Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/February 2021

Comment: Instead of having separate sections for the associated companies, maybe make it 1 section and condense related info into paragraphs? (e.g. anything ARN consultants into 1 paragraph; merge Neve and AMS Neve into 1 paragraph, etc.) Also not sure if we need all the pictures too. Otherwise, looks pretty good to me. Support ~~if changes are made.~~ Spencer^T•C 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U I went ahead and made those changes. 2 additional comments: what does "ARN Consultants currently trades under the name Rupert Neve Designs" mean? (What are they trading? It's not listed in the stock market, no?) If there are also dates for the associated companies section (what year did they do the designs, etc.) that would be useful if you have access to that info. Spencer^T•C 22:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, Thanks Spencer. Let me give it some search. Doable I think. Ktin (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Edits per the above request completed. Ambivalent on retaining the images as-is vs removing them. I am not an audiophile, but, these might hold meaning for folks who are related to this topic. Article meets hygiene conditions for homepage / RD at this stage. Ktin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Milford Graves[edit]

Support Graves is an American treasure, a figure vital to experimental music, music therapy, music education, and more. Recent subject of a film (see Full Mantis) and exhibition (Mind Body deal). Rest in peace. --Rgm38 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-sourced. Sad to see him and bandmate Chick Corea die within three days of one another. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support He will be missed! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lynn Stalmaster[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 11 Template:Cob

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Male casting director. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to go. Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 11[edit]

(Posted) RD: George Benneh[edit]

Comment: George_Benneh#Other_activities could referencing. Much of the career section is a list of positions in prose ("CV in prose format") and could use some more detail about what he did or accomplished in those roles. Spencer^T•C 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the main agreeing with Spencer's concerns. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Missing refs have been added. ~~Could someone prose-ify the list of positions in George_Benneh#Other_activities?~~ Joofjoof (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping please check this. The list of board appointments works better as is rather than as a paragraph. Joofjoof (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 03:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Isadore Singer[edit]

Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. Spencer^T•C 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: S. Prestley Blake[edit]

Support Article is a bit bare bones but seems fine all around, well sourced and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment American restaurant co-founder, 208 years of experience between he and his brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I’m not convinced they both emerged experienced on the days of their birth? Step hen 10:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a good thing we don't discuss which recent births to post here. Pretty much everyone starts at the bottom, no article, no nothing. We'd just devolve into a royal baby ticker. But during an ice cream man's first year, that boy learns what milk tastes like, what cold feels like and what a smile buys the world. You can't find that in a book. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support although surprised there's nothing more to add about such a massive career in those 44 years between 1935 and 1979... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bukhari Daud[edit]

Support Well sourced and updated correctly. Gex4pls (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indonesian English teacher and regent. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please can we add the sources as well while nominating. I have not been able to search / find an English language source that announced this death. While that is absolutely not a prerequisite for posting, will be good for an extra pair of eyes to see the article and the news item before any article goes to homepage. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~: He was known for being Regent of Aceh Besar, but the section about that is mostly about his resignation attempt and has some vague analysis ("assessment" section) without saying much about what he specifically did in his 5-year role. This is a common issue for sub-national politician articles here at RD. Spencer^T•C 03:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drawn this request back after considerations. Template:Re, I'm sorry but I can't find one. If you allow me to use Fataldeaths.com and www.dead-people.com as a source then I will gladly use it. As for Template:U, I'm combing for sources in kompasdata.id and majalah.tempo.com, the two most reliable sources in Indonesia's media. The latter doesn't give me any results, but the former yields some interesting headlines. I'll see if I could add some more materials regarding his works from the sources. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I've added some materials regarding his works from the available sources. I hope this satisfies you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jayalal Rohana[edit]

Oppose too many appearances missing citations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Most Distant Known Solar System Object Is FarFarOut[edit]

Comment The article is pretty short, and contradicts the blurb. I have added an altblurb more in line with article text. If this is incorrect, go ahead and change it elsewise.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's currently no mention of this specific discovery in the article as a news event. There's only a few sentences mentioning 2018 AG37 as "announced" in February 2021, which seems strange for an object discovered in 2018 with sources in the article describing it perfectly from 2019. If this were really a major news event, I would think that there should be some hoopla about it in the science community – I'm not saying there isn't, but if so, then the article doesn't currently reflect that at all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman, right in the lead it says "At a very faint apparent magnitude of +25, only the largest telescopes in the world can observe it.[1] Being so far from the Sun, 2018 AG37 moves very slowly among the background stars and has only been observed 9 times over 2 years.[4] It may require an observation arc of several years to refine the uncertainties in the ~1000 year orbital period and whether it is currently close to or at aphelion (furthest distance from the Sun)", it's physically impossible to have a good idea of how far it is when it was first discovered. At that distance (c. 4.35 to 4.45 times Neptune) probably 80-something percent of the motion or more is just Earth's orbit making it move back and forth in a little squiggle less than 1 degree wide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your point is. (Please understand that I know much less about science than you.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For something that far, the discovery will always be too old for ITN when the distance is determined. And you shouldn't expect too much, it's just a speck the size of a millimeter from 30 miles away, smaller than the observers' pixels probably. And even that depends on how bright or dark its color is which is not known. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that's a typo for 2018 the plus or minus error amounts as of 13 months after discovery in the infobox are huge, it's so big it broke their simple error system as it shows a year of 800 plus or minus 940 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is the way for this one. There are many TNOs out there and they keep finding new ones. Planet Nine would be an ITN story for sure, otherwise. --Tone 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it was discovered in 2018, and nothing world changing has happened recently. On a different note, this article wouldn't be DYK-eligible unless you make a 5x expansion of the article, or get it up to GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took 3 years just to pin down its distance to "c. 4.4 Neptunes plus or minus 0.05". It's physically impossible for a 130 AU distance to ever be pinned down well while the discovery is recent enough for ITN. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose DYK hook material.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but of no real importance. Gex4pls (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leslie E. Robertson[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 10 Template:Cob

Weak support raw url and dead link in there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fixed the bare url and the web archive works for the dead url, otherwise looks ok JW 1961 Talk 09:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Thanks JW. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 10[edit]

(Posted) RD: Katherine Creag[edit]

Support could be longer perhaps but as noted several times, not everyone here who is notable has a hugely inspirational and influential career. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something sus about the birth date. The lede only mentions 1973 (without date) but the infobox mentioned 26 December 1973. When I check google 1973 is only featured once in FOX (RS) while 26 December only appears in mirror sites. The rest of RS only mentioned 47 years. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, Support if above resolved. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I've removed the unsourced birthdate. As you mention, all obituaries name her as 47 years old. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Maybe remove the "/1974" part? Her home television, NBC, mentions her birth as 1973. See this also for screenshot. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Template:U. Support Adequate referencing and OR fixed. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 04:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template:Re Hi, Stephen, is it possible to lock the article for a short period? As per above, her birth date part is considered unsourced, but an IP keeps adding the date again and again.~~ Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about this, someone has already added a source to the DOB. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris[edit]

Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. Rare case of over-redlink, the section named for the Supreme Court Case doesn't actually reference or link to the case, in addition to very many other issues. Has the appearance of a legal counsel's scratchpad.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on referencing issues, too many places where citations are needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Media Without a Choice[edit]

Oppose Apparently the virtual part lasts a day, not ongoing, and the physical crowd was around 200. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IncredibleHulk --LaserLegs (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Libel! Eat me, brother! Oh wait, that's right, you can't!. Seriously though, you're alright. And the media is just appealing for hearts, minds and voter-induced tax relief, nobody likes losing some of their gross revenue to "fat cat lizard people from Hell". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't seem like a major deal. Article just says "some people" protested: "a few protests" with "several dozen people" in one and 150 in another; tiny. Nixinova T C 04:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is now orange-tagged for a section using us to advertise its virality for cheap. I added it, but not to suit my agenda here. Just noticed it truly deserves it, but will switch my vote to Abstain if now ethically required. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This brushes up against RGW, and I'm having a hard time making the leap from "taxing advertising" to "destroying democracy". It's a sort of bizarro libertarianism in service to progressive media message that would take a good amount of explaining to get across to a EN reader.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On top of everything that everyone else has said, which I entirely agree with, there's no way this article meets WP:ITNCRIT. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Posted) RD: Yurnalis Ngayoh[edit]

Comment seems to be an empty section for "Governor of East Kalimantan". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re It's a quite new article, I'll work on that section. Besides, the article only mentions Saint Juvenalis but don't mention which one — since the person is dead I think that section would remain tagged forever and ever. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I have filled the section. Feel free to check it. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alberto Corazón[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has only two sections but they are adequate. Gex4pls (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Larry Flynt[edit]

Hef did not get a blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose RD very poor on referencing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's very clear that Hank Aaron's death blurb has started a somewhat weird tendency to propose that everyone should also have it. Oppose for references.Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally neutral on a blurb – I can see how it might be maladroit for Chuck Yeager and Little Richard to not have blurbs (I'll never let those go, btw) while Flynt gets one – but I think he's worth at least consideration. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep - the Little Richard (didn't get one) and Carrie Fisher (did get one) incidents were two distinct low points for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Current sourcing is poor, but at least 20 edits in the last hour so it may improve. Oppose RD - being the second most famous pornographer in America isn't "transformative" enough for a blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, he did get shot for interracial stuff, but see my above comment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What about single-handedly changing U.S. law regarding free speech? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - He had a rather small part, I definitely would not call it "single-handedly". --Masem (t) 02:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two landmark SCOTUS cases (Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., Hustler Magazine v. Falwell) and noteworthy advocacy against a third (Miller v. California). You tell me. Also seems to have caught the FBI in a corruption scandal. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No question he had a role in some of the US free speech case law but certainly would not be as much as SCOTUS justices themselves that have come up with the case law that has formed the principles behind the bulk of speech case law today. --Masem (t) 14:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose large amounts of unsourced content. Would oppose a blurb regardless. Black Kite (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If someone is working on edits to the article in preparation for homepage / RD, added a Washington Post obituary as the source, you can lean in on that article for some help with content / referencing. Ktin (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb as he was neither transformative nor on the top of any relevant field (it's surprising how blurbs get arbitrarily suggested for people far below the bar). The article has a long way to go for RD either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet certain he merits a blurb, but he did greatly affect free speech law in the US. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same. He might not be more influential than Heffner (who we blurbed) but he was certainly more consequential. A stellar article would tip the balance for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on reference concerns. Oppose blurb I'm with Alsoriano97 and Kiril Simeonovski on this one. It has become a trend for people from you-know-where to ~~get~~ be nominated for a blurb although they did little to nothing on a wider scale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, I do not "know where" perhaps you could be specific and enlighten us, and back your assertion with a statically relevant sampling of death blurbs (both successful and rejected) which show a trend vs an anomaly. If you're not able to provide such statistics, perhaps strike your remark as unsubstantiated? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Re Thank you for reminding me. I have struck my remarks. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RD only – If that ... untransformative in any significant way. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Nowhere near blurb status, and multiple unsourced paragraphs.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb; the relative significance of the field merits some consideration, and if Hugh Hefner didn't get one he shouldn't. Provisional oppose RD; relies heavily on a single source and many of the media appearances are unreferenced. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality the more citations needed tag is there for a reason, and hasn't been resolved yet. Until that's resolved, there's no point even arguing about RD or ITN, as it isn't currently in a suitable state for either. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Billy Conigliaro[edit]

Support Not a blockbuster article, but as I said for the soccer player Tony Collins, the referencing is appropriately complete for someone who played before the Internet. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Article has minimal depth of coverage of subject's career. At present there's just 3 sentences about his playing career, and 1 additional sentence about his trip to the World Series. Would like to see a little more detail. Spencer^T•C 03:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Update is adequate. Spencer^T•C 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Understand that he's a pre-internet player, but the bio should at least contain as much information as some of the obits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U and Template:U, it has been expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Albert Hale[edit]

Update: I've taken a stab at it, and I think it's a lot better now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ too many refs needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better, good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support To quote The Rambling Man, satis. Tucker Gladden 👑 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Removal of COVID-19 pandemic from Ongoing[edit]

Template:Atopy

This was just discussed at WT:ITN, where the point is that this banner is still very necessary but there has been a refocus of what topics are in place. Just because the main pandemic article is not updated is not reason to remove the whole banner where the other articles supporting it have been. --Masem (t) 02:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose We're still in a global pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic is edited nearly every day, and sure it hasn't received "substantial update", because of the zillions of subarticles that get the updates (Indian farmers protest has no subarticles, so apples and oranges comparison). Updating this one article for a worldwide pandemic is unrealistic. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal it's been going on for a year, everyone knows about it. There aren't any major new developments, just the ebb and flow of lockdowns and vaccines. Template:Pings stats showed that barely 10% of the hits to the COVID-19 article come from the main page. Having it in the box still satisfies some aspects of the WP:ITN#Purpose but we've never had something up for anywhere close to this long before. Yes, there is still a pandemic going on but what is the benefit of linking to it from the ITN box? --LaserLegs (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The benefit is showcasing good work on the main page. Template:Tq: we hadn't had a global pandemic in a century. I'd like to think Spanish Flu would've stayed up too if Wiki had existed then. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I think instead of this nom, we need a real discussion about the OG criteria. Either stale articles are OK, or "sub-articles" are ok. I had no serious expectation of this item being pulled, but the OPs interpretation of the criteria is technically correct. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeah, ITN is not self-consistent. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How is this even being considered? Have you left the house recently? WaltCip-(talk) 04:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 9 Template:Cob

February 9[edit]

(Posted) RD: J. Hillis Miller[edit]

Support Referenced, updated. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 05:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Chick Corea[edit]

Support – article is thorough. Oppose I looked at the article more closely and there's more refs needed than I thought, even some time later. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Household name, won a lot of gold, several uncited sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Borderline potential -- but likely just under the line - for a blurb (in terms of jazz musicians). --Masem (t) 00:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His prog rock stuff isn't exactly revolutionary, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe a blurb was proposed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't @AllegedlyHuman, there was no blurb proposed. Kline | vroom vroom 01:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support RD I studied with a lot of music majors and Chick Corea was greatly admired and well-known among my classmates. He has many classics. (I'm not actually a music major myself but I was in Choir in college). -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that beyond being notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, the notability of the subject is not relevant to whether or not an RD is merited. Template:Tq AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody remember the last time an "organism" got the nod? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "non-human" then a horse went up less than a year ago. The "organism" is there probably for edge cases where the deceased is not multicellular eukaryotic organisms [from] the biological kingdom Animalia. Famous fungi? Fab fruit? Idk. I vaguely remember a tree being nominated long ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if The Big Tree ever came down, I'd want it on RD... AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support Notability aside, I don't see enough issues with the article to not include Chick Corea in RDs – SrAlfredos (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"strongest possible" Oppose there are plenty of sentences in the article which are completely unreferenced, people need to get familiar with what is required here: posting RDs requires articles to be fully referenced in line with the requirements of BLP. Just arguing "strong support" etc when the article is clearly not ready is a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be held to a "minimum standard of quality". Combing over each and every sentence looking for sources is completely unnecessary. Yes, it could use more, but considering that there are citations in each section and important points are supported, the article absolutely meets the criteria. SrAlfredos (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone added the obligatory cn tags yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, just one big one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality says that "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article"- but this isn't 1 or 2 needed, but at least 10 places with unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum standard of quality is a prose argument. Any article considered for RD requires adherence to WP:BLP. We can't have a largely unsourced article on a recently deceased person go to the Main Page based on "well, that's probably all correct." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article absolutely does not meet the criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs more sourcing, as per my comments above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Needs more sourcing. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Cleary meets first and second criteria for WP:ITNRD (which is not official policy but a guideline to assist with consensus forming). I'm not seeing nearly enough problems with the article to have the third criteria trump the other two and wipe out the nomination. It looks like bureaucratic pedantry and entrenchment might prevent this nomination from succeeding, which I would say goes against the spirit of our work here. RandomGnome (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in the news and being of quality are equal "sufficient and necessary" requirements for ITNRD posting. We can't ignore the quality requirements that any element set for the main page just because of the importance of the person. --Masem (t) 19:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, however I didn't mention the importance of the person. Correct me if I am wrong, but the requirements you speak of are not strictly 'requirements', but Template:Strike just information intended to help form consensus, which itself is ultimately the deciding factor. WP:ITNRD is not official policy. RandomGnome (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The article isn't exactly FA-quality, but it's solid enough, and Corea was an extremely important person in the jazz world. If the article isn't ready yet, I think it would be worth it to do a rapid revamp to improve the article before his death becomes outdated. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that's not the way the hundreds of other RDs on ITN have worked for the past several years: the article quality must meet minimum standards before it can be posted. Spencer^T•C 05:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elliot Mazer[edit]

Template:Strike Support Article is good but I'm not sure if Allmusic is a reliable source, and even if it is I don't think it should be relied on so much. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re according to WP:ALLMUSIC (on the WP:RSP list): Template:Tq Please note that I did not use AllMusic for any of Mazer's bio details, and only to verify his discography list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Ok, good to know. I still don't think it should be so reliant on the one source, but I'll change to support. Gex4pls (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment American sound engineer. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Moufida Tlatli[edit]

Template:Hidden archive top

Support The article is fine thanks to a lot of work done in the last couple of days. Tradedia^talk 14:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tunisian film director. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Stephen, this posting has pushed M. Bala Subramanion off the carousel in ~5 hours. Please can we bring that back for a brief bit. Template:U for earlier context. Ktin (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a broken record, but there is no consensus for minimum duration or more than 6 RDs. M. Bala Subramanion isn't even the last one to have dropped off, and wouldn't have got any time under the old regime as he was nominated rather late. Step hen 04:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, The other article also spent ~5 hours and should also be reinstated. The article took ~6 hours of work to get it ready with all the research, and if we can not afford basic time on the homepage that just speaks about deliberate lack of empathy for contributors' time and efforts. This after the COVID banner was removed under the promise that it would afford blurbs and RDs more space. Ktin (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the COVID banner was removed without any consensus of how to use the space. We have fallen back to the previous 4 blurbs rather than generally 3. There is no consensus for minimum duration or more than 6 RDs, and we are seeing far more posting under the new model where RDs only go stale after 7 days. As I've said before an RfC is the only way to change the status quo, and in my opinion would likely support a modest change.
Respectfully, disagree with your first statement. The very first line of that COVID banner removal discussion starts with Template:Tq. With that discussion ending in the banner having been removed, we not using that third row for overflows seems like we are willfully reneging on the promise that was made. At the cost of me sounding like a broken record (to borrow above phrasing), an article being cycled in 5 hours is definitely disrespectful, when there is space to flow onto. Yes, one could argue that these didn't stand a chance in the old world, neither in the world of three years ago, nor in the world of a few months ago. But, that the community is working these many articles is an absolute win for the project and that is where we are currently. Queue management is not an unsolved problem. Ktin (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

(Closed) Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Comment - This was already nominated and closed/removed. - Indefensible (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see the outcome. --Tone 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose publish the outcome. Everything else is Trumpticker. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point, only the outcome of the trial matters. --Masem (t) 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and wait for the conclusion. Trump is no longer president, so the ultimate punishment of removal from office is no longer a threat. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing - we can post the result. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The process itself is not really newsworthy. STSC (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just as we don't post sports events in progress, we shouldn't post trials in progress. We will almost certainly post the outcome. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

(Posted) RD: Marty Schottenheimer[edit]

My condolences to your inlaws for this recent loss. Also for Butch Reed, Willie Scott and the Superbowl. Been a rough four days for the Chiefs all around. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ for now, many places where citations are needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flagged a few Cn's, which I suspect some are WP:OR that can be removed. However, giving some time for someone to potentially source it, though beware of WP:CIRCULAR with obits that just copy duubious info from Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've enhanced the sourcing. Template:Re Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good now. I have also marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anthony Sowell[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Citation needed and citation overkill in "Discovery" section. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation overkill isn't a valid reason for opposition, they can be bundled if required. Uncited material (tagged for nearly a decade) removed or cited where possible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ten citations for a trial date is ridiculous. Delete seven or nine, or bundle them all, and I'll flip. Good job on the potentially libelous bit! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're not all about the trial date from a cursory glance, just reports of various events during the trial. I'm not bothered, it certainly isn't something which should stop something being posted to RD, and I'm certain you're capable of bundling those refs yourself if you have the time to respond here. It does take some understanding of bullet points, but not much more than that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be certain of that if you knew my setup. Even deleting the extra seven would take several minutes. If you're not going to bother, I'll just settle for swaying to Weak Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me one way or another. It's absurd to oppose on too much referencing, but that's your prerogative of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of it was about calling rape victims scared druggies with personal problems, unsourced. But there are good points about WP:OVERCITE. I didn't invent the notion that it's not ideal. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said that. But you have definitely invented the notion of opposing an RD based on too much information being present in the citations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too many citations in the single line, no comment on the information therein. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many is "too many"?? Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More than three. As for calling someone a necrophile without evidence, once is too much. That much I was capable of fixing in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many unsourced victims at Anthony Sowell#List. Frankly, don't understand people's fixation with itemizing victims names, but (unfortunately) don't know of a policy against being tacky with non-living people esp. victims.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Names sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the fixation on the five featured females, either, but as long as six short stories are missing, the list at least lets us know they didn't die as Jane Does. They had families, families have names. Had ages, too, now included. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just deliberately reintroduce unsourced material after opposing posting because of too much sourcing? Seriously. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from the source you added. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the ages are in there? Amazing, I didn't see that at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to click twice, but yes, easy as any bundle. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Hello Spencer. This article bumped M. Bala Subramanion off the carousel with the latter having spent only ~4 hours on the carousel. Please can you help restore the article for some time. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, re-added so that there is 7. Again, this isn't an ideal solution-- there are other RD items here that could probably be posted as well right now. This is why I had started this discussion on the talk page about turnover (Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_81#RD_turnover). We may have to accept that some RD items are just not going to have that much time on the template, notwithstanding other Main Page balance solutions. Spencer^T•C 03:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Thanks Spencer. Re: that thread, I have lost the battle for sure. In my defense, I proposed a few constructive solutions. At least a couple of them would solve for these scenarios. C'est la vie. Specifically in this scenario, we either float next to third line that was afforded to us by removing the COVID banner, or hold the next promotion for a few hours. Neither are too disruptive imo. Please pardon my persistence. Ktin (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until you can automate the posting of RDs, delaying them is just a non-starter. Admins pass by here sporadically and act in the moment, they're not going to pause posting and return, like, four hours later, that's just not how people's lives work around Wikipedia. Sometimes we're waiting for 12 hours to get anything posted so that suggestion would definitely not solve the problem. A third line is the only option right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, a little bit of a rant. Please pardon this post. That this article is at 40 hours now (and is on track for ~45-50 hours), while the one that it replaced fell off in 4 hours says that we really should smoothen our outflow rate. Agree with your first statement. But, really, someone should start thinking of a holding dam to smoothen the outflow. PS: Without it being a reflection on this gentleman and his deeds, just pains me that this one is still on the homepage, while a community leader (in whatever little capacity) fell out in 4 hours. But, then, that is the world for us (for me). C'est la vie. Ktin (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can't control the outflow, there's no rota of admins here, sometimes we wait for 12 hours for stuff to be posted, it's just not practical to expect some kind of "holding dam" unless you program a 'bot to do it. But even then a human admin will still need to assess an article for consensus to post, so it's just not going to work that way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hope article is pretty good, and could go up as it is whenever orbit is confirmed. The Tianwen article is not. These being ITNR's, I think it best to post them separately. Certainly this will raise "why all the space articles at ITN??" comments, but so be it. I have added an altblurb to shortly describe the mission objectives, and I would suggest that the same should be done for Tianwen ("[...] arrives in orbit and prepares for landing" or such).130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- When there have been multiple car racing ITNR events in the same close time frame, we usually group them "In car racings, X wins Y, and Z wins Q." This would be similar, particularly as this confluence of Mars probes has been known for several months. --Masem (t) 06:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while the Emirates Mars Mission article is okay (but will need updating), Tianwen-1 is not good enough. We could post Hope first and then merge if Tianwen-1 gets improved. But right now, neither suitable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, pending editorial cleanup. The "Hope," aka "Amal" (Arabic), probe seems particularly noteworthy due to its sponsorship by space newbie UAE. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only Emirates Mars Mission, which is good enough; and not Tianwen-1, which is not good enough (there are still many "citations needed"). Tradedia^talk 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Emirates Mars Mission looks good to go, once the spacecraft is confirmed in Mars orbit and the article updated accordingly. Tianwen-1 isn't terrible, but there are still too many unreferenced statements and the article needs a thorough copyedit. Expand UAE in the blurb, or better yet say United Arab Emirates Space Agency. Modest Genius ^talk 15:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support both articles, which have been updated and brought up to postable standard. Tbh I thought we could have posted Hope alone 24 hours ago, but a single combined blurb now is also fine. Modest Genius ^talk 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is cleaned up a bit, per ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UAE's Hope has confirmed reached orbit. --Masem (t) 16:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And Hope article updated with the relevant orbit insertion details. --Masem (t) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good, support posting Emirates Mars Mission now. Modest Genius ^talk 17:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One blurb for both missions. I've cleaned up the Tianwen-1 article. STSC (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for Mars Hope Mission. UAE becomes the 5th country to reach Mars and the second to do it on first attempt (after India). Definitely deserves to be up there. Gorebath (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For Emirates Hope Mission for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are still Template:Tl tags in both articles. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any CNs have now been fixed and I know both are now updated to reflect successful orbitary insertions. --Masem (t) 14:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Mars Mission now has an orange tag but Tianwen-1 is OK. Shall we just post a blurb for Tianwen-1 first? STSC (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tianwen-1 has successfully entered Mars orbit. Ngguls (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Marked 'Needs attention' eight hours ago. – Sca (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 04:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add Perseverance (rover) to this event's blurb when it comes around, instead of adding that as a separate event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming this one is still up, yes, and of course Perseverance lands successfully. --Masem (t) 02:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Micronesian countries quit the Pacific Islands Forum[edit]

Support per nom. Article has an decent update covering recent events. Spencer^T•C 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting occurence, though probably not exactly headline news. Regardless, the "Secretaries General" section could use some citations. Juxlos (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this requires each of the countries to follow procedures to vote internally to follow on that removal. "Each nation will undertake this process with respect to its own internal legal and procedural requirements and [the] final decision rests with respective governments." It may be that this action can be stopped through ongoing negotiations, so this should not be taken as final. --Masem (t) 02:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, this is when the story is making headlines and it also dually serves as a posting for this year's edition of the PIF, which has been posted in the past and also had another major drama this year. If nothing changes and they officially leave the Forum one-by-one, that won't be big news since we already knew it was going to happen. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood this is likely the point of most importances, but that said, I'd reconsider the phrasing to be something like "...counties announced their intention to leave the PIF..." leaving the implication about the formal national process as an exercise to the reader. --Masem (t) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage is not including such qualifiers (see Guardian headline) and the official statement says “the Micronesian presidents jointly agreed to forthwith initiate the formal process of withdrawal from the Pacific Islands Forum respecting their national processes and will act swiftly like the Republic of Palau," which I believe has already completed the process of leaving. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is not ready yet, Pacific Islands Forum#Secretaries General section has an orange banner currently. Per what Masem wrote above, have all of those nations left already or just Palau? If the latter, then the table is incorrect at the moment as well. Probably could use some overall cleanup and improvement in general before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the orange tag, the Prospects section has nothing to say about these events, and is strangely weighted. The tables seem updated to me.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, article needs work before it can be considered for ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many problematic issues raised above, including sourcing (the orange banner is still there). Tradedia^talk 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From what I gather (from the news articles, ours explains less), the Micronesians are leaving because they feel the richer, bigger and more influential countries don't need them. If they're right, and already lack power, this shift should create only a small vacuum (with minor ripples). If there's something more potentially or immediately impactful here (supply disruption, treaty nullification, war?), the blurb should at least elaborate on what that is, if the article is ever ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It needs a substantial content about the impacts of the event. STSC (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, haven't looked at the article enough to determine quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not opposed to the idea of the nomination, but this event should really have its own article if it's as noteworthy as OP claims. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 8 Template:Cob

February 8[edit]

(Posted) RD: Maria Guarnaschelli[edit]

Weak support Could use some more depth but meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 02:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Spencer. In the meantime, please can I request a couple of additional eyes on this one. I believe this meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good length, source coverage is sufficient, and tone is neutral. Joofjoof (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maaher At-Thuwailibi[edit]

Weak oppose Content primarily highlights controversy without much emphasis on his role as a preacher. Spencer^T•C 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vera Wülfing-Leckie[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support long enough for RD, and all well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Carrière[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is fine thanks to a lot of work done in the last couple of days. Tradedia^talk 14:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: S. Clay Wilson[edit]

Oppose much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks ok to me. I support bc Wilson made significant artistic contributions by being part of Zap Comix. --Wil540 art (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Egerton[edit]

Support - article seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean Obeid[edit]

Support Looks good in terms of level of detail and sourcing. Tradedia^talk 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short, but complete. Refs spot checked.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support lots of different positions but not much coverage of what (if anything) he did in any of them. Perhaps he did nothing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support quite short, but it's possible there's nothing more about him. Although as he was foreign minister for a year, did nothing interesting happen that could be added? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shlomo Hillel[edit]

Support Fixed some refs, otherwise okay.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is all around good. Gex4pls (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing regarding the last 35 years of his life, nor mention of his death in the main body. Stephen 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the 2nd part. At age 97, he was probably retired for most of the last 3 decades. He did serve as head of the Society for Preservation of Israel Heritage Sites, which is noted in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tony Collins[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 7 Template:Cob

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose For someone who appeared in 333 professional games and managed a team for 7 years, his professional biography is quite light on details. Surely, we can flesh it out some before posting it to the main page? --Jayron 32 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape and that's what counts for RD. The level of detail should be discussed on the talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article gives a good overview of his life without any significant gaps. P-K3 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is a lot more coherent, cited and complete than many, many, many of his contemporaries who played before the Internet gave us instant reports on every match. This is not a Good Article nomination, nor should it be, but it's at the threshold of many of the recent deaths Unknown Temptation (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 11:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Louise Elisabeth Coldenhoff[edit]

Support - some question on the infobox material, but article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re You mean the service number? Fixed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re That and her retirement date, not sure if that is covered by one of the refs but seems unknown currently. - Indefensible (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Liechtenstein general election[edit]

Oppose - article quality seems lacking, essentially a stub currently. - Indefensible (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm wondering about the 10 seats out of 25 statement; that's less than a majority for the two parties combined so I'm wondering why such a thing needs to be called out. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alt blurb. We don't usually mention the year. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree removing the year is better. I proposed an altblurb2 that specifies it's each party that's getting 10 seats out of the total 25 to clarify the ambiguity I missed. --Pithon314 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Literally who cares. It's a nation that has the population of a large building in Manhattan that exists only because the global elites need to launder their money somewhere. It's so important almost none of the MPs mentioned in the article have wikipedia articles about them, presumably because they wouldn't pass the notability criteria. 212.74.201.230 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Recurring events list, the general elections of all sovereign nations merit posting. If you want to change that policy, please start a discussion. As noted above, "Please do not oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria". 331dot (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, members of national legislatures do indeed meet the notability criteria; which means simply that no one has gotten around to writing articles yet. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strike Support Template:Strike Article is fine now, any elections are ITN/R. Gex4pls (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ both on quality and notability. Regarding quality, important details like "which candidates won" and "why there were 10x more votes than voters" are missing. Regarding notability, I think there will be consensus that countries with less than 1 million people (and certainly those with less than 250k people) shouldn't be in ITNR, and furthermore that in countries like Liechtenstein and Monaco where the EU and the royal families are responsible for most important governmental stuff, the local elections are not important enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why (on the merits) should this not be in ITNR? It was important enough to be in the news, and important enough for someone to write an article about it. It's like we're afraid of learning something about a small corner of the world that is a sovereign country. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding quality, while significantly improved, the article still is missing the essential detail of which candidates were elected. On notability, we don't post the mayor of London or New York being elected, or the Ontario provincial elections. The "but it's a sovereign country" argument doesn't convince me of anything here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U has added the results; I no longer oppose based on quality. Due to my concern about the ITNR guideline, I remain neutral for the nose-counting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly expanded the article, if people care to review it. Please focus on article quality here, discussion on significance should be separate as it would be a significant change to our ITNR guidelines - Dumelow (talk)

Comment Blurb 1 as currently written is confusing, making it sound like 10 seats total were divided among the two main parties, when it was 10 each. Alt 2 is preferable. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 09:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Your sig hurts my eyes. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, ALT2 is the best of the proposed blurbs. Pinging Indefensible, 331dot, Gex4pls, power~enwiki to take another look at article quality - Dumelow (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Alt2 — As news it's UTR, but it would be very encyclopedic to post this, somewhat à la the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the second paragraph of the lead (starting "Following the elections") is unsourced, and the text doesn't appear to be anywhere else in the page (and so needs to be sourced in the lead) Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My additions were hacked back quite severely, apparently such background is not usual for election articles. I've cited the first woman part in the lead as I think that is quite an important aspect of the election - Dumelow (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is quite a bit of foreign interest in the fact that Sabine Monauni could become the first female prime minister of a country in which women didn't have the vote until 1984. I don't know how long it would take for a government to be formed, but I think we should wait until one is formed - whether Monauni leads it or not - as that's a news story with a bit more bite than an election in a multi-party state ending with no majority. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support my concerns above have been resolved. Article is good enough quality, and all elections in sovereign states are ITNR. People objecting to ITNR because "it's a small country" should try and get the ITNR changed at the talkpage, but the ITNR rule as it stands now means there is no reason for this nomination to be opposed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 17:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ron Wright[edit]

Support: First member of Congress to have died of COVID-19. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As he was a US Representative. Important person in modern day politics. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As this is timely, he was a U.S. Representative and COVID19 is an international issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ citation needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U, I think I took care of the missing citations. (Second biography I've created of an elected member of Congress dying of COVID). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, seems like no great loss. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a really crappy thing to say. Keep politics out of RD, please. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing political there at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support shame to give such individuals air-time. But seems to just about pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ The two paragraphs related to Texas v. Pennsylvania (of which he was one of 140 other GOP that signed the amicus brief) seems excessive and stands out compared to the lack of any other cover of his polical career. --Masem (t) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I deleted some of it as UNDUE. The article could otherwise benefit from expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the reduction, Support --Masem (t) 20:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support First member of Congress to die from this global public health disaster. CoatCheck (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Support on the merits is not required for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per quality improvements. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing of value was lost. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it classy. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ready to go, let's get this one moved through ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Karen Lewis[edit]

Weak support where does 2017 come from in the infobox? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I've changed it to 2014. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found a source saying she retired in 2018. I've added that date to the infobox instead. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - spousal information in the infobox seems unsupported per The Rambling Man's comment above, probably could be removed from the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle She was significant in Chicago politics. Former leader of the Chicago Teachers Union. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was hoping someone would take this on. Nice work AH. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Backstrom[edit]

Support No funky filmography, no Kansas City kayfabe, just old school hockey facts and figures. A "legend" nonetheless! No blurb, though, he was 83. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support this article to be featured of the hockey legend as it is notable and worth mention. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U RD nominations do not require support on the merits, as noted in the nomination; this discussion is only to determine if the article is ready to be posted. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ [citation needed] and sucbox says he was "Spencer Penrose Award" winner but that's not mentioned anywhere in the prose. It's also categorised as "Canadian people of Swedish descent " but the prose doesn't say anything of the sort and claims his parentage is Finnish. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Swedes do come from Vaasa. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of the one citation needed tag. Can address the award in a few hours, unless someone else does first. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added Swedish descent (in addition to Finnish descent). Certainly some Finnish Swedes consider themselves separate, in the same way that Iranian Jews consider themselves separate from Persians or Azeris. His last name is not Finnish, the source does not indicate whether his parents spoke Swedish or Finnish, and at that time the majority of Vaasa residents spoke Swedish. Might as well include both.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you verify that? Sounds like a lot of OR going on there. If we have nothing reliable, the category should go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fine, reverted, but it looks awkward from outside. Like if Jennifer Lopez moved to France and FR.wiki tagged her as "French of American descent", where in America she would be (more accurately) described as "American of Puerto Rican descendent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re the category has now been removed by the IP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pedro Gomez (journalist)[edit]

Weak support perhaps a couple of places where sourcing could be added, but looks about adequate to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support one [citation needed] at least and the article seems a little light, but probably just about squeezes over the RD line. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolved Cn, looks like it was from early days when editors treated WP as their blog. Replaced and expanded some on career.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lilliane Brady[edit]

Weak oppose - structure isn't ideal, with the entirety of the body contained under one header. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article looks much better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Template:Ping, I gave the structure some minor rehaul based on Template:U Template:'s comment. Please feel free to expand any of the segments as required. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Super Bowl LV[edit]

Comment we've been posting it for years now because it's WP:ITNR. I'd ask my colleagues to refrain from the deluge of "wait" !votes for this obviously premature good faith nom and wait for the results to be known and the article updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than close this and open my own, I'm adding the updaters to this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, with 3:52 left in the fourth quarter :)Ktin (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, this game was over not long after it started. Brady will be MVP again, but I won't add that and a photo of him to the blurb until they announce it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, cool. Congratulations to the winning team and their supporters. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MVP is Tom Brady. Added to the blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind while the article is in decent shape, we need a decent post-game summary as well as a short half-time show summary. --Masem (t) 23:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Odd that it ends with the beginning of the game. Is it Backwards Day in Fla.? – Sca (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a routine event, maybe if something was worked into the blurb about Brady's record breaking. –DMartin 03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is ITN/R though. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Which is why it will be posted. The game is over, so evaluate away. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, I know. I was just a bit confused about the oppose rationale. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ITNR LOMRJYO_(About) 03:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tom Brady's 7x Super Bowl champion record is a blurb in itself. CoatCheck (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ITNR and adequate. Photo will come as soon as I find one that's locally uploaded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture procured. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ec Post-posting support - ITN/R, article looks good, record-breaking game with Brady winning again. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Shultz[edit]

Comment - definitely deserves to be posted, however "Honors and prizes" and "Selected works" sections could use some referencing improvement first. - Indefensible (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb I know this won't happen, but he deserves a blurb. I bet most people who're interested in international politics would agree he was one of the most prominent diplomats of the XXth century. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz was a competent operator but Kissinger likely more influential. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose RD only, if referenced properly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RD only – George Schultz was a household name in the U.S. and to some extent elsewhere 30-plus years ago, but in current terms he is/was perhaps notable for being a centenarian. No blurb. – Sca (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That and Theranos, but agreed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can I request someone to tag the article with Template:Cn tags where required. Some of us can go in and fill those tags. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 cn tags, but they seem to be easily resolvable, working on it. Gex4pls (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, done. the only one remaining is the LATAM cn tag. Ktin (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nice. I think the selected works could use more sources but other than that seems good to go. Gex4pls (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template:U, let's give it a go. Heading there now. Ktin (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)~~. Done. All of the tags are now filled. Let me know if there are any other Template:Cn tags and I can help fill them. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 00:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 6 Template:Cob

Support - Hundreds feared dead. --180.151.227.65 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Tentative support - this is ~~almost certainly gonna be~~ already being covered by major international news sites ~~in an hour or two (I don't have the time to check if BBC already has this disaster on their front page but they'll probably have it since it's just before noon UTC right now)~~ (whoopsies, I was looking at the ToI reference in the article instead of the BBC link here). It needs more info, however... And I added an alternate blurb since only Uttarakhand is affected as of now. 45.251.33.177 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a two-sentence stub with the majority of its significance yet to be confirmed. Expand and wait. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disaster stub. No WP:LASTING impact. No such thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you linked to a nonexistent guideline that you know does not exist. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it does make sense to oppose on quality and the fact that there is no "minimum deaths" guildeline, the 2015 South India floods and 2018 Kerala floods had no lasting impact but were still ITN. Besides, what we know about this disaster is still developing. 45.251.33.177 (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those were mistakes, I opposed the Kerala floods as well, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is hardly a justification to repeat a mistake. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A glacier didn't "crash into a dam" a glacial dam burst the blurbs are misleading. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U If you consider BBC to be a reliable source, 'crash into a dam' comes right off the BBC headline here 180.151.227.65 (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except 1) That's not what a Glacial lake outburst flood is and 2) Times of India disagrees. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with what you said - just pointing out the origin of that line. 180.151.227.65 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several villages washed away. Count Iblis (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - "Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page" per WP:ITNCRIT. STSC (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Details developing. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The event is a natural disaster that should be notable enough to appear on ITN, but first we need a decent article to put up. What is there is not it. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - unusual natural disaster, article now of sufficient quality to post. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support on the importance of the event but the article needs expansion before posting, there is sufficient coverage in Western sources that should help. --Masem (t) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, article barely above stub class JW 1961 Talk 18:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Wait I don't know why this was proposed so quickly. The event is defiantly notable for ITN, but article quality sucks massively right now. Looking at the ITN nomination, this was nominated 6 hours before the article was even started. A 6 hour gap means a lot in terms of article quality for a current event. Would ask all people who were Oppose to consider strike to a wait while article quality is being improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, wait on quality I'll strike the wait part of the !vote if and when the article more adequately covers the topic. As Sca and Elijahandskip mentioned, the story is still developing and this was nominated before an article even existed. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article has been expanded past a stub, fully referenced. Nixinova T C 05:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the interesting bit here is that apparently the lake was hidden under the ice sheet and no one really knows yet where the water actually came from. Reading the article though, the details about the event are littered with commentary about climate change. There is no reason to rush this WP:BODYCOUNT story to the main page, churn in the box is really slow, can we please wait until it actually reports some details before racing it up there? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well climate change cause some glaciers to develop weaknesses like rotting teeth, there has to be something there on that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Guardian puts toll at 19, Reuters says 200-plus missing. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's easily important enough & the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important event, death toll over 200. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major disaster; article looks ready. 142.120.100.241 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ready article is good enough to post now. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is ready but nothing special. Gex4pls (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Cause" section is potentially self-contradictory, as the last sentence offers an alternative explanation that conflicts with the first sentence. If the alternative is correct, then the article's title is also inaccurate. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, the scientists studying the event believe that there was a lake hidden below the ice that was formed by glacial meltwater. They think that a landslide could have disturbed this water or the glacial morraines holding it in place. In any case, it is still a glacial lake outburst flood. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This - something caused the glacier to break and release the water. It could have just been global warming, it could have been from impact of a landslide; that aspect they don't know they, but once the glacier's tip was broken, that release the water and the flood. --Masem (t) 05:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This ref on the article suggests that a glacier was minimally involved, as the flow may primarily have been from a landslide that surged into a pre-existing river. There was some ice of course, but not necessarily the responsible factor. The rock mass + kinetic energy would explain this event, not a glacier. - Indefensible (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Robert C. Jones[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised to finally see a fully sourced filmography. Gex4pls (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ezra Moseley[edit]

Support would prefer to fix those bare URLs (and reuse) but otherwise it's probably satis for RD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pretty short but all around fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat little article. well referenced now JW 1961 Talk 21:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barry Pashak[edit]

~~Weak oppose~~ a lot (and I mean a lot) about his election results, but not much else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Done – I've added one paragraph of what he did during his time in office (off the CBC obit published today). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Santiago García (Uruguayan footballer)[edit]

Oppose literally no prose on the last decade of his career. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Rambling Man's gripe has been fixed, but the article is still lacking citations. Mlb96 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bansi Kaul[edit]

Support Article is pretty good all around, pretty short but adequate. Gex4pls (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bruce Taylor (New Zealand cricketer)[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 5 Template:Cob

Support No obvious problems, well sourced and mid sized. Gex4pls (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No issues. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Ruth Dayan[edit]

Support Surprised to see one of these nominator comments actually being realistic. Article is just about passing. Gex4pls (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support well referenced and complete. MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fix the bare URL and this is good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Leon Spinks[edit]

Comment ~~I am currently working on cleaning up the article's sourcing.~~ PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing has been updated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where is the table of fights referenced? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I added it as another row in the table, but it was removed by Template:U with this edit, which cites MOS:BOXING/RECORD (Template:Tq) BoxRec was the source I added, so I assume by that guideline the table is fine as is. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. Rounds and times in rounds are not mentioned in that BoxRec page. The data needs inline referencing in the pertinent section, and unverifiable material in that link (e.g. rounds, times etc) should also be cited. Sadly MOS:BOXING/RECORD is way out of touch with community norms, the record is not in chronological order, the tables don't have captions and don't comply with other aspects of MOS:ACCESS, the material is unverifiable, even after one is told that BoxRec is the gospel. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we now have an editor warring over date formats (!) in an already badly-formed and poorly referenced table, unless we see some movement on that, this is a no-go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Butch Reed[edit]

Weak support Great wrestler, alleged football player, but that article quality... InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are reference gaps all over the article and some sections such as this one have no citations at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That section's also missing seven years of relevant material. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Huge body paragraphs that read on like lists remain unsourced. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Christopher Plummer[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 4 Template:Cob

Strong support I'd actually consider giving this one a blurb. Tucker Gladden 👑 18:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I looked over the article and had no choice but to tag it. Lacking references here and there, writing issues left and right, this needs to be fixed before we think about even posting it to RD. Tucker Gladden 👑 21:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - the article is not ready yet and still needs to be improved. - Indefensible (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when ready. Davey2116 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Tons of uncited paragraphs. Neutral on blurb if that becomes a point of discussion once the article is in better shape. Mlb96 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Let's be serious here. Just because someone was in big films, and maybr lots of people have heard of them, it doesn't make them transformative to the level required here. See Kirk Douglas et al. — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. I would think we're talking potential blurb territory but sourcing is a long way from even an RD posting at this point, that should be figured out first and then we can kibitz on a blurb. --Masem (t) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - A major actor and far more notable to the film industry than Sean Connery. -- Veggies (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when the sourcing issues are fixed up. Plummer achieved the Triple Crown of Acting among other major accomplishments and honors. Jusdafax (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article needs serious work before RD is a possibility. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of work needed on referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, and oppose on quality for the moment. A great actor, but I see no evidence of his being transformative in his field. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now everyone has to go to blurb? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I think a lot of people are in opposition to that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb, Support RD only He has little known contribution in global film industry, so i don't see it can be posted as blurb unlike Tom Cruise, Kristen Stewart, etc. But due to fact that needs to be posted as RD, the article needs for fixing many issues regarding grammar and others. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He has little known contribution in global film industry" Seriously? Sometimes I see things here that make me wonder which rock the writer has been living under for the past 60 years. My guess is that the person wasn't even living for the first 40 of them. I am totally confused about the rules for whether dead people get a blurb or not. (Do we actually have any rules?) So I won't bother with a comment on that. Just fix the article and post him as an RD. Quickly! HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose blurb, oppose RD for now He was a well-known and highly accomplished actor, but he was not the Mandela or the Thatcher of the acting field, so I don't believe he is blurb worthy. He may have come close, but I think he falls short of being a "transformative world leader in his field." NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb Not quite top of the field in my opinion, and still needs more referencing for RD JW 1961 Talk 23:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb I hate to say it, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Gex4pls (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb close but no. Support RD when ready. Rhino131 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - While fixing the refs. STSC (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb for all the usual reasons. Article is getting there but has quite a ways to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD while fixing refs, though even then not sure he's quite "blurb-worthy." He was very prolific, supremely talented, and has global recognition, but I wouldn't say he's a superstar or a major figure in the history or evolution of film or anything like that. Definitely RD worthy though. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb --DannyS712 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Blurb, nor one for the prolific, supremely talented and globally recognized superstar of wrestling, Butch Reed. Nor for Kristen Stewart. Maybe Tom Cruise, but not if he's 91. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RD only – Per Vanamonde, Amakuru. Famous, but transformative? – Not really. — Sca (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb. Connor Behan (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is someone working on this article? If referencing is all that is pending, can someone go take a pass at adding Template:Cn tags, I (and perhaps a few others here) can help adding references. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything that needs to be tagged is tagged, but there are 20 in total so reffing could take a while. Gex4pls (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD only His contribution in global film history is unknown outside English-speaking countries and is ineligible to be posted as blurb. 120.188.64.200 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD The article, while having a few cn tags, the overall result is good enough and work has been progressive so far. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All the tags have been cleared now. STSC (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD per the consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 4[edit]

(Posted) RD: Dianne Durham[edit]

Posted Step hen 22:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charles McGee (painter)[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Decent article, but really only has 1-2 sentences about his artwork itself (The artwork he produced afterwards centered more on fundamental elements and less on subject matter, and he abandoned the realism that had dominated his early drawings). A quick search reveals that nature was an important piece of his art, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Thus, there's limited depth of coverage and could use a full paragraph on that, which seems pretty doable, as it looks like there are multiple available sources with more information: [27] [28] [29] [30]. Spencer^T•C 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. Nature was actually mentioned in "Early life and education", but I've added it to the "Career" section as well for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that, but it wasn't connected to his artwork in any way. Spencer^T•C 00:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 00:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: D. N. Jha[edit]

Support Article is a bit short but pretty good all around. Gex4pls (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one. Article is ready for homepage / RD. Also, if there is an Admin online / reading, the backlog is growing, and this might be a good idea to send a couple of articles to homepage / RD, to prevent a large batch. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hy Cohen[edit]

Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Neat article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced, mid sized and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert Dean (Canadian politician)[edit]

Support it seems a little brief but once again, we can't expect all recently deceased to have had epically transformative lives, there's a spectrum between being non-notable and getting a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks fine for a RD, well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good article, a couple writing issues but seems just about fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb Most notable person in history. Very influential on planet Earth. Totally have heard of him before. ;) ;) Tucker Gladden 👑 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only, nice neat little article but nowhere near blurb worthy in my opinion I'm afraid JW 1961 Talk 13:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mathoor Govindan Kutty[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While referenced, there is limited depth of coverage for someone with a six-decade-long career. It appears as though he has just 4 named performances listed over that time period, with 2 additional opening ceremony performances--the equivalent of one performance per decade. Was there a response/reaction to his portrayal of female characters? Spencer^T•C 20:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, hi there. Updated the article with a few more performances, and also added reactions and a few reviews of his performance. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good Gex4pls (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Pardon the intrusion. Please can I request you to have a look at this one. I believe this should be ready to go. Ktin (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US Support for Saudi Arabian-led intervention in the Yemeni Civil War[edit]

Oppose Awful article, not updated, "announcements" as news.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose who cares who the US "supports" in war efforts? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not a US new site. A worldwide encyclopedia shouldn't publish every US policy and decision. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was obviously going to happen, and we can't just post every single US decision, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – We are not a detrumpification ticker. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

(Removed) Removal of 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest from Ongoing[edit]

Support Removal The most recent update was the Republic day protest over a week ago and it was a month between that and the one before. Article also suffers the usual pathologies of hyper-reporting, quote farm, and need for a copyedit. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again as this event is still very much ongoing. It is getting active international attention per the nomination, and another example is Greta Thunberg became involved on February 3 (per the article). It has not resolved in any sufficient manner to justify removal at this time. The Russian protests can be added to ongoing in parallel without needing to remove this item. - Indefensible (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: still in the news, especially after Rihanna's tweet yesterday strangely effected a strong reaction from the Indian govt. Coverage of the event via BBC, Associated Press, Deccan Herald, Deutsche Welle, and Nikkei, among others. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in the nom, yes, this is still being reported in news articles, but Twitter drama involving Rihanna and Greta Thunberg is a pretty low bar with limited lasting notable impact, if any. Spencer^T•C 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above; still making headlines; on the BBC homepage when I checked a short while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal This was up for removal as recently as last week, and we were all assured that THE NEXT BIG PROTEST that weekend would finally provide the updates necessary to keep it in Ongoing. That never happened; it was CRYSTAL as I pointed out at the time, and the material updates to the article do not even rise to the level of police blotter (we're now in Twitter beef territory!).130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an entire separate article about that here: 2021 Farmers' Republic Day violence. It was split off from the main article and linked. - Indefensible (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal article not being updated? Time to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support removal While protests are very much still ongoing, if noone is going to update the article I don't really see the point. Gex4pls (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal – Per TRM, and because the topic has long been hyped. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Template:U, Template:U, Template:U: if you are going to support because the article is not being updated, then please look at the article history and note that it is being updated, therefore you should oppose. By comparison, look at the recent history of the COVID-19 pandemic article--2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest is being more actively updated! The last major content add to the pandemic article was on January 29. Are you saying that the COVID-19 pandemic should be removed from ongoing because it is no longer being actively updated? - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the new edits, though they are plentiful, many have been reverted or are reverts, and those that aren't are mostly either A: referencing or adding stuff from december/January or B: Adding info about social media controversies. These are still edits, hence my weak support, but none of these are about CURRENT protests or any substantial updates. About the COVID 19 pandemic article, you are right that the article should be updated more, and that is a seperate discussion in it's own right. Gex4pls (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a bit of edit warring going on (which indicates that it is an active topic), there are content edits as of yesterday (February 4). Again, compared to the last real content edit to COVID-19 pandemic being on January 29, nearly a week earlier. If this article is removed on the basis of updates, then I will nominate the pandemic article for removal on the same basis and it would be hypocritical to have a different outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not an active topic, it undeniably is, I'm saying the size of the updates doesn't reflect that. None of them relate to any substantial current events (save for some twitter tomfoolery). If the COVID-19 pandemic article is not receiving proper updates, then I may support nominating it for removal, if not simply to attract more editors. Gex4pls (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here are all the content edits since January 10th. The rev links are broken because of a bug in my code dealing with apostrophies in article titles that I don't have time to fix right now. Please indicate the content edits adding "new, pertinent information" as stipulated in the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section guidelines. Seriously, what's the point of having criteria if we're just going to !vote count opposes which ignore them. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So similarly for COVID-19 pandemic, what does that look like and are you going to support removal if it is similar? - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't run the tool against it just because of the number of edits and how big the articles are now (I could probably look back 90 days with a few hacks) but yes, if I had the same data and it showed the same level of staleness in the target article I'd absolutely support pulling it from ongoing. Start that discussion if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Would have been support 2 days ago. But now Indian news is describing an insurrection component to this, which would suggest a change to more civil conflict than protests. Albertaont (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has not been updated to reflect these recent updates. Spencer^T•C 20:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1,200 words seems enough on this topic, for now anyway. – Sca (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The farmers' protest is still going strong. (BBC: "War-like fortification to protect Delhi") STSC (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the time since this was nominated for removal, ZERO new information has been added to the article (diff). This is even more worrying because that time spanned a weekend, presumably a time when protests happen and editors have time to write it up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removal Many of the new information added are trivial (Twitter war, farmers' statements, Super Bowl ad). Article also reqiure a lot more copy editing, and it is hard to scroll through too DogeChungus (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. While there is a roughly equal split between those "opposing" removal and those saying "remove", we determine consensus not by vote counting, but by WP:CONSENSUS as determined by strength of arguments. In this case, there was a clear message in the removal comments that the requirement for continual updates in an Ongoing item was not being met - recent updates have been largely insignificant in nature. This was not really contradicted by those opposing removal. I therefore determined that there's a rough consensus to remove at this time. — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lokman Slim[edit]

Oppose citations missing, raw URLs, odd Germanic Capitalisation of Heading... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some citations needed, and I have questions over NPOV. The heading on his death is labelled "assassination", with no clear evidence that he was assassinated (just speculation). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was a political activist who was shot dead, that's an assassination. P-K3 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether the killer knew that, and whether he/she/they cared otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Opposers @User:The Rambling Man, @User:Joseph2302 Can you please look back over the article once more? Tucker Gladden 👑 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the record, thanks to TuckerGladden for bringing it up to scratch. P-K3 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert A. Altman[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 3 Template:Cob

Support Looks like a good one! Tucker Gladden 👑 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article's pretty good, all sourced and whatnot Gex4pls (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the BCCI trial section needs references, which I have tagged. I checked the WaPo and Times refs, which don't mention the tagged details. Rm "ready". Spencer^T•C 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well sourced and seems like a good candidate. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have resolved the remaining CNs, everything else looks good to go. But man, getting on the shitlists of then-Senator and later-Secretary of State John Kerry, the Federal Reserve AND the CIA? No wonder this guy's dead.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support BCCI section now sourced. Great work. Spengouli (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: M. Bala Subramanion[edit]

~~Weak~~ support. Article seems in decent shape. My only concern is that we're mentioning his tenure as postmaster-general as his major achievement, yet there's no detail on what he did in that role (the separation from Malaysia seems to have occurred earlier, while he was in his previous role; and the 1968 philately series doesn't seem like the hugest achievement he might have had). He died on the 3rd, so this needs to be actioned today, otherwise it will become stale... — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Template:Ping Added additional information on the revival of the Post Office Savings Bank during his time as the Postmaster-General. I believe with this, the article should be good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good thanks Template:U. I'll mark as ready, and hopefully we'll see if anyone else has anything to say. (If it's not posted by this evening and nobody has objected, I'll post it myself). — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Thanks Amakuru. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, kinda seems urgent! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anne Feeney[edit]

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go, but I think Ron Wright should go first. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tony Trabert[edit]

Oppose - looks mostly good but lacking references in a few spots. - Indefensible (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I have added several references, can you have a look again if this is sufficient? --Wolbo (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the "Major finals" and "Singles performance timeline" sections are unreferenced. See Ashley Cooper (tennis) (which was successfully nominated to ITNRD last May) as an example of what is expected. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the above comment, those sections need sourcing- even if it's just from a stats website. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Template:U, sources have now been added to these sections. The Ashley Cooper example was useful.--Wolbo (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found the Cooper article helpful. The last sentence of the "Post-playing career" and "Awards and honors" sections are unreferenced. You may want to remove the Trabert Cup sentence, as even I found it difficult to find any reliable sources re its establishment in 2000. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I temporarily removed both sentences. Will re-add the Kramer comment on the 21 best players after I have found the reference (I know it exists). Could find plenty of references to the Tony Trabert Cup but those were all to editions of the tournament and have not yet found any source to support that is was established in 2000. --Wolbo (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article looks good now per improvements by Template:U.
Posted to RD. Referencing has improved. Spencer^T•C 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Haya Harareet[edit]

Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A whole section missing inline citations. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 10:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Weatherly[edit]

Support Appropriate depth of coverage; referenced. Spencer^T•C 18:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced; being a Mississippian is a plus. :) Tucker Gladden 👑 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wayne Terwilliger[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 2 Template:Cob

Comment References have been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good article. Tucker Gladden 👑 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Millie Hughes-Fulford[edit]

Support Well-sourced and a reasonable length - this nom is eminently defensible. Joofjoof (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Libuše Domanínská[edit]

Support. Short, but quite reasonable quality-wise. I am not sure how much an article of this kind could realistically be expected to grow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite short, but fine for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all of the above. Tucker Gladden 👑 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all. I added roles (some operas and composers I never heard of), and the German Wikipedia now has an article, in case someone has time to get over more from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rennie Davis[edit]

Support - seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything is in order.Template:S 130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bump Alexei Navalny[edit]

Weak oppose - agreed that this is in the news, but since we covered his arrest already, it seems slightly redundant to then cover his sentencing as a fresh item one week later. If the protests are major and ongoing, perhaps the "Ongoing" section would be a better fit? — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support remove the previous blurb and promote this one to top of the box. Banedon (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting sentencing, per years of consensus around criminal proceedings, and completely expected. If this is still generating headlines and the article reflects that, then make an Ongoing nomination. Note: "roll-off" Ongoing posting was discussed in here, so please make a separate nomination.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's both conviction (of parole violation) and sentencing. Past practice has been to post at the time of conviction. Modest Genius ^talk 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 130. Just a natural progression and suitable for ongoing should the main blurb roll off. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bump Article is pretty good, topic is in the news, it won't bump anything off the bottom and the Estonian election is getting pretty stale. Oppose Ongoing he's been sentenced to the gulag and that's the end of it. All that'll be ongoing from here on it whining on social media and strongly worded statements of concern from various governments. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think anyone genuinely thought his trial would end in any way other than sentencing to a gulag.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mention it in protests page, not ITN. WikiLove Goat 🐐 13:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the conviction/sentence was fully expected; more than likely the protests will continue (into ongoing). --Masem (t) 14:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – In the news [31] [32] and likely to engender further protests. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting when Putin imprisons an opponent would be like posting when a earthquake doesn't happen. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Russia sends a putin opponent to jail! In other news, the sky is blue and fish are swimming in the sea. Gex4pls (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charan Gill[edit]

Support - article seems to meet requirements. Sounds like an interesting life. - Indefensible (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request to Admins. This article is now the last one (sixth) on the carousel and has stayed on the carousel for ~12 hours. When you post the next RD, please consider giving this article some more time on the carousel before bumping it off. Line #2 of the RD is currently 30-40% filled on most screen resolutions. Ktin (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping -- This article spent ~14 hours on RD before being bumped off the carousel. There is 50% of row #2 that is still available. I request you to consider bringing this article back on the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion on another item? Step hen 03:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I fail to see why we can not use the 50% of the remaining space on row #2 to reintroduce this article and allowing it to run 24 hours. Is there anything we stand to lose by doing this? Editors do spend a significant amount of time to bring articles up to homepage levels of hygiene. The least we can do is to allow the RDs to run, particularly when space is available on row #2. Not to mention that the COVID banner was removed to create space for a row #3 if needed. Ktin (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained, there was no consensus for minimum durations or more than 6 RDs. Removing the COVID banner means we can now support 4 or 5 blurbs, as we used to before it was introduced. Step hen 03:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, But, there is 50% space remaining on row 2. How would we explain not wanting to use that? Ktin (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Protest. Adding my statement of protest here against the above Admin action. With 50% of space being available in row #2, the lack of flexibility shown to go on to retain this as RD7 on the carousel shows a deliberate lack of consideration to editors' efforts to work an article to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. While recourse available might be limited or even nil, there is nothing more this specific editor can do. This thread is being closed. Ktin (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you can do is start a discussion to see if there is community consensus to increase to 7, or even 8 RDs, under certain circumstances. This is better than asking repeatedly and complaining when you get the same answer that you don't like. Step hen 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maureen Colquhoun[edit]

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ - few citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, would you mind CN-tagging some of the places that need refs? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did about 12 hours ago. Looks like they've been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Indefensible. WikiLove Goat 🐐 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob McCallister[edit]

Support - short but sourcing is adequate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This guy was known for being a golfer, right, so the "Career" section should be the most important shouldn't it? Yet our article has only six short sentences in that section, one of which is "He was sponsored by Lawrence Welk". Unmarking as Ready for now, because I think we can do better than this. I can see that his career didn't last that long, but give us a bit more detail on how it progressed please. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, but then there are an awful lot of golfers out there who don't amount to much. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the Career section is only 3 lines long- this needs significant expansion. Also, the "Best results in major championships" don't seem to be sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I think this refers to the lines in the inbox with his best results in the Majors. It says that his best results were making the cut at the 1966 Masters, tying for 21st at the 1963 US Open, and that he never played in the Open Championship. That should be sourced. Otherwise I think your changes look good. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Missed that; thanks for explaining! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article missing out too much. WikiLove Goat 🐐 13:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sourced and all that. Gex4pls (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re been ready for 9 hours now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Grant Jackson[edit]

~~Oppose~~ plenty unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, all fixed along with some help. Tucker Gladden 👑 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Abu Salman Shahjahanpuri[edit]

Neutral Eh. I don't know how to feel about this one. Tucker Gladden 👑 18:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral Part referanced, part not. WikiLove Goat 🐐 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anything is left unreferenced? Could you please point out? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no way enough time has passed to allow a sufficiently in-depth search for a free image. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, If that's the single issue, I've removed it. Image may be added later. What else stops the article from ITN/RD? Nothing? Article has a good shape. Good lede. Everything is referenced well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The legacy section could probably be dispersed throughout the article. Gex4pls (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Fixed few things and updated a bit more references. I've exams in the morning and would leave this as it is until I'm done with the exams. I'd appreciate sincere advises. Daily Jang has now reported his death as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U Nice work, I think I'll Support if there could be a better image, good luck on exams! Gex4pls (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is better, I don't know about any wikimedia problems with the image, but the new one at least looks better than the old one. Gex4pls (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inadequate depth of coverage. Article has a huge gap in coverage between ~1960 and 2002, when he was presumably doing all of his writing. What did he write about/what was his research field? There is a single sentence stating that he was an "authority on historical and political movements of the Indian subcontinent", but this needs to be a whole section, or well fleshed-out paragraph at minimum. Spencer^T•C 00:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Allow me some time and I'll address this issue. I'll be back once I'm done with this. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 03:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, focus on your exams. Do not worry about rushing to make these edits. You have at least 4-5 more days to get this article ready for homepage. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U,Thank you for the supplement. I'm done with the exam and this is why I'm editing the article. I'll be expanding and updating it timely. :) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I've tried addressing this issue as much as I could. It is very hard at this moment to find much in-depth coverage, even offline. I guess the book Akhtarul Wasey has co-authored about him would be available here, but still idk when I'll have access to it.The Template:Tq is addressed mostly. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM - too soon for a non-free image to be used. For all we know someone might have photographed him on Monday. Enough time needs to pass since his death to be certain that a free alternative cannot reasonably be found. — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, If the image is the only problem, let us not use it at all. A free alternative image may be added later. Muhammad Adil Khan, that I wrote in October, is still without an image, and it featured in the ITN section on 18 October 2020. I don't know any other problem? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Captain Sir Tom Moore[edit]

Support and added myself as an updater. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Did plenty for his community. May he rest in peace. Tucker Gladden 👑 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Article is impeccably cited, no reason to wait. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Note: his misguided first marriage to "Billie" (which lasted 15 years), has now been expunged, as his autobiography is not considered a suitable source (Talk page discussion ongoing). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the medals section is mostly unreferenced, but I also don't care. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was going to nominate this myself. His death should definitely be "In the news". REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support ftr. In fact, the strongest I've ever given an ITN to date. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hal Holbrook[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 February 1 Template:Cob

Support I was just coming here to nominate him. Johndavies837 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deep Throat was Abraham Lincoln, the people need to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak neutral - the bio starts quite nicely, but then degenerates a bit into a series of one-line paragraphs. It's generally OK though, so I'll stay on the fence for now. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Writing problems are fixed and it's all cited well. Gex4pls (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - thanks TDKR for addressing the point I raised... — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Emil J. Freireich[edit]

Weak oppose - the guy had a long career, but really the only thing we're covering is the chemotherapy developments which took place in the 1960s. Is there nothing else to say about his subsequent work? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I've added an additional paragraph that should suffice. Please note that every award listed is post-1960s. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article really doesn't do his career justice, particularly his career in the 1950s at NCI. Ref 1 is a dead link for me (bare link url to the NIH site). Article should clarify when he started at MD Anderson. Possible additional sources:
- [33] Pop the DOI into Sci-Hub if you need to get around the paywall. Has more details about his personal life including family.
- [34]
- [35]
- [36]

--Spencer^T•C 23:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Thanks for the sources! I've archived the deadlink and made use of the first one to address the last CN tag. The second source was already included (ref 9), but I've re-used it to verify his start at MD Anderson. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - sad to see this, remember reading about him a while back and he made significant contributions early in the oncology field. Article is understated and could use improvement but meets the minimum requirements I think. - Indefensible (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's fine. Gex4pls (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 15:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Shumiatcher[edit]

Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Sweeney (labor leader)[edit]

Oppose Almost nothing on his death, and although it starts out well sourced, by the end there are only ~1-2 sources per section. Gex4pls (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, yup. Will require some work. I share your same concern, particularly the latter part. If you want to get to it before I do later tonight, go for it. Else, I will attempt later tonight. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get some sourcing and whatnot done in the next couple of hours, but I doubt it will be enough for the time being. Gex4pls (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I over-estimated my own ability to edit on a work-day night. This might have to wait until tomorrow. Ktin (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - presumably some of the same references which cover the early sections also apply to the later sections which need improvement currently, but still have to be matched appropriately. This is perhaps a case of having too much content being inhibitory to posting, versus someone whose article has much less content which can more easily get approved. - Indefensible (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Yes, partly agree. But, we can definitely improve the article. Ricky Powell was in a similar state, but, we were able to get it to homepage levels of hygiene. This one will take time, but, will be done soon. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ricky Powell[edit]

Support - looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Peter T. Fay[edit]

Comment American attorney and judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per WP:PROMO. There is a bit where the writer mentions things about Fay that sounds like a promotion. Otherwise it's ready. Tucker Gladden 👑 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Meh, article is OK. WikiLove Goat 🐐 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Added one [CN] tag for info not covered in a ref. Incomplete depth of coverage: as with other judges nominated at RD I would really like to see specific information on cases he saw, rather than vague obit-style quotes about his career. Article could also use an update, as St. Thomas will only be naming it's Moot Courtroom after Fay, not the whole school (source). Other gaps appear in his career, such as him serving on the Special Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel from 1994-2006 [37] [38]. Another source of information. Per this source, Judge Fay was noteworthy for "unique and innovative [judicial] procedures" related to an airline disaster case, highlighted more in depth here. Spencer^T•C 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jack Palladino[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment American private investigator and attorney. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew Brooks[edit]

Comment - deserves to be posted but may be too late already, as he died on January 23 and an announcement came out on the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Eikes. My bad -- I missed this. Ktin (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the earliest announcement was on 26 Jan then you should be OK. You have up to 7 days to get it ready. — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty close then, let's get this one ready Template:U. Looks pretty good already. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit short but says everything it needs to. Gex4pls (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A shade too brief on his academic/research career; he has 70 publications--what were they about? Spencer^T•C 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, thanks Spencer. This is done.Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Simeon Nyachae[edit]

~~Support~~ satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose AleatoryPonderings' point is spot on, some of the tone needs adjustment, let's stick with biography, not hagiography. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full of satis. Tucker Gladden 👑 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Oppose Thank you, AleatoryPonderings. Article needs tone fix. Tucker Gladden 👑 04:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Oppose per WP:PROMO. Reads like a bio you'd find on his personal website. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nice job Template:U in cleaning up the prose. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Aleatory above. WikiLove Goat 🐐 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pinging oppose votes: Template:Ping - I have gone through the article and done my best to remove the promotional tone and bring the article back in line with NPOV. I'd appreciate if you'd give the article another look. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the article PCN02WPS. - Indefensible (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, support. Tucker Gladden 👑 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment TuckerGladden and WikiLove Goat are the same user and have been blocked for sockpuppetry. P-K3 (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, P-K3. Hope you are doing well. I was falsely blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet of Valkyried. I'm back now. Just wanted to clear the air. Tucker Gladden 👑 00:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I will strike - sorry about that. P-K3 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article improved, I don't see any issues now. P-K3 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dustin Diamond[edit]

Oppose - needs referencing improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:StrikeSupport Article is now just about fine.Template:Strike Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poorly written and has very bad referencing. Filmography is tagged; issues need to be resolved before we think about posting this. Tucker Gladden 👑 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Strike Template:Strike Post posting support. Kudos to Template:Ping for the improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. No, I'm just kidding. BD2412 T 00:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No joke, it's better now. Adequate, anyway, by my eye. I don't consider filmography sections, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsourced filmography. — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose filmography completely unsourced, multiple other places need a cite too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely unsourced, Screeched: Saved by the Smell has two. Granted, that just makes the rest look worse. But hey, at least the filmography doesn't imply he stabbed a guy, like the sourced section does. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in fairness, sources do actually say he was sentenced for stabbing someone![39] — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They only got him for disorderly conduct and possession, they tried to prove more (and couldn't). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, CNN did actually say what you say it did there, your point is fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Horrible article. WikiLove Goat 🐐 14:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. P-K3 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I WP:BOLDly commented out the filmography (not the first time this has happened) because honestly, Diamond was known as one character and that's covered well in the career section. Seems good enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an appropriate action; as an actor, I would fully expect a filmography section to be present, so commenting it out to sweep it under the rug is not acceptable. --Masem (t) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to fit the spirit of verification, not truth to me. Not sure why the films/shows themselves are not considered reliable sources; no difference in editorial oversight between a textual and visual medium, but that's not my hill to die on. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of the films don't even have articles. WP:V is policy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - As TRM states, if these were all main roles easily checked by the lede of the target article, this likely won't be a problem. But most of these are guest spots, which require more detailed sourcing, which should have been added when they were added to the article per BLP sourcing requirements. --Masem (t) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - IDK what the problem his, he had one role that mattered: saved by the bell, listing every guest appearance in a table adds nothing of value for our readers, but I also don't care that much at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't guarantee results, but I am making an attempt to clean up the article (writing and sourcing) in order to try to get this on the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging oppose votes: Template:Ping I have done my best to improve the quality of the article and its sourcing. I'd appreciate any feedback or re-evaluation of the nomination. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much closer, but still has a few too many items that need references I think. Good work on the improvements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, if it's not too much trouble, could you CN-tag some of the places that need refs? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, have done so in the article in a few places where statements seem to be lacking a ref. Chances are they are covered by one of the existing refs and just need to be tagged. - Indefensible (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, all CN tags have been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Referencing now sorted.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Referencing looks in good shape now. Spencer^T•C 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jamie Tarses[edit]

Oppose - needs referencing improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strike Template:Strike All fixed up, nice job Bloom. Gex4pls (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re filmography all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, changing to a support. Gex4pls (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per improvement by Bloom6132, article now looks good. - Indefensible (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Percy Tucker[edit]

Support Good little article, needs referencing though. Tucker Gladden 👑 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised that if Computicket "drastically changed the fortunes in the global entertainment industry" that (a) it doesn't have an article and (b) I've never 'eard of it... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Tucker above. WikiLove Goat 🐐 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet RD requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - we're told that he founded Computicket and pioneered the use of electronic tickets (via a "source" which makes you click Next 18 times in order to view one of text!) and that he was CEO of the company for the next 23 years, but nothing beyond that. How did the company do during those years? Did it remain at the forefront of that business? And how was the product globalised? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Amakuru. Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject. Spencer^T•C 16:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Aung San Suu Kyi detained in potential coup[edit]