Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 aircraft
Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 aircraft

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

January 10[edit]


January 9[edit]

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

  • The Parler app is suspended indefinitely from the App Store by Apple Inc.. Additionally, Amazon also announces that they will discontinue providing cloud services for Parler due to incitement of violence, which will go into effect on Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time. (CNN) (CNBC)

Sports


Storm Filomena[edit]

Article: Storm Filomena (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least four people die in Spain due to fifty-year-record snowfall from Storm Filomena. (Post)
News source(s): AP, BBC
Credits:

 Masem (t) 19:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose No article. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • There's an article, its just not standalone. There's no requirement for a standalone as long as there's an update to an appropriate article. Though Kiril's concerns below are valid. --Masem (t) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Well what I meant was that this one storm is not a significant subject in the 2020–21 European windstorm season article, and that the content about it doesn't constitute enough of an update - it happened. The other storms listed there happened, too. It doesn't have an article nor would it qualify for one, which does preclude ITN. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no difference between this cold wave and those that hit North America in the last couple of years. It's wintertime in Europe and such weather is not uncommon even in Spain. Also, the one-paragraph update is very unfortunate and not in par with the detailed articles that we typically have for similar cold waves (for instance February 2015 North American cold wave). What is AEMET? What are the lowest temperatures recorded? What are the regions that were most severely affected? I'm wondering if this nomination suits better for ongoing given its extended duration (normally, after a separate article with all details comes in).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Record breaking snow happens all of the time, and this windstorm doesn't seem too different from any of the other storms in the season. Gex4pls (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Sriwijaya Air Flight 182[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 (aircraft pictured), carrying 62 passengers on board, crashes north of Jakarta, Indonesia (Post)
News source(s): ANTARA, Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Technically not confirmed as a crash, but it's not looking good, unfortunately. Pictures and semi-official statements indicate a crash into ocean, most likely with no survivors. Juxlos (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I have an edit conflict while trying to nominate this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Major incident that's all the more significant given the very low number of flights that are operated during the pandemic. Count Iblis (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - looking increasing likely there will be no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of the pandemic, we would always post such a disaster. Looks pretty conclusive, may be tempted to wait for official confirmation rather than a fisherman's report, but the blurb as it stands seems perfectly accurate. Article is in decent nick. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant aviation incident, probably the first major in 2021. Meets WP:ITNCRIT and is notable internationally, covered by Jerusalem Post, DW, and The Telegram. GeraldWL 12:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It is significant. All the paragraphs are sourced well.Hanamanteo (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Significant. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Headline item on BBC radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we should add the exact location of the crash. North sounds too vague. How about adding the Thousand Islands or the Laki Islands in the blurb? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Are we sure this has been confirmed? Several RS sites still made it seem slightly iffy around 16:00. [1] [2] [3]Sca (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Aviation Herald has a ship's captain who witnessed the crash of the aircraft near Lancaing Island. Seems pretty conclusive to me. (Mjroots (talk))
      • Article currently also has an eyewitness claim for Laki Island? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Who's me? – Sca (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
A card-carrying member of the Me Generation, I spoze. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Late Baby Boomer / Early Generation X, depending on who's definition you go by. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That makes you a really idol round here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Nah, a cuddly Blond yeti is nearer the mark. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
In case you people missed it, an airplane crashed. (No, not that Airplane.)--WaltCip-(talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

January 8[edit]

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Xu Qinxian[edit]

Article: Xu Qinxian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Apple Daily Voice of America
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Chinese general who refused orders during Tiananmen Square. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Seems fine to me. Gex4pls (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Katharine Whitehorn[edit]

Article: Katharine Whitehorn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Good enough to me.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Just a pretty good article. Gex4pls (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Michael Apted[edit]

Article: Michael Apted (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: British director of ‘’The World is Not Enough’’ and ‘’Coal Miners Daughter’’ referencing needs improving (will get back to it in the morning) JW 1961 Talk 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support Not nearly enough references, most filmography is unsourced. All better! Gex4pls (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support when the CNs had been fixed, filmography already sourced. Michael Apted is a well known and innovative British director. Ready to post Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Article and referencing much improved over the course of this morning thanks to Alexcalamaro and Yorkshiresky, last remaining CNs dealt with. Requesting The Rambling Man and Gex4pls to re-assess if they have time or mind to do so JW 1961 Talk 14:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – well referenced now; looks good to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the reliability of Film Affinity and there are two inline tags still there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
My bad – missed that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Bloom6132: a discussion in RS considers FilmAffinity a reliable source, see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_229#Film_Affinity. But I agree that maybe is needed a RfC to determine if it is Ok to add it to perennial RS. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done, all FilmAffinity citations have been replaced (with the help from User:Yorkshiresky) and no inline tags left. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump permanently banned from Twitter[edit]

ITN does not mean In Trump News. Stephen 00:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Donald Trump on social media (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Twitter permanently bans Donald Trump due to the risk of further incitement of violence (Post)
News source(s): CNN NBC News
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support never thought someone getting banned from Twitter would be ITN worthy. But this? Notable, in the news and a potential target article Donald Trump on social media is in good shape. A better blurb is needed though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C9BC:2062:D3CE:2CC8 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just fallout from the story that's already been posted on ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's already enough Trump news (and U.S. political news) there now. Compared to the rest, this is rather small potatoes. BD2412 T 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This is just a fallout even from the story already on ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN worthy, not going to support a substantive update to Donald Trump. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --Masem (t) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's going to be back. Eventually. By the way, there is Parler. He didn't even incite more violence! Abuse of power.~ Destroyer🌀🌀 00:42, 9 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) RD: Tommy Lasorda[edit]

Article: Tommy Lasorda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KCAL-9 (CBS) Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality of sourcing (multiple sections). I'd be hesitant to say this may be a blurb as his name was "household" I think but I don't know if he would necessarily be considered top of the profession, but we can't do that in the first place until the article is vastly improved. --Masem (t) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Masem, I would consider him among the best manager of all time, but I don't think it's worthy of a blurb, not by my standards, which seem more exclusionist than the majority. It definitely needs work, is getting it, and I'll ping you when it's ready. Probably not for hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
That's what I thought, he's not quite blurb territory, hence trying to stave off that discussion now. Efforts should focus on getting quality up to post the RD. --Masem (t) 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Masem, hopefully it's ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Now Support as all early concerns are resolved. --Masem (t) 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

January 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Biserka Cvejić[edit]

Article: Biserka Cvejić (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Standard
Credits:
Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Serbian operatic mezzo-soprano of international fame, 372 performances at the Vienna State Opera, - most of the article developed today. More detail in the sources, but I'm too tired right now. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Short but reasonably well developed now. Not finding much in the way of English-language sources. Is there any more information available about her personal life (any children?). The lead could use a little further expansion, perhaps her most notable roles or recordings. There appears to be a conflict over her place of birth. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose until missing citations are added. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
That's my fault, The Rambling Man; I put a citation needed to indicate the place of birth conflict (the other is sourced), and a clarification needed over the word "machinist", which I think is a mistranslation. I can't verify the early life story but the rest all appears properly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done by User:Espresso Addict. Grimes2 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted, nice work! --Tone 18:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Elon Musk becomes richest person in the world[edit]

Yeah, people hated this. I'm closing this before it gets worse. (non-admin closure) TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Elon Musk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Elon Musk, the chairman of SpaceX and Tesla, surpasses Jeff Bezos in wealth to become the richest person in the world. (Post)
News source(s): The Verge Reuters Business Insider
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I'm surprised this hasn't been nominated yet. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 02:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since part of this is tied to the current skyrocketing TLSA stock price. That will correct, and this may subsequently change in the near future. --Masem (t) 02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't cover the stock market like this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This happens all the time, and we don't cover much financial stuff, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 02:57, 9 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.

RD: Marion Ramsey[edit]

Article: Marion Ramsey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Well known 80's and 90's actor, especially for her role in the Police Academy franchise. Uses x (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilberforce Kisamba Mugerwa[edit]

Article: Wilberforce Kisamba Mugerwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Vision (Uganda)
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Ugandan politician. Article looked to be in reasonable condition when I found it - Dumelow (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Seems fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Career and political career sections could be merged and potentially use some expansion, but what is there meets minimum standards for detail. Weak support. SpencerT•C 22:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Fine. This should be ready for posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Apolinário[edit]

Article: Alex Apolinário (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UOL, Globo Esporte, R7 (All sources in Portuguese)
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian footballer. Colapsed in a match on Jan. 3. Died today in a hospital. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Barely past a stub. Gex4pls (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support References are sufficient for RD standards. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stub, apart from discussion of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support a very young person so naturally the biography is not going to be huge. Low-level Portguese football too. I'd prefer to see more in there, but what is there looks ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems unfair to call it a stub and it is difficult to know what else could be added. Reasonable for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Posted Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump[edit]

I don't know what to make of this, except that we cannot post a blurb for every statement Trump makes, no matter how out of character. (non-admin closure) Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Donald Trump commits to an "orderly transition" of power in a statement after the violence and the Congress certifies Biden (Post)
News source(s): NBC Fox News USA TodayThe National
Credits:
Nominator's comments: For the first time Trump has agreed for giving up power and transition. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 8 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) Impeachment of Donald Trump[edit]

Good faith, but no chance until something actually happens, which might be today, tomorrow, or not at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Presidency of Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer demand Donald Trump's immediate removal from the presidency through impeachment or the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution after his supporters launched a violent insurrection against the US capitol. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It appears nobody talks about the violence, just how to get rid of the guy. --> Albertaont (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it happens Right now, it's all talk. Will Pelosi bring the House into session for impeachment? I doubt it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith nom but demands are not going to be posted, only if one or the other actually happens. P-K3 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it happens. --Masem (t) 23:09, 7 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) RD: Neil Sheehan[edit]

Article: Neil Sheehan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WaPo
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American journalist, best known as the New York Times reporter who obtained the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, dies at age 84. Davey2116 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support This gentleman was highly accomplished (Pulitzer prize) and was highly respected for his insight into the Vietnam War. Additionally, his involvement with the Pentagon Papers deserves note, as they had a large impact on public sentament of the time. RandomPerson144 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Three CN tags. Gex4pls (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Still Oppose, per below. Two other books aren't even addressed in the main body. Gex4pls (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I've only looked at this briefly but I've had to remove a piece of possibly BLP-violating text. I've requested a citation for his period of activity -- there's very little between him finishing the book in 1986 and his death -- that's a long time, and the books section has 2 further books that aren't discussed at all. Could do with dates for his marriage; was it his only one? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Removal from Ongoing: Tigray Conflict[edit]

Article: Tigray conflict (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article has not received substantial updates since the start of the new year; the only substantial additions made recently were about profiling by Ethiopian Airlines (in an article published Dec 17). Given the article is not receiving continued, substantial updates, it is not eligible to remain in the Ongoing section. SpencerT•C 17:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably time to remove. And I wonder what is the situation with India farmer's protests. Time to check that one as well. --Tone 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Support Its not in the news. A separate nom has to be made for India farmers protest, although that one is still very much in the news given that even sympathy protests are still happening across the world (or at least in Canada). Albertaont (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – There was this today, FWIW. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Slow, but it's had substantial updates in the last 3 days so leave for now Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above, those substantial updates were from events reported Dec 17, not due to events that occurred recently. SpencerT•C 22:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Still developing, though slowly. Apparently Eritrean troops have likely become involved, which could lead to further conflict. Gex4pls (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Removal Article is orange tagged for NPOV and, judging by the long and thoughtful discussion in Talk, it is warranted. I did not have a chance to look over the edit history, but if the updates are as meagre and tangential as suggested above, or if the "conflict" is over and the remaining is politicking, then I don't see how that justifies keeping a tagged article on the Main Page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. No longer in the mainstream news and is NPOV tagged. Modest Genius talk 12:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. The tag for neutrality has been on since December without being cleared, and recent edits have been sporadic. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-removal comment – Not so sure about this move. FYI, Friday's coverage includes Reuters quoting UN on 2.3 million needing food, and AP quoting UN on pandemic threat. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's a good move since the NPOV tag hasn't been addressed for some time. If that gets sorted out then perhaps we can re-consider if it's still ITN. In the meantime it's not of sufficient quality either way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The tag for PoV was placed on 19 December. If it's fixed, then remove it and potentially it can go back up. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Saturday — Tigray hospitals hit by artillery. [4]Sca (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

January 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Pag-asa (eagle)[edit]

Article: Pag-asa (eagle) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABS-CBN
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The first Philippine eagle to have been bred in captivity. I've done nothing to the article which looks reasonably good - Dumelow (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Neat little article, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Short but suitable for the subject. SpencerT•C 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gord Renwick[edit]

Article: Gord Renwick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hockey Canada The Canadian Press (via Toronto Star)
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian ice hockey administrator. I've not done anything to the article apart from add his death to the "personal life" section but it looked to be in pretty good nick already - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Nice looking article. Teemu08 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have updated the article the best I can for now. I will revisit when more information is available. I have added my name as an updater since I wrote 99% of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Washington protests[edit]

(non-admin closure) Posted. Enough is enough. More talk is unnecessary here. If you have concerns or questions about the blurb or how we word the blurb, ask on the ITN talk page. If you request changes, they go at WP:ERRORS. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2021 United States Capitol protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The United States Capitol Building is stormed by far-right extremists during Congress' certification of the Electoral College votes for the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Pro-Trump protestors storm the United States Capitol Building, disrupting Congress' certification of the Electoral College votes for the 2020 United States presidential election
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 1 person dies, as the United States Capitol Building is stormed by far-right extremists during Congress' certification of the Electoral College votes for the 2020 United States presidential election.
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests
Credits:
Nominator's comments: What can I say. This is huge. We need to get on this. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support bluntly once there is an article.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support per above. Buffaboy talk 20:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note - As I mentioned in the section on the senate election below: "Looks like things are getting chaotic at the US Capitol Building. January 2021 Donald Trump rally, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and 2020–2021 United States election protests are all being edited at the moment, as I'm sure are several others." ... Stability of these articles needs to be kept in mind when considering them for main page inclusion. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious support. This is fascism. CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Neutral alt-blurb. Yes, I would probably agree ideologically with the original blurb, but we're still an encyclopedia and have to be neutral. --Masem (t) 20:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support big news, unprecedented. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E9A8:3181:7FC4:8EDC (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - No further comment is really necessary. So depressing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Edit Conflict three times) Strong Support once there is a proper article. Honestly has there ever been a coup attempt like this in English speaking countries? OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Natl legislature breaching has become common and represents major flashpoints. Agree with 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E9A8:3181:7FC4:8EDC as well.MSG17 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-blurb 1 the article is updated enough for the current situation, and will continue to be rapidly updated. Alt-blurb1 is fine, the original (blurb doesn't need "far-right", needs "Trump") and alt2 (1 death isn't the lede here) are not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb 1 per Masem. Jesus f*ck, I can't believe this is happening. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • All these blurbs suck. Please stop suggesting unless you have some experience writing blurbs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb 1 per Power~enwiki. –Fredddie 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose first blurb - No need to explain. May as well change it completely. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support but wait Article is still highly unstable as lots of information is unknown. Even news reports are conflicting and incomplete at this time. Wait for a few hours until we have a stable article to promote to the main page. This is too soon to push out now, but once things have calmed down and the basic facts have coalesced into a coherent narrative, we can post. Also, per Coffeeandcrumbs, a better blurb is needed as well. --Jayron32 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think an admin may need to full-protect this page.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- this is unprecedented. This reminds me of the Soviet Coup attempt of 1991. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 1 per Masem. I don't like using profanity on Wikipedia, but this is fucking insane. As a minor suggestion: if sources state that one of the motivating factors was the apparent loss of the Republicans in the Senate, then we can merge the other blurb proposal into this one after the second race is called.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think a single person thinks the riots and the Georgia elections are linked, other than "because Trump". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The news is saying that it has certainly at least escalated it all, because Trump. Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
        • They are loosely linked, not because Trump, but because power. If the Senate had stayed Republican, both the House and Biden would be sharply constrained in what Democrats could do. As it is, the electoral vote and the inauguration are all that stands between the current situation and what half of the U.S. sees as the results of a stolen election. However, the U.S. is also so polarized that what is obvious to one side is completely unseeable by the other. Incidentally, the Senate would be wise to push the electoral vote through tonight, during the hours of curfew. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Is this really a coup or just a bunch of stupid deluded rednecks who can't handle the truth? Genuine question... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Why not both? CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Gun-toting idiots with no clue, that's my guess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Be glad that some 95% of the protesters had no real idea what to do next once they were inside, and ended up turning it into a selfie moment. Some of them were quite prepared -- witness the extreme ID-masking -- but ended up spread too thinly to be effective. It is currently unclear how many of those escaped arrest. Be equally glad that DC's gun laws ensured that there was no visible weaponry, which kept the greater part of the crowd from bringing weapons altogether. However, Georgia and West Virginia are not all that far away. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Should 2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count be wikilinked for the word "certification" or "certification of the 2020 presidential election"? I think that would be a relevant wikilink given that the certification was disrupted. 184.147.106.95 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Wording is quite bad, but definitely should be included. FlalfTalk 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we adjust the wikilinks in the blurb so that we have fewer unnecessary links? If people don't know about the US Capitol building, they'll learn about it at the bolded article. I'd suggest something like Demonstrators '''[[2021 United States Capitol protests|storm the United States Capitol Building]]''', disrupting [[2020 United States presidential election Electoral College count|certification of the 2020 US presidential election]] by Congress. Wug·a·po·des 21:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Big, developing news. I'm not surprised though still worthy enough to post. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Unprecedented insurrection. Davey2116 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and put the 2020 election protests into ongoing. One of many protests. Dan the Animator 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't call them "demonstrators" call them "rioters" or "terrorists". -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • comment for once I would like to say "screw what RS/the media call them"^^ --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. We are a neutral encyclopedia, not a partisan media outlet. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support No doubt one of the biggest events of this year. Neverbuffed (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do we have a picture to go with this? CoatCheck (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Either the Village People or the United States Capitol would work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Not yet, I believe. I think the photographers will start uploading their photos when the protests are largely under control. Flickr is usually useful for finding CC photos (it was really helpful during the George Floyd protests, at least). Ahmadtalk 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support An insurrection in the US is obviously a major event. Now is a good point in the the coup attempt timeline to post this. We can probably use stronger wording in the blurb, as a lot of media are calling it an insurrection by extremists.  Nixinova T  C   22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Was there a discussion to change the wording to a mob of rioters? We should verify that sources are using that wording before making that sort of a change. Spengouli (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Premature. These intellectually disabled rabble-rousers are destined for the dustbin of history. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
PS: Nevertheless, "mob" is decidedly POV = unencyclopedic. – Sca (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
User:MastCell made that change, without any consensus to do so. P-K3 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I have undo some of that. Rioters is supported by news sources but that's as far as I would go with it at this point. --Masem (t) 23:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Even that should be reverted. These changes are being made unilaterally and the wording is weasely. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Every change to ITN has been "unilateral", but MastCell's change to wording supported by multiple reliable sources is somehow worse? How about:
  • BBC (US and Canada edition): "Violent pro-Trump mob" [5]
  • BBC (non-US version): "Congress in turmoil as rioters breach building[6]
  • NYT: "Mob Storms Capitol, Inflamed by Angry Trump Speech" [7]
  • LATimes: "Pro-Trump mob" [8]
  • WaPo: "Pro-Trump mob" [9]
Also, I note that the original blurb said "pro-Trump", but that was unilaterally changed without discussion. I think some people here do not understand NPOV. It doesn't mean we don't call a mob a mob. And removing "pro-Trump" ... when that is their entire defining characteristic is especially egregious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We don't use headlines as reliable sources. If its in the body, that's fine, but headlines are written to capture attention and thus aren't written with the same journalist oversight. "Rioters" I've seen more than enough, and "Pro-Trump" is one, though this starts verging on editorial speak to a degree. We rarely identify who the protestors ally with in any other type of blurb on ITN, it shouldn't be a difference here. --Masem (t) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Originally this was defined by some as an attempted coup (!!) which seems have turned into some petty looting while police stand by and wave. Utter storm in a teacup. The reaction of the police is far more interesting that the Village People who went looking for free stuff. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I put "Pro-Trump" back; this story is as much, if not more, about him than it is about what actually happened at the Capitol. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the start of wheel-warring, best avoided, not going to end well. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, editing through full protection is an admin action so it's best we not revert a revert. For my part, I agree with Floq per WP:Call a spade a spade. There are (first-hand) reports that EICs are issuing guidance against publications using protestors and this is reflected in the most recent sources. The storming is significant, but the stated goal is to install Trump as the next president by disrupting a constitutionally mandated joint session of Congress. IMO that's significant enough to name the affiliation even if we don't normally. Wug·a·po·des 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pro-Trump" was in the blurb that was voted on and posted, and was then unilaterally removed without a discussion. I don't think restoring it is an issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
While "Pro-Trump" can certainly be used, the problem is that we have never editorialized like that at ITNC for any other blurb about political protests. Yes, I'm watching the same events and worried about the end result, but at the same time, this situation doesn't create a special situation that WP or ITN can ignore past principles on how we write blurbs. We wouldn't do that for, say, the Hong Kong protests or Venezuelan ones. We have a standard way we write protest blurbs, and there's no reason to change from that for this situation. --Masem (t) 23:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no editorialising happening. That's what the protestors are being described as by news sources all over the world. We follow the RS; I'm sure we've posted stuff like "anti-Government protestors ..." many times. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, firstly, WP:CCC, but more importantly as Floq points out reliable sources are no longer referring to it simply as a protest, and they are making a point to identify the affiliation. Unlike the Hong Kong protests, it's not simply a protest regarding political philosophy, it is a protest to install a specific person as leader of the United States (or, at the very least, to prevent the installation of the democratically elected leader of a nuclear armed state). How many examples of that do we have? Regardless of the coup(s) in Venezuela, their protest goals did not affect control of nuclear megatonnage sufficient to end earthly life. In my mind, that makes the affiliation of the protestors somewhat more consequential, and this seems to be the case from the pointed affiliation-naming in reliable sources. Wug·a·po·des 23:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: I think some people here do not understand NPOV. It doesn't mean we don't call a mob a mob. And removing "pro-Trump" ... when that is their entire defining characteristic is especially egregious. Since you're going to just make up a rationale to shoot down, I don't see a point in engaging further. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Then why ping me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
To make it clear who I was responding to? JFC, seems you just want to create conflict where there is none, including with your unnecessary edit summary. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pro Trump" is a given, although I'm sure we can word things better than some sensationalist tabloid. "Rioters" and "mob" reek of tabloid sensationalism outright and completely at this point. As much as I'd love it to say "A bunch of gun-totin' rednecks made asses of themselves and the nation briefly", I'd rather see as neutral an approach as possible. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not permitted. What if someone doesn't know who might be protesting the certification of Trump's opponent's win after two months of Trump doing that himself? What do you expect them to do? Read the article?!? -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-blurb 1 - there was involvement by more than just far right people. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pro-Trump rioters storm the US Capitol Building....
Should be U.S., as that is U.S.-English style.
"Storm" is hyped. Suggest "invade."
Sca (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know which is really US English, but at the time of posting the TFA alongside had "US", without periods. But then I see SA goes with "U.S.", so, I guess there's no consistency regardless. -- tariqabjotu 23:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the current wording as of 23:30:00 is fine with me; (1) it includes pro-Trump, which is a crazy thing to remove, and was in the blurb that was first posted; (2) it doesn't use whitewashing milquetoast words like "protesters" or "demonstrators", and (3) I don't care about "flee" vs "evacuate". I think MOS doesn't care about U.S. vs US, does it? Isn't it optional? And I don't see "invade" as better than "storm"; if anything, "invade" sounds weird when you're talking about a building. I think Black Kite has successfully threaded the needle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
U.S. vs US is one of Sca's hills to die on, he's always bringing it up. P-K3 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, this is very true. I have pointed out many times that MOS:USA is not on his side on this issue, but it seems to be a bit of a bone of contention that won't go away and occasionally it strikes gold and an admin actually makes the change. At least it's more benign than claiming repeatedly that an entire election is fraudulent though, I guess!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2021
  • Comment: Not trying to be that guy, but shouldn't it say "President Donald Trump" or "U.S. President Donald Trump"? Not a supporter of his, but world leaders are usually addressed by their titles. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 23:02, 8 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) RD: Albert Roux[edit]

Article: Albert Roux (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Evening Standard, The Guardian, Reuters UK
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: French chef who had a significant impact on the British dining scene, alongside his brother Michel Roux. First ITN Nom for quite a while, so apologies if I've forgotten something. Miyagawa (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eric Jerome Dickey[edit]

Article: Eric Jerome Dickey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Author died at 59 on the third Rockin (Talk) 05:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • AleatoryPonderings It looks like that site copied Wikipedia, not the other way round, It was written in August 2012, at which time the text flagged already existed on Wikipedia ([10]). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The most substantive section is on his literary career, and it is mostly unsourced.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too little sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 5[edit]

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) 2020 United States Senate election[edit]

Article: 2020 United States Senate elections (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Democratic Party wins control of the United States Senate. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, the Democratic Party wins control of the Senate, with victories in a regular and special Senate election in the U.S. state of Georgia.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, WX Post, NYT
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: I'm wondering what you all think of this. Democrats have in all likelihood taken control of the U.S. Senate, effective January 20. This is technically the final result of a general election (so should be ITN/R) but the election today was more similar to a by-election. Of course we would wait until the result is confirmed if we decide to post this. Davey2116 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak support on notability solely for the reason that this concludes the general election. Had the outcome of the general election not been determined by these runoff elections, then they would of course not be notable enough on their own merits. This is a rare circumstance where these runoffs are both a couple of by-elections (which wouldn't be ITN/R) and the decisive factor of the general election (which is ITN/R). No matter the final result, this beings an end to the general election, and it'll be the last time we'd post about it until inauguration day. That said, I also wouldn't mind too much if we don't post them, because if we don't post the results of these elections as they're announced, then on January 20th we could instead mention that a Democratic Senate is sworn in alongside Biden, Harris, and a Democratic House.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Not wishing to forestall an argument which will probably kick off in two weeks' time, but what makes you think we will post anything on "inauguration day"? As before, it will be certainly covered in the international papers ad nauseam, but I wouldn't expect us to post it, as it's just the outcome of the election that we posted back in November. Note that we didn't post anything about Trump's inauguration in 2017, until later in the day when the resulting protests became violent, which was a separate news story in itself. The same should apply this year.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. With the Democrats set to take over control of the Senate, this will allow the Biden Administration to pursue the agenda on which it was elected. If the GOP keeps control of the Senate then the way the Biden Administration can govern is much more akin to how a coalition government with Biden and Trump would look like in a parliamentary democracy. Count Iblis (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics, we already posted the POTUS, we wouldn't do this for any other country on earth beside the US so I don't see why we should at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't put words in my mouth Iblis. This may be of interest locally to Americans, but it's pure systemic bias to give it priority when we literally never post this sub-head election for any other country on planet earth. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the stakes of control of the Senate and the role the Senate plays in the US political system, this is analogous to the formation of a coalition government in a parliamentary democracy after the elections are held. We do post here about the details of the new government in, say, Germany. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes this, the President can't change laws without more yeas than nays in the House and then again in the Senate, 49% of the Senate is a lot different than 50% plus a vice president tiebreaker, it's the difference between no real law changes for at least 2 more years leaving Trump's laws in place or the Democrats ending the filibuster so they can change the law to be slightly left of center (the West Virginia senator wants to keep his seat). This isn't even a dog bites man story as the chance of this was slightly under half (slightly over half for each of the two plus correlation effects). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is effectively no different than the results of a parliamentary election reflecting a coalition shift.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Your argument would have hugely merit if we didn't have examples of us posting coalition shifts on ITN in previous years.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - It is a pretty big deal, but this is pretty much just the internal politics of one particular country. The rest of the world doesn't want to see how our sausage is made. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTALL and also on notability. I don't know why this nomination is still open when the final outcome is undetermined. Wikipedia doesn't work with likeliness. Also, the preceding comments of those supporting this clearly indicate that its importance is justified because the Democratic Party taking control of the Senate would make it easier for Biden to pursue his presidential agenda. This is nothing but POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle People might not like it, but this is getting front-page coverage on the international news pubs. Reliable sources don't treat this as "any other country". Wait until the election is called by multiple reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This may be in the papers but, for the thousandth time, we are not a news ticker and the international media always gorge themselves on US politics as a routine matter - perhaps just for the macabre entertainment of it all with the current goings on! The bottom line is that we have a well defined list of elections that we post at WP:ITN/R, and byelections in individual constituencies are not among them. I can sort of see a case that maybe this is actually a long-awaited result of the general election in November, but then we did post about that at the time with the announcement of Biden's victory, so it's a bit of a grey area whether a separate line item for the Senate is warranted. We didn't post one when the House of Representative results became known, as far as I'm aware.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support once the major networks have called for Ossoff. It is a marker of the extreme dysfunctionality of this project that astrological phenomena, minor sports events, and natural disasters with a death toll of seven routinely sail through, while major political events like this encounter opposition. Call me America-centric all you want, but I find it utterly mind-boggling that people could think e.g. the 2020 Gjerdrum landslide is an event with more global impact than a major shift in political power in the world's sole superpower nation. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 11:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
At least 17% of the angles from 0 to 360 degrees is literally a major astrological phenomena, that's not why it was posted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose One blurb per election is more than enough. Pavlor (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Please show where we posted about the US Senate elections, which are separate from the House and POTUS elections. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In (sort of) original blurb about the US elections [11] (blurb was later shortened with only POTUS election remaining). Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It said "control of the Senate will be determined in a run off election" briefly. This is that runoff election, and as noted at WP:ITNR "If an election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted." That refers to head of government/state, but the spirit of that would suggest it goes for control of a chamber, too. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, all other senators were elected, only seats in Georgia were for runoff election. Pavlor (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we posting a French legislative election after runoffs if 2% of the seats were won in the second round and 98% were also decided beforehand? (I don't think that happened before but neither does this.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. If control had not changed, this would not merit posting, but a Democratic Senate means soon-to-be President Biden will be able to do much different things than had the GOP retained control. This has great impacts not only for the US, but for everyone. This is in essence the second round of an election, and we post after the final round. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Inquiry If this were to be included (the merits are a separate question to which I'm open to), should we mention anything about how the US House is in Democratic hands as well? Obviously this wasn't a House election and the House not flipping is not blurb worthy; however we would not be talking about the significance of this had the House not been Democratic already. Unless this is already common knowledge. The *trifecta* of House, Senate, and Presidency is what makes this significant. Granted this assumes that Ossoff also wins which at the time of this comment has not happened yet though it seems likely. Any thoughts on this? -TenorTwelve (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for my earlier comment that I removed, didn't read carefully enough. The House remaining Democratic is common knowledge and hasn't really been discussed since the election. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd judge it by the WP:WEIGHT of how sources frame it. Since the election is not called yet, let's wait and see.—Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
However, based on the below observation that this is the culmination of the 2020(–21) general election, there is merit to considering bundling the House and presidential results too. I don't think the House result was mentioned in the Nov blurb for Biden.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Although the President putatively runs the country, House and Senate control more than anything else determines the direction that public policy in the US can take, both domestically and abroad. Therefore, we must assume this is a sui generis case of a single election in a state greatly affecting federal politics.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support We seem to be violating the spirit of the "general election" ITNR entry by even debating this. The results of an election in a G7 country that change the party in power are clearly very significant. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A balance shift in a major world power, seems important enough. Gex4pls (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A "local" election with international implications. Let's not be willfully myopic here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as the conclusion of the general election and a major power shift.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It removes the last obstacles for Biden and the Democratic party platform. Albertaont (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WAIT – Not yet, they haven't, according to multiple RS coverage: AP, BBC, Guardian, WX Post, NYT. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:CRYSTALBALL per Sca. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 14:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A recount has never overturned a margin as large as the two elections have in US history. They are both getting in. We posted Biden before the results were official(which will be today or tomorrow). 331dot (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It won't be long before that crystal ball becomes a mirror.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppsoe per The Rambling Man. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait per Sca. One race is definitely over but the other is still in the air though very likely towards the democratic candidate. But this is however important to the broad world picture since this gives the full control of Congress to the party of the incoming President, which after the last four years, means a lot of change is going to be coming that will affect world politics. --Masem (t) 15:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tagged as ITNR. This is the final round of a national legislative election. We've also not posted the result of this cycle's U.S. Senate election. I'd suggest waiting on Ostoff's election result to be called as we usually don't call special/by-elections; the regular election was part of the general election, not the special election where Warnock won. (You can argue if 2020 United States Senate elections only refers to the "general election", the special elections shouldn't be discussed on that article except as "See also" links. You can also argue that the title should be "2020–21 United States Senate elections", as the 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia is already named that way.) Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and wait - Though one could say it is national news, this still has an impact on the rest of the world. But wait until Ossoff is officially the winner.BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Warnock's done it, Ossoff's call is a formality. Major news as the Democrats will have unified control. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - "local politics"? LOL. Levivich harass/hound 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    ...and wait until the result is confirmed of course, but whatever the result is, it should be posted. Levivich harass/hound 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I was initially opposed to this, but upon reflection this result represents the conclusion of the 2020 US General Election, which would be ITN/R; and it wasn't until this point that we had a winner of the US Senate election, so I believe this passes ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose One post per election is sufficient. Chrisclear (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • This is ITNR. Presidential elections are different from legislative elections (and elections on separate chambers are different elections still). We have historically posted French presidential and legislative elections independently of each other. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
American law only changes when a majority of 2 houses and president agree, so there's more than one real national election. That's 3 different thingies elected at 3 different even-numbered years for 2, 4 or 6 year terms from 3 different tranche sets of land (and not even all single round first past the post) and all 3 have to agree. Also 2 to 1 in each chamber can override the president but that party distribution hasn't happened in eons. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I suppose even if the Republicans retained the Senate, this would still have been posted pending updates since this is ITNR (we post both presidential and legislative elections irrespective the form of government). We can't do anything with the House since it's stale for two months now and you guys didn't include it with the presidential election blurb. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No House is fine, too late now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This election decided who controls the legislature so it is pretty significant. Swordman97 talk to me 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support when confirmed. I wouldn't usually support this ("local politics" indeed), but if the Dems get the Senate the whole political landscape of the US changes, and like it or not that has implications for a lot more of the world than America. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Affirming that this runoff is part of the 2020 US general election: It has stretched a few days into 2021, but the 2020 general election cycle is finally drawing to a close. BBC.comBagumba (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltChip and Gex4pls Belugsump (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support when confirmed the Ossoff race hasn't been called so we can't post this yet, but the situation is extraordinary enough that the standard rule against not posting this type of thing should be ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Now confirmed; everyone in the US is distracted by a more prominent story right now, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not really related, but if someone wants to nominate it, the chaos in Washington right now is probably more significant. I'm sure there is/will be an article. It's insane.[12] (No slight on this nomination intended). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support if confirmed - Big international news per Times of India, The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald. Opposers' reasoning has little merit, in my view. "In the News" indeed. Jusdafax (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (when confirmed) and I would also support double blurb with the D.C. protests if they remain significant. Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support when confirmed only. Major international significance. Neutralitytalk 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note - Looks like things are getting chaotic at the US Capitol Building. January 2021 Donald Trump rally, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and 2020–2021 United States election protests are all being edited at the moment, as I'm sure are several others. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started a separate discussion above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The AP has called the race for Ossoff, so there should be no need to wait now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • AP, CNN and NYTimes have called it for Ossoff, thus making this basically official. --Masem (t) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I used the alt blurb. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mz7: Can you remove "US state of" as redundant? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: Done. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. I was disappointed to see the November blurb only refer to the presidency, and not the equally important congressional races. But now that those races are finally over, it is good that we posted the results. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – The No. 1 spot news story today, POV rhetoric notwithstanding: AP, BBC, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Russia responsible for Solar Winds hack[edit]

WP:SNOW – Unanimous opposition.
Sca (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2020 United States federal government data breach (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The United States Intelligence Community announces that Russia is likely responsible for the largest hack of U.S. government data in history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The United States Intelligence Community announces that Russia is responsible for the largest hack of U.S. government data in history.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States Intelligence Community and law enforcement agencies announce that Russia is likely responsible for the largest hack of U.S. government data in history.
News source(s): The Hill , CNN , The Independent
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Notability should be self-evident. The Russians are at it again. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's not what the agencies are saying. That the attack likely originated in Russia. They have not pointed a finger to the Russian gov't. So this is blatently wrong, and thus not yet a postable story. --Masem (t) 23:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Wrong To quote: >"A group of U.S. intelligence agencies on Tuesday formally accused Russia of being linked to the recently discovered hack of IT group SolarWinds that compromised much of the federal government. The FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) attributed the effort to Russia.
    And >"“This work indicates that an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actor, likely Russian in origin, is responsible for most or all of the recently discovered, ongoing cyber compromises of both government and non-governmental networks,” the agencies said in a joint statement around their investigation into the cyber incident."
    These are literally the first 3 sentences of the first linked article from The Hill; Advanced Persistent Threats are by definition state owned/sponsored groups.
    CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Whatever the Hill writers wrote, the direct quote they use from the agencies is very different, stating that the attack was "likely Russia in origin". The full statement [13] only mentions Russia once there. They do not say anything about the Russian gov't at all. --Masem (t) 00:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    We also can't jump to the conclusion that a Russian APT is necessarily being sponsored by the Russian gov't. Yes, its most likely , but not the only possible means. The statement is worded carefully not to blame Russia directly for the attack, so we can't say they are. --Masem (t) 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Big deal. I've never had a doubt that Russia can do even better than that. If sanctions are imposed against Russia as a result, please come back and re-nominate the updated story. Until then, this piece of information is not impactful at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The President doesn't seem to think so, thus nothing will come from this. WaltCip-(talk) 01:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Which president? Agree with Kiril. Once America decides to respond in meaningful way, please come back and re-nom with more substance. Albertaont (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose bit too late for this now [14]. If we were going to post it, it should've been done weeks ago, before this relatively minor development. Banedon (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Banedon.  Nixinova T  C   05:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose hang on, Russia hacked the Americans? And there's no way the Americans haven't hacked the Russians, no way at all.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The hack was a while ago, this is just the obvious next step. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 6 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) RD: Colin Bell[edit]

Article: Colin Bell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: English football player who made 492 394 appearances for Manchester City.  — Melly42 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It is state in the BBC article. According to the WP article he had 394 appearances. --Melly42 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The infobox always refers to League appearances only. 492 will be his appearances in all competitions. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Support all good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've requested a couple of sources; the tables of appearances/goals at the end appear completely unsourced and the honours spottily sourced. Also many of the book sources appear to be lacking any page numbers. Otherwise not looking in too bad shape. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Still no obvious page numbers -- all the book sources require pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: "all the book sources require pages" – actually, that's not the case (at least not how it was like last year when I successfully nominated 136 ITNs). Take ref 113 for example: no page number can be provided because the book is not numbered, but because I've provided the URL to the exact page, that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, a link to a page in an online book is ok, if the book is unpaginated; if it is paginated, you should always give the page as well to facilitate finding it if for example the Google Books preview is taken down, or someone wanted to look in a print copy. However, Ref 3 and several others I looked at are just offline books without page numbers. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: all done now. All offline books have either had URLs added or been replaced by other reliable sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, spot checks look ok now. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All sourced, looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tanya Roberts

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

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Nomination closed yesterday. Should be reopened again. Article has been updated. No templates any longer. Regards, 7&6=thirteen () 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, the paragraph about how her death was reported prematurely could be substantially shortened. --Tone 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done Kingsif (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is one source reporting anew, and it's TMZ. Roberts is not confirmed dead, this seems almost like death-wishing. Maybe she is, but it would be respectful to wait for it to actually be announced. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We should wait until more reliable sources are reporting her death. There is no rush.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Fox News now independently reporting death on evening of Jan 4th. Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until more reliable sources confirm. I also agree with Tone that there's no need to make a big deal of the mix-up over her earlier death announcement.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support death confirmed by some decent sources now (NYT), and article is in good shape, and clarifies the false news succinctly as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Almost ready Still lacks cites in Television section of the Filmography.Support Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Should be done now. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait at least for AP, which had to retract their erroneous Mon report.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as her death is now reported in the New York Times and the article is sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support NYT confirms. Article looks ready. P-K3 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. It seems to have enough legs in reliable sources now, and support here. If it later turns out that she's still alive (again), then that's on the reliable sources, not on us.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
1.9 million views. 7&6=thirteen () 12:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pungky Purnomo Wibowo[edit]

Article: Pungky Purnomo Wibowo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment – Rather stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sca: Created five hours after his death. The longer the time between his death and current time, the more source would pour in. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is he even notable? The "Head of the Payment System Operation Department" at a bank? I mean, if this is equivalent to Chief Cashier of the Bank of England, then possibly - though I note the latest holder of that doesn't even have an article either. I'm not going to AfD it (yet) because it's unclear what notability he holds. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Black Kite, Surely the multiple obits cited in the article establish WP:BASIC, even if his office doesn't pass WP:NPOL? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's why I said I'm not sure about it. The article doesn't say why he's notable, though ... and he can't pass NPOL anyway, as he wasn't a politician. He didn't have an article until today, and the creating editor's userpage says "ZIS user only MAKES articel when AN indonesian dies." It'd be interesting to get some feedback from someone who can read Indonesian. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    The article almost certainly does need to add more detail on what his significance is etc, but as AleatoryPonderings says, WP:GNG seems to be fairly clearly satisfied by the number of obituaries that have been generated. He appears to have been the subject of some sort of corruption investigation too, which was covered by CNN Indonesia last year.[15]  — Amakuru (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Let me put this into a Western perspective (UK/US). If we consider the current law (Law No. 9 of 2010 on State Protocol) as a way to view how the government considers the notability of its officials, the Governor of Bank Indonesia (thereafter GBI) is considered higher than a minister. I'll be conservative and say that the GBI is a minister's office. Currently, Wibowo held the office as head of ... department, which, according to their hierarchy diagram, is a level under the GBI, thus making the office equal to an undersecretary. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fairly stub like at present. Probably worth waiting on this until more obituaries come in. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict and Sca: I think you might check again now. I have added more materials on the subject.
Somewhat expanded, thanks, Jeromi Mikhael, and the notability is now clearer. Article still could do with information on his personal life (spouse, children) to avoid needing a subhead just for his death. Does the reference for the death cover the place (in the infobox)? Also need to update whether he was actually buried on 6 Jan. PS, Jeromi Mikhael: note that pings don't go through unless they are signed (in the same edit). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael: Did you get a chance to look at this comment? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. Article still could do with information on his personal life — can't find one
  2. Does the reference for the death cover the place (in the infobox) — yes, will add
  3. Also need to update whether he was actually buried on 6 Jan — can't find, all the sources still say "will", can't find sources dated on or after 6 Jan
  4. note that pings don't go through unless they are signed — thank you
Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support Light but seems to have appropriate depth of coverage for his career. SpencerT•C 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article light but workable. For non-Indonesians, best comparison would be someone like Randal Quarles - not the highest ranked banker, but not unimportant either. Juxlos (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Per MOS:INTRO, lead could use at least a sentence if not two more on his notable accomplishments. —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Brett[edit]

Article: Bob Brett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ATPTour.com
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Australian tennis coach, whose clients included Becker, Ivanisevic & Cilic. The article currently has precisely zero references, but I will endeavour to whip it into shape.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have finished working on expanding and referencing this article, so I think it may be more or less ready to go now. Any comments welcome!  — Amakuru (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted, nice work Stephen 01:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post posting edit conflicted comment. Not checked in detail but looks fairly well fleshed out. Some queries with the sources... Ref 6 needs full details. Some of the sources look a little marginal; are we still allowing the Daily Mirror? Three cites to red-linked local paper, two of which carry significant weight. His own foundation is ok for its existence, but probably not for "The Foundation supports financially and socially disadvantaged youth in Australia". Is InsideTheGames.biz reliable? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Daily Mirror has not been depreciated (unlike the Daily Mail and the Sun), Inside the Games is generally reliable as it's well written news content (even if their website is ugly). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, agreed - InsideTheGames is a publication with proper editorial control, and I think I've seen it used before. Similarly, I've never heard of any rule prohibiting local papers or the Daily Mirror. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mirror, there is no consensus to deprecate. That said, I have added a couple of extra refs to a couple of the statements supported by those sources, just to add extra verifiability to them. It turns out I made an error with one of them, a cite to the 1988 Sandwell Evening Mail was supposed to be to the 1991 Irish Independent, which I've fixed. Thanks for the updates and reviews everyone.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra sources, Amakuru. I don't mind local papers but if there's no article it's hard to assess how reliable they are. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: M. R. Schunker[edit]

Article: M. R. Schunker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian admiral. I've not done much to it apart from a bit of a tidy on the sources but looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon "Butch" Stewart[edit]

Article: Gordon "Butch" Stewart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jamaica Gleaner
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Jamaican businessman who founded Sandals Resorts and the Jamaica ObserverJoofjoof (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Ullrich[edit]

Article: Kay Ullrich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55531072
Credits:
Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Scottish MP; article well sourced and updated with details of death MurielMary (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Couple of sources for minor things needed, or details could just be removed. Otherwise looking decent. There might be more-detailed obituaries in other Scottish newspapers in a wee while, as they say up here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support with the caution along the lines of Espresso Addict's concerns. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I cannot find a source for the one unsourced statement, but otherwise the article looks good. Gex4pls (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weakish Oppose - that unsourced statement covers quite a long period of her life, and more detail would be advisable there.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - uncited statement tidied up and referenced, some more details added. Looks ready for final review and posting? BTW, there's no confirmed death date in any of the obits - does this prevent the article from being posted? Date of death is in the article as "January 2021". MurielMary (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I've hidden some of the details that still seem unsourced. I think this is as ready as it's going to be in the short term. I don't think the lack of a precise date of death needs to hold it up. Pinging @Amakuru: to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support uncited details have now been removed. Although she has died - on 4 January or the day before, I haven't seen and exact date given and part of this is I still havent seen an obituary published online- the articles published so far have been tributes. I do expect newspapers to carry her obituary soon- as indicated above, if these contain further details then these can be added later. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted - thanks for sorting this out, Espresso Addict, it looks fine now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Shelley[edit]

Article: Barbara Shelley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barbara-shelley-dead-british-horror-film-icon-and-queen-of-hammer-was-88
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Horror film actress; article updated and all films sourced MurielMary (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Story checks out, just missing a hyphen, but not for long. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not checked thoroughly but I did a spot check on the sources, and didn't find they supported all the material in the paragraph where they were cited (noted in article). Also, and not restricted to this one, I don't think we should be giving all this information on cause of death. If it is later widely attributed to coronavirus in reliable sources, we can say the subject died of coronavirus on [date] at [place], but the blow-by-blow accounts are not encyclopedic, imo, except for the very well known or perhaps the much younger than average. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Still not checked thoroughly but another problem I noticed was the birth date; it's uncited and the BFI gives a completely different date. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Which parts are "blow-by-blow accounts"? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the check Espresso Addict; a couple of claims have now been removed as they weren't supported in the sources. InedibleHulk, I also just edited the paragraph on her death as there was quite a bit of detail in there that I agree was unnecessary. MurielMary (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it heavily implies COVID killed her by burying what her agent, who presumably knew her well, publicized to the contrary. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to go with the version of the paragraph on her death that's there now (edits by InedibleHulk and The Rambling Man). MurielMary (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool, me too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I have shortened the material further, though I do think it could go down much more. The detail I particularly lacked was her appearance in Blake's 7 "Stardrive", which is what I personally recognise her from, but didn't look to be in the three given sources. I'll take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My vote is only conditional on both infections being acknowledged as sickening, in any words.InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The BFI lists it as 15 August 1933 and all other sources list it as 13 February 1932. I've edited the lead to "1932 or 1933" however the obits state she was 88 when she died so I've left that in the article. Any other thoughts on how to handle this? MurielMary (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
MurielMary, The way you've done it seems quite all right to me. Maybe cite the relevant sources in the lede or in the first graf of the biography section? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support- the article is well sourced. Only one citation tag needed, but the bulk of the info is cited. TJMSmith (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sandra Hutchens[edit]

Article: Sandra Hutchens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [16]
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: former Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, California DannyS712 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Central African general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020–21 Central African general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Faustin-Archange Touadéra (pictured) is elected for a second term as President of the Central African Republic. (Post)
News source(s): AP, AfricaNews
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Provisional results of the presidential election released. Joofjoof (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Generally we wait for finalised results, or nearly so, and require at least a few paragraphs of reactions/comments on integrity of the election &c. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - this article is titled confusingly... Central Africa refers to a region, and it is quite confusing to title it thus. Would prefer "Central African Republic general election" to be clear. This matches reliable sources such as [17].  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: that does sound better, but the naming comes from Template:Central African elections. Is there a way to rename the group? Joofjoof (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      @Joofjoof: Hmm, well that depends whether it would be seen as a controversial change or not. If it isn't controversial or likely to be challenged, then we can just go through and rename them one by one. If not, then it would be a case of starting a formal WP:RM discussion to run for seven days. I guess this isn't really an issue for the ITN entry anyway, but would be good to get it changed if possible. If nothing else, it would make it match the usage in other articles such as Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present) (not "Central African Civil War (2012–present)"). I'll put a note on the talk page and see if anyone thinks it's a problem. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Reasonably good quality articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, could you take another look at this? It would be a shame for it to go stale simply because so few users have engaged with the nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: I've added a bit more reaction and aftermath, so I have no issues with posting this. My only question is whether we should post this "provisional" result or await the final proclamation by the court, per Espresso Addict 's point above. Reliable sources are already announcing that Touadéra "won" the election, so perhaps it's a bit like the Biden situation prior to Trump's court cases, and I wouldn't object to posting it now. Also don't mind if we wait though.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Brigade Piron, and Joofjoof: I note the table footnote is still saying "2,560 of 5,448 polling stations declared", so these are actually fairly early results -- is there a timeframe for the remainder to be collated? As for going stale, imo if the finalised results are published that would still be ITN/R and could (should) be renominated as such. If it is posted now, I think the blurb should state explicitly that the results are provisional. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, according to this French source [18] the court has until January 19 to certify the results. Pinging @Aréat: will the counting be completed earlier? Joofjoof (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. The low number of polling station declared doesn't seem to mean the results are early. The election just didn't took place in a large part of the country. For reference, the legislative election that happened on the same day only took place in 82 constituencies out of 140. As far as I know, there won't be different result until the constitutional court declare them.--Aréat (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Saudi Arabia–Qatar relations[edit]

Article: Qatar diplomatic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Saudi Arabia and Qatar agree a deal that resolves the diplomatic crisis between them. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Saudi Arabia reopens its border with Qatar, ending a three-year the diplomatic crisis.
News source(s): Guardian, etc
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is detailed, but possibly more update is needed. Brandmeistertalk 20:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment – Below the radar, as far as current crises are concerned. – Sca (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is huge. Unironically bigger than any of the Israeli-Muslim deals of the past 2 years, at least in the short and medium terms. CoronaOneLove (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Two cn tags, as well as multiple untagged missing citations. Ill try my best. Gex4pls (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though it might be worth waiting a day for them to sign the promised agreement at the GCC summit. Significant development in a major dispute, the article looks good and there's a decent update. I've slightly simplified the wording of the blurb above. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. CNs addressed; reworded Alt blurb as not just land borders were reopened. SpencerT•C 02:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a grammatical error in the posted blurb. It should be something like "Saudi Arabia reopens its border with Qatar, ending a three-year diplomatic crisis." Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Reschultzed Thanks for noticing; in future main-page errors is usually the best forum for these kinds of minor errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Closer to four years than three years, June 5, 2017 - January 5, 2021 is 3 years and 7 months. 1779Days (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Extradition of Julian Assange to the USA Denied[edit]

Consensus will not develop.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Julian Assange (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A UK Judge has prevented the extradition of Julian Assange to the USA due to his mental health (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian,
Credits:
Article updated
 EcheveriaJ (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another tiny step in the saga. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Although I do question why this is ITN, CNN, BBC, CBC all seem to think it should be. Albertaont (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not newsworthy enough for the main page. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing changes but we should keep an eye on the story. I'll support if he gets extradited or is allowed to be granted political asylum in Mexico.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – That which does not happen is generally not big news. – Sca (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good news (though what would be better news is if Trump pardoned him, Snowden, and Ulbricht), but seems inconsequential since it's only due to his mental state and I'm not sure whether he's free. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just another step in a developing story. Gex4pls (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - this is a developing story, let's see if there's a big spike in reader interest, and if so, help them find what they're looking for by posting this at ITN. For 1/3/21, there's a modest (relatively, +5k) bump, but it's too soon to tell if that's a passing blip or if there will be 100k views today. Also, with Mexico granting asylum, that may keep this story in the cycle, and reader interest may grow. Or it may all be a blip by tomorrow. We'll see. Levivich harass/hound 04:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another step in a long-running legal process. Even if he was extradited, I don't think ITN should post developments in this story unless/until Assange is convicted of a major crime. Continued arguing about if/where/when he should stand trial isn't significant enough for me. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per TRM and others.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:19, 5 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.

RD:Alexi Laiho[edit]

Article: Alexi Laiho (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [19] [20]
Credits:
Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And how does one make it not so obvious? Constructive criticism, please. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Pardon? It's got a maintenance tag right at the top of the page which immediately disqualifies it and renders any support a waste of time. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the tag suggests, this needs a major re-write to be suitable for the Main Page. All the tedious OR stuff about guitar endorsements and equipment needs to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of problems. The guitar endorsements, the unsourced (well, implicitly sourced) quotes from their Facebook page, etc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Children of Bodom's ungodly suffering isn't supposed to be acknowledged by mainstream media, buddy's sister asked for "privacy and understanding", not a pitiful (and pathetically brief) carousel ride. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump-Raffensperger Scandal[edit]

Consensus does not appear to be forming to post this (with unanimous opposition other than the nom at the time of closing) given Trump's previous antics, and given his personality and reputation this discussion can turn rather ugly. No prejudice against renominating this iff actual charges are filed. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 07:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Trump-Raffensperger Scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, NBC, ABC
Credits:
 Marcosoldfox (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support An immense amount of news organizations have reported on the ongoing issue of a scandalous taped call by the US president to Georgia Secretary of state involving questionable acts. The report has become news internationally and among varying news sources from all specters and has become a piece of important conversation in international politics. Carl Bernstein has referred to it as "worse than Watergate" and many are talking about it. It made various headlines in The Washington Post and political commentators and even various senators are on the story. In the leaked call-tape Trump has said that he just needed "11,780" votes, and it has been widely reported on every news channel today and has been an ongoing issue. The evidence of the importance of this event is overwhelming. So for that I support nominating that article to the "ongoing list". — Preceding unsigned comment added by marcosoldfox (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose: I mean, Carl Bernstein thinks a clogged toilet is "worse than Watergate." UncomfortablySmug (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless actual charges are identified and placed on the President (it would have to be by GA), this would be more antics in his post-election loss, which we have avoided covering at this point. The significance of this is not lost, but it far too premature form an ITN to be posting anything. --Masem (t) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trump does Trump things, film at 11. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just another example of why Trump lost the election. There have been dozens of these throughout his time as President. All appalling, but this one is no worse than many others. Let's just hope that in three weeks time all this nonsense will be fading away never to be seen again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - echoing Masem's comment above. No official charges (as of yet). TJMSmith (talk) 06:10, 4 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 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


(Reposted) RD: Tanya Roberts[edit]

Article: Tanya Roberts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
Article updated

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

 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WTH? I improved this article and satisfied the tags. And now you've closed it? It just got posted in the morning. 7&6=thirteen () 23:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], take a look at the link KConWiki posted above. She's not dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Good for her. But I feel like I got all dressed up and have no place to go. 7&6=thirteen () 23:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is why we wait for the article to be updated and, in particular, well-sourced before posting.--WaltCip-(talk) 02:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, many mainstream sources were corroborating it for many hours e.g. BBC. Probably unavoidable here unless we apply WP:RSBREAKING for all RDs and say wait a day. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
See here 7&6=thirteen () 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reposted by Amakuru after death confirmed. SpencerT•C 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Rosa Giannetta[edit]

Article: Rosa Giannetta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/morta-75-anni-rosa-giannetta-alberoni-moglie-francesco-1914125.html
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Italian novelist and sociologist; article updated and sourced. MurielMary (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Thanks for nominating, think it could benefit from some more fleshing out. As she worked as an academic, it needs a list of positions held, preferably with dates. Presumably also she got a PhD? For the newspapers and magazines I assume she was freelance, but if she worked at one/more, that would also need including. The historical fiction writing could also do with a touch more detail; which books won the awards, and what year? The bibliography probably needs them splitting somehow by series. Paragraph 2 of the Biography section needs wikilinks. Going offline now, will try to help out with this later. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support lead too short and article about her life is brief but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As long as it's well referenced it should be good. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. For example, journalism career is a two-sentence list of publications she wrote for without any description of what she wrote about. SpencerT•C 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elena Santiago[edit]

Article: Elena Santiago (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): We Publish News
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Spanish writer. The main text is largely fine but the works and awards sections need referencing. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose much more worried about the awards than the works, but both need work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just referenced all works and awards sections. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added two citation needed tags but otherwise the article looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support all statements and awards now referenced, looks ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lead is very short. Does anyone have any idea how notable some of these awards are? Only one has a blue link, and that is regional, though many may have articles on the Spanish wiki. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Referencing improved; meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Taher[edit]

Article: Ali Taher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

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

 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The Indonesian Wikipedia provides additional info about his career that can be used to expand this article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hanif Al Husaini: Done. Some of the materials in WBI would be inappropriate to be entered in here per our Manual of Style and guidelines (e.g. the irrelevant net worth in his political career). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Urquhart[edit]

Article: Brian Urquhart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Posted, I've left Subiakto Tjakrawerdaya as it has only had 17 hours on the main page. I am happy if another admin disagrees with this and wants to remove it - Dumelow (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dumelow: Just remove it. This is coming from the nominator and creator. BTW does RD has a certain time limit for inclusion?Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The time limit is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#How_many_days?. Hanif Al Husaini}} (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hanif Al Husaini: What I mean here is how long an article could be displayed in the RD section of the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 PDC World Darts Championship[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 PDC World Darts Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In darts, Gerwyn Price (pictured) wins the PDC World Darts Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sporting championship not listed on WP:ITNR but has been posted for the previous three years. OZOO (t) (c) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, oppose on quality de facto ITNR at this point (I'm surprised we waited this long to post it, it's usually the first story of the new year), but the first paragraph of "Background and qualification" is uncited. Other than that it seems ready to go. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 07:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality the article needs more sourcing, and a proper copyedit for tense fixes (current and future tenses still being used in most of the article). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerry Marsden[edit]

Article: Gerry Marsden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, Independent
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: English musician, leader of the band Gerry and the Pacemakers. The article needs more citations. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs a good lot of work on references, will revisit JW 1961 Talk 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added some citations. Now, it is all well sourced except for the discography section (seems coming from Discogs). Maybe an "Awards and honours" section could be added to the article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Awards and honours" section added. Discography all sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article fully sourced, although still a bit brief. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Subiakto Tjakrawerdaya[edit]

Article: Subiakto Tjakrawerdaya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

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

 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hank Adams[edit]

Article: Hank Adams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Indian Country Today; Seattle Times
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Lifelong Native American activist who had a hand in shaping several significant indigenous civil rights events in the last 60 years within the United States. Cedar777 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Mike Reese[edit]

Article: Mike Reese (Pennsylvania politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pennsylvania state representative from the fifty-ninth district. – UncomfortablySmug (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: