ending the Hollywood blacklist, a major contribution of his career, considering he acted in and produced the films involved, ie. headlines in NBC, LA Times. Although some, such as Variety, raised his influence above transformative: "Kirk Douglas: A Golden-God Movie Star Who Was Mythic Enough to Symbolize America." IOW, over here, being raised in poverty as an immigrant ragman's son, supporting his mother and six sisters, is even more than Leonard Cohen claimed, and he was given a blurb and image. Morphing from a frog to a prince is fairly transformative, IMO.--Light show (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Transformative or not, his life is the story, not his death, and therefore RD is more appropriate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Per Masem, Muboshgu, P-K3. A widely known (but arguably not "transformative") actor dying of extreme old age may be be a cinema milestone (gravestone?), but is not blurb-level news. R.I.P.Sca (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I find your gallows humor to be quite grave.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Must you be so funereal about it? – Sca (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb None of the circumstances surrounding the death need additional explanation that a blurb would be necessary for. RD is fine. --Jayron32 14:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There are several free images of Douglas if it's determined that a blurb is appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Successful but not revolutionary actor dies in old age, long after he stopped working. He didn't even win the field's top award (Oscar for Best Actor). This is exactly what RD was supposed to be for. Falls well short of the influence of Thatcher/Mandela, which is where our bar should be. Modest Genius talk 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know who invented the Mandela Thatcher standard, but it is nowhere in our guidelines and has never been an accepted standard. Nor should it be as it would effectively block out almost everyone from getting a death blurb. Douglas is being widely described as a Hollywood legend and the greatest male actor of the post World War II era. He was instrumental in breaking the Hollywood blacklist. If that's not enough then we need to seriously consider doing away with death blurbs with the possible exception of heads of state/government who die in office. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody "invented" it, it's just a rule of thumb that's been built up by precedent over the years. And ITN doesn't have very many fixed rules, which is both a bane and a good thing, depending how you look at it. But it's always been the accepted standard that only very major figures get a blurb when they die of old age. Thatcher and Mandela are examples of the calibre of figure that qualifies, and there are very few examples outside of that level.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
He didn't like and soon defied the studio system. Using his own money, he became a solo producer, actor, writer. "I make my own way. Nobody's my boss. Nobody's ever been my boss." The Academy wasn't pleased, which is a reason he didn't win. That same defiant attitude affected Orson Welles's career after Citizen Kane, yet it's now considered the #1 "greatest American film" by the AFI. Awards often have a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – I have no opinion on article quality, as I've repeatedly demonstrated that the regulars push a purely superficial view of such (and exactly what percentage of the community was even aware of the RFC they constantly refer to, anyway?). I did, however, recently read WP:6MILLION, where once again we throw around that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" as if it actually means something. How can any of us claim to be achieving "the sum of all human knowledge" when so much weight is given to spamming whatever the news media is pushing today and not reflecting an appropriate historical perspective, once again shown in numerous rationales in this discussion? Not buying it. Look at all the deceased people we portray as still living because local and regional news outlets have largely ceased covering deaths of notable people pertinent to their audiences. They must be drinking the same Kool-Aid as some of the editors in this discussion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support picture We have a good PD picture of the subject which would improve the quality of the ITN section. The current picture displayed by ITN is of a smirking Donald Trump. That picture has been used before and, this time, it illustrates the failure of the impeachment – a non-event which the public tired of long ago. Note also that Kirk Douglas is rated as a vital topic and that it was the top read article on the English, French and German Wikipedias yesterday and probably many of the others that I haven't checked too. Michael Douglas and Eric Douglas are big too – all having many times more readers than the impeachment. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    There is also File:Kirk Douglas 1969.jpg, which could brighten up the page, in contrast to the mood nowadays. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion – I have updated the nomination accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I too like this suggestion, though I can't claim neutrality. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Photo swapped. We have to wait for the other KD photo to get cascading protection. I too am tired of seeing Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • LOL. The last time this was tried (sticking in a photo in from an RD - Chris Cornell), I got called "crazy" and it was reverted. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, I have no idea why. Maybe because the photo it was replacing wasn't that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly the previous image had been there for ages. Needless to say, I still think it was a good idea (Cornell had been discussed for a blurb but it was very no-consensus) and I think it's a good idea here as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent compromise where (1) there isn't an obviously more current image illustrating the main news; and (2) the deceased falls into the grey area where a substantial group of editors are arguing for a blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Good call swapping the photo, it may be worth revisiting the "Photos for RD" discussion. If a good free image exists, put it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, his death isn't really all too important, nor does it have significant consequences. J947(c), at 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess it's decided that it's OK for an RD to have a picture as long as it's replacing Trump. Wild.--WaltCip (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The photo of Trump had been up for ~48 hours, and did not illustrate the news item specifically. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Next time Wikimedia is seeking donations, you should withhold your contribution until Jimbo Wales announces an investigation into this matter. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Meh. The entire world knows what Trump looks like, the image wasn't exactly providing the reader with useful information. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
And to think we passed up the opportunity to run a good one. – Sca (talk)
  • Comment I supported the blurb, but I appreciate that we've set the precedent that RDs can have pictures. Seeing as we're split nearly 50/50 on the blurb, an intermediate option is desirable. There is no reason for a rule saying that an RD cannot have a picture. Davey2116 (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • FYI this was the discussion last time it was tried, and here is the discussion afterwards. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support picture the other ITN items don't really have fully relevant pictures anyway - a generic Donald Trump picture just doesn't cut it. Juxlos (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb transformative individual in his field. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Acquittal of Donald TrumpEdit

Article: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Senate votes to acquit President Donald Trump (pictured) on two articles of impeachment.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States Senate acquits President Donald Trump (pictured) of both articles of impeachment.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States Senate acquits President Donald Trump (pictured) of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Obviously. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important event. When this is added it should be removed from Ongoing.  Nixinova  T  C   21:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Tallies: 52-48 abuse of power, 53-47 obstruction of Congress. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)  
  • Pro forma Support Obviously. Also Support concurrent removal from ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, blurb is good. Remove from ongoing. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important event. Tagged article looks ready; remove from ongoing.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. readyBabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest we update the blurb, to explain what the articles of impeachment was about. See AltBlurb2. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2 @Muboshgu: or at least replace the "both" with "two". – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Use WP:ERRORS for requesting changes to the blurb.  Nixinova  T  C   22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      @Nixinova: no, this is the venue for such discussions. ERRORS is just for errors, which are clear and obvious and any admin can action. Style and wording changes are a matter for this project and belong here.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Iowa Democratic caucusesEdit

SNOW close. SpencerT•C 03:13, 5 February 2020 (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: 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Don't know, suggestions?
News source(s): See article
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Nominating for Peregrine Fisher on the talk page Banedon (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd support putting 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries in ongoing; easily passes all the criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait / weak support The article is quite good; we wouldn't post the Iowa caucus results in normal circumstances, but the state party's incompetence here is noteworthy. In any case we should wait until the winner is determined for sure. As of this writing it's unclear when that will be. Davey2116 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The winner was clearly Donald Trump. The loosers... pretty much everybody else. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose While what ends up happening in Iowa will have lingering effects on the rest of this election season, let's not pretend this has immediate, direct international impact to the world. In the US here, the situation is laughably ironic, with the promise of simplified voting having failed drastically on such a key race, but there's the immediacy of the situation compared to what the net result will be after the other 49 states have their primaries and we figure out who's running for the Democrats, which is the first potentially postable point for this election cycle. (and even then, we have to be well aware of the US Centricness of the world press particularly this cycle, everyone wants Trump out, but we're ITN and have to stay neutral and impartial here. --Masem (t) 01:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the botched choosing of people from one state who will choose the nominee of a single political party be their candidate for POTUS. This is not USApedia. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A small part of an ITN/R story – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2020 (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 attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Volker David KirchnerEdit

Article: Volker David Kirchner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SWR WK
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German composer of operas and other music, Gilgamesh for EXPO 2000 - I updated the article for his 75th birthday, 2 years ago. Publisher Schott has a works list. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose while this article is technically up to snuff, this death is not being reported in English language sources and the subject is very niche and only marginally notable enough for an article. 1779Days (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    We look for sources here, not notability. An opera commisioned for the EXPO, literally "exposed" to an international public, seems notable enough. The death of Márta Kurtág wasn't reported in international papers until much later, - we can't wait for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks adequate. (FWIW – and I know some will say 'nothing' – he's in German and French Wikis' RD sections.)Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - good quality. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: José Luis CuerdaEdit

Article: José Luis Cuerda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Influent and awarded Spanish filmmaker whose films have ended up being ones of most relevants in Spanish cinema, although article needing improving. Alsoriano97 talk 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub consisting of only three sentences. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose – not ready,BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, far too stubby. J947(c), at 06:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Closed, stale, Stephen 23:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Re-added) Ongoing: 2019 nCoV OutbreakEdit

Article: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is about to roll off of ITN. I am sure that re-adding it to Ongoing is foregone, given the rapid state of news and global attention, but the nomination is here for procedure. Article is getting 100+ updates per day, many substantial, and is tracking the RSes very well. I have re-named the nomination to reflect what will probably be the eventual name of the article (after move) and to more accurately reflect the new name used in RSes. 130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment there was strong support to return to ongoing in the blurb discussion, I don't think we need this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose because it will automatically added in ongoing section if that blurb on 30 January fell down to archive. There are strong support to include in ongoing unless blurb is fallen to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is still getting updates, good candidate to slide it into an Ongoing slot once it rolls off. --Jayron32 17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that both Support and Opposition are in favor of the same thing. I don't think we need any other debate - this is as stone-cold obvious as they come. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Right but since the rules were changed, taking away admin discretion in adding items to Ongoing we are obliged to go through this, are we not?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Right, but we don't need "admin discretion" because there was very clear support in the blurb nomination to return to OG once it rolled off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-posted to Ongoing - you can call it consensus from before, consensus here, or admin discretion, whichever you prefer. But clearly a consensus to have this back at ongoing, now that it's rolled off the bottom of the blurbs again.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd call it WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd changed the rules because some contentious blurb stories had "automatically" rolled into OG and it's next to impossible to crowbar a story out of there. I see no reason why we can't build consensus to roll into OG when the blurb expires as part of the blurb nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, none of the ones that had were particularly contentious. Some people just feel like they need to be involved with every decision, and automatically object when they feel like they weren't asked, regardless of whether or not the decision was a good one. --Jayron32 13:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, it's quite easy to remove a story from the ongoing section. You just need to 1) stop news organizations from reporting it and 2) stop Wikipedia editors from improving the article in the ongoing link. --Jayron32 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Post-Posting Comment – With the China death toll (9081,016) rising daily, and the number of cases outside China (350460) growing – and with prime RS sites continuing to feature the story prominently [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] – it seems time to repost as a blurb. Understand the 'rolling off' issue, but updated versions could be re-posted as available. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It could be, but if it's a substantial difference in the story it should be re-nominated here on ITN/C. SpencerT•C 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Impeachment trial of Donald TrumpEdit

consensus is to wait until after the final vote --Jayron32 17:06, 4 February 2020 (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: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: the article has not update many days ago as trial was ended. Thats a reason to remove this article from ongoing. 110.137.171.220 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy oppose Trial isn't over, and it's been updated since the oldest blurb, which is Jan 30 coronavirus blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support This trial arguments have concluded and the whole process has now become an uneventful drama. Even Cnn.com has now taken it off from their homepage. Talking about the updates, The CAA protests saw 30 Kbs of update in the same period and yet it was taken down. --DBigXray 10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Updated yesterday regarding closing arguments. This item is about a process, with a defined end, and that end is coming soon -- it won't be a zombie item in the box forever. Article is in great shape and is a WP:SUMMARY of the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    LaserLegs, Please enlighten us, what eventful and earth shattering updates did the article got recently ? DBigXray 12:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wait to remove until the trial itself has ended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that the only thing left is the acquittal, which will almost certainly be blurbed. If the vote is delayed for whatever reason, the case for ongoing becomes thinner. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal until it ends(likely tomorrow) with the acquittal(which will likely be posted). 331dot (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until tomorrow's acquittal. This can be removed once the acquittal is (presumably) posted as a blurb. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    Comment For supporters and opposed of ongoing removal, This article likely be remove from ongoing at least tomorrow because one thing left is acquittal, which likely be posted on blurb. So even someone support it to removed, let's wait until tommorow at least of February 5th vote in Senate. If majority support for ongoing removal, this article will likely remove from ongoing after Senate acquittal vote.110.137.171.220 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. Banedon (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. The aquittal is imminent; we can wait another day (or two) for that. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that that will merit a blurb, but either way the trial will no longer be ongoing. Modest Genius talk 13:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Senate is in the final stages to bring the matter to a close with the vote likely to acquit to come this week, next week at the worst. Regardless of the vote result, the result will be a very likely ITN, which should remove this from ongoing and should not go back in, unless by some remote chance that the Senate actually votes to convict. --Masem (t) 15:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until result while acquittal appears to be a foregone conclusion and would likely not merit a blurb, there's no reason not to wait until the process formally closes. On the off chance that the Senate convicts him, that would merit a blurb. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until tomorrow, when he's acquitted. Then, we can nominate it for the In The News box. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until tomorrow, when he will be acquitted (in all likelihood) --Rockstonetalk to me! 16:26, 4 February 2020 (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 SteinerEdit

Nominator's comments: Influential literary critic, public intellectual and Holocaust survivor. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I agree the article could be more happily structured, but the referencing seems fairly good to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a sprinkling of [citation needed] tags and the maintenance tag there for the mainly unreferenced "Awards and honors" section. This is a BLP so it simply can't be posted in its current state. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Is it really covered by WP:BLP? Nothing in the article is "particularly [...] contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". I agree that the article is not perfect, but there seems no particular logic behind many of the <citation needed> tags. As for awards, I would personally consider the section worth culling entirely. Do you agree? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest it's better to reference the claims rather than simply cull them for the purposes of getting it onto the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Closed, stale, Stephen 23:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Daniel arap MoiEdit

Posted as RD, no consensus for blurb. Stephen 03:26, 6 February 2020 (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: Daniel arap Moi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi dies at the age of 95
News source(s): KDRTV
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Former President of Kenya for 14 years. The news of his death still coming out. The article has several issues. The issues are resolved in my point of view. --SirEdimon (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and support Blurb, once the quality issues are sorted. A major transformative leader who dominated Kenyan life during his tenure. And I think it was 24 years, not 14.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: the quality issues (which are fairly minor) should be balanced against his importance in Kenyan history and the overall standard of African articles on Wikipedia. However, I do have reservations about the lead which steps around the repressive nature of his regime which is apparent elsewhere in the article —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Brigade Piron: I'm slowly working through the referencing issues in the article, hope to get that finished this afternoon, after which the article should pass for ITN on the citation front. Most of what's there now appears verifiable and basically accurate. Re the balance of the lead, do you have any particular suggestions, or aspects of the controversial regime which appear in the body and should be summarised in the lead? I can attempt to summarise those in the lead too.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose still needs references and most of the eponyms don't even have articles, how do we even know they're real? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    I've split the others into a sub-list List of things named after Daniel arap Moi. That needs some referencing etc. but I don't suspect them of being fake.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support relatively little issues and some have been fixed, Weak Support for blurb. Juxlos (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've fixed up the citations needed, so I think this is good to go now. I still think this is worth a blurb - definitely a very major figure in African politics for more than two decades, and nobody has objected to that yet - but will leave it up to the promoter to decide.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article is ready now, and Moi was clearly a dominant figure in Kenya. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Agree with Amakuru (and thanks for greatly improving the quality of the article). Highly influential figure in African politics -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Upgraded to blurb. Disclaimer: I'm WP:INVOLVED here, because I !voted to support the blurb above, but with the current tally at 3.5 supports, and nobody having said they oppose the idea of a blurb, I'm making an WP:IAR WP:BOLD determination that there's a consensus for it. As usual, if anyone disagrees with this action then please holler in my general direction or revert and discuss, as you see fit. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb - this is getting weird by the day. I haven't seen more than a ticker about his death on TV & he gets a blurb. 39.50.212.206 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a bit too BOLD, given a) how long (and when) the nom was active, b) it was already "decisioned" by an editor, c) 3.5 supports does not demand quick action, and d) you are involved. I'm neutral on the case itself - he doesn't strike me as a transformative world leader, but maybe that's because "we" don't "let" Africans have that kind of influence. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. This isn't worth pulling, but there should have been more input before turning the RD into a blurb. More generally, perhaps the 'recent deaths = yes' entry in the template should be switched to 'no' if there's the possibility of a blurb. I suspect a lot of ITN/C commenters gloss over the yellow RD nominations (I know I do, only reading the discussion in detail if it's someone I've heard of). Modest Genius talk 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Striking first point as I misread the timestamp - nom was active > 24 hours. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, and let's stop posting extremely old people dying as blurbs. Say no to Jimmy Carter now. The readers can click on the name on the ticker. Abductive (reasoning) 13:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb Amakuru you should have posted as RD and let the blurb discussion continue until there was consensus for it. I support RD only, per Abductive.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, overlooked that it had already been posted as RD, but still, discussion should have continued.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pulled back to RD. I won't pretend I'm not disappointed, and I made the above posting in good faith, as the listing had been up for 30 hours already with unanimous support from four different users at the time. But hey ho, that's the way it goes I suppose. We probably need to nail down who exactly gets blurbs on their deaths, because there doesn't seem consensus on what the criteria should be.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Indifferent to weak support for blurb I could go either way on a blurb for this one, leaning ever-so slightly toward a blurb. While DaM was an important leader on a regional scale, Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, I would strongly support a blurb when he dies, as a major, transformative world leader. 1779Days (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Moi wasn't just a former president, he ruled Kenya for decades and was a notable African politician. (Though this doesn't mean anything here at ITN) the article has been listed as Vital. Bush Sr. got a blurb and so did former Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both died in their 90s. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb following my earlier comment above. Kenya is the sixth biggest country in Africa by population, and a regional power. I do not like blurbs for RD, but this is as good a candidate as any. Plus the article is now much improved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Since all we can say is "he died", there's not reason to take up blurb space. The reason the RD section was created was to report deaths where nothing extra needs to be said other than "So and so died at the age of such and such". That's all we have here. Per the guidelines, For deaths where the person's life is the main story...the "recent deaths" section is usually used. I see no reason to deviate from that in this case. --Jayron32 17:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Blurbs for deaths should only be for people whose death becomes the news story, a la Mandela, Bowie, Thatcher, Carrie Fisher, Prince, etc. The death isn't a big news story. This is an old person dying, and just because he was a head of state does not mean he should get a blurb. Kenya's population isn't relevant to the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Ninety-five-year-old political figure, out of office nearly two decades, dies from medical/health causes. Normally I wouldn't support pulling a blurb once it's been posted, but this was highly borderline and there's a lot of real news out there. – Sca (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (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: Willie WoodEdit

Article: Willie Wood (American football) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [17]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Significant North American sports figure, first black QB in Pac 12 history, first black head coach in CFL. NFL hall of famer, 9x all-pro. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - well sourced, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support No issues.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too soon for a non-free image to be used under fair use. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    It seems the non-free image rationale is credible (File talk:Willie Wood Packers.jpg). Killiondude (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Image is replaceable.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    As mentioned in the link to the file talk page provided by Killiondude above, in theory yes, but in practice it's exceedingly unlikely to happen. In any case, why not simply remove the image if that's the only barrier to posting?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ITN is an area of Wikipedia that I have never frequented, so I won't comment on the nom itself. However, I will address the image (as I uploaded it). "Wood had been confined to assisted living facilities for about 13 years before his death and had suffered from advanced stage dementia for nearly a decade". He just hasn't been out and about to photographed during the digital image age. It's not like similar players from his era (like Paul Hornung) who have returned to Lambeau Field in heir old age. The likelihood of reasonably tracking down someone with a free photo of Willie Wood it highly unlikely. There also doesn't appear to be any timeframe in WP:NFCCP that would preclude use of a non-free image immediately after a death if there is clearly "no free equivalent" that will likely become available. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Speaking with an NFC hat on, this is exactly an appropriate situation where the NFC can be used because we can document the person was not readily out in public (in this case, long term assisted living), and thus can safely assume there is likely no free image that could have been created over the last decade. NFC is fine here. --Masem (t) 22:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Or remove the image, as I have done, and wait 6 months to see if a family member or friend comes forward with a more modern photo to celebrate his life. There's no rush to upload an image. Stephen 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Which I reverted. Please provide a policy that backs up what you are saying. Timing isn't discussed anywhere. The burden isn't on us to search the ends of the earth for a free photo. If a free one isn't available, or likely to be ever made available, fair use can be claimed. A family member coming forward to Wikipedia with a photo?? Really? Does that routinely happen? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Also, removing the photo from the article isn't the proper way to challenge the image Stephen. If you believe the fair use claim isn't valid, then propose deletion at WP:FFD. Removing the image from the article won't lead to any consensus discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted. NFC concerns seem to be resolved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Far from it, MSGJ, the image is still in place on the article, despite Stephen removing it yesterday. This should not appear on our main page while it still has a copyrighted image on it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, The Rambling Man, MSGJ, Masem, Stephen, Pawnkingthree, PCN02WPS: There seems to be two issues here. (1) Having the article link on the main page because there are concerns about the image. (2) The image's non-free use rationale. Regarding (1), I have no prejudice to the article's removal from the main page. That's for you all to decide. Regarding (2), removing the image from the article doesn't do anything, nor is it rooted in policy. If there is a disputed non-free use rationale, then nominate the image at WP:FFD and make your case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

February 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Gene ReynoldsEdit

Article: Gene Reynolds (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, Variety, Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Actor, director and longtime producer. The article is orange tagged since 2013, but I'm working on it. Issues resolved. --SirEdimon (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

  • Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I added the death to that yesterday but felt the article was too far from quality for ITN and did not nominate. It is clearly in shape now (including a bulk source to cover the ology part) so seems ready. --Masem (t) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zhang ChangshouEdit

Article: Zhang Changshou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential archaeologist. Death announced on this date (died on Jan. 30). Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protestsEdit

Article: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Corona virus blurb went in 1/30, last update to this article is 2/1. The article is broken down geographically and many regions have had no update for well over a week. The updates are poor, with a one liner on Feb 1 about thousands gathering for a pride parade (where there were also slogans shouted against the CAA). The last events of any notability was a human chain on Jan 26 that had 6 to 7 million people however there is but three sentences of prose to describe it (no details about planning, execution, logistics, or whom to attribute the attendance) and a shooting on 1/30 which resulted in one injury (also lacking any prose outside the "chronology" section). The only two events of any sort of significance don't have an update that would have gotten them posted to the main page on their own -- simply put the article is a massive running list of "what" with very little else. Lastly, it's a monster, is yellow tagged for a copy edit and there are paragraphs of prose outside the chronology section are unrelated factoids stitched together without whitespace. The protests may still be "in the news" and I'm certain you'll find WP:RS reporting it, but the article that our WP:READERS read is not being continuously updated with "new, pertinent information" (this article was posted because of protests, not political machinations) and is in a poor state to feature on the main page. Time to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently only topics like Brexit and Trump's impeachment (US-UK) are allowed to linger on for months as a coat hanger. This is a clear bias. --DBigXray 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. This article has also suffered under the pressure of increased exposure on the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.  Nixinova  T  C   00:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Haven't heard about this one in weeks Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Removal While there are still protests going on, they are a dull roar relative to the rest of the world news and far from how violent they were when we first posted. No prejudice of reposting if a major shift happens since there's still controversy over it. --Masem (t) 02:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 02:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I am quite surprised by how quickly this has been pulled off. In another Ongoing removal discussion Bagumba pointed that "Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump isn't over, and it's been updated since the oldest blurb, which is Jan 30 coronavirus blurb." Similarly approx 30 Kbs of update were added to this article since Jan 30 and yet this has been voted out. The issue of grammar, is quite shallow and easily fixed. Removal here is an example of an obvious bias against topics that are not US-UK related. --DBigXray 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-post per DBigXray. Clearly still ongoing,[18][19] and the whole point of this Ongoing section is that there is no time limit, and we therefore keep the item as a one-phrase link at the bottom of the ITN template, until it's no longer in the news. Not just when Wikpedians think it's done it's time. And frankly, like DBigXray I am disappointed in my fellow editors in rushing to remove this clearly ongoing major item in a non-Western country, while at the same time retaining the moribund final rites and foregone-conclusion that is the Trump impeachment trial. Not saying Trump shouldn't be kept - it should (for now) - but so should this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal per the coathanger principal. Things have unquestionably petered out, and yes - Trump and Brexit did linger for far too long. I voted to remove them both. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removal Per above and nom. SpencerT•C 03:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-Removal Oppose per DBigXray and based on media coverage. The protests and related politics haven’t died down. You can check on Google if you want. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=caa&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=nbiv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA-afW3rrnAhWAzTgGHZVcBy8Q_AUIFCgB&biw=1024&bih=665 RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Malawian general electionEdit

Article: 2019 Malawian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Malawian Constitutional Court declares the results of the 2019 general election null and void. Peter Mutharika (pictured) is declared as not having been duly elected and is no longer president.
Alternative blurb: ​The Malawian Constitutional Court annuls the results of the 2019 general election which re-elected Peter Mutharika (pictured), ordering fresh election.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Reuters, AFP
Credits:

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Can I suggest reference to the Court ordering fresh elections is added, with a link to 2020 Malawian general election? Number 57 21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Added.  Nixinova  T  C   01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Number 57: - you are always at liberty to add an altblurb to any nom. At the time I nominated, the 2020 article did not exist, so an altblurb including it is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Article is fairly minimal but maybe just enough. Looks like the court has thrown out the whole govt. (Sources added above.)Sca (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on both quality and notability.  Nixinova  T  C   01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt - not terribly long but article is well-sourced, alt blurb sounds better to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but why not consider "The Malawian Constitutional Court annuls the results of the 2019 general election in which Peter Mutharika (pictured) was re-elected and orders fresh elections." —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt looks good. I have c/e'd the alt to say "fresh election" instead of " a new election". Brigade Piron IMHO alt blurb is good enough. DBigXray 11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Marked ready. Alt1 looks okay. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose original blurb because there is grammar errors what is meaning of "null and void". But I Support for Alt1 because it is well reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted - ALT1, per consensus above.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) RD: Bernard EbbersEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:28, 7 February 2020 (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: Bernard Ebbers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Former CEO of WorldCom that went to prison on fraud charges . Article seems okay on sourcing? Writing could be out of proseline but not a requirement for ITN. Masem (t) 16:12, 3 February 2020 (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) Super Bowl LIVEdit

Article: Super Bowl LIV (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In American football, the Kansas City Chiefs defeat the San Francisco 49ers to win the Super Bowl (MVP Patrick Mahomes pictured).
Credits:

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) 03:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - well sourced, lots of prose, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until a prose summary has been added to the article. SounderBruce 03:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    SounderBruce, it's been added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose as there are still many paragraphs without citations and the prose itself is very dull. The team preview sections include far too many statistics and not enough of the narrative. Other sections, like Advertising and Entertainment, are short despite being important parts of the event. SounderBruce 08:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as as ITNR -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Rockstone35 Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits/"support as ITNR"; this discussion is for evaluating the quality of the article. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the details in "Game summary" is unsourced. The details seem quite low level, so either source the current prose or reword based on high-level action described in published recaps.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It is well-referenced and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose many claims completely unreferenced, not just in the game summary section either. A lot of work to do. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    Post-posting support as a global event and a half-decent article. Good work to those of you who made it decent enough post, respect. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although we should never let perfect be the enemy of good, since this event is ITN/R it is important that something so large have the proper sourcing - GA-level sourcing, even - before we post it on the main page for the world to see. Significance is not in dispute as this is ITN/R. Support arguments to this effect are therefore redundant. WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WaltCip I think you must oppose it to include in ITN/R because this nomination only happens in single country, not multiple countries, like Wuhan coronavirus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)
Please do not carry disagreements from one discussion to another. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
That is not why I am opposing. Please read my rationale again, closely.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
All posts must have proper sourcing. The sourcing requirements are not impacted (either way) by ITN/R status or the size of the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but when something has received as much publicity and analysis as the Super Bowl has, it really should not be that hard to find solid, reliable sources for every significant statement in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Trans: ... has received as much sportified hype. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not ready. Unfortunately I have to agree with the opposes - there is a lot of unreferenced material there. I've added a bunch of {{cn}}s; the game summary could also do with at least minimal sourcing. The statistics should be easy to source for those in the know (I'm not one). Modest Genius talk 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Support. The reference improvements are good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the many citation issues have been fixed; I'm sure this won't take long for someone who knows the subject (i.e. not me). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I could understand the urge to post this if we were just waiting on recap and proper sourcing for that, but many of the sections on the lead-up to the game are lacking sources. That's a no-go. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I seem to remember seeing a much worse Brexit article being posted in worse condition. The Brexit article only recently added a section in the body for the 31 January event and the section only has a single sentence about the actual major ITN-worthy event. This is what happens when we set our standards depending on our personal perception of importance. We look like hypocrites. Let's see what happens when North America wakes up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • An blurb-worthy update could easily just be a sentence or two. The recent bump-back-to-blurb of the coronavirus due to the UN's declaration only needed one sentence and the sourcing to reflect that, because the rest of the article already existed and was in good shape. Same with Brexit. For sports events - not singling out the Super Bowl here - describing the event after it happens needs more than one sentence. The sporting event is the meat of the story, whereas in the other cases, it is just additional events atop the main existing one. And we know completing a recap is not impossible to do within 24hr or less when dedicated editors are on it (tip of hat to TRM and Boat Race here). No one is being a hypocrite here. --Masem (t) 15:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
      But there was not even a single sentence when it was posted. Some of the very same people that opposed this item, supported posting Brexit without a single mention of the exit in the body of the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no unreferenced blocks of text anymore -- needs a re-check. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's fully ready, but I've improved the sourcing of the game summary section. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging opposers, @Black Kite, The Rambling Man, SounderBruce, Bagumba, and WaltCip:. All {{cn}} tags have been addressed. Marking ready, unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support now improvements have been made.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ivan KrálEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:27, 7 February 2020 (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: Ivan Král (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Robert Muller (February 2, 2020). Leslie Adler (ed.). "Ivan Kral, author of Dancing Barefoot song, dies, aged 71". Reuters.
Credits:
 7&6=thirteen () 02:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is orange-tagged, and missing some refs. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose many claims in the article unreferenced, and the filmography needs serious work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not sure how I feel about putting an orange-tagged article on the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 4 February 2020 (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) 73rd BAFTA Film AwardsEdit

Article: 73rd British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the British Academy Film Awards, 1917 (director Sam Mendes pictured) wins Best Film, along with six other awards.
Alternative blurb: ​At the British Academy Film Awards, 1917 wins Best Film and six other awards, including Best Director for Sam Mendes (pictured).
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

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: Could mention that Mendes won Best Director because using his image (alt), though ITN/R mentions film Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I've added a short section of text about the ceremony, similar to the previous awards, to make it more than just a table. PotentPotables (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it's still barely stub in terms of prose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    Support great work from Kingsif, good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for original blurb because it will include problems in grammar (who, when, why), but I recommend to Support Altblurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Not ready. The article is just a big results table; there's a grand total of 170 words of prose. Needs substantial expansion. Also, 'Baftas' is surely better known than 'British Academy Film Awards'. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • "BAFTA" is the initialism for the organization, and while it is common to call these awards BAFTAs in casual speak, it is not precise. "BAFTA Film Awards" would be the only other acceptable alternative (as there are also other BAFTA awards out there now). --Masem (t) 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • As Masem said, BAFTA is the common name of the Academy (British Academy of Film and Television Arts). Imagine calling the Academy Awards 'the Academys' in formal writing. Note that in other years, it's passed with a short prose update, like PotentPotables said, because it's not a prose-y kind of article. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
      • However, there was a presentation - it may not be the media blast that we get from Oscars or other film awards - but there was an audience and it was broadcast, and there a few articles out there talking about some events from it (for example Phoenix' acceptance speech). And now that I was double checking to look, I do see a few lines about it near the bottom. Would like more but that's at addressing there was an actual "show" part of this. --Masem (t) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Now expanded the Ceremony section - this section was previously about as long as it is in previous years, now it might be a bit heavy. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Looks good, I now support. I suggest moving that text above the table, otherwise readers could miss it. Modest Genius talk 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose sourcing is unclear and prose is inadequate. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is the sourcing unclear? Refs can't be added in that table so they're above (though it could theoretically come under PLOT as it was broadcast, anyway) Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The sourcing is actually fine: in the current version sources 1 and 6 cover the whole of the awards and nomination table, which is fine. And while there probably could be more on the ceremony, what's there is at least addressing it. The only thing I see that could be added immediately are award presenters as from previous years. --Masem (t) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    There's barely a stub worth of prose. It's not suitable at all. A quick comparison to last year's article demonstrates what is possible. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Last year's article also has little prose, just a list of presenters. However, the point is moot - I've now massively expanded the prose section. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
And that's brilliant, well done and thank you for such an effort! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks to Kingsif, sufficient prose now.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt1, on film's notability. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Salahuddin WahidEdit

Article: Salahuddin Wahid (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Indonesian politician, religious figure, and VP Candidate back in 2004 Juxlos (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The article is well-referenced, including the updates about his death. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike MooreEdit

Article: Mike Moore (New Zealand politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of New Zealand.  Nixinova  T  C   21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs refs, and the self-published website appears to no longer exist in any case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Moore was also director of the World Trade Organization an internationally prominent role. Kiwichris (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article now much tidier and better referenced. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some sections seem to need more sourcing. In particular, unless I'm misunderstanding, the entire World Trade section was supported by something that did not seem to me to be cogent. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed, the link was to the wrong version of the archived page.  Nixinova  T  C   02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this be moved back down to Feb 1 on this page? He died on Feb 1 UTC.  Nixinova  T  C   19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mad Mike HoareEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:26, 7 February 2020 (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: Mad Mike Hoare (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: British World War 2 officer and famous mercenary, inspiration for the film The Wild Geese, references updated Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Many more references added since your post, how does it look to you now? Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support was just about to nominate this myself. Well referenced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose still a few unreferenced claims in there, tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose much seems to be referenced to reviews of, or lectures based on, a book published by his son; some of this is also attributed to organisations who cannot have reviewed the content; the book may or may not be a reliable source (I imagine not), but indirect reports on the book don't seem reliable to me. PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (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 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Peter SerkinEdit

Article: Peter Serkin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Grammy Award winner and great artist. Marginal work on refs is needed. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Half unreferenced.  Nixinova  T  C   04:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    ...which is why I mentioned that some marginal work on refs is needed? Zingarese talk · contribs 13:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes? I said that because that's my reasoning for opposing? Would you prefer "per nom"?  Nixinova  T  C   18:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Thank you for nominating, - wanted to that now. More refs were added, please check again. - Yes, Bach Mozart Beethoven and other bits are not specifically referenced, but as far as I can see no unusual claim is left without a source. More detail would be possible from the obits. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Much improved since I last looked at it.  Nixinova  T  C   05:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)