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.

Mark Rutte
Mark Rutte

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

  • Aftermath of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny
    • Opposition politician and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny is expected to land in Moscow after recovering in Germany from being poisoned in Russia. It is likely, according to sources, that he will be arrested upon landing for parole violations. (The Guardian)

RD: Phil Spector[edit]

Article: Phil Spector (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TMZ, Rolling Stone
Credits:

Article needs updating

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: Please note: TMZ is the only current "quality" RS reporting this (Brit tabloids are next, and...) and while TMZ has generally avoided jumping the gun, I'm looking for better confirmation. Article is a ways away from posting if this is confirmed. (needs a better source) Masem (t) 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone. gobonobo + c 16:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Just saw that, so confirmed. --Masem (t) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
So did the Washington Post. But we should be asking ourselves if a murderer should be posted there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
RD doesn't care about the ethics of the bio. --Masem (t) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
People get denied for much pettier reasons. Trillfendi (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Citation needed Spman (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The article quality is not there yet, but I would support a blurb in principle - "among the most influential figures in pop music history" as our article says. P-K3 (talk)
  • Oppose tagged. Would consider a blurb as per P-K3's observation, although it is questionable to give a murderer a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Oppose RD until everything is fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jubril Martins-Kuyer[edit]

Article: Jubril Martins-Kuye (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium Times (Nigeria)
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: Nigerian former minister, basics are there. I'll see if I can tidy it up a bit - Dumelow (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Philip Wilson (bishop)[edit]

Article: Philip Wilson (bishop) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC 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: Former Archbishop of Adelaide. Got into a sexual abuse scandal a couple years back. Article is pretty well-referenced in my opinion, I just added an extra one for a previously uncited statement. Juxlos (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Sergi Mingote[edit]

Article: Sergi Mingote (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
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 alpinist, dies after an accident in K2. Article looks fine. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Pedro Trebbau[edit]

Article: Pedro Trebbau (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Nacional
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: German-born, Venezuelan zoologist. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Juan Carlos Copes[edit]

Article: Juan Carlos Copes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (France24)
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: Argentinean Argentine Tango dancer. Work in progress, I've expanded and reffed it a bit. Looking to replace the references to his own website. Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bheki Ntuli[edit]

Article: Bheki Ntuli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ENCA (South Africa)
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: Bit short but article looks to be in reasonably good nick (newly created by above user) - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo[edit]

Article: Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo (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.

Nominator's comments: Work in progress, will finish this in 3〞5 hours. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support pretty fast work. Last sentence of the "Deployments" section is uncited though resolved. Juxlos (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It looks fine. I concur with Juxlos about the Deployments section but otherwise it should be passable. Ricky250 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Apologies for exceeding the planned timeframe (it is now about 10 hours); the article is now 90% complete. I would add some more pictures in the remaining 10%. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Now 95%. Adding later life between 1999 and 2021, medal ribbons, and legacy. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugandan election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Ugandan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Yoweri Museveni is re-elected as President of Uganda (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, AP, Reuters
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: Disputed by the opposition, but probably to nobody's surprise, M7 is victorious again.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Per ITNR. STSC (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - as far as I can see it also looks OK quality-wise, mostly thanks to the updaters mentioned above. There's lots of cited text, and I've added a prose summary of the results and reactions so far.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the Museveni article is quite bad and has multiple tags, the section starting Yoweri Museveni, the man who loves wearing big hats as described on BBC probably the worst. I'll try to improve it. Election article looks good. power~enwiki (, ) 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Hmm that's a shame. Museveni used to be an FA back in the distant mists of time when I first started editing. It's not strictly necessary for it to be improved for this hook as it's not the bolded link, but would be good if you can get it improved anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 每 There's not much on the military entering Wine's home property, which reportedly occurred Friday, or on him alleging voter fraud. [1] 每 Sca (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there is much known about the fraud at present, other than that Wine alleges it. I'll try and add a bit more on that and the break-in you mention tomorrow morning, if nobody else does so first.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per STSC, good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article is good and the event itself has the significance. Ricky250 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is OK. I would prefer that it also contains something about the parliamentary elections, but I guess that'll have to come later. Juxlos (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 每 Coverage Sunday of Wine's alleged arrest, his National Unity Party saying it will challenge election tally. [2] [3] [4] 每 Sca (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The election article could do with more information about the response to the results; we have held out for two or three solid paragraphs in the past. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is this just going to be a thing in every worldwide election from now on, where the opposition party claims fraud? --WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Nah,that's always been a thing, mostly outside the west Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article is sufficiently updated in my view. P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

First winter ascent of K2[edit]

Article: K2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A group of Nepali climbers completes the first successful winter ascent of K2, making it the last eight-thousander ascended in winter. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: K2 was the most famous and challenging unclimbed peak in winter conditions. The story receives front-page coverage and seems to be of high encyclopedic value. Also, the article is in good shape and the update is sufficient. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support if this is the last of the Eight-thousanders to be ascended in the winter. 每 John M Wolfson (talk ? contribs) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, indeed. The article you're linking to mentions it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but oppose on quality We have posted other world records in various sports and this one is more interesting because it's a "World's first"-type record and ,therefore, it's technically unbeatable. With that said,the K2 article needs some work, there are several red links and cn tags Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Salleh Abas[edit]

Article: Salleh Abas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thesundaily.my/local/ex-lord-president-salleh-abas-dies-updated-BL6148113
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.

 Ricky250 (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tagged for nearly 12 years"? CyberTroopers (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
There was a "disputed" maintenance tag on top of the page which was dated February 2009. Check the history. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops my bad, I have fixed the first paragraph and added a citation for the case. I hope you can change your stance. Sorry for my inexperience, this was my first time nominating an article on EN Wiki. Let me know if there's anything more wrong with the article. Ricky250 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem, I was just saying why I couldn't support, immediately. I'll take a closer look later. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Ricky250 (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable person. CyberTroopers (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Notability is not a requirement at RD (and hasn't been for years), as long as the individual has a standalone article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Two claims in the article, at Early life paragraph 3 and Constitutional crisis paragraph 6, are not referenced and there's one When tag at the Honours section, especially given the fact that BLP applies. However the article is in good shape, and meets criteria 1-2 for RDs. GeraldWL 14:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I added two refs in regards to the paragraphs. About honour, i'll see what I can find. Thank you for the support. :) Ricky250 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Dustin Higgs[edit]

Article: Dustin Higgs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/us/politics/dustin-higgs-executed.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0FKX5K8Ie-vssPHmUYvYux3Qc1RXz9uQ-kJP0Pne_1dlDFmr7-G45BrUA
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.

 DrewieStewie (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Executed by the US Government on January 16. While this innocent death is absolutely fucking outrageous (excuse my French) and the execution is full of controversies, he has still died none the less, the death itself is notable on a political level (but not for a blurb), and the article quality looks good for RD. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Significant, fine work. GeraldWL 08:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with regret another proud moment for Trump and his legacy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment 每 As noted regarding the Lisa Montgomery nomination, this nom. seems to depend for noteworthiness not on the event itself but on the political situation in the U.S. Apart from that, the execution of Higgs lacks general significance 每 except perhaps for the topic of capital punishment. 每 Sca (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    You can't oppose an RD on significance, which of course you know. The precedent you cite did not have a stand alone article, this one does. It has citation to varied sources, no real chance for AfD. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh yeah. Okay, relabeled as a comment, then. (Though IMO the same principle applies, i.e. "we are not a DT ticker.") 每 Sca (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    If it's any relief, he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced back in BC, and had his appeals denied on another two watches. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Arguable, Higgs and Montegomery have the same situaiton around notabilty and BLPCRIME - Higgs shouldn't have an article, as he isn't notable for anything but the crime, though yes, there was controversy around his death sentence, but so was in the case of Montgomery. Just because there wasn't a standalone for Montgomery should not have stopped the RD for that because having a standalne is not a required, only a sufficient condition. --Masem (t) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    If it's not a suitable biography (no opinion on my part), it's best for the RD process if this page was either formally AfDed or renamed〞either boldly or via RM.〞Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd strongly prefer some sort of blurb about this last-minute run of federal executions, that might also encompass Lisa Montgomery. I'm not sure why Higgs has an article while Montgomery does not. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Benjamin de Rothschild[edit]

Article: Benjamin de Rothschild (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Financial Times; Haaretz; Bloomberg
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) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - I bought shares through his investment company. He should be remembered. STSC (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, need a second opinion here: is this a valid RD support? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article long enough and well-referenced; lead summarizes the points of the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Osian Ellis[edit]

Article: Osian Ellis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The 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.

Nominator's comments: Legendary Welsh harpist and composer. Better referenced than it was. - The news came on 15 January, but died on 6 January. Can we treat him like 15? Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sjarifuddin Baharsjah[edit]

Article: Sjarifuddin Baharsjah (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 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Dutch Cabinet over child welfare fraud scandal[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Netherlands child welfare fraud scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (pictured) and his Cabinet resign as a result of the child welfare fraud scandal, with new elections planned for March 2021. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NYTimes
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The article is woefully short and I don't know enough about it to help expand, but if I am reading this correctly, while Rutte will remain as acting PM until March to make sure there is leadership, he could be out come these elections in March if his party doesn't get the majority. So effectively the start of a new election cycle. Masem (t) 22:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support significance, oppose stub please please flesh this out. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support massively expanded from nl.wiki, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment For someone who nominated this article (Masem), the resignation of Mark Rutte as Dutch PM is actually a WP:ITNR which it means "a change of head of government" which includes a resignation. So i would "Support" this to be posted if this article needs to be updated and improved due to significance. 36.65.38.213 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Having dug a bit deeper, there are regular elections coming up in March regardless of this. And while Rutte has resigned, he is remaining on until that point; he could be re-estated if his party wins and he's named back to that position, in a case that they're using the election sort of a vote of no confidence. So I'm not sure if this is ITNR but it definitely feels like an ITN regardless on its own merits. --Masem (t) 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Any resignation of a prime minister is certainly significant news. STSC (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Something that isn't obscure, yet not that notable. I still support the creation of this article regardless. DavidCostell44 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - A government taking collective responsibility when something has gone wrong is an extremely rare thing nowadays. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Sulawesi earthquake[edit]

Article: 2021 Sulawesi earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: An earthquake on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi kills at least 35 people and injures hundreds of others. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NYT, AP, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing. Several dead Sherenk1 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The article is already in a good shape. 27 dead at the moment. --Tone 07:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tone: Information can be changed. Until now, there are 35 people killed. 110.137.127.103 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant, recent. Article's in fine shape. GeraldWL 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is easily good enough & the earthquake important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 35 deaths is a lot, and that is likely to rise. Gex4pls (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 每 in principle, pending results of search for survivors. 每 Sca (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted with updated numbers from the article. --Jayron32 14:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


January 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

  • A Sudanese Air Force helicopter crashes shortly after taking off in Sudan's Al Qadarif state, near the border with Ethiopia, with the three-person crew surviving the crash, according to officials. (TRT World)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Sylvain Sylvain[edit]

Article: Sylvain Sylvain (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC; NBC news; The Guardian
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.

 --Melly42 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bryan Monroe[edit]

Article: Bryan Monroe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; CNN; The Mercury 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kathleen Heddle[edit]

Article: Kathleen Heddle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Associated Press; The New York 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: Only reported on January 13 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Not a very long article, but decent. Well sourced and no grammar issues that I could see. Gex4pls (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siegfried Fischbacher[edit]

Article: Siegfried & Roy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC 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: Article is in decent shape given that we had used this for Roy's death last year. Masem (t) 14:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerry Cottle[edit]

Article: Gerry Cottle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Sky News, Evening Standard, 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.

Nominator's comments: British circus owner and promoter. Article is short but well-sourced. Covid-19 death (a week before he was due to be vaccinated).Note: His death was reported on 13 January, but the BBC report says that he "died in hospital in Bath earlier in the week" so a revised date may be required. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Dismayed that neither Reflinks nor ReFill currently working for me. Might have to actually juggle the refs in manually. lol Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither have worked since yesterday!, brought up un talk page of refill JW 1961 Talk 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per TRM - there is a Telegraph article [5] that may be able cite the remaining cn but unfortunately I can't access it from Ireland JW 1961 Talk 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 2 {{citation needed}}. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted citations have been resolved, looks good - Dumelow (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seyoum Mesfin[edit]

Article: Seyoum Mesfin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
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 Ethiopian foreign minister. Killed during the Tigray conflict. Article looks alright - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've expanded on his early life. Sca, it's covered by the ref to Reuters at the end of the paragraph which states "Ethiopia said on Wednesday its military had killed three members of the Tigray region*s former ruling party, including former Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin" - Dumelow (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ndubuisi Kanu[edit]

Article: Ndubuisi Kanu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vanguard (Nigeria)
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: Nigerian admiral. Article looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A bit short but well referenced. Gex4pls (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not checked fully but the article is disorganised and has a lot of short paragraphs. The lead lacks a capsule definition and contains information not present in the body. There is very limited description of his career, and even less on his personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, I found a useful BBC obituary (albeit in Nigerian Pidgin) and have been able to expand and revamp the article. Hopefully you will find it much improved - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, much better, thanks, Dumelow! Bit concerned at how much is sourced to Ref 3 which is dead (also Ref 9, but that's only one sentence). Many of the live non-BBC sources are pay-walled but they look legitimate. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Weston[edit]

Article: Margaret Weston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bradford Telegraph and Argus
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 museum director, death reported on this date. I've tidied up a ref or two but otherwise article looks in reasonable condition - Dumelow (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Was coming to post this, but on a references spotcheck... Where is the date of birth and middle name sourced (not in Ref 1, can't make Ref 2 download)? Ref 3 does not currently mention any of the material it is supporting, except the fact of patronage; some of this is in Ref 4, but not the school or the patronage of Heritage Railway Association. Ref 4 needs details adding but luckily does support a few of the unsourced statements. Ref 5 is probably usable for date of birth, although it's a blog. Newnham has some details but isn't cited for them. Are there any national newspaper obituaries? (Not questioning the subject's notability, by the way, which I think is obvious.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Have done some tidying up and referencing. Espresso Addict can you review again? MurielMary (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I've had another look and I think most of it is now sourced, though I haven't checked exhaustively. It seems thin for the bio of someone of such considerable contributions; I don't know how much more will be available until the round of obituaries, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes a bit thin but satisfactory IMO. MurielMary (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Robertson[edit]

Article: Grace Robertson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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 photographer, death date not known but reported in the press on 13 January. Excellent recent expansion by the above editors - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support satis+. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, well sourced, etc. Gex4pls (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for nominating Dumelow, I was holding off until a date was published. An IP has added 11th but afaik it's not been published anywhere yet. I haven't been able to check the Telegraph interview on which the original stub was based, but everything is now sourced elsewhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Source cited for her death says "has died aged 90" without an exact date. The WP article says she died "January 2021". Sometime notices are released weeks or months later, so can we be sure it's even January?〞Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Google is now saying 11 Jan too (which it wasn't when I last tried her), but where it comes from Googling is not showing me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like google is just using the date the IP put in. Im seeing a lot of non verifiable sources saying Jan 9, Jan 11, and Jan 13, but i cant really narrow it down. Gex4pls (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT?C 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tim Bogert[edit]

Article: Tim Bogert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ultimate Classic Rock, NextMosh
Credits:

Article needs updating

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: Article isn't excellent. Bassist for Vanilla Fudge and Cactus. Only two sources have said anything, so if this turns out to be a Petty/Roberts situation, feel free to jump in and close. -- a lad insane (channel two) 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Marielle de Sarnez[edit]

Article: Marielle de Sarnez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Point (Le Point)
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: Needs work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose One section is tagged and there's a missing source. Gex4pls (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Tags added where appropriate. Contra the 2017 tag, the list section would be okay if it were referenced. More importantly is the 1-sentence Personal life section, where the actual BLP details should be. The entire Early life section is sourced from a single Le Monde obit. While not itself a problem, it gives the impression that the subject is not widely notable.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 3 {{citation needed}}. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update. Thanks all. I believe all points have now been addressed: all unverified material either sourced or removed. List rewritten as prose (where verifiable). ※Early life§ section now has five sources. There was an ※expand§ tag on ※Personal life§ section〞it has been, but there is also a sourced note explaining she divulged very few personal details to media, hence limited amount available. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article has improved so much and issues have been solved, thanks to Innisfree987. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs copyediting to remove WP:EDITORIALizing language from the sources. But at least there's more material to work with now. Joofjoof (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Joofjoof, I have tried to remove language that could be construed as opinionated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support Thanks AleatoryPonderings, that is much better. Kudos to Innisfree987 and the other updaters for building up what was a r谷sum谷 into a good article. Joofjoof (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) President Trump impeached by the House of Representatives[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Second impeachment of Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​United States president Donald Trump is impeached by the House of Representatives, becoming the first American president to be impeached twice. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​United States president Donald Trump is impeached by the House of Representatives, becoming the first president to be impeached on two separate occasions.
Alternative blurb II: ​United States president Donald Trump is impeached by the House of Representatives, charging him with incitement of insurrection and making Trump the first American president to be impeached on two separate occasions.
Alternative blurb III: ​United States president Donald Trump is impeached by the House of Representatives for a second time.
Alternative blurb IV: ​United States president Donald Trump is impeached by the House of Representatives, charging him with incitement of insurrection.
News source(s): CNN, Washington Post, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Roll call is happening as I type this. I personally recommend we wait on this until it's official, of course.  Vanilla  Wizard ? 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I have conflicting thoughts on this, so won't support or oppose, but to save other people the time, this was posted at ITN the first time he was impeached. diff of posting. previous discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Not pushing this idea - as above, not sure what I think - just suggesting it for others to ponder: and ongoing item? It's likely to keep evolving thru next week at the very least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Could also be an additional sentence in the existing blurb on the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, to avoid totally monopolizing ITN with US news. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3 upon passage of the article of impeachment. This is unquestionably ITN material. Article is well sourced and under constant construction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Are we going to see "Americans impeach all the time" (WP:ITNMINIMUMIMPEACHMENTS) arguments? Howard the Duck (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is only the fourth impeachment of a U.S. president. Needless to say, none has previously been impeached twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Now official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I prefer including the charge ("incitement of insurrection") in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
probably alt II. Gives a lot of context. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 1. The vote just ended.[6]--Found5dollar (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, the House vote has now officially concluded, 232-197. I think the original blubr is fine, but I don't have a strong preference there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- half of all of the times the US has impeached a President, it was to impeach Trump. Fun fact. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Vacant0 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My preference is altblurb 2, though I'd be fine with any other blurb that either provides context as to why he was impeached or mentions that this is the first time that a US president was impeached on more than one occasion;.  Vanilla  Wizard ? 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also recommend consideration of adding Second impeachment of Donald Trump to ongoing events until the Senate votes on it -Nywillb (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted - Edits to WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: As I've said before, I'm not a Trump supporter. But aren't world leaders generally addressed by their titles? Shouldn't it say "U.S. President Donald Trump"? UncomfortablySmug (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @UncomfortablySmug: Per MOS:JOBTITLES: "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context, except in the lead sentence of a biographical subject's own article." (For an example, go look at the article on Elizabeth II: The term "Queen Elizabeth" does not appear once in the body of the article.) In this case, the rest of the sentence makes clear that Donald Trump is the president of the U.S., so there's no need to redundantly say "President" or "U.S. president" before his name. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 07:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      In some German media he's been known for weeks as the Noch-Pr?sident 每 the "Still-President." 每 Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The picture of a grinning Trump is ill suited for this blurb. I think this image would be better:
    Donald Trump January 2017.jpg
    Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Nsk92: There is an ongoing discussion on the image at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.〞Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    The photo on there now is amazing. Never ever change it! --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question. Has there ever been a faster ITN nom > post in Wikipedia history (1 hour and 6 min)? CoatCheck (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jo?l Robert[edit]

Article: Jo?l Robert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTBF, Le Soir
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: Recent Covid death, 6 times world champion motocross, 1964 Belgian National Sports Merit AwardFram (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Article seems well sourced. 〞Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside of 2 sentences about his death, zero biographical details.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • That's because extremely little has been written about his personal life. In Belgium, if famous people want to keep their private life private, this is mostly respected by the media: as a consequence, we have information about what made him notable, but not about his life, education, family, ... The Flemish main sports newsite, Sporza, has 4 articles about his death (plus one from right before reporting about his critical condition), and they provide no information about his private life except his date of birth[7][8]. Fram (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for RD, ready to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT?C 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Tartaglia[edit]

Article: Philip Tartaglia (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Scotsman
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) 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Lisa Montgomery[edit]

Article: Murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett#Perpetrator (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN
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: Convicted murderer in this crime so does not have a standalone page per WP:CRIME; was executed last night after last -minute attempts to hold her execution. Masem (t) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Masem, how about linking it to Murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett#Perpetrator? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I have done so, though her "bio" is spread through the article itself (based on the events related to the murder investigation). --Masem (t) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Would this be pipe linked in mainpage? Or would it remain as it is? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article in good quality and structure. A decent amount of references. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ITNRD says "if it has a biographical Wikipedia article", apparently meaning a standalone article. So WP:CRIME is in contradiction when it comes to RD. Brandmeistertalk 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, there isn't a stand-alone article about her, and WP:ITNRD doesn't have a specific note on allowing this (only for people who are members of groups). Therefore, not convinced this should be on RD, especially as we'd linked to a page about a crime in 2004. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the point of the ITNRD guideline is to avoid RD listings about minor persons who are only mentioned in passing. Montgomery is notable by all standard definitions on Wikipedia and the only reason she has no stand-alone article is a style-related decision not to have such articles in most cases. But the article Masem linked to contains enough text and sources to support a stand-alone article in other cases and thus I think ITNRD has to be interpreted to encompass such articles as well. For example, neither Wachoswki sister has a standalone article but no one would really argue that ITNRD were to deny her an entry in RD if one of them died today. Regards SoWhy 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Wachoswkis: That exception is covered in WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 每 This nom. seems to depend for noteworthiness not on the event itself but on the tense political situation in the U.S. Apart from that, the execution of Montgomery lacks general significance 每 except perhaps for the topic of capital punishment. 每 Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's very rare for female defendants to be executed in the US, so it is significant in that sense.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Due partly to the fact that women are less likely than men to commit violent crimes. 每 Sca (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    A blurb would be the route if its the rarity of the event that is notable. 〞Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:ITNRD: An individual human ... if it has a biographical Wikipedia article ... I could possibly IAR for victims, but not the perpetrator. No need to encourage copycats.〞Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • ITNRD is a sufficient but not necessary condition for an RD. I fully recognize the standalone is not there. --Masem (t) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support We've posted deaths of murderers without a standalone article before, eg. Ian Brady.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is ready for posting. Sourced and historically significant.BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even not considering the fact that the person doesn't have an article, all of the info is spread out across the article, not concentrated in the section linked. Gex4pls (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The inherent notability of this death is that an execution was carried out, and that in itself is not newsworthy.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Since when is the cause of death relevant for RD? Regards SoWhy 11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure that this qualifies for RD; I'm opposed to linking to a murder from 2004, but perhaps a separate article could now be created given the coverage of her execution. A blurb relating to the execution might be warranted, although I'm not 100% sure why it is so much more notable than the other (?)two recent executions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a special case. Yes they do not have a standalone article, but her death is more in the news than the other RDs. Fourth woman executed by US federal government, last time was 67 years ago. First woman executed in the Post-Gregg era. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note There is precedent for posting an RD for a murderer where only their crime has an article (Moors_murders#Ian_Brady, discussion), though obviously Brady was far more notorious than this case. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Brady was, I believe, far more of a household name? Also his crimes were much further back in time, historical to most readers, and the article about them much more developed. I strongly think that we should hold to the must (almost always) have a separate article principle to avoid being flooded with similar RD requests. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - What the hell, just ignore all rules. STSC (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD. No standalone article. Brady article nom did not have clear consensus IMO. If the significance/newsworthiness is the execution, then this should be considered as a blurb rather than shoehorned as an RD. SpencerT?C 01:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Brady nom was for a blurb - many of the opposes were against that, before the idea of an RD came up. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I will stress that barring WP:BLPCRIME, Mongomery would have been notable for a standalone article, given that in the last few years as her date of planned execution drew near, more attention had been drawn to her case. But properly under BLPCRIME we don't have a separate article for her as she is not notable for anything beyond the crime, conviction and subsequent legal events tied to it. The complaints that there's no standalone are not really valid as the ITNRD only makes it it a matter of asking about quality for standalone articles, and says nothing against cases like this, which we have posted of the likes before. --Masem (t) 02:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    People are interpreting WP:ITNRD's has a biographical Wikipedia article as needing to be a "standalone". People could choose to IAR in this case, but that's different than claiming that opposing arguments are "not really valid".〞Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose IAR use of BLPCRIME to circumvent basic BLP requirements. The personal details are scant, relate overwhelmingly to a single event, and omit many rudimentary biographical points. This would be a clear BLP1E, were it not housed within an event article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically a BLP2E, notable for the murder itself and being the first woman to be federally executed in the USA in almost 70 years (and the first woman executed in the USA in over 5 years). 1779Days (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should be stricter about these kinds of things, the individual was not notable without the crime article, so does not meet RD requirements. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. 每 Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As I have pointed out above, the RD RFCs were established to set the standalone as a "sufficient but not necessary" requirement for adding to RD, we've never had a consensus discussion on the lack of a standalone - though obviously not having any type of sustained section in any article would be not enough for an RD (like the spouse of a notable person). --Masem (t) 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
That may be your interpretation, but sneaking in these RDs with articles that might just mention individuals in passing is a bad idea, the bad precedent may have been set but we don't need to make a bad thing worse. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm with TRM here; the last thing we need is a precedent for people without articles to be considered. (Obvious exceptions people like Ant & Dec or the Coens who predominantly work together.) I'm open to a blurb on this; but the bolded article would have to be something relating to executing women or the federal executions that Trump has forwarded. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There's Capital punishment in the United States. Cursory look didn't show anything Trump or women specific.〞Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution, if someone is willing to work on it. (Too grim for me just now, I*m afraid.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 每 This isn't going anywhere and it's getting stale. Suggest close. 每 Sca (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Shingoose[edit]

Article: Shingoose (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Winnipeg Free 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support almost satis, I'd like to see the lead expanded, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A bit short but well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A quality C-class biography. Nice work Bloom6132. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would like to see a little more detail about the subject's musical career in the 70s. Not opposed to posting, but could use some more depth of coverage. SpencerT?C 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation[edit]

Article: Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An investigation into Mother and Baby homes in Ireland details the deaths of 9,000 children between 1922 and 1988 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​An investigation into mother and baby homes in Ireland details the deaths of 9,000 children between 1922 and 1988
Alternative blurb II: ​In Ireland, an investigation into church-run homes for unwed mothers and their babies details the deaths of 9,000 children between 1922 and 1988.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Culmination of investigation going back several years, leading to apologies from Irish state and Catholic church. yorkshiresky (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support (but note I created the article). Culmination of a years-long investigation will see a state apology from Ireland's Taoiseach in a story that will dominate the news in Ireland for a week. Already garnering international attention. Bastun??芍?汕芍????! 23:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Shocking news in a Catholic country. STSC (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Reminds me of the Australian war crimes investigation from a few months ago. Making news even across the pond,[1], [2],[3],[4]. Gex4pls (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb modified to include bold link and (to my eye) a missing article. The Criticisms section is not what I expected, and there is no text comparing this situation to analogous if not contemporary situations (France, Russia, Low Countries during occupation, etc.).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support bloody hell. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment awful mistreatment and in principle a blurb seems warranted. However, the outcome was widely anticipated and it's not clear what's in this final report that wasn't already in the interim publications. The article update so far is minimal and provides no more information than we had before the report was published. I'd like to see new information incorporated into the article before posting. Modest Genius talk 10:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair comment in part - the scale of deaths and the extent of the disparity in infant mortality rates between the general populace and those in homes was not generally known. The reactions section will be expanded as the Taoiseach makes his state apology and survivors' groups issue their own statements; but this may take some time - the report is over 3,000 pages and frankly, it's hard going. Bastun??芍?汕芍????! 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I expect there will be plenty of reactions. I just would have preferred ITN to wait a day for that material to be added to the article before posting. It's not as if stories are rotating off quickly at present. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Even from an Indonesian-centric point of view this has very wide coverage.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support notable, awful event covered in news in many countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe "mother and baby homes" is a proper noun. See usage in this Wasington Post article. Also, the 18 affected institutions listed at Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation#Institutions included show this it's not limited to some chain named "Mother and Baby Homes". It's only capitalized as part of the proper name of the commission. I've add altblurb in lowercase.〞Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it's regional, but I'm not familiar the term "mother and baby home". I've offered alt blurb2 which is more accessible, describing them as "church-run homes for unwed mothers and their babies".〞Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I went with Bagumba's blurb as I too was unfamiliar with the term. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    331dot, I've noted a concern over the blurb at WP:ERRORS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Stacy Title[edit]

Article: Stacy Title (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
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: Director of The Bye Bye ManUncomfortablySmug (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Going to need some work; currently a stub with only a few sentences on her work. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose unreferenced filmography. And per Espresso Addict, just above stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The filmography is now sourced though the article is still somewhat small. May be satisfactory, I'm not sure. Spengouli (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now fully sourced and a complete BLP. At 1,6 kb it is no longer a stub (but just barely).130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 每 At 300 words it does seem rather stubbyish, though. Oh well. 每 Sca (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indian farm laws suspended[edit]

Articles: 2020 Indian agriculture acts (talk · history · tag) and 2020每2021 Indian farmers' protest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of India suspends enforcement of the 2020 agriculture acts which had led to a months-long farmers' protest. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: If this is posted, the ongoing about the protests should be pulled out from ongoing. There probably should be a bit more updating on the targets about this. Masem (t) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Question Does the suspension of the laws mean that the laws are repealed, or does it mean that the implementation has simply been postponed? Gex4pls (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • They are definitely not repealed/vacated/nullified. All articles I see reported them as suspected or temporarily put on hold while a panel is brought in to oversee negotiations between the gov't and farmers to try to work out compromises on the laws. --Masem (t) 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • In that case, Oppose. If the laws were repealed, then maybe a support, but the laws simply being put on hold doesn't stop the protests. There is also barely any update in the two articles linked. Gex4pls (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is huge. People died protesting these laws. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For now, while the ongoing status should continue. STSC (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above, should keep in ongoing, and this is in the article. If the protests stop or lose coverage, we can have another nom to remove from ongoing at that point. Albertaont (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the ongoing should have this covered. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first article doesn't seem to have been updated. And main thing that's happened is that a committee has been formed. That's just kicking the can down the road and so this will be ongoing interminably. Andrew?(talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is part of an ongoing event, and the event is already sufficiently covered in the ITN ongoing section. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Adelson[edit]

Article: Sheldon Adelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MarketWatch
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.

 feminist (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Awesome. Er, the article quality I mean. Mostly. Cites seem to be all there, just a tag about the number of section headers which should be easily fixed. Davey2116 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Great looking article. Also, I initially thought that the nominator comment was "feminist" which I thought was pretty funny... --Rockin (Talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A death to throw the GOP into shambles. Nice article. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose grimly structured article, currently tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not as long as the section headers would suggest, but long enough it's clear where the issue has come from. It's still structured better than lots of one-section two-paragraph short articles we post to RD. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The tag seems to be more of a style issue than content (e.g. NPOV, sourcing, etc), so I've changed the template as such. It's now a yellow tag, instead of orange, which is not a show-stopper per WP:ITN.〞Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some referencing issues as well, but should be fixable. SpencerT?C 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per WP:PROMO. Lots of buzzy business language about his casinos. I've tried to moderate it a bit, but this needs some more detailed scrutiny before being posted IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted - Changes should be requested at WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Closed) 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship[edit]

When the ITN discussion is several times longer than the article in question, and there is no obvious consensus in either direction, it is time to close. No consensus. --Tone 17:17, 13 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: 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​?In gridiron football, Alabama defeats Ohio State to win the College Football National Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​?In gridiron football, Alabama defeats Ohio State to win the College Football National Championship (offensive MVP DeVonta Smith pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​?In American football, Alabama defeats Ohio State to win the College Football National Championship (offensive MVP DeVonta Smith pictured).
Alternative blurb III: ​In American football, Alabama defeats Ohio State to win the College Football Playoff National Championship (offensive MVP DeVonta Smith pictured).
News source(s): USA Today, WaPo, NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The college football national championship was posted in 2020! Let's post it again! It is a significant news story in the U.S. as one of the biggest sporting events of the year. It would be one of two gridiron football articles that would get posted in a calendar year. The game isn't over yet, but it's a blowout. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - major news headline, definitely one of the biggest U.S. sports events of the year. Posted last year and absolutely should be posted again. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The DeVonta Smith photo doesn't look too great so I don't think that the alt blurb should be used. --Rockin (Talk) 05:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I replaced with a croppped photo. Resolution is ok for a thumbnail, at best.〞Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment For reference, the 2020 championship was posted here.〞Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't want to bring up the past issues with the BCS as a general issue, but I would ask if this year is really a "fair" competition given the impact COVID had on the participation of various schools, and thus making this a type of "asterick" win. (To contrast, the NFL has continued its season as normal, outside of rescheduling games due to COVID issues, so the Super Bowl winner isn't "affected" by the COVID factor) --Masem (t) 06:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    It's "asterisk". And the concern is similar to that about "unfair elections". If somehow the notability has been diminished by the impact of COVID, that should be covered in the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    fivethirtyeight.com which is the most scientific analyst of elections (they gave Hillary c. 33% chance of losing cause she needed many states which weren't that blue and states' polling errors are correlated, this was more accurate than anyone) and one of the most for sports has said that nothing was weird about who won. If you know American football you'd know that Alabama soundly defeating Ohio State is not unexpected enough to make you think coronavirus asterisk. As of the Jan 2020 edition Alabama had won more championships than anyone since the previous system started in 1998 and did it all since 2009 and Ohio State was one score away from this game last year and won in 2014 and was champion 7 times between 2002 and 1942. The winner is so non-asterisked in fact that this is Alabama's 6th championship in 12 years.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that this was in the US, I think Blurb2 using "American football" is more relevant per MOS:SPECIFICLINK.〞Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 (but only include MVP pic if a better pic can be found) 〞 Article quality is good and readers will certainly be looking for this. Last year's championship brought over 90,000 views to the article, and when this year's semifinals concluded 10 days ago, this article about the finals received 45,000 views. [9] "American" is more specific and recognizable than "gridiron". I agree the blurry MVP pic isn't good enough for the main page; would support MVP pic with a better quality pic. Levivich harass/hound 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There are excellent pictures here and here on Flickr, but they both have all rights reserved. Any way we could get rights to them? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @PCN02WPS: One example is here〞an editor asked the owner to change the licensing on Flickr, and they did.〞Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Bagumba, I'll give that a shot. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's the same old story every year and my opinion is still a resounding no. The Super Bowl LV in less than a month is enough from this sport (or family of sports if you dare). We've been discussing this for more than ten years now, which is enough time to conclude that this particular tournament hasn't impacted the youth in the world to play the sport at all nor is there any significant expansion of the sport as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Right now, gridiron football gets one ITN/R a year. Two is not too much to ask for. It was posted last year, and consensus has moved more and more towards support each year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • If I ever ask for a second event from this sport, I'll definitely go with a league in another country. I see that Japan have won the IFAF World Championship two times, which makes me really curious to learn more about their league.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
        • LOL if we post the Rice Bowl, we'd be posting the winner of the Japanese American college football championship (one of the participants in the Rice Bowl is the Japanese American college football champion), and not the American American college football championship. AFAIK the IFAF World Championship doesn't include Americans who have played in the highest levels of football, pro or college. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility Note Could someone fix the Ohio colours, please? That grey on red text doesn't even come close to accessibility requirements, which is not negotiable (I'd change it myself, but it's probably better if someone more familiar with team colours does it). Black Kite (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Changed the gray to white. Unfortunately, too many editors pay more attention to branding than readability.〞Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. 1) The sport is only known in America 2) Coverage is very limited to just one country, have tried switching IP to different countries but failed to find any non-American source. This would be similar to me nominating World Pencak Silat Championships, which would be definitely closed with SNOW and a trout.〞 Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk ? contribs) 08:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It took me 5 seconds to find coverage in two major UK newspapers [10] [11] and a French news service [12], so that isn't a good comparison. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The event certainly has coverage in non-US media but it's not front-page material (see BBC, Euronews, DW etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The BBC doesn't even mention it on their page devoted to the sport [13] Modest Genius talk 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
They must not realize how big the second highest championship is then. Or think their readers won't care about it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You can't just insist sources don't care about it for X, Y, Z (here, at my comment below) reason but it's still important and should get posted. From your random paragraph analysis of the game above, it's clear you really care about it, but sources don't, at least not this year, sorry. No exceptions for the second highest championship because one guy swears it's big when RS's don't. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the top story on the sports page of the New York Times, New York is not particularly interested in the teams involved as they are at least 8.5 hours of continuous driving away and outside the Northeast US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That wasn't the point. You have been replying to every comment bringing up the lack of news coverage (a main criterion) by saying "but they are distracted by politics" or "but there's a pandemic" or, here, "but they don't count because they don't know how important it is" - particularly bad since importance is often dictated by news coverage, not in spite of lack of it. So I say, you can't ignore a criterion because you think sources are getting it wrong. If they're not giving coverage, they're not giving coverage, and it doesn't matter why. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's also the top story on the San Francisco newspaper sports page and they're about as far as you can get from these teams without leaving this parochial Europe-sized country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Same thing for Alaska [14] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And Guardian US Sports Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, apparently Tor wasn't giving me good IPs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as one of the biggest events in the year. That it's limited to a single country is irrelevant -- ITN gets sports events that take place in one country all the time. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I am as perpetually bemused as most non-Americans as to why amateur sport is such a big deal, but it clearly is, and it's not difficult to find non-US coverage either as you can see in my reply to Jeromi Mikhael above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Black Kite: Don't let the "amateur" status mislead you into thinking it's not a big business. O'Bannon v. NCAA and Fair Pay to Play Act are examples. College football and men's basketball has strong ties with students and alumni, as well as in areas wihtout professional teams. It's one reason Trump pushed for a college football season among the pandemic.〞Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support seems to gather enough interest, but I find it staggering that nearly 15,000 spectators were allowed to share their Covid. Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And now you know why we have so much COVID for our population density. Handwaving that meh 15,000 is only like 15% just doesn't happen in some states though, America isn't all this crazy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Holy crap, this was one of the professional football stadiums which means it was almost quarter full and spectators were 1 yard apart at most. Makes me think of the Florida man meme. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty much every source calls it the "College Football Playoff National Championship".[15] Not sure if the earlier blurbs intentionally dropped "Playoff" or not. I've added ALT III.〞Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An amateur sporting event only open to students at certain universities; not the top level of American football in any sense (that's the Super Bowl). Teams are selected by a subjective committee not on-field performance. We have consistently avoided posting this before - I'm amazed that 2020 had a different outcome, which seems to have been due to lower participation and no clear consensus. Let's not repeat that mistake. ITN shouldn't be posting student sporting competitions (yes that applies to the Boat Race too). Modest Genius talk 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The teams had $116 and $95 million of revenue last year. The winning coach is paid $9.3 million which is almost as much as the professional football #1 of $12 million. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Modest Genius, I don't think that the fact that it is an amateur competition detracts from its newsworthiness or notability as it pertains to ITN; in fact, the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament is ITN/R. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
PCN02WPS I don't think NCAA basketball should be posted either, and have consistently !voted to oppose it and all other student sports. As I've said in previous discussions, we should be posting amateur sporting events only if there is no professional competition in that sport (Gaelic football is the only one that springs to mind). Otherwise we should stick to the most important competitions in the highest (professional) level of the sport. College is not the highest level of American football. Modest Genius talk 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Kiril and numerous arguments over the last decade. I did find that in a year which has had (in the first ten days): Britain leaving the EU, The US president inciting violence in storming the capitol building, Ireland set to publish the report into the mother and baby home abuse.... the description of a non-professional college-level sport as "one of the biggest events in the year" to be laughably and hilariously blinkered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Only in death, the argument that the event should not be posted because it is non-professional and college-level is somewhat invalidated by the status of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament at ITN/R. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Kiril and Only in death.Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Frankly the decision to host the CFP during COVID-19 was so dubious that it ought not be publicized to begin with.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    With respect that really isn't an ITN criteria.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    But you !voted to publicize the Capitol domestic terrorists. OK.〞Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major event in American football and it is a good quality article. P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The NFL Draft is also a major event in American football, but we would never consider it newsworthy. ITN looks at general notability and not just insular notability.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
We consider it newsworthy because it is being covered by reliable sources, as is the case here.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not ITN/R but we can still consider it here at ITN/C. The article's in decent shape. But, I have to oppose based on the fact that even though I like college football I had no idea this happened. Just missed it. Nobody was talking about it and it can't have been above the fold in any news. And you'd think getting multiple colleges together during a pandemic would have been news in itself, so this must be really down the newsworthy pecking order right now. (edit: and this is without getting into the fact it's second-tier non-professional competition in one country. It could be the most popular thing ever for fans of the sport in that country, but until we start posting all the other second-tier non-professional championships that fans go crazy over for all sports in all countries, it's US bias to suggest college football deserves a blurb) Kingsif (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Somebody give me my oars... wait I'm a duck I don't need that. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be very entertained to watch a college football vs Boat Race battle. Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Any boat race that takes the high ground has failed as a boat race. Gex4pls (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Everyone has virus and politics on the mind now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If it were truly newsworthy, it would still be covered, like the many other things taking up the "good news" and "sports column" slots. And for the personal experience side, if it was even given a small headline in the general news sources and social media I peruse, it would have caught my eye. But it isn't. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, it's been quite prominently featured on sites such as ESPN, and has been tirelessly brought up during every ESPN bowl game broadcast. I, personally, would disagree with the statement that "nobody was talking about it." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, the US sports broadcaster that covers everything talked about it during their football broadcast. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, if you, as someone who likes college football, go unaware of the sport's biggest event of the year, that could very well be an issue on your end rather than an issue with the noteworthiness of the event itself. Articles about the game could be quite easily found on both "general news sources" and "social media" both before and after the game. I agree with Spengouli below when he says "I didn't know it happened" or "This shouldn't be covered at all" aren't valid reasoning. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I assumed that it wasn't going ahead, so didn't look for any news on it. And I saw no news on it. This, to me, shows that unless you are looking for news on it then, at least this year, it's not on your radar. That doesn't make for wide newsworthiness: having to go looking for news isn't equal to simply "I didn't know it happened" and we all should recognize that comment was mischaracterization. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, again, basing your !vote on a misguided assumption of yours and yours alone is not a sound reason to oppose a nomination. And again, the fact that you did not see news articles about it seems to be more of an issue on your end. The nominator included three very mainstream and prominent news sources, and many more can be found with a simple Google search. I think we could both agree that if I asserted that because I didn't look for news about the FIFA World Cup, and therefore didn't find any, the World Cup was not newsworthy, my argument would not be valid. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what misguided assumption? That I'm a fan of college football but not delusional like you seem to be that this got any mainstream coverage this year? You appear to be willfully misinterpreting me; I read multiple news sites and I check social media, so if something doesn't come up on my feed it's pretty obscure. I'm sure that's the kind of principle anyone reasonable would agree on. I explained, then elaborated, then literally said you were mischaracterizing my argument. Either you can't understand it, or you're trying to claim a good oppose is baseless. In either case, it's going to be fruitless to continue explaining to you that just telling someone "there's a problem on your end" when there really isn't, is not actually a way to refute them :) So stop pinging me with your insistence that gosh, I clearly haven't read the news or whatever this bs is. Kingsif (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif's point is related to the point I made. I know the NFL is in full gear and its activities outside the field are pretty much getting the same coverage as last year, but anything related to college football was extremely muted since many areas did not have teams playing since most schools did not have in-person classes. Yes, the BCS still has its importance to the field, but I don't think there was the expected interest in it this year as in past years. --Masem (t) 15:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense, I hadn't been following it so did not know that. I just assumed they would at least play without fans like the first sports to return. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Masem, I think it is a mischaracterization to say that "many areas did not have teams playing." Of the 130 FBS teams, only three did not play a single game. While I do concede that some teams had much shorter schedules than we'd be used to in a normal year, the fact is that the vast majority of FBS teams played this year. (Also, just as a note, the BCS is not the system used anymore; rather, the CFP has been used since 2014.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ha, I opposed it last year. Must be going soft in my old age. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't really ITN/R, and with the super bowl just around the corner i doubt anyone will really care. Gex4pls (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Besides the sports fans of the 0.2% of Earth that lives in those states you mean. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
90,000 page views isn't enough to meet the "wide interest" criteria? Levivich harass/hound 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Gex4pls, the fact is that the College Football Playoff National Championship is not ITN/R, and that is not a valid reason for opposing it. Non-ITN/R events are not automatically non-notable. Further, I disagree with the premise that the event is not notable or newsworthy because it occurs the month before another newsworthy event or just the notion that you don't think others care. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3 - We posted it last year and I fail to see any convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be posted. "I didn't know it happened" or "This shouldn't be covered at all" aren't valid reasoning. Spengouli (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I vote to support this, obviously, as a completely disinterested and neutral editor. Also, it is a major sporting event, of near-Superbowl size. "I doubt anyone will really care" is prima facie incorrect, and it's not just the sports fans in those states. It's a huge nation-wide thing, with non-stop coverage on ESPN starting days before the event. The Rambling Man, the COVID superspreader event was more likely on the strip in Tuscaloosa, rather than at the actual football game (and I am not proud of that). Drmies (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again, sports fans: 4,300 words' worth of heart-rendering rhetoric. 每 Sca (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The criteria in question is wide interest. "Wide" can be somewhat vague, but the interest her is far more broad than many items we post. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope that the closing admin will safely disregard all votes that we should post this because we did it last year or because there is other stuff that we post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    As I hope they will safely disregard all votes that are unmoored from ITN criteria. Levivich harass/hound 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    True, especially for the opposition based on the relation to a single country, although it's not even close to be dumb as the belief that we should post because we did it in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    "Support because we posted X in the past" and "Oppose because we usually don't post this sort of thing" ... either they're both valid, or neither are valid. I think neither. We should gauge reader interest based on evidence of current reader interest, not past reader interest. Past reader interest can predict current reader interest, but not determine it. Levivich harass/hound 20:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    ITN is not driven by reader interest, because we know topics from certain regions naturally draw more interest than others; we're trying to normalize topics to worldwide importance, and we have generally discouraged the posting amateur sporting events (of which the BCS clearly is) unless it is the only top event in its field (like marathons and rowing, hi TRM). --Masem (t) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Then we better revise the first sentence of WP:ITN (The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.), and the first bullet point (To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.) and third bullet point (To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.) of WP:ITN#Purpose. Levivich harass/hound 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    "Wide interest" dos not mean "popular news topics" though, which is what you're arguing. The results of an amateur sporting event may be popular in the US but has been argued does not have a compelling wide interest globally. Its why we avoid posting every Trump story that passes along as well. --Masem (t) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Do you or do you not think page views is a metric by which we can measure "wide interest"? Levivich harass/hound 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I don't. We don't know where those hits have come from. For me, "wide interest" means more than to just one specific locale. I wonder how many pageviews came from India or China? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    But your view, that "wide interest" means international interest, does not have consensus. According to WP:ITN, which Howard quoted just above, the consensus is against requiring international interest. In any case, what metric would you use to gauge "wide interest" as it's used at WP:ITN? Levivich harass/hound 21:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    You asked me if I thought page views was a metric for "wide interest". I don't, I think it's a metric which measures page views, not "interest from a wide audience". If we're going for pageviews and want that to apply, we should be saying "large" interest, not "wide" interest. I think most of us understand that "wide" doesn't mean "from one demographic". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm asking you what metric would you use to gauge "wide interest"? Levivich harass/hound 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I would pre-empt that by saying don't create requirements which aren't testable. Everyone knows that. Basics. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    By what metric do you measure the significance criteria? Levivich harass/hound 21:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    By consensus, that's the same across Wikipedia. You asked about pageviews being somehow equivalent to a "wide" audience. I think, at least, we've put that silly one to bed! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I answered both your questions: (a) pageviews doesn't prove wide audience (b) significance is measured by consensus. Why so salty? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Wide audience not required if it's a small ex-Dominion like Australia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I would avoid conflating ITNC with ITNR. If you don't like an Australian ITNR, nominate it for removal. This discussion isn't about that at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind a major Aussie-only sports item being posted, I'm not a deletionist. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we're talking about deleting anything. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Well the higher inclusion standards equivalent for ITN, as technically ITN doesn't delete but simply doesn't add. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Australian football Grand Final hits come from a country even smaller than the mainland US without Alaska and that's itnr. We almost have a metro area with more people than Australia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither does Irish or Australian football but I wouldn't mind them being posted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because ITN isn't a college sports ticker. If it was national/international sports - fine. These are a bunch of college students playing football, not an NFL competition. This seems to go a big overboard on what we post. ~ Destroyeraa??? 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Destroyeraa, it is "national sports". Like, it's literally in the title. It's the national championship, the biggest money generator in the billion-dollar industry of college sports. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Destroyeraa, WP:ITN/C#Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Here in England, our most popular sport is association football. The Premier League is in WP:ITN/R, but we don't post any other English competitions, such as the FA Cup - still in itself a big deal domestically. In fact only two other national leagues, those of Spain and Germany, are in that list. As such, given that we already post the top competition in US American football, it would be overkill to post a second one. I get that this is a big deal in America, nobody's denying that, but so are many other things within their respective countries and we don't want to inundate ITN with endless sporting events. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • This argument isn't really relevant. By your logic, we shouldn't post the Premeir League, because the Champions League would be the "top competition", no? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Or even the Club World Cup, sometimes the South American champion of champions even beats the European. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Or endless discussions either. Current count: 5,500 words. 每 Sca (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Gee what a useful contribution to the discussion. If you don't want to take part in it, don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussing the discussion, Muboshgu, which has long since exceeded any reasonable parameters of garrulousness. 每 Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ALT III w/o photo based on interest and article quality. I read through the !votes. Opposers should to reminded to not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, then there's the sub-variant that it must arbitrarily be the topmost level of that country. WP:ITNR#Golf, for one, doesnt follow that. Country club exception? This is part of a recurring ITN debate over how to balance that one English-speaking country has a 300M population while others are 60M and below. A second post of the most popular sport of a country with likely the most English readers by far is reasonable. And ITN does post "popular" items, like its obsession with WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.〞Bagumba (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this looking like there'll be any actual consensus? Because there's two users literally harassing anyone who dares oppose and it's at half the page, so make a decision soon. Kingsif (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Who's doing that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with you. A few more opposes and supports and this should be closed with a no consensus instead. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:48, 13 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: Thomas G. Carpenter[edit]

Article: Thomas G. Carpenter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Florida Times-Union; Jacksonville Daily Record
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: Only reported today (January 11) Bloom6132 (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - citations look good enough. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it may just be what it is, but his "academic career" didn't really amount to much here, a couple of things relating to a few building projects, but nothing else, over quite a lengthy period. Is that all there is? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 每 Article says that after Carpenter's first wife Oneida died, "he and his second wife continued visiting the campus for major events" 每 but doesn't identify the second wife, nor does the cited article. 每 Sca (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sca: Unfortunately, none of the articles published today[16][17][18] mention his second wife's name. Nor do any of the reliable sources I've searched through. 〞Bloom6132 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
How very strange. 每 Sca (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) 每 So ∣
  • Oppose 每 Unencyclopedic & unjournalistic. 每 Sca (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sca: can you elaborate on this? Did you mean to post this to some other nom?130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No. 每 Sca (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A complete BLP, and his professional career is well documented here. Contrary to some points above: being a president of not one, but two public universities is quite an accomplishment in itself. The bureaucratic and academic wrangling to pull that off is not a common skill, and having multiple architectures named after not only himself, but his family attests to that.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose No details about his presidency at Memphis state; insufficient depth of coverage. SpencerT?C 15:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Eve Branson[edit]

Article: Eve Branson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SKY News, The Evening Standard, Metro, HuffPo, The 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: British philanthropist, child welfare advocate, and the mother of Richard Branson. Short but well-sourced, Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak Support Well sourced but a bit too short and list esque for my liking. Gex4pls (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Short (1800 characters), nearly all sourced to non-independent sources; are there any independent obituaries? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a minimum word count for posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
At 350 words it's brief, but it seems to cover the essential points. Interesting person. 每 Sca (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: No minimum length beyond not a stub, but "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." My main problem with this is that the subject's notability is not well demonstrated with sources independent of her, her family and her agency. Only Refs 6, 7, 12 and a few others repeating Branson's press release about her death are remotely independent. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose A shade brief; any additional information about the Eve Branson Foundation beyond the 1 sentence currently there? SpencerT?C 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The Times has now published an obituary (link added abeve), but it's subscriber only. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Perhaps the article has been improved since the above comments, but I find this to be a well- and diversly-sourced, complete and succinct BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: The Times obituary gives date of death as 8th January (apparently - (subscription required)), so may be already too late to post now. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

  • Sriwijaya Air Flight 182
    • Indonesian authorities locate the black boxes of the Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-500 PK-CLC that crashed into the sea soon after taking off from Jakarta, as human body parts and debris from the plane are found. Loss of everyone on board is considered almost certain. (France 24) (The Jakarta Post)
  • Power is restored in Pakistan following a nationwide blackout. (The Financial Times)
  • Gold mine explosion in Shandong, China.
    • 22 workers are trapped in a gold mine in Qixia, east China's Shandong province after an explosion tore through the mine at 2 p.m. Xinhua News South China Morning Post

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Tom Acker[edit]

Article: Tom Acker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NorthJersey.com; Patch.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: Only reported on January 10 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Posted to RD. SpencerT?C 17:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Maboulou[edit]

Article: Christopher Maboulou (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [19], multiple non-English sources
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: Short article, but all the information available Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support tragic and although brief, such a young player and only just getting started. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced and well structured. Not much else to say. Gex4pls (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. While brief, the subject's life was short so the relative length is acceptable. SpencerT?C 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Kellard[edit]

Article: Bobby Kellard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News, Portsmouth
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 footballer and former Chelmsford City F.C manager. It's in decent shape. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Decent little article, well cited (I cited and removed the only CN on the page) JW 1961 Talk 10:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Added a cn tag (feel free to remove if wrong), also, I'm not sure if it's standard for sources to be mid sentence instead of at the end, as this article is full of these, but correct me if I'm wrong. Gex4pls (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. A great deal more sourcing is needed. Nothing wrong with citations mid sentence if the last part is covered by something else, but this is not the case for much of this article. The section on his later life is very bitty. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose just feel like the prose is mostly a re-hash of the infobox. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject is 56 years old before the first biographical detail is noted. Not a BLP; article could reasonably be moved to Career of Bobby Kellard.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Nancy Walker Bush Ellis[edit]

Article: Nancy Walker Bush Ellis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York 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: A little brief - death only just announced so hopefully some more obits will be published which can be used for expansion. MurielMary (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. I made some cursory edits to improve some of the references formats and try to tie in some of the info better. But there's also a dead link that I couldn't revive and some PDFs and primary sources that I didn't have time to amend. Tunestoons (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not checked in detail. Still fairly short, particularly given how much of the article is given over to relatives, wedding guests and details of her death -- in general her personal notability apart from her family isn't well developed. I particularly don't like bulking the lead with all her notable relatives, it makes her look less notable for her own achievements. "[B]ecame a champion tennis player and athlete in her youth" is intriguing; more details would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 42 years seem to pass without mention. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I found a new source for the PDF (10, supports Tufts charity work), and deleted the dead link (3, supports wedding guests). The latter was redundant because the information is referenced in the source immediately following (was 4, now 3, NY Times special on the marraige). All other refs look good, BLP details are complete.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:39, 14 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:

  1. ^ "Ireland's 'brutally misogynistic culture' saw the death of 9,000 children in mother and baby homes, report finds". CNN. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  2. ^ "Irish government to apologise over mother-and-baby homes". BBC. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  3. ^ "9,000 children died in Irish mother-and-baby homes, report finds". NBC. Retrieved 12 January 2021.
  4. ^ "Irish PM says 'perverse' morality drove unwed mothers' homes". ABC. Retrieved 12 January 2021.