Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2021

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.

January 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Michel MurrEdit

Article: Michel Murr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Lebanese deputy prime minister, interior minister. COVID-19. - Indefensible (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 World Men's Handball ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2021 World Men's Handball Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Denmark wins the World Men's Handball Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Seattle Times
Credits:

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose a data dump. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Needs some serious tidy up - there are far too many tables, and far too little prose. Including any commentary at all on Denmark's performances and matches which led to their win.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hire a mechanic or something, cause this needs serious repairs. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Say what?Sca (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost no text about the tournament, not even a summary of the final. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Abraham J. TwerskiEdit

Article: Abraham J. Twerski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American rabbi and psychiatrist, died of COVID-19. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Vast swathes of the article are large block-quotes of a single scholar's take on his work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AleatoryPonderings. Tucker Gladden 👑 04:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems like a nice guy, but I agree with AleatoryPonderings. Also, his works have almost no referances at all. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only two of his bajillion works are referenced, as well as the problems mentioned above. Gex4pls (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

January 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Wilhelm KnabeEdit

Article: Wilhelm Knabe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deutschlandfunk
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of The Greens in Germany, member of parliament, scientific knowledge of forests and environment, 97 rich years, in opposition already as a student in East Germany, then West, opposition to arms race ... - I am sorry it took me so long to expand the article. The source given here is the best, but so far only external link, - will work on it right now, he deserves it. Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Very well deserved; only problem is sourcing. Either way I think it is ready for the main page. Tucker Gladden 👑 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - publications section may need clean up as it is largely unsupported, but otherwise the article looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    I added a ref to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Support per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Comment. Gerda -- very nice job in expanding the article. Can you take one pass on trimming the lede of the article? Currently the lede is a narrative, keep it only to the most important elements in a declarative tone. Move the narrative to the appropriate sections within the main body. Ktin (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's what I did. With life in East and West, in science and politics, two parties, and these "firsts", hard to drop something. - I tried anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill HammondEdit

Article: Bill Hammond (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio New Zealand; The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marc WilmoreEdit

Article: Marc Wilmore (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Did some updating. I think this looks ok. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan BurnsEdit

Article: Allan Burns (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood; Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: removed both. The table was added by another editor after the two support votes (but before your vote). I hope no one decides to re-add it.Bloom6132 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: table now all sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Turki bin Nasser Al SaudEdit

Article: Turki bin Nasser Al Saud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Arab News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Saudi environment minister, Air Force leader - Indefensible (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sophie (musician)Edit

Article: Sophie (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NME, Mixmag, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article not ready yet. News still breaking. Musician/trans icon. Fairly okay sourcing. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, Xeon is a very unusual surname, and it's one of the interesting things about this person. Some, perhaps many, of Sophie's fans may not have known what her last name was.
— We shouldn't trash other Wikis by bad-mouthing them as "rubbish" and "junk" – that's garbage, and I refuse to play the game. Sca (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we're all aware now, courtesy of the number of times you tell us what de.wiki is posting, that the contributors there are not interested in verifiable encyclopedic content, I do wonder why you think it's useful to tell us what such a badly managed Wikipedia is doing, unless I suppose it's to use it as a "what not to do" suggestion. They can't even get her mononym correct. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The point was not that German Wiki is so great, but that Wikipedians somewhere else thought it useful to list both names.
Please desist from rudely disparaging the Germans. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It's German Wikipedia and those who think BLP isn't worth adhering to that I'm pointing out here. Time after time we get shown what de.wiki is doing, but it usually does it so badly, it's hardly an "example" to follow. They should be "informed" that they are incorrect, both on their main page and in the article. But then, verifiability isn't something they're worried about. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like they've corrected at least one of their errors. Getting there! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Touché. I'm really not an apologist for German Wiki. It just happens to be the one other Wikipedia I can read easily. But my point was that Sophie's last name is interesting. (How does one pronounce Xeon? What's the derivation?) Further the affiant sayeth naught. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Some, perhaps many, of Sophie's fans may not have known what her last name was. surely that's a reason not to post it. This isn't DYK. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It might make an interesting DYK sometime down the road, though. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Pity if all DYK could come up with about her was her surname. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I imagine the DYKers – of whom I'm not one – could come up with something further. – Sca (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A few stray cns left but they are easily fixed. Otherwise a comprehensive, main page–worthy article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Fully cited. I prefer the mononymous "Sophie" as the COMMONNAME, by far. feminist (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All CN tags taken care of, looks ready for main page. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

January 29Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Dick CallahanEdit

Article: Dick Callahan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB; San Francisco Chronicle; The Mercury News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hilton ValentineEdit

Article: Hilton Valentine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, Billboard
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is updated but frankly quite bad in every other way. Original guitarist for the Animals-- a lad insane (channel two) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment a couple of cites that need fixing, but probably more or less OK after that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nothing to say at all between 1966 and 1994 other than reunions? It's possible... And per Amakuru, some citations needed and needed to be fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral As per Rambling Man and Amakuru above. A solid Meh. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose One unresolved cn tag, and the body problems mentioned by TRM. Gex4pls (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Grady GainesEdit

Article: Grady Gaines (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Houston Chronicle
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Saxophonist who performed with Little Richard. Article looks good. Tucker Gladden 👑 19:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - the Career section is a little stilted right now, it reads more like a set of bullet points than coherent prose, particularly statements like "Gaines was playing his saxophone at The Whispering Pines" which lacks context. It would be nice to see some indication of his early career, how he got into the business. The discography and awards sections seem to imply that a lot was going on in his career in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but there's very little coverage of that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose citations needed and a large career gap in the prose between the late 1950s and 1980. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not so great. Referances needed. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beatriz BarbaEdit

Article: Beatriz Barba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.infobae.com/america/mexico/2021/01/29/murio-beatriz-barba-la-mujer-que-desafio-todo-y-se-convirtio-en-la-primera-arqueologa-mexicana/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article. First woman in Mexico to graduate in archaeology. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maxine CheshireEdit

Article: Maxine Cheshire (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (January 29). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John ChaneyEdit

Article: John Chaney (basketball, born 1932) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Inquirer
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lai XiaominEdit

Article: Lai Xiaomin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chinese Businessman, executed recently. Two missing sources but other than that article seems of fine quality. Gex4pls (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose this might be a WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME issue I don't see anything in the article to suggest notability beyond embezzlement. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Notability not relevant for pre-existing articles. This one dates from June 2018. – Sca (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • He's (or, rather, was) a billionaire. Billionaires are self-evidently notable. 212.74.201.246 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Nope, billionaires are not self-evidently notable, and the article does nothing to explain what makes him notable outside running afoul of the CPC. Give me a minute, I'll take care of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      • When you said "take care of it", I presumed you meant improving the article. Silly me. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As for LaserLegs above. I agree with him. WikiLove Goat (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notability isn't an issue, but the sourcing needs work, particularly in the Personal Life section.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Once sourcing problem is fixed, support. Tucker Gladden 👑 23:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment at AFD now, which may well not be resolved in time for this to make it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree with the AFD nomination (and will write something there soon), but I take real issue with the description of his character in the article. The degree of lavishness and outrageous behaviour attributed to him requires more than a government-approved source (in Personal life) or a Western sternographic relay of the same (in Investigation). That country being what it is, we are never going to read a defense or objection to these points, and after yes-yesterday he'll never get to make them. Many of these points are tangential at best to his actual conviction. These details (spanning 4 years) carry perhaps UNDUE weight compared to the rest of his professional career (34 years). It's an edge case of BLP1E. The article was started in relation to his investigation, which is arguably the 1E. Subject perhaps should have an article, but I don't think it should be featured on the Front Page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

January 28Edit

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Godfrey HodgsonEdit

Article: Godfrey Hodgson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British journalist and historian. Edits done. Article has shaped up well to nice C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Constance IsherwoodEdit

Article: Constance Isherwood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globe and Mail CBC.ca
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian lawyer. Death announced on this date. Article has shaped into a nice Start class biography. Good to go to homepage / RD in the current state. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flavio AlfaroEdit

Article: Flavio Alfaro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The San Diego Union-Tribune
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support it is a brief article, but one season in minor league isn't much to talk about. Notability automatically conferred as an Olympic athlete, anything more that can be added to his silver medal performances? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibongile KhumaloEdit

Article: Sibongile Khumalo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shaibal GuptaEdit

Article: Shaibal Gupta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian social scientist and economist. Article will require some updates. I will get to it after dinner. If someone wants to get to it before me, please feel free to. Cheers. Edits done. Article has expanded into a good C-class biography. Very similar to David Washbrook, not much information on early life available, but, if that information comes available, it can be added. Article is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands currently. Ktin (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Education is an unreferenced section.Support Otherwise OK.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    My bad. The reference fell out when I was moving sections / text. Re-Added that. Referenced now. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article is in good condition. "Worthy" is not relevant to RD nominations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Well reffed, well sourced, and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, Amakuru, Dumelow, and Bagumba: pardon the intrusion. This is ready for the homepage. Ktin (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Admins -- please can you help have a look at this one. Ktin (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cicely TysonEdit

Article: Cicely Tyson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American actress dies at age 96. Davey2116 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely noteworthy, given her history and multiple award she has won. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing issues - Career and Filmography sections virtually unsourced. --Masem (t) 02:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a question of "worthy" or "noteworthy", only article quality matters, and that is far from adequate. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support very nice work Spencer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two sections are barely sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Despite sourcing issues, definitely noteworthy. The article's not a mess or anything and quality doesn't matter to general readers as much as some think; the template is called "In the news," and she is definitely in the news. The quality of the article, or lack thereof, doesn't change that. --ThylekShran (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Quality matters to any articles that are featured on the main page of WP. We aren't posting a sub-par article regardless of importance. --Masem (t) 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several references have been added since this was nominated. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Now seems adequately sourced for Main page presentation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Filmography section still needs sourcing. --Masem (t) 04:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Filmography unsourced.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: can you give this another look? Added references to the CN tags, filmography and awards. SpencerT•C 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fixed all of the remaining CNs in the body; added references to filmography and awards sections. SpencerT•C 18:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Support Now 3 overall supporting references for Filmography (found an encyclopedia with a considerable list). SpencerT•C
  • Support - article seems pretty good, filmography section has 2 overall supporting references per above comment by Spencer. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article problems are fixed, it's ready for the main page. Good work, @Spencer! Tucker Gladden 👑 21:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support In the principle that I recognize she is someone we'd want to cover on RD, I'd caution against the use of using cites like Rotten Tomaotes and TV guide as "catchall" for the filmography section - I know TV guide is rarely fully complete particularly when it comes to guest spots in episodes. That said, I would guess those 3 sources combined are going to hit 90% of the filmography lines which is, for the time being, better than most incomplete bios. (Ideally, in all cases where she wasn't the main actor or recurring there should be sources but I'm not going to oppose furhter at this point). --Masem (t) 23:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Definitely agree. Fortunately the book reference corroborates the filmography prior to 2008; the only things I noted missing are appearances on late night talk shows that are cited in the book (e.g. SNL, Tavis Smiley), and it does include references for individual shows and uncredited roles. The one challenge is that TV movies are under movies in the book but TV in the Wikipedia article. I'll do some additional tidying. SpencerT•C 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  •   Posted Rough consensus that filmography sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lewis WolpertEdit

Article: Lewis Wolpert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Humanists UK, Royal Society
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A major figure in developmental biology for his work in the late 1960s establishing the French flag model for how cells can know where they are in a developing organism, and therefore which genes should be activated (and also how the same signals can be re-used in different parts of the body plan with different meanings). In latter years he has been a leading communicator about science, with frequent media appearances and books about cell biology, cell development, evolution, aging, the nature of science, and his own depression.
The article could use some work, in particular to present his work and some of his main themes in a more organised way and with more comprehensiveness -- currently the presentation of this comes over as a bit randomly thrown together and a bit shallow. But as a significant "public intellectual" IMO he would be worth the work to make a front-page worthy article, and to present some of his thought a bit more fully. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support For now. Seems like a very interesting person, but article is missing way too many refs, not even mentioning problems with the main body and death sections. Just from a skim, seems to be all sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Eligiable, but article is like clay. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Opposea few references missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Gave this one a reasonably thorough rewrite. Should meet hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. @The Rambling Man, WikiLove Goat, and Gex4pls: – Please give this a relook. I am awake for the next couple of hours for any additional edits. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for the updates Ktin, looks like it's good to go now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. No further objections since the fixes and opposers haven't circled back to it, so assuming this one was OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Stephen and Amakuru: this article was on the homepage for ~15 hours. There is sufficient space on the second row (not even going to the third row) to have this one to run for 24 hours. Please can you consider. Ktin (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    15 hours seems sufficient to me, we've had plenty of RDs run far shorter than that. Adding a 7th RD is supposed to be a rare IAR action, not something we do all the time, and the community made it clear recently that they don't favour minimum posting times. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru, Not really, right Amakuru. The community specifically rejected a 36 hour proposal, with most folks in that thread mentioning that 24 hours (give or take a few) is reasonable. Specifically, that was the basis on which (i.e. to seek guidance on what happens if the quest for 24 hours takes us to row #3) the proposal to free up the COVID banner was introduced. Seems like here we would be not be beyond 25% of row #2 making the space truly not an issue. Greatly appreciate your reconsideration. Ktin (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    I concur with Amakuru. There have been countless RDs that have had far less airtime than 15 hours, especially under the prior dated postings. The proposal for 36 hours was rejected. There was no consensus reached for anything else. Stephen 10:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, and overall the !voting in the discussion was 9–7 against mandating any minimum time at all (discounting those who voted "indifferent"). Right now, the two oldest RDs were posted at around 23:40 UTC last night and even those may have to be chopped soon, as the entries continue to come thick and fast!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Juan del Río MartínEdit

Article: Juan del Río Martín (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Mundo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Military Archbishop of Spain since 2008. Dies from COVID-19. I think the article with a few more tweaks will be ready.

  • Support Next time, list the event in the day it happened, NOT the day it was listed as an ITN candidate. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
WikiLove Goat He died this morning, 28/1. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
There is not much more information on the internet. I'll keep looking. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret, the article is basically a stub and needs some more info on what he did with his life and career.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is too short for what it's covering, needs more than two sections. Gex4pls (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readable prose size isn't even 1500.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul CrutzenEdit

Article: Paul J. Crutzen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel prize winning chemist. Can't see any full obituaries published yet. LukeSurl t c 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll need the article updated first ...--Tone 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support iff the Early Life and Education section is sourced. Everything else looks fine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose whole unreferenced section and awards are verified by his own website? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Kaja Kallas' activities list seems to be supported mainly be her own blog as well, but was approved for a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - made some updates, should be ready soon. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Indefensible, you working on this one? Let know if you need a hand. Ktin (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the offer Ktin, feel free to make any updates and get the article over the finish line. Deserves to be posted I think, might be simplest to just remove the unsupported entries since the rest of the article is pretty well supported. Looks like someone added a banner for the lead section, that is probably the only other issue remaining. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    Indefensible Done and done. Ktin (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Sourcing completed. Lede streamlined. Article meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I have fixed up the issue re the awards section mentioned by TRM above, by sourcing everything to sources other than his own website. Looks OK to me now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

January 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Sonny FoxEdit

Article: Sonny Fox (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: TV Host and broadcaster. Death announced on this date. Article requires some work. Edits done. Article has shaped up to a reasonable C-class biography. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Corky LeeEdit

Article: Corky Lee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Very nice BLP. Spot check of refs turns up no problems.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Guess I'm involved, but there's a support from the IP and nobody has objected so doesn't seem much reason to hold it up further.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020-21 women's strike protests in PolandEdit

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: 2020-21 women's strike protests in Poland (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Widespread protests in Poland have resumed after the Constitutional Tribunal publishes its controversial abortion ban. (Post)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: It had featured on the main page before, major turning point or significant moment at least. It has all the hallmarks of the increasingly polarised liberal-conservative divide that is ongoing in so many places in the world right now, as well as womens rights and role and power of the church and populist right-wing movements. Breaking news at the moment, hence no update specifically to today just yet on the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose to an ITN message, but Support for it to be added in the on-going section without a blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support readding to ongoing. --Masem (t) 00:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good for recent events, but not ITN. Still, article good and event important enough See 2020 Indian Farmers Protest about two months back. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose insufficient update. "Street protests re-started on the evening of 27 January 2021" how many protesters? Where? What did they do? Government response? How can we evaluate the significance of the item when the article is missing such critical information. Also oppose since this is the first protest added to the article since December 13th you've failed to establish that anything is actually "ongoing" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not attention-worthy. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The diff of everything since 17 Jan (!) reveals nothing of note. A single para in nearly two weeks is not updated.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Abortion related protests are hardly significant news. STSC (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait. So far the resumed protests are much smaller than they were in Oct/Nov, when we previously posted this story. If they grow back to those proportions, or the bill is passed, we can reconsider. For now this seems too small to justify posting, even if there was a proper update in the article. Modest Genius talk 14:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – The news is that the Constitutional Court approved the near-total ban Wednesday, and PiS says it will be enforced right away. Abortion rights activists said more protests slated today. Unfortunately, the existing article is a rather jumbled 4,800-word chronology of events beginning in 1993 (most refs in Polish). Cześć!Sca (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose These protests are big in Poland and have been covered by many news outlets couple months ago but I think that we should wait since the protests just resumed yesterday. Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing; article not receiving continuous updates (minimal update in Jan 2021 section). SpencerT•C 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – but support retention in Ongoing, as there have been demos for three nights running. [6] [7]Sca (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) GameStop short squeezeEdit

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


Article: GameStop short squeeze (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The GameStop short squeeze causes GameStop stock to jump from $4 to $371.28 after Reddit users predicted a hedge fund closure over the last week. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The GameStop short squeeze causes GameStop stock to jump from $4 to $500 over a week time period, then crash 36% due to short selling.
News source(s): (The Guardian) (AP News) (BBC News)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Big deal in the business world. Article quality isn’t that good, so maybe do “wait” votes until the article is improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is honestly the funniest business/economic story I've seen in years. But other than that, it unfortunately doesn't reach the threshold of notability for ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support the article is "meh" and could probably just be folded into GameStop but I oppose featuring the Reddit angle in the blurb. The WP:RS mentions reddit but cites "small investors" in general as opposed to something organized in a subreddit. As a market phenomenon though this is interesting, and extreme, and I'd love to see it featured in the box in some capacity. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: this was split off from r/WallStreetBets. This has attracted significant coverage and (despite the name) now extends to companies other than GameStop, such as AMC. There's no good single article to keep this in. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Moreover, billionaire investors like Elon Musk are involved. The genie is out of the bottle.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, if WP:RS is tying it to a notable subreddit I'll believe you. This nom is dying a quick and gruesome death, but it really is interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    NYT cites the Reddit message board as a catalyst for the short squeeze.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Unless this leads to a massive market crash, this is stupid antics in the business world and how easy it is for online communities to manipulate it. --Masem (t) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm going to reiterate my strong oppose here. The /r/wsb board is trying to troll everyone, and while the media may be unable to avoid giving them airtime, we (at ITNC) can. --Masem (t) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Limited if any lasting impact. SpencerT•C 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is trivia and much better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is big news, plenty of coverage. Benjamin (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Article quality ATM simple is not very good, but depending on whether Melvin Capital actually goes bankrupt and/or The SEC/platforms like Robinhood change their rules, this event may have a more significant lasting effect. I say wait until a later date when the article is of higher quality and better sourced. A potential day for an ITN listing could be when some sort of permanent change inspired by this event takes place, but I would hold off for now. (I think we can all agree, however, that this is deeply, deeply funny.) Mooeena💌✒️ 18:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this one of those things that happens frequently in the US like shootings and is ultimately not as important as the breathtaking Gaelic football final? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Very insightful, bravo, keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What is the sound of no hands clapping? – Sca (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (ECx2) I think I would support an improved article. Right now it doesn’t actually mention the hedge fund that required $2.75b bailout (WSJ) after shorting Game Stop; more could also be said about spinoff squeezes like AMC (Marketwatch). And that’s just what I’ve heard of w/o intentionally following this at all. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oppose on quality. In broad strokes I agree with 130... below about still-needed improvements. The NYT is running this A1 above the fold so it’s a big story, but we should not be pushing out our entry until it actually succeeds at giving a solid overview. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If stock market rates were included in ITN, then it would have been a failure. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. If we were to include financial stories which affect only a tiny proportion of the population, we'd have to include post many such stories. The 2020 stock market crash was easily important enough, but this is minuscule in comparison to that. Jim Michael (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. Anyway, markets are volatile, stocks come & go like dust in the wind. – Sca (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - ITN rarely posts business news, and this is a news item that is resulting in calls for reforming the system, which would be significant. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm striking my previous oppose vote and switching to support as this has now turned into a major financial event, since the speculative activity has resulted in major sell-offs in both the S&P 500, Dow and NASDAQ indices.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - this is so unusual and the article is in good shape. We are not being overrun with other, more significant news. Jehochman Talk 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment take it to DYK, a perfect venue for this story. --Tone 21:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
By the time it gets processed nobody will care anymore. This is a hot topic of interest to many people who have heard, and want a reliable overview. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Unless this leads to some kind of huge stock market reforms, this is just some stock market trivia that isn't really important in any kind of grand scheme of things. Gex4pls (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with TRM it would be down the line an interesting DYK once some consequences start happening. But its essentially part of a wider conflict between the new app-driven daytraders and the hedge fund wall street shorters. When you have outcomes like (as reported by the BBC) "Melvin Capital Management, reportedly had to be bailed out with more than $2bn to cover losses" while the situation is ongoing... Two billion is a lot of money. If this helps educate people as to the destructive practice of short selling, more the better. Its in the news. Article is of sufficient quality. Support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support iff it results in NASDAQ/NYSE actually halting trading for a period of time Anything that stops "the" stock market is ITN-worthy, and I say that as someone who usually opposes business news. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly many of the apps and daytrading platforms did effectively halt trading for the day for a lot of people by citing technical or risk issues. While post-close trading continued. (This has led to the usual conspiracy nuttiness, but its still interesting from an impact point of view) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Now have that happen to the actual NYSE/NASDAQ, and you've got yourself a blurb. (I also feel the "technical" stuff is suspicious, but given volume can be 50/50.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, GME was halted by NYSE several times yesterday.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And stock brokerage firms have also stopped trades on GameStop stock and other companies like AMC 64.222.180.90 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Interesting story, and extensively covered by RS. Is it possible to trim the specific numbers from the blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sure – we could put (REDACTED) in their place just like the govt. does. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - it is an unusual story, which is why it has been suddenly picked up by major news outlets all over the world. For those who know about business trading I guess the news would be considered much more significant, for the average person though not clued up in the matter it is still relevant as to how the world changing and the power dynamics involved.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - although this event still has not proven to have widespread and lasting consequences, the sheer magnitude of this event (mentioned in national media), as well as its uniqueness, warrants inclusion. Osunpokeh (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality The article is ugly. Single-sentence paragraphs, barely any images, etc. Would support if the article is improved. As a side note, GME TO THE MOON BABY. Mlb96 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Support Article looks much better now. Mlb96 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't pretend to understand how this market stuff works, but it does seem to be a pretty notable and unusual gaming of the system, and it has been getting a lot of coverage. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I believe this event is unique and pretty much an unprecedented situation that has had broad effects on the market. In addition, there have been numerous questions involving this short squeeze at the White House press briefing and the Fed's press conference earlier today. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Funny as hell but I don't think this rises to the level of ITN.  Nixinova T  C   02:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's unclear if there will be any lasting impact from this beyond some volatile trading this week. If this continues over the coming weeks, then there may be consequences and we may have a story. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait This is certainly "in the news" but the question is 1) what is the state of the article and 2) will this have any impact beyond the current news cycle? 1) can be worked on although the article appears acceptable as is, but we need to wait to see about 2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I usually pine for more business news in ITN, but I can't support this yet. The article is a mish-mash of topics, and the actual reason for this phenomenon (naked short selling) is missing an in-depth section. In fact, it's not mentioned at all, and instead the article pretends that this is all due to traditional stock-in-hand shorting. There's a great article here about politically-connected institutions ignoring SEC regulations and getting punished for it by individuals who are playing by the book. Instead we're treated to missives about COVID and a tenuous list of names and numbers, outdated by the time this could get posted. More business at ITN, but make it about business please. Quality and depth of coverage issues have been resolved (see further comment below).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. The blurb above isn't really decipherable to someone who isn't savvy with financial concepts, but even after reading some of the coverage I'm not convinced this rises to the level at which we'd post it. If someone can point out some tangible lasting significance then maybe, but at the moment it seems more like peculiar trivia.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I think the circumstances may have changed since your comment. Both Ted Cruz and AOC have commented that actions taken during this warrant congressional investigation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Elliot321: thanks for the message and perhaps you're right, but I think some context is needed for both myself and our readers generally to be able to understand what the global impact of this really is. An individual stock rising massively and then shedding some of that value doesn't on the face of it sound very significant on its own, so I'd like to see a blurb which drills down to why people think this will have a lasting impact on the stock market itself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: fair enough. The situation is still rapidly developing, so it's hard to figure out what the relevant parts to put into a blurb would be (also, am I allowed to edit the nomination blurb?) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Elliot321: you normally shouldn't edit the nominated blurbs, but you can add additional proposals for consideration. Just fill in the altblurb2 parameter in the template above, or altblurb3 etc. if there are more. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: ah, makes sense. I think I'll leave that up to Elijahandskip to decide. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support You don't see this every day in the business world, especially with the reasons why these subRedditors did this. This was foreshadowed by the stock being considered undervalued and many reliable sources are reporting on this story and giving live coverage. This was the big story of the day, and it is a highly notable event in the economic world, especially since trading was halted several times over it and a multibillion dollar bailout occured over it. Prominent personalities such as the richest man Elon Musk commenting too. Very important. Plus this news is different from what is usually reported on ITN, yet is significant enough to be included in my eyes. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable, referenced, neutrally written, a current hot topic. What more could you want for it to fit better with ITN? --benlisquareTCE 12:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an unusual episode that demonstrates that share prices are sometimes completely unrelated to the underlying business. The current value is artificial and clearly cannot last for long. I'm therefore reluctant assign much significance to temporary price fluctuations (even large ones) or to advertise them in ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • PS. It may be better to wait until the inevitable crash, to see if this has any wider impacts on the business world, not just a temporary rise in the share prices of a handful of medium-sized companies. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that's not at all what makes this story notable. This has exposed the "true" nature of the market to an wide audience like never before. The width and depth of coverage is truly staggering, and dwarfs virtually everything we post here on a normal basis (aside: I'm not voting because I've not reviewed the article). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Modest Genius: In fact, it's a crystal-ball territory. You know that something is abnormal and it's not going to end well but you have no clue when it's going to happen. Financial markets operate the same way all the time and it's all about expectations. @GreatCaesarsGhost: Could you please elaborate how this exposes the 'true' nature of the market to a wide audience like never before? What's going on has been known for decades and it happens regularly.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Right, which is why I suggested waiting to see what happens. Modest Genius talk 17:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story is a very good example of how does information affect financial markets but it's only a spark that draws transient attention with very low potential to cause something serious. Anyway, if this eventually appears to be a bubble that will end up in a severe market crash with major implications, we should consider posting a blurb then instead of pretending that this is the right time when it's clearly not. I agree with those opining that, at this stage, this is a story that fits better for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Robinhood has frozen trading on GameStop and other volatile securities affected by the short-squeeze. Methinks the party is over.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Watch out, Walt! It's a full moon tonight. That's bound to bring out more GME gamesters. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
They'll never get to the moon unless they can hitch a ride on some American Airlines. Hint hint.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Or an Elon-gated version of the same. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment To people opposing this on notability, please consider the fact that this has been one of the top stories in all the major media outlets for three days in a row now. Mlb96 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Larry King's death was front page news, as was Biden's inauguration. In fact, stories about Bridgerton are currently on CNN's front page. Being front page news isn't a qualifier here. Gex4pls (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Larry King's death should have been posted imo, and Biden's inauguration wasn't posted because we don't post inaugurations as a general principle. Neither of those are good examples. Mlb96 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You're missing my point, Wikipedia doesn't operate on the same rules as a newspaper or a news outlet. Just because one thing shows up there doesn't mean it should also show up here. For example, here is a selection from the front page of sayyy, CNN: "11 soldiers injured after ingesting unknown substance, Cicely Tyson dies, Johnson and Johnson vaccine news, storm slams California" I'm not saying that these aren't news, I'm just saying that just because it is on the front page doesn't mean it's encyclopedically important. Gex4pls (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You're clearly looking at different news outlets to me. I've seen a handful of articles, but far less than e.g. the AstraZeneca vaccine supply, or analysing the latest defeat for Man Utd. Modest Genius talk 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Imagine the collective outrage that would ensue if someone like TRM dared nominate that Man Utd. story on ITN/C.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Has clearly reached a greater cultural awareness outside the financial markets. - hahnchen 15:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearly, an iconic flash-in-the-pan stock. – Sca (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is all over the news and the article looks to be in postable shape. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Highly hyped. Early trading in GME was erratic Thursday. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - the restrictions on buying GME placed recently and the fact that the whole thing is gaining political attention could lead to a very interesting and important situation coming about soon. I'd wait for a few more days, as I feel this story will only be growing. Lyrim (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - without waiting. The story is big now, and delaying because it might be bigger in a couple days feels very WP:CrystalBall. I know we don't often post stock market news, but this has been clearly a top story all week and the article has seen a lot of good development. We'd therefore be showing off good work on Wikipedia that is distinctly in the news. This is the largest short squeeze story in the market's history, not just another day of market swings. It is interesting and current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talkcontribs) 18:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I revise my opinion to Strong Support — the consequences of this short squeeze have been truly unprecedented and have included (allegations of) egregious securities manipulation and fraud by Robinhood and the like. Lawsuits have been filed. Osunpokeh (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I added a new blurb to include what happened today. (Nominator) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I was leaning towards oppose when it was nominated, but I waited to see if this story would fizzle out of relevance, and it certainly hasn't. The article is in decent enough shape to post.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I should add that I prefer that the blurb does mention that Reddit was the catalyst, as this seems to be generally agreed upon by RS to be a relevant piece of information. I did a quick search of the term "game stock" and took a look at the most recent news sources, and they all seem to mention Reddit in the first sentence (if not the title).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @Fuzheado: Fancy giving the consensus a look-through?--WaltCip-(talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    WaltCip, the case looks strong for posting. However, would you or other folks be interested in reworking the blurb? "GameStop short squeeze causes GameStop ..." is kind of awkward and using "stock price" is more precise. Possible wording: "American hedge funds were targeted in a coordinated short squeeze that caused GameStop stock to jump from $4 to $500 in one week and then crash due to short selling." Or something in that direction. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support following today's developments with Robinhood, the story is just getting bigger.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- the story is not going away. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support interesting story in the midst of a pandemic. Developing story as well. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Important story, needs help cleaning up... Nithin🚀 talk 20:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting The three things to consider when posting or not posting an ITN item are (1) community consensus, (2) article quality, and (3) general significance. I see that (1) exists, and opinions are shifting further towards posting over the past 24 hours. (2) has greatly improved since the proseline article I looked at yesterday. And (3) seems to have come along as we're no longer seeing this as a bizarre Reddit action and more of an indictment of Wall Street and hedge funds. The Senate is going to hold hearings. I'm posting this now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I concur, but the blurb is not great. See my previous post for some ideas on how to make it better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
At this point 'crash' would be an inaccurate word to describe whats going on. Not wrong, just inaccurate. Its dipping (almost directly linked to the various apps closing down the ability to trade) but the average has still been climbing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to suggest a pull per my ITN talk page post but lets get an actual ITN -appropriate blurb up there ASAP and not something that looks like a ticker newspiece on CNBC. --Masem (t) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree, this blurb needs some work immediately. And as Only in death said, it's too early to characterize the decline as a crash. So perhaps stick with the main point: "American hedge funds were targeted in a coordinated short squeeze that caused GameStop's stock price to jump from $4 to $500 in one week." -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks reasonable to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Fuzheado, I am good with that and will make that change now. Any other suggestions about the blurb from here on out are probably best discussed at WP:ERRORS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I put in an active tense, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, thanks and the rewrite looks good. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not an expert on these things, but the "from $4" reference in the blurb seems to be misleading... it was around $20 in early January (until the 12th) and around $40 a week ago, according to the Yahoo Finance link posted earlier; hasn't been anywhere near $4 since last summer. 67.11.86.2 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia. Gamestop's entire market capitalization, even after the surge, is not even $30 billion. We've declined to post business deals worth more than this many times. One could argue it's funny or interesting or whatnot, but it's not significant. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I mentioned this at WP:ERRORS, but the blurb is wrong. GameStop's shares haven't been $4 apiece since last summer before Ryan Cohen bought some shares. After that, they started to climb. They were $20 on January 12th. After that, they started climbing more steeply. Gestrid (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – This too shall pass. – Sca (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting strong support This is really newsable! Really shows us how people could defeat the big traders if they unite! Power to the People! 125.160.239.17 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support after striking my oppose above. The article is now in a shape that informs the reader of the mechanistic reason for last few days' price action, which is the minimum requirement for WP:EV. "How/why stuff works/happens". The event is eminently in the news; it was a topic at the White House press meeting (for those that believe "news" must come from there). It is a superlative; the first short squeeze organized at the popular level (contra Hunt Brothers, VW, et all). The notion that this is non-notable because the stock market will keep trading is equivalent to saying elections are non-notable because the country stays on the map. A fund overseeing tens of billions of dollars has shuttered, a discount broker seems ready to declare bankruptcy, lawsuits have been filed for monetary damages. These things will not just go away if GME trades back at a "normal" level in the future.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull Posting for the sake of posting an "interesting" story. Only a big stock market crash would be notable for ITN than this non-descript one-off story. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - seems like an extraordinary event (due to social impact, has attracted scrutiny from politicians, and lawsuits). starship.paint (exalt) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull - this is the most trivial item on ITN for a long time. Many much more important business stories have been rejected, and many more haven't even been nominated. Being unusual doesn't make it important. The overall effect on the market is minuscule & no new laws are being proposed due to what's happened. The unconnected fall in world stock markets this week is multiple times more significant & affects many times more people, yet no-one would nominate or support that being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
That's patently misleading. It takes a little while for Congress to get the gears grinding, but the Chair of the Financial Services Committee in Congress is already talking about holding hearings in response to this event. There will be new laws or regulations that will come out of this. I need to remind you also that this section is not called "In The World"; it's called "In The News". And this story, however odd it may be, is in the news. WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
If new laws result, it would be good for DYK. I didn't say that stories have to be worldwide, but they have to be important. There have been many much more important business stories that we didn't post. This is about a company most people haven't heard of. To the vast majority of people, the term short squeeze is jargon whose meaning they're unaware of. It's a niche story; unless you work in finance, it's not even something that'd be talked about around the watercooler. The vast majority of what the media publicise are things we'd never consider for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep annoying that this is necessary. Arguments were made, a lucid decision was rendered. There is no need to continue debate. I will reiterate my earlier point that most arguments opposing this post are completing missing the point. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for the elucidation. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Cloris LeachmanEdit

Article: Cloris Leachman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article needs TLC on sourcing improvements Masem (t) 22:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support, article is in good shape, and the occurrence is all over the news. BD2412 T 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The article is not in good shape with numerous CN tags and paragraphs lacking any soucing. --Masem (t) 00:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • At the moment I see only two {{cn}} tags, one for the proposition that Judith Lowry and Burt Mustin died of natural causes, which seems unimportant for this article. BD2412 T 17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • It is not just where there are CNs, it is whole paragraphs missing citations, or where only one sentence may be sourced. This is not acceptable sourcing at a BLP level. --Masem (t) 17:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Which areas particularly need improvement? I'll try to get this to a decent level, though I personally think it's already there and should be posted ASAP. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Pretty much her entire "Career" section is lacking sourcing; there are some explicit CNs but consider that given how it is written, each sentence describing one facet of her career, that you need a source for each sentence. There's also some in other sections. It needs to be the sourcing quality of a BLP. --Masem (t) 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb just in case that's what BD2412 was implying; if Chuck Yeager or Little Richard didn't get blurbs, neither should Leachman. (I haven't/won't read the article to see if it's quality for RD, though.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Let's not do that. Blurb conversations are a major distraction to just getting the RD done, and are utterly unnecessary in most cases. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I know, and agree, just that some of the people were "notable enough" as if notability weren't assumed for RD. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
That is not in dispute. The notability requirement is assumed to be satisfied for any article eligible for RD. The condition of the article is what is important.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Severely lacking in inline citations.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose notability is not in question, article is in very poor shape. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's "recent dearths" on a template called "In the news." She died, she's in the news, so link her. If article quality is all that matters here then change the section to "Recent deaths of people with good articles" or something. Seriously, general wiki readers looking at the "In the news" template don't care whether the article looks great. The section should be used to inform people of notable deaths, not to flaunt your editing skills. --ThylekShran (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The quality requirement is something set by the virtue of being on the Main Page, which requires that we are showing some of WP's best work. A BLP article failing sourcing is clearly not that. --Masem (t) 16:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not how it works here, if you want to change the policy then you need to have it discussed and approved beforehand. - Indefensible (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RD: Billy KenoiEdit

Article: Billy Kenoi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hawaii News Now
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Hawaii County, US. Article not bad - Dumelow (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. This shouldn't go up, until it's replaced with an independent source - Dumelow (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral Good article, but death source seems suspicious. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Death source seems fine, it's just all of the sources from his own website. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David WashbrookEdit

Article: David Washbrook (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DailyO
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British historian. Obituaries are yet to appear in major newspapers. Article (particularly early life) can be beefed up at that point. Article as it stands does meet homepage standards of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron JohnsonEdit

Article: Ron Johnson (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Good to go. WikiLove Goat (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good. Gex4pls (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter ThorburnEdit

Article: Peter Thorburn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Zealand Herald; NZ Rugby; TVNZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Short but meets minimum standards. Later life mentions a blog but doesn't say what it was about? SpencerT•C 03:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: The source doesn't mention specifically, but I found the blog site (last article written by him posted 9 years ago). Should I add this to the article? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Eh it's probably something that could be omitted, although since he is a rugby star it's logical that his blog would be about that. Your call really. SpencerT•C 04:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister of EstoniaEdit

Article: Kaja Kallas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kaja Kallas becomes the first woman to become Prime Minister of Estonia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Kaja Kallas becomes the Prime Minister of Estonia, the first woman to hold the office.
Alternative blurb II: ​The new government of Estonia led by Kaja Kallas takes power following Jüri Ratas's resignation due to a corruption scandal.
News source(s): DW, Politico, AP, Guardian, Estonian World
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Estonia is getting a new Prime Minister, which is ITN/R, as the Prime Minister is the position with all of the power in the country. This does not follow an election, because the previous Prime Minister resigned due to a scandal. This is particularly noteworthy because Kallas is the first woman to become Prime Minister of Estonia, and Estonia now becomes the only country in the world with both an (elected) female head of state and head of government. While the news broke two days ago, Kallas only officially became Prime Minister this morning, so I am nominating this for today. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks very well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not ITN/R (but should not preclude posting). This is a change of head of government, not head of state. Only changes of the latter are ITN/R. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    It is ITN/R because it's a change in the national leader, similar to when Boris Johnson took over. The president is a pure figurehead in Estonia.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • We finally fixed that. Changes in head of government are ITNR, and the only stipulation is that if it is elected, and the election is in multiple rounds, only the final round is posted. Restoring ITNR. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    Howard the Duck (ec) Changes in head of government are now covered by ITNR, it was expanded recently. I think taking up LaserLegs suggestion to base the ITNR listing on List of current heads of state and government(who is highlighted) would provide clearer guidance. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, if that's the case both the Dutch and Italian (only if a new PM is sworn in) noms should be tagged as ITN/R as well. The actual text has to be edited as there's a bullet about two-round elections below it that seems to be out of place. Changes to heads of government that occur outside of elections do not happen after two-round elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Thoroughly sourced, sufficiently long, ITN/R.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are Kaja Kallas' "other activities" properly referenced? The main source seems to be her own blog. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurbs are imprecise and they don't indicate what's going on, so I've added a new one to clarify things a bit. The truth is that she formed a new government with a new cabinet, not a mere replacement of the primer minister with minor changes. Also, I don't think the fact she's the first woman to hold the office is more important than tweaking the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Per ITNR. STSC (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – Adequate. Prefer Alt1 – although it would be good to get something about it being a coalition government in there but that may be too much detail for a blurb . – Sca (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Holmes TrujilloEdit

Article: Carlos Holmes Trujillo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Colombian Minister of Defense dies from COVID-19. Article needs work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Need to improve article. (Also, removed the 'posted' part of the submission's title. Didn't belong there.) WikiLove Goat (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barely any sources, orange tagged and cn tagged. For the millionth time, notability isn't a concern when dealing with RD nominations :/ Gex4pls (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Resignation of Italian Prime MinisterEdit

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


Article: 2021 Italian government crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte resigns after weeks of disagreements within the government coalition. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT, Guardian
Credits:
 Ritchie92 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment While i Support it to be posted as blurb due to significance, i expect that one of two articles may experience persistent IP vandalism. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Reminds me of Dutch resignation. In other words, satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wait until the new head of state is confirmed. STSC (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's Italy, standard, so wait for the ITNR change of head of state to happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Just FYI, the Prime Minister is not the head of state. Also, there could be no change of PM at all in this case, as he could be re-appointed by the actual head of state (the President of Italy) to form another government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Double oppose then. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait for the replacement to be announced, but changed in head of government are ITNR now [8] --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I understand, ITNR is for including recurring events, not for automatically excluding what is not in ITNR. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait for a successor to be announced per LaserLegs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait I agree with LaserLegs and Vanilla Wizard, we should wait for the successor to be chosen. Vacant0 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Nilda PedrosaEdit

Article: Nilda Pedrosa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Full of satis. Reminds me of death of Tunisian politican just recently. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Support While well sourced, it is almost entirely composed of one off sentences with no real structure or main body, needs some bulking up. Like a whole new article, nice job Bloom. Gex4pls (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The article is 3,111 characters long, well above the minimum ITN standard of 1,500 characters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to imply that it's a stub (sorry if that's how my wording came off), just that it's bony, with some sections comprised of just one sentence. If that could be bulked up a bit, then I'd support. Gex4pls (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Arik BrauerEdit

Article: Arik Brauer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Standard + leading papers in German
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: no art he didn't do - now referenced and expanded, and on the way to more, but should be enough already Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Love article, and famous enough. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph SonnabendEdit

Article: Joseph Sonnabend (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Blade
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: HIV/AIDS researcher, article was rated as GA in 2015. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) 2021 Portuguese presidential electionEdit

Article: 2021 Portuguese presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (pictured) is elected for a second term as President of Portugal. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Correio da Manhã, AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Re-election of a head of state. ArionEstar (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support ITN-R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very poor referencing throughout prose (now tagged). No prose Results.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support 2 cn tags, one orange tag too. This one got cleaned up fast, nice job! Gex4pls (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Vacant0 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as elections are commonly listed in ITN and they are of international interest (Even if not mentioned much). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The elections are ITNR, of course, as long as the target article is up to scratch. In this case, there is no prose in the relevant sections (results? reactions?) and there is an orange tag. This should all be fixed first. --Tone 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted - Propose changes at WP:ERRORS - Fuzheado | Talk 06:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull @Fuzheado: there is no prose for the results, as mentioned by two editors above. This is not ready yet, please pull it.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pulled as this article was not ready yet as pointed above. Still lots of missing content. --Tone 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the results section comprises more than just a table. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with pull. This is not ready - the article is mostly tables and there's no prose at all after the 'electoral system' section. Needs prose content before posting. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Armstrong (ice hockey)Edit

Article: George Armstrong (ice hockey) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable professional athlete, article is a GA. - Indefensible (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Spencer: done. HockeyDB doesn't list him as being the coach in 1977–78, so I've removed that season's row and re-calculated his OHA totals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Not bad (for a Leaf). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted, article looks good - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in New ZealandEdit

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: COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: New Zealand health officials reports the first community case of COVID-19 in more than two months in a 56-year-old woman who returned to the country from Europe. (Sydney Morning Herald) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&action=edit Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: New Zealand is notable as having eliminated community transmission. Periodic re-introduction of community exposure is significant news in my opinion. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes that a top official suspects transmission during quarantine due to more transmissible variant. DougEMandy (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as calling out any one country's COVID response (positive/negative/otherwise) is covered by the banner. --Masem (t) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor detail in the big story at the top of Template:ITN, good for them making it two months without a single case, I'm jealous. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why call out New Zealand for having one case and not the United States for passing 25 million, or India for passing 10 million, or Micronesia for getting its first case earlier this month? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NorthernFalcon. I find it absolutely hilarious that a country which has done a stand-up job of containing this unprecedented global pandemic is now somehow considered newsworthy for ascertaining the presence of ONE CASE of COVID-19 while the rest of the world is burning. We could learn a lot from the Kiwis.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Us New Zealanders have had it pretty good over the last year, and we sure appreciate it. I would not regard it as "being called out" for having a case of community transmission; I'd see it as an incredible effort that it's taken this long until another case escaped into the community. Schwede66 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 23Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Robert RowlandEdit

Article: Robert Rowland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter BernsteinEdit

Article: Walter Bernstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American screenwriter. Article requires some work, but, not too far away. Edits done. Article looks good for homepage / RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support satis. 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks in good shape. Good work by Ktin. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jonas GwangwaEdit

Article: Jonas Gwangwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted South African jazz ‘giant. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, notability is not a concern with RD. Any gripes with the article itself are valid, but please do not oppose RD listings for being un notable :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy TorrensEdit

Article: Roy Torrens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: he was regarded as a pioneer of the success of Ireland national cricket team in international cricket. Abishe (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - actively being updated and may be ready soon, but not yet per orange banner. - Indefensible (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This looks alright to me, even though it's just barely over stub size. The verification tag seems to only have reflected a previous version of the page, and can probably be removed (though I won't, since I don't know much about cricket). Nohomersryan (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support brief but satis. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Would like to see more than 3 sentences about his playing career. Managing and administrative career could be fleshed out too. Overall, falling into "stub" category, as RDs should typically have more than 1 body section. SpencerT•C 03:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Added some sentences regarding his playing career. I think it should be satisfying to the readers. Abishe (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy for RD spot. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Lil' baby article but well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment needs another look, consensus is that it's good to go and has had a little expansion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   PostedBagumba (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian protestsEdit

Article: 2021 Russian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​People across Russia protest against the arrest of Alexey Navalny. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In 112 Russian cities protesters demand the release of Alexei Navalny, and the resignation of the Vladimir Putin.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, Meduza, The Moscow Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Front page news on CNN, BBC, etc. Either blurb or ongoing. Article is currently developing as events are unfolding. Brandmeistertalk 13:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose proseline. The background section is larger than the events themselves. Nothing in the target tells me, the reader, why this matters. 40,000 people marched? From where to where? Then what? Speeches? Police brutality? Putin resigned? What happened? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh man, that table, almost all of it cited to Meduza.io which is an aggregator that provides no sources for it's map. Needs an orange tag -- of course it'll go on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it escalates to something more serious. For now, it seems like Putin firmly keeps everything under control and the number of arrests confirms it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Support – Widely covered. No. 1 story on main Eng.-lang RS sites. (Reuters sez 1,000-plus arrested.) – Sca (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Russian opposition claims 1,600 arrested[1], but that's not a lot. Also Reuters claims 110k people protested across Russia, but Reuters is an American news organization and is clearly not independent from the U.S. foreign policy so I'm not sure if we can trust them given the state of cold war between the U.S. and Russia.5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Kiril Simeonovski. Relatively minor protests 5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Let me remind users that Navalny became a high-profile international figure last year in connection with the KGB-style nerve-agent attack on him in Russia and his lengthy convalescence in Germany. – Sca (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news, significant and large-scale, by the standards of a country as repressive as Russia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04F:6CAB:4650:3C70 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per IP. This is sufficiently unusual in Russia to merit attention and is being depicted in the press as a make-or-break moment for Navalny's movement. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Once you peel back the hype, isn't notable. We had well over one thousand people arrested in the US the day after the elections with protests in tens of cities, yet nobody even bothered to nom. (Granted 600 arrests were in Minnesota which was already numb from George Floyd protests). Its bigger now (more than one thousand arrested, thankfully no deaths), so disregard previous comment. Albertaont (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Eh, the United States has a history of protest and dissent. Modern Russia does not. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The protests didn't just happen in Moscow, they were nationwide, in 70 cities from the Far East to St Petersburg, according to Giardian[10]. For a repressive authoritarian regime like Putin's Russia that's highly unusual already. The same Guardian article says that "The demonstrations were some of Moscow’s largest since 2012." Although nobody was killed, the authorities used considerable force in dispersing the protests, and again the same article says that "The police at times appeared to be losing control." All of this is usual for Russia Nsk92 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Unlike previous protests, these ones appear to be occurring nationwide and even in smaller, less notable Russian towns and cities. Twitter made its own news page for the event, calling the footage "remarkable." This thread has more videos of the protests and where they're occurring. Given the context of these protests (Opposition leader Navalny getting poisoned, being transported to Germany for treatment, surviving, and then returning to Russia despite warnings he would be arrested) I think it's important that readers are able to grasp the political momentum that is fomenting in Russia against the actions of Putin. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -I support posting this one because the protests are bigger than usual. And plenty of arrests.BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Washington Post is now saying 70+ cities/towns and over 2,700 arrested. gobonobo + c 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per scale and location: both unusual and highly newsworthy Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on notability per JoshHawkinsBois. Thousands of peaceful protesters were arrested in only a day, and the protests have already spawned demonstrations of solidarity in other countries.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait/Weak Support I would prefer to wait and see if the protests are sustained and escalate to a point of being able to post it on Ongoing as well. However, if the actual "protests" section of the article could be expanded relative to the background section, I wouldn't mind a blurb now. Juxlos (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - this probably deserves to be posted, but WP:NOTNP and both the event and article continue to evolve rapidly so it would be better for the article to mature a bit more before posting as a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support because of the scale of hte protests. Still, Navalny's support in Russia is in the 2% range [11], hence I'm only weakly supporting. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Posts are running at a 5:2 ratio in favor. Marked needs attn.Sca (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I took the liberty of adjusting the blurb for better flow. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The article for Alexei Navalny has his first name ending in an "i" contrary to a "y" in the blurb, should this be changed to match? - Indefensible (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb Events have developed and the facts I've added make clear what's at stake. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The total number of detainees (3352) is a record for the entire history of protest actions in the modern history of Russia. Prior to this, a record number of people in total throughout the country was detained on June 12, 2017 - 1769 people. [12] The highest number of protesters to join an unauthorized rally in Moscow since at least 2013. [13] TarzanASG (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The number of detainees (1402) has exceeded 1,400 people in Moscow on January 23. This is a record for a single protest rally. [14] TarzanASG (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb: Larry KingEdit

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: Larry King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American television and radio host Larry King dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): Official Twitter The Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Announced by his media company. RS should follow pretty soon but that is imho sufficiently reliable. SoWhy 13:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to 109.249.185.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for adding The Independent source. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Patently trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Should be a blurb. Household name worldwide (quite unlike that literallywho Basketball player we just posted) 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
We should keep both. No need to knock Hank Aaron (who played baseball, not basketball). UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb: Major household name and easily the most famous on-air talent associated with CNN, especially internationally. His departure from the network also marked a significant turning point for cable news and heralded CNN's decline. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment just wait: "old man dies" not worthy of a blurb nonsense incoming...!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Haters gonna hate LaserLegs Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Until his hopsitalization, King was still active as a host, so even less of "old man dies" here. --Masem (t) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
We created RD to keep death blurbs from pushing other stories out of the box, so my threshold for a blurb is very high. No hate here. Will stop being "in the news" Monday morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb: Even Swedish media calls him "legendary" (as do French and Spanish). This is someone who made a splash all over the world. --cart-Talk 13:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb: Prefered to be a blurb. Every major news source in Serbia published an article about his death. Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb unless you can update the target article to show how king was "transformative" in the world of talk show interviews. He was no Mike Wallace, for example. We have guidelines for blurbs and King seems to fit RD perfectly. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mike Who? That's a US POV. --cart-Talk 13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You're joking right? Mike Wallace basically invented the confrontational television interview and 60 Minutes was the reference implementation for a television news magazine. Oh and Mike Wallace was a key character in a major motion picture. You're really going to accuse me of "a US POV" when both Larry King and the more accomplished TV news host I compared him to are both American? Really? I mean..... --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What I meant was that Wallace might be more famous in the US than King, but living outside the US, I know exactly who King was but had never heard of Wallace. Outside the US, King was synonymous with US television for a long time. --cart-Talk 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've got no clue who Mike Wallace is either.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • From a non-American POV, I’ve never heard of Mike Wallace, but I do know of Larry King. starship.paint (exalt) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Did a little search and King is front page news on French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, even Russian papers. --cart-Talk 14:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I subscribe to the view that Larry King was more famous worldwide and that's a very good reason to post a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide - agree with cart, I never heard of Mike Wallace on this side of the world JW 1961 Talk 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb if the CNs are fixed. BBC: King was a giant of US broadcasting who achieved worldwide fame for interviewing political leaders and celebrities. AP: King helped define American conversation for a half-century. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb from another person outside the United States. Like it or not, his name is probably the first one that comes to mind when talking about television.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It’s obvious that the most famous television journalist since Cronkite and a cultural icon deserves an entire blurb, not a simple recent death mention. Most people under 60 don’t even know who Mike Wallace is. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • To be fair, I suspect most people under 60 outside the US don't know who Larry King was either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently judging by the reaction, that isn’t the case. This was a man who was also in children’s tv shows and movies. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Cronkite who? Anyway, just checked with my partner and my sibling. I didn’t know if they knew of Larry King, but they said yes. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As to Wallace being a character in a major motion picture, IMDb has King appearing in 67 movies. When directors wanted to show how famous the lead character was, they always had her/him being interviewed by King in some montage. This was going on until 2016. --cart-Talk 15:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, lol I just scraped in - being 60 in a few weeks time from Ireland, most of us would know King :) JW 1961 Talk 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I knew who he was as well, but I did base that comment on a small representative sample i.e. (a) asking my kids (nope), then (b) asking my wife (answer: "basketball player, isn't he?") Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sampling error of that particular subset would make any statistician's head spin.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, it was 50% by gender, 50% under-45 and over-45, what more do you want? :) Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide, he had a 63-year broadcasting career, which included 25 years as an interviewer on CNN's Larry King Live. - agree with cart. AbDaryaee (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb after the few CNs in the article are fixed. Also, this is not appearing as cut-and-dried as Hank Aaron, so recommend we make sure there's a clear concensus on a blurb (RD can go up rather quickly though). --Masem (t) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • In case a blurb is supported, I've got the picture above into image protection queue so that it is ready to go. --Masem (t) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Easily one of the, if not the, most famous talk show hosts out there. Why are we even talking about Mike Wallace? All coz of Laser "Devil's Advocate" Legs? RIP Larry Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose article contains a number of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb just for the record. I suggested this as RD since RD is certain but I agree that he was known around the world. I knew him and my g/f who I just asked knew him as well and we are both German. Not only was he famous for his work, he was also a staple in popular culture. A blurb would be more than appropriate imho. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb definitely notable, not only in the US but also in journalism circles. Egeymi (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – RD only, per TRM, Legs. Where's the transformatization? – Sca (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. We already have Hank Aaron up there atm; two American blurbs is two too many. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Miller, Hayley; Moran, Lee (January 23, 2021). "Larry King, Iconic TV And Radio Interviewer, Dies At 87". HuffPost – via Yahoo!. He rose above personal tragedy, financial despair and half a dozen divorces to become one of the most revered and prolific interviewers in broadcasting. Dalton, Andrew; Moore, Frazier. "Larry King, broadcasting giant for half-century, dies at 87 January 23, 2021". Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Associated Press. 7&6=thirteen () 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Influential in the television broadcasting field, death reported with significant coverage and article in decent shape. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I'd certainly never heard of him, but most importantly none of the +votes have offered any serious explanation for his transformative importance in the field. There are plenty of high-profile journalists and interviewers but their importance is usually national-only. For what it's worth, I think we did include David Frost in 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Larry King is one of the most influential, well-known, and transformative individuals in the history of broadcasting. I'd suggest reading the article if you've never heard of him. Mlb96 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As TRM and I have pointed out, this cannot be posted RD or Blurb until quality issues are resolved. Too many editors are arguing towards importance but forgetting the other major pillar for inclusion in the ITN box. --Masem (t) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Masem Which "quality issues" are there? I think they have all been resolved. 7&6=thirteen () 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There were more before, but there remains the POV orange section tag on the controversy section. --Masem (t) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Once the tag in the “controversies” section is gone, it’s ready to go. Schwede66 18:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once the orange tag in Controversies is fixed. The article also contradicts itself on King's religious beliefs (Jewish agnostic or fully atheist). Although King was rather old, he was still very active and had a lasting influence in broadcast media. Spengouli (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb One of the most influential talk show hosts of our time. Deserves a blurb. Also marking as ready. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
On a scale of 1 to 1, how strong is your support? – Sca (talk)
  • Comment Fixed the contradictory line about his religion. Basically, I combined the two. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - WP:NOTNP, having the listing in the RD row is enough for encyclopedic coverage and having a blurb will crowd out another entry. - Indefensible (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per above, and per RS which say he had an international reputation. Davey2116 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - He was top field of his work. Interviewing everyone important from top politicians, sportsmen, celebrities over more than 4 decades. BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He was popular, but I don't see what's transformative about being on television a long time (especially given that he was never especially praised for his interviewing prowess), and he was in the hospital for over a month, so this is not a surprising death. Also, I promise I'm not some kind of blurb-hating maniac. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb King was certainly at the top of his respective field. I can't think of another individual in the television/radio host category as worthy of a blurb as him. He's been on the air for 67 years and is a recognizable name around the world.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I feel like Aaron's picture should get a little more time so I didn't add King's yet. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • User:331dot - this entry has support but does not have consensus for posting per the opposes. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • As of this moment I stand by my decision. It's not set in stone, though. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No Blurb, old men die, the name is recognizable enough on its own in RD for those interested in who this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb / Pull. I've heard of him, yes, but he's not of the major transformative level that we blurb. Not sure why this was deemed suitable for such an early posting either. Unless it's completely slam dunk and Uncontroversial, like the Hank Aaron case below, it's usual to RD first and let blurb conversation proceed at a leisurely pace.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru I'm not sure what you mean by "early posting"; there are numerous comments above with a good number of people weighing in. We have no arbitrary minimum discussion time. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: I explained what I meant by this above. Several people had already opposed a blurb by the time you posted, and now even more have opposed since. That means it's not Uncontroversial, and as we always do with such cases, we RD it first (assuming quality is OK) while blurb discussion continues. To avoid the unseemly rigmorole of having to pull something that's already been posted. I was questioning why that step was bypassed here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of that bring a formal rule. I evaluated the arguments and made a decision. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I must agree that while a major figure in American journalism, he does not quite rise to the level of blurb worthy in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull blurb I was a fan, but he died of old-age related diseases at 87, and he wasn't "top tier" famous. A big name sure, but most certainly not heads higher than several others in the world of journalism. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment In Larry King vs. Hank Aaron, both "old man dies", I'm always astonished about the VIP treatment US athletes get on ITN, as opposed to US non-sports people who are internationally known. Just saying. I know I can't change that, but it's worth mentioning. (Ok, now let the "you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about rain" begin.) --cart-Talk 21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
W.carter I invite you to make nominations of such persons that you think merit posting and convince others to support them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've noticed a few !votes pointing out that he was elderly; I'd like to politely ask that editors avoid those types of rationales in RD blurbs where the notability comes not from the way they died, but what they did with their lives. Any accomplished individual who is at the top of their respective field is more likely to die old than young, so age is not the determining factor here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    The fact that he's elderly is a relevant factor because it means that his death is not in itself remarkable or independently newsworthy. If he had died unexpectedly at a young age, as say Kobe Bryant did, that changes the equation.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Age at death is also the exact hook of the proposed blurbs, what else are we supposed to oppose? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Concur with Amakuru and InedibleHulk. Someone who is entirely notable for "What they did with their lives" is on WP:ITNRD as a reason to post someone in RD, not as a blurb. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Let Me Die A Youngman's Death by Roger McGough. --cart-Talk 22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • RE: Amakuru and Nohomersryan, both can be reasons why a death is notable (either that the death itself was unexpected or that the individual themselves was notable), but most RDs that get posted as blurbs are deaths of elderly people who died of natural causes, because the determining factor was what they did in their lives. Kobe Bryant dying at a young age was undoubtedly shocking, but this is very rarely the case. Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. If any editor were to oppose the posting of Aretha Franklin, Stephen Hawking, or Nelson Mandela because they were all between the ages of 76 and 95 and died of natural causes, they would surely be criticized for thinking that their advanced age makes them any less blurb-worthy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what the discussion is for; whether an individual is at the top is inherently arbitrary and not for us to decide, it's for sources to decide, and Sharon Begley's passing resulted in nowhere near as many reliable sources covering it. I'm simply arguing that we can and do post the deaths of "major figures" (see WP:ITNRD: "The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb."), not just deaths that occur as a result of shocking freak accidents, hence "they were old" shouldn't be considered a valid reason to !vote oppose.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The blurb is exclusively about the age at which he died. Maybe propose an alternative if you don't want his age to factor in. Not sure where Supporters see any other accomplishment here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you take issue with the wording of this RD blurb? The format of "(field) (name) died at the age of (age)" is pretty standard.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Not anymore, it's old news. But yes, should have been RD (two days later at Annan, I voted No blurbs for anyone). At least that one had a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree that it is inherently subjective, and what is for Wikipedians to decide is whether it gets posted and/or blurbed or not. Right now there does not seem to be consensus for supporting the blurb whether based on age or otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. - The bar is higher than simply being top of one's field, which was the old RD criteria that was rightfully junked. Besides, Franklin and Mandela's deaths were followed by a wave of tributes and lengthy memorials that dominated TV for days after they had passed. King was an elderly TV host who did not die in a surprising way; he won't be top news 24 hours from now. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While we should take into account a person who is simply elder and has not been active for a while in their field (meaning that they should have achieved a greater importance in their youth as was the case of Hank Aaron), until the start of 2021, King was still doing his shows and interviews and showed no sign of slowing down until he was hospitalized by COVID. So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant, in addition to the fact King was a luminary in the field already. --Masem (t) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant Wait, what?? An 87-year-old man who was hospitalized for over a month with a deadly disease is as surprising as a 41-year-old athlete dying suddenly in a helicopter crash? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for the post-posting debate. A world-renowned figure in his field, working up until nearly his death. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb he would be famous internationally for the "people with American cable TV" audience, but otherwise I doubt the Mandela/Hawking levels of notability. Was King even top of his field in terms of notability relative to contemporaries? No issue with RD. Juxlos (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • His shows were bought by TV-companies and aired in other countries, same as films and series were before cable. --cart-Talk 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb American TV isn't available in much of the rest of the world. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pulled - Because 6 of the 7 folks who expressed an opinion since the posting were either pull or oppose, it's best to pull it at this time until a consensus develops to post. Courtesy ping: 331dot-- Fuzheado | Talk 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Posting to the RD list is probably fine still. - Indefensible (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Good point. Done. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Repost as blurb. There was consensus to post as a blurb when it was posted and the given reason for removal is weak. Consensus should be judged as whole and not based on knee-jerk pull comments after the fact. -- Calidum 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Not quite true: there was already pushback by Indefensible about whether a consensus had been reached at the time of posting, and the addition of 6 out of 7 additional voices to pull/oppose shows there is very unclear consensus here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Knee-jerk, my foot, I've been blowing this same horn since Kofi kicked off three summers ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hank Aaron a virtually unknown outside the US is posted to Blurb. But Larry King is not per ”being unknown outside the US”. Let that sink in.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb it's inherently US centric (i'm from Australia); when someone who is one of the top figures in their field (broadcasting) and known worldwide - is seen as less notable than a baseball player (only really big in the US, Japan, Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic) - which proves international notability means nothing in the end. I doubt anyone here would blurb Sadaharu Oh either (or any cricketer like Garfield Sobers or Viv Richards for that matter - which would point towards American sports fanboyism instead and noone actually caring about the sport's international prospects). Unless we are going to claim a CNN show has less international reach than baseball. Only legitimate argument would be that Ted Turner would probably not get a blurb, so a CNN host probably should not! Either way, i support King's blurb. GuzzyG (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Arguably the Hank Aaron blurb should be removed and added to the RD list as well per your comment and similar others, that would be better than having them take up ITN blurb space for other encyclopedic content. - Indefensible (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree. Noone would blurb Barbara Walters so King is in a similar playing field - although he's up there with David Frost and Oriana Fallaci - we'd probably blurb David Attenborough though, so in the end - it's just the person whose field tends to have Wikipedia editors as fans (like Carrie Fisher). Realistically, journalism is a relatively country specific area (although people like King break through internationally sometimes, moreso than a Walter Cronkite type of broadcaster). Sports though i would say only top notch footballers like Pelé (worldwide sport) or Olympic athletes like Michael Phelps (worldwide competition) should be blurbed regularly, with the rare pass for Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Michael Jordan type athletes that are known worldwide or people like Garry Kasparov with a bit of historical importance behind them (human rights) - most sports are very local ad very rarely are important in different countries than in which they compete. Either way, King's show broadcasted on CNN International; which means he is more international than some people here give him credit - but if we go by the original Thatcher/Mandela standard than none would probably make it, to be honest! GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Definitely the most notable person associated with CNN and probably talk shows in general. Maybe I'm biased by living close to the US but whenever a character in a movie goes on a talk show it always seems to be Larry King. Connor Behan (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Being associated with CNN is not prima facie proof of notability, not even in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    "Most notable person associated with CNN" is a different sentence from "notable because he was associated with CNN". Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb -- can we please make a policy that once a blurb is posted, it is not pulled? This is unprofessional. I'd rather we wait a long period of time before blurbing than do this. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support such a policy -- this alone is enough of a reason to restore Larry King. It is troubling that an admin thought it was acceptable not only to pull a death blurb but to do so without moving it to RD. Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Meh 1. He is known worldwide, this is not debateable. 2. He was extremely successful and accomplished in his career over the years, in radio and television, by any standard you can name. 3. His article indicates nothing transformative, he didnt pioneer anything, didnt make any great advances to the world of broadcasting/news/interviews etc. He didnt invent the softly softly interviewing technique. He may have been highly influential, but its not in his article, which reads much more like 'This is who he was, what he did' not 'This is what he achieved and improved on compared to others in his field'. If the standard for blurbing is 'transformative', then his article needs something to that effect. If we are happy with just having someone at the top of their game after a long successful life, we need to dump the transformative requirement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Yes, a well-known figure but doesn't meet the "transformative" standard. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Well known is not the same as important. Quite shocked at the level of support here. I imagine the place King held at CNN when CNN was the be-all-end-all is inflating people's opinion of him. He interviewed everyone because he was such a lightweight. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move Hank Aaron to RD too: no consensus to post there either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support blurb Well known around the world (except to young people perhaps) and he was definitely at the top of his field. His death has been reported as a top story not only in the U.S. but also in other countries. Larry King's show, by the way, aired not only on CNN USA but also on CNN International, which is available in many countries. I'm surprised Larry King is being questioned while we have a blurb for Hank Aaron, who I never even heard of. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. It seems that King was pulled ENTIRELY which is very disproportionate. He's easily important enough for RD (unless there's undisclosed BLP issues in the article or the like), but probably borderline for a blurb. (Also, Hank Aaron >>> Larry King, surprised to see that incredulity above... it's not unreasonable for Aaron to get a blurb but not King. TV journalists are common; lifetime homerun record holders are exceedingly rare.) SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: why is he not in RD???-- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Already rolled off when Dave Bolton was added. FYI to User:SnowFire as well. Agree that he should be listed for a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It shouldn't have been. Bolton is the only one on the ticker who passed more recently than King. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        • They don't do it that way anymore, it seems to be first on/first off. Anyhow, I have re-added this as a 7th RD since it seems like there was a great deal of support and it was hardly on there at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - Only top of a narrow field; I'd say he was an Eddie Van Halen level television host... - Floydian τ ¢ 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, per User:Vanilla Wizard rationale above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • RD only while very well-known, not transformative. It's pretty hard for a news host to be transformative because they can't proactively change the course of history/academics/sports techniques/jurisprudence/commerce etc in a way that a trailblazing politician/research professor/sportsperson/judge/businessperson could, but that is the lot of a TV host Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Stats This needs revisiting now that Larry King has scrolled off RD but Hank Aaron is still there with a big picture. King peaked at over 1.5 million views and was still the top read on Wikipedia yesterday with 666K – a figure that Aaron failed to reach at all. The other blurbs are nowhere in this contest – they barely twitched the needle. The general consensus of our readership is clear.
Readership views
Article 7 days to 24 Jan
Larry King
2,185,535
Hank Aaron
1,046,483
LauncherOne
59,781
2021 Russian protests
46,286
2020–21 Central African general election
13,874
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Cyclone EloiseEdit

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: Cyclone Eloise (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 13 people are killed from Cyclone Eloise. (Post)
News source(s): ReliefWeb The Guardian Nigeria Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic situation unfolding. Uncommonly strong storm heading towards a poor country still recovering from Cyclone Idai, which killed 1,300 people and left 2,200 more missing. More deaths will occur. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 01:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – This storm is still strengthening and is almost guaranteed to continue doing so all the way up to landfall. Which is imminent. The storm is going to strike Mozambique, a country that was devastated by Cyclones Idai and Kenneth back in 2019. The country hasn't yet recovered, and they recently experienced a landfall from Tropical Storm Chalane near the end of last month. This storm is guaranteed to have significant impacts on a region still recovering from a devastating storm, and as such, it warrants an ITN mention. There will be more damage, and there will almost certainly be more deaths. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, though I would think that the blurb should reflect the strength and ominous nature of the storm. As written, it sounds like a thing that happened and is done with. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Eloise hasn't made landfall yet. It's quickly intensifying though. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose For now. Don't get too WP:CRYSTAL on us now, the storm hasn't made landfall yet, and so far the death toll is low. (Also, the article needs a bit of improvement) Gex4pls (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've looked over your sources and it looks like (correct me if I'm wrong) the 3 deaths came from previous rains not associated with the storm, and the only death mentioned is in the reuters article, where they claim that one person has died in Madagascar. Gex4pls (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gex4pls: The 3 deaths were part of the moisture associated with the storm. The Reuters article mentions flooding days before the storm's arrival. The storm was very large and had a large moisture field, with sprawling rainbands. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, makes sense then. Sorry about that. Gex4pls (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gex4pls: No worries! It's entirely fine to question the deaths/impact of a storm if the source is unclear. Cheers, ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment didn't we 86 posting some storms at the end of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season because ITN was "not a storm ticker" or somesuch? What makes Eloise unique? Largest size? Highest wind speed? Largest storm surge? Unseasonable? Exceptionally high death toll or economic impact? Is there anything about this storm other than routine storm doing routine storm things? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. The civil war in northern Mozambique, from which half a million have fled, seems far more important than the deaths of four people in a storm. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks very run-of-the-mill, indeed I've been having stronger gusts outside my house today. Meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment More news articles are still being released about Eloise, so it may be too soon to determine notability. This article came out while I was in the middle of typing this !vote, and it mentions that the threat of floods related to Eloise is still present. It looks like the storm will thankfully be nowhere near as bad as Cyclone Idai was, but it's still possible that it was devastating enough to warrant mentioning it in ITN. I'd give it at least a day to wait for more information about the impact that Eloise had.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This storm hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. NoahTalk 02:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Typical aftermath of a tropical cyclone. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unimportant. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing Removal: 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protestEdit

Article: 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The last significant update about the protests was a January 12th one-liner when the supreme court suspended the law. [15] The most recent protest was added on January 8th and was about protests which took place on December 24th. [16] Everything else from the 8th till now is ref improvements, copy edits, and commentary from both sides -- not protests. People disagree with laws all the time and make their cases in court, in the media, in elections, etc and that's what's going on here. The article is stale, the story is stale, and it needs to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I am guessing you are not aware of the recent happenings. The article is in dire need of an update; yes, it needs to be off the main page in its present state. There have been pretty recent and major developments to the case, wherein the government proposed suspension of the said laws while the protesting party refused. There is a plan to take out a major rally on 26 Jan - India's Republic Day. If someone updates the article, this should remain on. It still is a pretty hot topic being covered by international media. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow the story, because I honestly don't care about it. I just evaluated the article against the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I honestly don't care about it Uh-huh. That should violate #4. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I read the article, I didn't scour the internet for news about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I agree. Should be removed. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose For now. All of the recent news about the subject doesn't seem impactful (of the four articles published within a week ago, 2 ([17], [18]) don't mean anything for the story, 1 ([19]) is about how the protests may end, and only 1 ([20]) appears to be real news.) However, it does appear that the people are at least still protesting, with a bit of coverage too. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Then get it into the target article, that's what we're featuring on the main page for our WP:READERS --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article could use some updating, but looks like this is still noteworthy and an ongoing event that is not resolved yet. Some sources from a quick search: MSN/Bloomberg, MSN/Hindustan Times - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. This is an ongoing issue with items in the Ongoing section. SpencerT•C 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just looked into it briefly, there were negotiations ongoing between the 2 sides which failed on Friday, and there is another protest planned for the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Single sentence bullet point updates (e.g. 2020–2021_Indian_farmers'_protest#Timeline are essentially minimal updates to the article. Without paragraph-length substantial ongoing updates (suggesting that the continuing events are substantially noteworthy), articles should not remain indefinitely in Ongoing. SpencerT•C 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        • The point is that the protests are not over so the nomination is not accurate, and it should not be removed for that reason. The event is still ongoing, there was a legitimate reason why things calmed down because directly-related negotiations were being held, but no resolution was found. So more protests are expected in the near-term, and it would not be unexpected to see major developments added. - Indefensible (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Fair enough; have struck "per nom". I am not supporting removal because of reasons in the nomination stating that the event is stale, rather because the article is not continuing to receive substantial updates with recent events. Although more protests may be expected, possible future events is not a reason to keep a non-updated article in Ongoing. SpencerT•C 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
            • That reason makes more sense and I agree the article could be improved, but contrarily there is no rush to take it down since events in scope of the subject are still active and there is reasonable expectation for near-term developments. Realistically it could be similar to the newly posted Russian protests, it would not be right to take it down for lack of article update and then turn around in a couple days and have to repost it because of a new nomination for the same event IMO, so it would be better to just sit on it a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that there is going to be a major development in India (Republic Day Jan 26th - protest march in Delhi) which is now 24 hours away suggests we should wait until then. Albertaont (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Which would make one update in two weeks --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and thanks to the nominator for the background. If it's been more than a month since the last protest noted in a protest article, then the article is far from sufficiently updated to satisfy Ongoing criteria. Whether protests might happen in the future, and whether those might result in actual article updates is CRYSTAL. Per discussion here, there has been apparently many things going on that haven't gotten into the article; Why should be wait another day to see whether yet another "X thousand people marched in Y city demanding Z" update? If that actually hashes out and it's notable, the article can go back to Ongoing or as a blurb. But this should have come down weeks ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No longer CRYSTAL, Republic Day protests are definitely happening. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 22Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment