Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

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

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

COVID-19 pandemic Disease Virus By location Impact Vaccines Portal Protests in Saint Petersburg In Russia, protests (example pictured) against the arrest of Alexei Navalny occur in more than 120 towns and cities. American baseball player Hank Aaron dies at the age of 86. Faustin-Archange Touadéra is elected for a second term as President of the Central African Republic. LauncherOne becomes the first liquid-fueled aircraft-launched rocket to reach orbit. Ongoing: Indian farmers' protest Recent deaths: Nilda Pedrosa Robert Rowland Roy Torrens Joseph Sonnabend Juan Guzmán Tapia George Armstrong Nominate an article view — page history — related changes —

Archives[]

January 26[]

New Prime Minister of Estonia[]

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

• Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Looks very well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not ITN/R (but should not preclude posting). This is a change of head of government, not head of state. Only changes of the latter are ITN/R. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  It is ITN/R because it's a change in the national leader, similar to when Boris Johnson took over. The president is a pure figurehead in Estonia.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • We finally fixed that. Changes in head of government are ITNR, and the only stipulation is that if it is elected, and the election is in multiple rounds, only the final round is posted. Restoring ITNR. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Howard the Duck (ec) Changes in head of government are now covered by ITNR, it was expanded recently. I think taking up LaserLegs suggestion to base the ITNR listing on List of current heads of state and government(who is highlighted) would provide clearer guidance. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, if that's the case both the Dutch and Italian (only if a new PM is sworn in) noms should be tagged as ITN/R as well. The actual text has to be ed as there's a bullet about two-round elections below it that seems to be out of place. Changes to heads of government that occur outside of elections do not happen after two-round elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Holmes Trujillo[]

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

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

Resignation of Italian Prime Minister[]

 Ritchie92 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment While i Support it to be posted as blurb due to significance, i expect that one of two articles may experience persistent IP vandalism. 110.137.190.132 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Reminds me of Dutch resignation. In other words, satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wait until the new head of state is confirmed. STSC (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's Italy, standard, so wait for the ITNR change of head of state to happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Prime Minister is not the head of state. Also, there could be no change of PM at all in this case, as he could be re-appointed by the actual head of state (the President of Italy) to form another government. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Double oppose then. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wait for the replacement to be announced, but changed in head of government are ITNR now [1] --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 25[]

(Posted) RD: Nilda Pedrosa[]

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

• Support Full of satis. Reminds me of death of Tunisian politican just recently. WikiLove Goat (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Support While well sourced, it is almost entirely composed of one off sentences with no real structure or main body, needs some bulking up. Like a whole new article, nice job Bloom. Gex4pls (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• The article is 3,111 characters long, well above the minimum ITN standard of 1,500 characters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to imply that it's a stub (sorry if that's how my wording came off), just that it's bony, with some sections comprised of just one sentence. If that could be bulked up a bit, then I'd support. Gex4pls (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Gex4pls: done. No worries. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 24[]

RD: Arik Bauer[]

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

• Weak oppose ref error and one [citation needed] para. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Sonnabend[]

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

• Support A complete and referenced BLP. A single failed verification tags an inconsequential tidbit. WP:N demonstrated.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  N demonstrated by the fact he has an article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Guy was important, like the article too. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Added a cn tag but article seems pretty good other than that. Gex4pls (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose two inline tags need resolving. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - addressed 2 tags noted above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support One of the most important figures in the initial AIDS Crisis and helped invent the concept of safer sex; I'd suggest he merits a blurb, rather than just a name entry. May I suggest something like "A pioneer in the early AIDS Crisis in New York, physician and researcher Joseph Sonnabend has died at the age of 88; he co-created the first safer sex information and helped found several AIDS organisations." — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted, I think RD is fine here. --Tone 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) 2021 Portuguese presidential election[]

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

• Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give cr)

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: George Armstrong (ice hockey)[]

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

• Support good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Assessed as GA in 2014, but still looks up to snuff. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Coaching record and career statistics sections need a ref. Otherwise looks great. Spencer^T•C 22:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Spencer: done. HockeyDB doesn't list him as being the coach in 1977–78, so I've removed that season's row and re-calculated his OHA totals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Not bad (for a Leaf). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted, article looks good - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand[]

January 23[]

(Posted) RD: Robert Rowland[]

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

• Support Refs spot checked, article is complete.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article good, worthy for RD spot. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Well reffed, written well. Gex4pls (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Bernstein[]

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

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

RD: Jonas Gwangwa[]

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

• Oppose about half unreferenced and for a "giant" of jazz, barely above stub. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Almost no important acheivements, unworthy. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Roy Torrens[]

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

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

(Posted) Russian protests[]

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

• Oppose proseline. The background section is larger than the events themselves. Nothing in the target tells me, the reader, why this matters. 40,000 people marched? From where to where? Then what? Speeches? Police brutality? Putin resigned? What happened? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh man, that table, almost all of it cited to Meduza.io which is an aggregator that provides no sources for it's map. Needs an orange tag -- of course it'll go on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unless it escalates to something more serious. For now, it seems like Putin firmly keeps everything under control and the number of arrests confirms it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Support – Widely covered. No. 1 story on main Eng.-lang RS sites. (Reuters sez 1,000-plus arrested.) – Sca (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Russian opposition claims 1,600 arrested^[1], but that's not a lot. Also Reuters claims 110k people protested across Russia, but Reuters is an American news organization and is clearly not independent from the U.S. foreign policy so I'm not sure if we can trust them given the state of cold war between the U.S. and Russia.5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kiril Simeonovski. Relatively minor protests 5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Let me remind users that Navalny became a high-profile international figure last year in connection with the KGB-style nerve-agent attack on him in Russia and his lengthy convalescence in Germany. – Sca (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support it's in the news, significant and large-scale, by the standards of a country as repressive as Russia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C04F:6CAB:4650:3C70 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per IP. This is sufficiently unusual in Russia to merit attention and is being depicted in the press as a make-or-break moment for Navalny's movement. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Once you peel back the hype, isn't notable. We had well over one thousand people arrested in the US the day after the elections with protests in tens of cities, yet nobody even bothered to nom. (Granted 600 arrests were in Minnesota which was already numb from George Floyd protests). Its bigger now (more than one thousand arrested, thankfully no deaths), so disregard previous comment. Albertaont (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, the United States has a history of protest and dissent. Modern Russia does not. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The protests didn't just happen in Moscow, they were nationwide, in 70 cities from the Far East to St Petersburg, according to Giardian[3]. For a repressive authoritarian regime like Putin's Russia that's highly unusual already. The same Guardian article says that "The demonstrations were some of Moscow’s largest since 2012." Although nobody was killed, the authorities used considerable force in dispersing the protests, and again the same article says that "The police at times appeared to be losing control." All of this is usual for Russia Nsk92 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unlike previous protests, these ones appear to be occurring nationwide and even in smaller, less notable Russian towns and cities. Twitter made its own news page for the event, calling the footage "remarkable." This thread has more videos of the protests and where they're occurring. Given the context of these protests (Opposition leader Navalny getting poisoned, being transported to Germany for treatment, surviving, and then returning to Russia despite warnings he would be arrested) I think it's important that readers are able to grasp the political momentum that is fomenting in Russia against the actions of Putin. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -I support posting this one because the protests are bigger than usual. And plenty of arrests.BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Washington Post is now saying 70+ cities/towns and over 2,700 arrested. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per scale and location: both unusual and highly newsworthy Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support on notability per JoshHawkinsBois. Thousands of peaceful protesters were arrested in only a day, and the protests have already spawned demonstrations of solidarity in other countries.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait/Weak Support I would prefer to wait and see if the protests are sustained and escalate to a point of being able to post it on Ongoing as well. However, if the actual "protests" section of the article could be expanded relative to the background section, I wouldn't mind a blurb now. Juxlos (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - this probably deserves to be posted, but WP:NOTNP and both the event and article continue to evolve rapidly so it would be better for the article to mature a bit more before posting as a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support because of the scale of hte protests. Still, Navalny's support in Russia is in the 2% range [4], hence I'm only weakly supporting. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Posts are running at a 5:2 ratio in favor. Marked needs attn. – Sca (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted. I took the liberty of adjusting the blurb for better flow. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The article for Alexei Navalny has his first name ending in an "i" contrary to a "y" in the blurb, should this be changed to match? - Indefensible (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Altblurb Events have developed and the facts I've added make clear what's at stake. Jehochman ^Talk 03:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The total number of detainees (3352) is a record for the entire history of protest actions in the modern history of Russia. Prior to this, a record number of people in total throughout the country was detained on June 12, 2017 - 1769 people. [5] The highest number of protesters to join an unauthorized rally in Moscow since at least 2013. [6] TarzanASG (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The number of detainees (1402) has exceeded 1,400 people in Moscow on January 23. This is a record for a single protest rally. [7] TarzanASG (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Re-closed) (Posted/Pulled) RD/Blurb: Larry King[]

The discussion is still longer than the article and getting worse. ITN isn't WP:TOP25 and never has been; if you want it that way, start an RfC to make it so, but this isn't the way to do it and it's not the place to do it. There is still no consensus for posting, and it's unfortunate that he didn't have long enough at RD, but that's a different question altogether. 86.158.212.97 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

• Nominated by SoWhy (talk · give cr)

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

Nominator's comments: Announced by his media company. RS should follow pretty soon but that is imho sufficiently reliable. SoWhy 13:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to 109.249.185.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for adding The Independent source. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Patently trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should be a blurb. Household name worldwide (quite unlike that literallywho Basketball player we just posted) 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC) We should keep both. No need to knock Hank Aaron (who played baseball, not basketball). UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Blurb: Major household name and easily the most famous on-air talent associated with CNN, especially internationally. His departure from the network also marked a significant turning point for cable news and heralded CNN's decline. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment just wait: "old man dies" not worthy of a blurb nonsense incoming...!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Haters gonna hate LaserLegs Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Until his hopsitalization, King was still active as a host, so even less of "old man dies" here. --Masem (t) 14:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We created RD to keep death blurbs from pushing other stories out of the box, so my threshold for a blurb is very high. No hate here. Will stop being "in the news" Monday morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Blurb: Even Swedish media calls him "legendary" (as do French and Spanish). This is someone who made a splash all over the world. --cart-Talk 13:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb: Prefered to be a blurb. Every major news source in Serbia published an article about his death. Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb unless you can update the target article to show how king was "transformative" in the world of talk show interviews. He was no Mike Wallace, for example. We have guidelines for blurbs and King seems to fit RD perfectly. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mike Who? That's a US POV. --cart-Talk 13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• You're joking right? Mike Wallace basically invented the confrontational television interview and 60 Minutes was the reference implementation for a television news magazine. Oh and Mike Wallace was a key character in a major motion picture. You're really going to accuse me of "a US POV" when both Larry King and the more accomplished TV news host I compared him to are both American? Really? I mean..... --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• What I meant was that Wallace might be more famous in the US than King, but living outside the US, I know exactly who King was but had never heard of Wallace. Outside the US, King was synonymous with US television for a long time. --cart-Talk 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've got no clue who Mike Wallace is either.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• From a non-American POV, I’ve never heard of Mike Wallace, but I do know of Larry King. starship.paint (exalt) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Did a little search and King is front page news on French, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, even Russian papers. --cart-Talk 14:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I subscribe to the view that Larry King was more famous worldwide and that's a very good reason to post a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide - agree with cart, I never heard of Mike Wallace on this side of the world JW 1961 Talk 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb if the CNs are fixed. BBC: King was a giant of US broadcasting who achieved worldwide fame for interviewing political leaders and celebrities. AP: King helped define American conversation for a half-century. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb from another person outside the United States. Like it or not, his name is probably the first one that comes to mind when talking about television.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It’s obvious that the most famous television journalist since Cronkite and a cultural icon deserves an entire blurb, not a simple recent death mention. Most people under 60 don’t even know who Mike Wallace is. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be fair, I suspect most people under 60 outside the US don't know who Larry King was either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Apparently judging by the reaction, that isn’t the case. This was a man who was also in children’s tv shows and movies. Trillfendi (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Cronkite who? Anyway, just checked with my partner and my sibling. I didn’t know if they knew of Larry King, but they said yes. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC) As to Wallace being a character in a major motion picture, IMDb has King appearing in 67 movies. When directors wanted to show how famous the lead character was, they always had her/him being interviewed by King in some montage. This was going on until 2016. --cart-Talk 15:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Black Kite, lol I just scraped in - being 60 in a few weeks time from Ireland, most of us would know King :) JW 1961 Talk 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I knew who he was as well, but I did base that comment on a small representative sample i.e. (a) asking my kids (nope), then (b) asking my wife (answer: "basketball player, isn't he?") Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC) The sampling error of that particular subset would make any statistician's head spin.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Hey, it was 50% by gender, 50% under-45 and over-45, what more do you want? :) Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Blurb Larry King was famous worldwide, he had a 63-year broadcasting career, which included 25 years as an interviewer on CNN's Larry King Live. - agree with cart. AbDaryaee (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb after the few CNs in the article are fixed. Also, this is not appearing as cut-and-dried as Hank Aaron, so recommend we make sure there's a clear concensus on a blurb (RD can go up rather quickly though). --Masem (t) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In case a blurb is supported, I've got the picture above into image protection queue so that it is ready to go. --Masem (t) 14:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb Easily one of the, if not the, most famous talk show hosts out there. Why are we even talking about Mike Wallace? All coz of Laser "Devil's Advocate" Legs? RIP Larry Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose article contains a number of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb just for the record. I suggested this as RD since RD is certain but I agree that he was known around the world. I knew him and my g/f who I just asked knew him as well and we are both German. Not only was he famous for his work, he was also a staple in popular culture. A blurb would be more than appropriate imho. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb definitely notable, not only in the US but also in journalism circles. Egeymi (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – RD only, per TRM, Legs. Where's the transformatization? – Sca (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. We already have Hank Aaron up there atm; two American blurbs is two too many. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb Miller, Hayley; Moran, Lee (January 23, 2021). "Larry King, Iconic TV And Radio Interviewer, Dies At 87". HuffPost – via Yahoo!. He rose above personal tragedy, financial despair and half a dozen divorces to become one of the most revered and prolific interviewers in broadcasting. Dalton, Andrew; Moore, Frazier. "Larry King, broadcasting giant for half-century, dies at 87 January 23, 2021". Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Associated Press. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Influential in the television broadcasting field, death reported with significant coverage and article in decent shape. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. I'd certainly never heard of him, but most importantly none of the +votes have offered any serious explanation for his transformative importance in the field. There are plenty of high-profile journalists and interviewers but their importance is usually national-only. For what it's worth, I think we did include David Frost in 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Larry King is one of the most influential, well-known, and transformative individuals in the history of broadcasting. I'd suggest reading the article if you've never heard of him. Mlb96 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As TRM and I have pointed out, this cannot be posted RD or Blurb until quality issues are resolved. Too many ors are arguing towards importance but forgetting the other major pillar for inclusion in the ITN box. --Masem (t) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem Which "quality issues" are there? I think they have all been resolved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There were more before, but there remains the POV orange section tag on the controversy section. --Masem (t) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb Once the tag in the “controversies” section is gone, it’s ready to go. Schwede66 18:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb once the orange tag in Controversies is fixed. The article also contradicts itself on King's religious beliefs (Jewish agnostic or fully atheist). Although King was rather old, he was still very active and had a lasting influence in broadcast media. Spengouli (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support blurb One of the most influential talk show hosts of our time. Deserves a blurb. Also marking as ready. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

On a scale of 1 to 1, how strong is your support? – Sca (talk)

• Comment Fixed the contradictory line about his religion. Basically, I combined the two. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - WP:NOTNP, having the listing in the RD row is enough for encyclopedic coverage and having a blurb will crowd out another entry. - Indefensible (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above, and per RS which say he had an international reputation. Davey2116 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb - He was top field of his work. Interviewing everyone important from top politicians, sportsmen, celebrities over more than 4 decades. BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. He was popular, but I don't see what's transformative about being on television a long time (especially given that he was never especially praised for his interviewing prowess), and he was in the hospital for over a month, so this is not a surprising death. Also, I promise I'm not some kind of blurb-hating maniac. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb King was certainly at the top of his respective field. I can't think of another individual in the television/radio host category as worthy of a blurb as him. He's been on the air for 67 years and is a recognizable name around the world.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted. I feel like Aaron's picture should get a little more time so I didn't add King's yet. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • User:331dot - this entry has support but does not have consensus for posting per the opposes. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • As of this moment I stand by my decision. It's not set in stone, though. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• No Blurb, old men die, the name is recognizable enough on its own in RD for those interested in who this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb / Pull. I've heard of him, yes, but he's not of the major transformative level that we blurb. Not sure why this was deemed suitable for such an early posting either. Unless it's completely slam dunk and Uncontroversial, like the Hank Aaron case below, it's usual to RD first and let blurb conversation proceed at a leisurely pace.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru I'm not sure what you mean by "early posting"; there are numerous comments above with a good number of people weighing in. We have no arbitrary minimum discussion time. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: I explained what I meant by this above. Several people had already opposed a blurb by the time you posted, and now even more have opposed since. That means it's not Uncontroversial, and as we always do with such cases, we RD it first (assuming quality is OK) while blurb discussion continues. To avoid the unseemly rigmorole of having to pull something that's already been posted. I was questioning why that step was bypassed here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that bring a formal rule. I evaluated the arguments and made a decision. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb I must agree that while a major figure in American journalism, he does not quite rise to the level of blurb worthy in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose/pull blurb I was a fan, but he died of old-age related diseases at 87, and he wasn't "top tier" famous. A big name sure, but most certainly not heads higher than several others in the world of journalism. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In Larry King vs. Hank Aaron, both "old man dies", I'm always astonished about the VIP treatment US athletes get on ITN, as opposed to US non-sports people who are internationally known. Just saying. I know I can't change that, but it's worth mentioning. (Ok, now let the "you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about rain" begin.) --cart-Talk 21:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

W.carter I invite you to make nominations of such persons that you think merit posting and convince others to support them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed a few !votes pointing out that he was elderly; I'd like to politely ask that ors avoid those types of rationales in RD blurbs where the notability comes not from the way they died, but what they did with their lives. Any accomplished individual who is at the top of their respective field is more likely to die old than young, so age is not the determining factor here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  The fact that he's elderly is a relevant factor because it means that his death is not in itself remarkable or independently newsworthy. If he had died unexpectedly at a young age, as say Kobe Bryant did, that changes the equation.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Age at death is also the exact hook of the proposed blurbs, what else are we supposed to oppose? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Concur with Amakuru and InedibleHulk. Someone who is entirely notable for "What they did with their lives" is on WP:ITNRD as a reason to post someone in RD, not as a blurb. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let Me Die A Youngman's Death by Roger McGough. --cart-Talk 22:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• RE: Amakuru and Nohomersryan, both can be reasons why a death is notable (either that the death itself was unexpected or that the individual themselves was notable), but most RDs that get posted as blurbs are deaths of elderly people who died of natural causes, because the determining factor was what they did in their lives. Kobe Bryant dying at a young age was undoubtedly shocking, but this is very rarely the case. Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. If any or were to oppose the posting of Aretha Franklin, Stephen Hawking, or Nelson Mandela because they were all between the ages of 76 and 95 and died of natural causes, they would surely be criticized for thinking that their advanced age makes them any less blurb-worthy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• User:Vanilla Wizard - How is "field" defined? Should Sharon Begley get a blurb for arguably being at the top of her respective field? (See awards section on her article for reference.) - Indefensible (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's what the discussion is for; whether an individual is at the top is inherently arbitrary and not for us to decide, it's for sources to decide, and Sharon Begley's passing resulted in nowhere near as many reliable sources covering it. I'm simply arguing that we can and do post the deaths of "major figures" (see WP:ITNRD: "The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb."), not just deaths that occur as a result of shocking freak accidents, hence "they were old" shouldn't be considered a valid reason to !vote oppose.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The blurb is exclusively about the age at which he died. Maybe propose an alternative if you don't want his age to factor in. Not sure where Supporters see any other accomplishment here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you take issue with the wording of this RD blurb? The format of "(field) (name) died at the age of (age)" is pretty standard.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Not anymore, it's old news. But yes, should have been RD (two days later at Annan, I voted No blurbs for anyone). At least that one had a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that it is inherently subjective, and what is for Wikipedians to decide is whether it gets posted and/or blurbed or not. Right now there does not seem to be consensus for supporting the blurb whether based on age or otherwise. - Indefensible (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Being at the top of one's respective field is almost always the reason for posting. - The bar is higher than simply being top of one's field, which was the old RD criteria that was rightfully junked. Besides, Franklin and Mandela's deaths were followed by a wave of tributes and lengthy memorials that dominated TV for days after they had passed. King was an elderly TV host who did not die in a surprising way; he won't be top news 24 hours from now. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• While we should take into account a person who is simply elder and has not been active for a while in their field (meaning that they should have achieved a greater importance in their youth as was the case of Hank Aaron), until the start of 2021, King was still doing his shows and interviews and showed no sign of slowing down until he was hospitalized by COVID. So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant, in addition to the fact King was a luminary in the field already. --Masem (t) 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• So this is as surprising a death as something along the lines of Kobe Bryant Wait, what?? An 87-year-old man who was hospitalized for over a month with a deadly disease is as surprising as a 41-year-old athlete dying suddenly in a helicopter crash? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb for the post-posting debate. A world-renowned figure in his field, working up until nearly his death. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb he would be famous internationally for the "people with American cable TV" audience, but otherwise I doubt the Mandela/Hawking levels of notability. Was King even top of his field in terms of notability relative to contemporaries? No issue with RD. Juxlos (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• His shows were bought by TV-companies and aired in other countries, same as films and series were before cable. --cart-Talk 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb American TV isn't available in much of the rest of the world. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Pulled - Because 6 of the 7 folks who expressed an opinion since the posting were either pull or oppose, it's best to pull it at this time until a consensus develops to post. Courtesy ping: 331dot-- Fuzheado | Talk 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting to the RD list is probably fine still. - Indefensible (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point. Done. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Repost as blurb. There was consensus to post as a blurb when it was posted and the given reason for removal is weak. Consensus should be judged as whole and not based on knee-jerk pull comments after the fact. -- Calidum 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not quite true: there was already pushback by Indefensible about whether a consensus had been reached at the time of posting, and the addition of 6 out of 7 additional voices to pull/oppose shows there is very unclear consensus here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Knee-jerk, my foot, I've been blowing this same horn since Kofi kicked off three summers ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hank Aaron a virtually unknown outside the US is posted to Blurb. But Larry King is not per ”being unknown outside the US”. Let that sink in.BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb it's inherently US centric (i'm from Australia); when someone who is one of the top figures in their field (broadcasting) and known worldwide - is seen as less notable than a baseball player (only really big in the US, Japan, Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic) - which proves international notability means nothing in the end. I doubt anyone here would blurb Sadaharu Oh either (or any cricketer like Garfield Sobers or Viv Richards for that matter - which would point towards American sports fanboyism instead and noone actually caring about the sport's international prospects). Unless we are going to claim a CNN show has less international reach than baseball. Only legitimate argument would be that Ted Turner would probably not get a blurb, so a CNN host probably should not! Either way, i support King's blurb. GuzzyG (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Arguably the Hank Aaron blurb should be removed and added to the RD list as well per your comment and similar others, that would be better than having them take up ITN blurb space for other encyclopedic content. - Indefensible (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree. Noone would blurb Barbara Walters so King is in a similar playing field - although he's up there with David Frost and Oriana Fallaci - we'd probably blurb David Attenborough though, so in the end - it's just the person whose field tends to have Wikipedia ors as fans (like Carrie Fisher). Realistically, journalism is a relatively country specific area (although people like King break through internationally sometimes, moreso than a Walter Cronkite type of broadcaster). Sports though i would say only top notch footballers like Pelé (worldwide sport) or Olympic athletes like Michael Phelps (worldwide competition) should be blurbed regularly, with the rare pass for Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Michael Jordan type athletes that are known worldwide or people like Garry Kasparov with a bit of historical importance behind them (human rights) - most sports are very local ad very rarely are important in different countries than in which they compete. Either way, King's show broadcasted on CNN International; which means he is more international than some people here give him cr - but if we go by the original Thatcher/Mandela standard than none would probably make it, to be honest! GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Definitely the most notable person associated with CNN and probably talk shows in general. Maybe I'm biased by living close to the US but whenever a character in a movie goes on a talk show it always seems to be Larry King. Connor Behan (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Being associated with CNN is not prima facie proof of notability, not even in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  "Most notable person associated with CNN" is a different sentence from "notable because he was associated with CNN". Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb -- can we please make a policy that once a blurb is posted, it is not pulled? This is unprofessional. I'd rather we wait a long period of time before blurbing than do this. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Support such a policy -- this alone is enough of a reason to restore Larry King. It is troubling that an admin thought it was acceptable not only to pull a death blurb but to do so without moving it to RD. Connor Behan (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Meh 1. He is known worldwide, this is not debateable. 2. He was extremely successful and accomplished in his career over the years, in radio and television, by any standard you can name. 3. His article indicates nothing transformative, he didnt pioneer anything, didnt make any great advances to the world of broadcasting/news/interviews etc. He didnt invent the softly softly interviewing technique. He may have been highly influential, but its not in his article, which reads much more like 'This is who he was, what he did' not 'This is what he achieved and improved on compared to others in his field'. If the standard for blurbing is 'transformative', then his article needs something to that effect. If we are happy with just having someone at the top of their game after a long successful life, we need to dump the transformative requirement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Yes, a well-known figure but doesn't meet the "transformative" standard. P-K3 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Well known is not the same as important. Quite shocked at the level of support here. I imagine the place King held at CNN when CNN was the be-all-end-all is inflating people's opinion of him. He interviewed everyone because he was such a lightweight. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Move Hank Aaron to RD too: no consensus to post there either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.106.95 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support blurb Well known around the world (except to young people perhaps) and he was definitely at the top of his field. His death has been reported as a top story not only in the U.S. but also in other countries. Larry King's show, by the way, aired not only on CNN USA but also on CNN International, which is available in many countries. I'm surprised Larry King is being questioned while we have a blurb for Hank Aaron, who I never even heard of. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, support RD. It seems that King was pulled ENTIRELY which is very disproportionate. He's easily important enough for RD (unless there's undisclosed BLP issues in the article or the like), but probably borderline for a blurb. (Also, Hank Aaron >>> Larry King, surprised to see that incredulity above... it's not unreasonable for Aaron to get a blurb but not King. TV journalists are common; lifetime homerun record holders are exceedingly rare.) SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: why is he not in RD???-- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Already rolled off when Dave Bolton was added. FYI to User:SnowFire as well. Agree that he should be listed for a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't have been. Bolton is the only one on the ticker who passed more recently than King. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • They don't do it that way anymore, it seems to be first on/first off. Anyhow, I have re-added this as a 7th RD since it seems like there was a great deal of support and it was hardly on there at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, support RD - Only top of a narrow field; I'd say he was an Eddie Van Halen level television host... - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb, per User:Vanilla Wizard rationale above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• RD only while very well-known, not transformative. It's pretty hard for a news host to be transformative because they can't proactively change the course of history/academics/sports techniques/jurisprudence/commerce etc in a way that a trailblazing politician/research professor/sportsperson/judge/businessperson could, but that is the lot of a TV host Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Stats This needs revisiting now that Larry King has scrolled off RD but Hank Aaron is still there with a big picture. King peaked at over 1.5 million views and was still the top read on Wikipedia yesterday with 666K – a figure that Aaron failed to reach at all. The other blurbs are nowhere in this contest – they barely twitched the needle. The general consensus of our readership is clear.

Readership views

Article	7 days to 24 Jan
Larry King	2,185,535
Hank Aaron	1,046,483
LauncherOne	59,781
2021 Russian protests	46,286
2020–21 Central African general election	13,874

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb and oppose reinserting people who have rolled off as setting a precedent and oppose ITN becoming WP:TOP25 for about the 540th time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support re-blurb just to make ourselves look even more ridiculous.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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

(Closed) Cyclone Eloise[]

Ongoing Removal: 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest[]

Nominator's comments: The last significant update about the protests was a January 12th one-liner when the supreme court suspended the law. [8] The most recent protest was added on January 8th and was about protests which took place on December 24th. [9] Everything else from the 8th till now is ref improvements, copy s, and commentary from both sides -- not protests. People disagree with laws all the time and make their cases in court, in the media, in elections, etc and that's what's going on here. The article is stale, the story is stale, and it needs to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I am guessing you are not aware of the recent happenings. The article is in dire need of an update; yes, it needs to be off the main page in its present state. There have been pretty recent and major developments to the case, wherein the government proposed suspension of the said laws while the protesting party refused. There is a plan to take out a major rally on 26 Jan - India's Republic Day. If someone updates the article, this should remain on. It still is a pretty hot topic being covered by international media. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't follow the story, because I honestly don't care about it. I just evaluated the article against the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about it Uh-huh. That should violate #4. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I read the article, I didn't scour the internet for news about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree. Should be removed. WikiLove Goat (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose For now. All of the recent news about the subject doesn't seem impactful (of the four articles published within a week ago, 2 ([10], [11]) don't mean anything for the story, 1 ([12]) is about how the protests may end, and only 1 ([13]) appears to be real news.) However, it does appear that the people are at least still protesting, with a bit of coverage too. Gex4pls (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Then get it into the target article, that's what we're featuring on the main page for our WP:READERS --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article could use some updating, but looks like this is still noteworthy and an ongoing event that is not resolved yet. Some sources from a quick search: MSN/Bloomberg, MSN/Hindustan Times - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal per nom. This is an ongoing issue with items in the Ongoing section. Spencer^T•C 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just looked into it briefly, there were negotiations ongoing between the 2 sides which failed on Friday, and there is another protest planned for the 26th. - Indefensible (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Single sentence bullet point updates (e.g. 2020–2021_Indian_farmers'_protest#Timeline are essentially minimal updates to the article. Without paragraph-length substantial ongoing updates (suggesting that the continuing events are substantially noteworthy), articles should not remain indefinitely in Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • The point is that the protests are not over so the nomination is not accurate, and it should not be removed for that reason. The event is still ongoing, there was a legitimate reason why things calmed down because directly-related negotiations were being held, but no resolution was found. So more protests are expected in the near-term, and it would not be unexpected to see major developments added. - Indefensible (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Fair enough; have struck "per nom". I am not supporting removal because of reasons in the nomination stating that the event is stale, rather because the article is not continuing to receive substantial updates with recent events. Although more protests may be expected, possible future events is not a reason to keep a non-updated article in Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
          • That reason makes more sense and I agree the article could be improved, but contrarily there is no rush to take it down since events in scope of the subject are still active and there is reasonable expectation for near-term developments. Realistically it could be similar to the newly posted Russian protests, it would not be right to take it down for lack of article update and then turn around in a couple days and have to repost it because of a new nomination for the same event IMO, so it would be better to just sit on it a while longer. - Indefensible (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that there is going to be a major development in India (Republic Day Jan 26th - protest march in Delhi) which is now 24 hours away suggests we should wait until then. Albertaont (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Which would make one update in two weeks --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support and thanks to the nominator for the background. If it's been more than a month since the last protest noted in a protest article, then the article is far from sufficiently updated to satisfy Ongoing criteria. Whether protests might happen in the future, and whether those might result in actual article updates is CRYSTAL. Per discussion here, there has been apparently many things going on that haven't gotten into the article; Why should be wait another day to see whether yet another "X thousand people marched in Y city demanding Z" update? If that actually hashes out and it's notable, the article can go back to Ongoing or as a blurb. But this should have come down weeks ago.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No longer CRYSTAL, Republic Day protests are definitely happening. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Still going on: AP BBC Guardian Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 22[]

(Posted) RD: Juan Guzmán Tapia[]

Nominator's comments: Chilean Judge. Article requires some work to get it to homepage levels of quality. If someone understands the region, you are welcome to lend a hand to make the necessary s. Edits and content updates done. Article has shaped up to a nice C-class biography. Article is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support A complete and referenced BLP and a clear demonstration of WP:N.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability isn't a concern with RD, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article is long and well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I had planned to nominate him and take advantage of this afternoon to work on his article, so I thank you for the nomination. You've done a great job of updating and it looks ready to be posted on RD.Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Amakuru, Spencer, Stephen, Dumelow, and Bagumba: pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for homepage / RD. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Luton Shelton[]

Nominator's comments: Jamaica Football player Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Important enough. WikiLove Goat (talk) 1:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @WikiLove Goat:, please read WP:ITNRD. As long as they have an article here, any sentient creature is considered automatically important enough for inclusion. The discussion is just about article quality. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Blurb His record (35 goals) matches his age (35 years), very few if any Jamaican football players can top that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support importance is not a criterion here, and certainly not a blurb. Article is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: how many unsourced paragraphs and sections before an article has to be improved before posting? This has to wait 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:D4D2:4979:ACAD:5237 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  "Ready" removed, two sentences appear to need a citation, one of which looks like it could just go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed.Please Take a look.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage for his playing career from 2008-2018. At present there are single sentences about a team he played for--what did he do while there? Spencer^T•C 03:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: F. X. Sudjasmin[]

Nominator's comments: The third deputy chief of staff of the Indonesian Army to come in the RD. Bear with me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Full of satis. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support relatively okay, few tone issues and only linked to the "Deaths in 2021" list article so could use some links into some real encyclopedic articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article is fine. Gex4pls (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment marking for attention, has looked ok with support for 18 hours. Still could use being linked into articles beyond the list of deaths. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD: Hank Aaron[]

Article: Hank Aaron (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Hank Aaron (pictured), the second highest Major League Baseball career home run leader, dies at the age of 86. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Baseball legend Hank Aaron dies at the age of 86.
Alternative blurb II: ​Baseball player Hank Aaron dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): https://www.al.com/sports/2021/01/baseball-icon-hank-aaron-dead-at-age-86.html
Crs:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give cr)

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

Nominator's comments: The GOAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• A blurb maybe? Just putting it out there. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb The greatest of all time, and a really well written article too. Not too many recent blurbs in ITN anyways --Rockin (Talk) 15:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Yes. Absolutely iconic in his field. Sui generis in every way. Even if you don't follow baseball closely, you've heard the name.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Definitely in favor of a blurb. He was the home run king for decades, this should be mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 16:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb article looks good. I would say he's the most notable player of baseball who was alive yesterday. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment legends speak for themselves, hence ALT2. The first blurb is too "in-universe". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb per nom. Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Hank Aaron is considered a top 5 baseball player of all time, with only the long deceased Babe Ruth clearly ahead of him. Willie Mays is the only living baseball player on or above Hank Aaron's level (unless we want to include the steroid cheaters). See this as a reference. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb (alt2). Article appears to be fully referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Alt2 Very big name in baseball. Article is in good shape. Gex4pls (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb Hero and history-maker -TenorTwelve (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Unanimous support. Now's the admin part to post this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support blurb. A tremendous baseball player and a civil rights leader. -- Calidum 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Blurb Household name even for people who don't follow baseball. Mlb96 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with the posting, but I think your idea of what a 'household name' is does not apply to most of the English-speaking world. Modest Genius ^talk 18:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, I have never read of this man, although I have read of Babe Ruth. starship.paint (exalt) 00:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @331dot: I don't think anyone is going to judge you if you decide to post this given the unanimous support.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  You mean we don't need to wait for every timezone to chip in?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Got beaten to it, but thanks for the confidence WaltCip. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  If HiLo raises a fuss, we can have that discussion then.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posted blurb No-brainer. Will followup on the picture. --Masem (t) 17:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • And pic in place. --Masem (t) 17:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Never heard of him. Support, of course Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Post-posting support - major news. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Should be moved to recent deaths. WikiLove Goat (talk 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why?--WaltCip-(talk) 19:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it is a recent death. WikiLove Goat (talk 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Important deaths can be posted to ITN, not RD. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg a couple months back. Gex4pls (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note for future reference the "5th greatest" in a sport was herein considered to warrant a full death blurb. 205.175.106.98 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• ... the reason he's being posted is because he is also an extremely important icon in the civil rights movement. He got a standing ovation in the deep south in 1974 for breaking Babe Ruth's record. That's an insane accomplishment. It's not just because of his ranking (which is impressive all on its own). -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Futile Oppose He was 86 and died, his real newsworthy accomplishments came decades ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, just so it's on the record. I love baseball and Aaron, but I don't see what makes this blurbworthy. This isn't a surprising death, and while it's true he's one of the best to ever swing a bat, he isn't worshipped on the scale of, say, one of the best footballers ever. As for the civil rights angle, it's pretty broad and hard to fit Aaron into as easily as, say, someone like Jackie Robinson. (What makes him greater in that aspect than someone like John Lewis, who was yanked from ITN quite resoundingly?) Nohomersryan (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

He also isn't reviled on the scale of one of the best footballers ever, if you know who I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

yanked from ITN quite resoundingly: Looking back at the the Lewis nom, it seems that 24h of very strong blurb support got pulled for a few hours of non-rebutted, post-blurb opposes. The post-pull comments were harsh on the removal. "resoundingly" is open to debate.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the comments made after the posting, which seemed unanimously negative. I figured this would be the same kind of nomination that attracts a flurry of supports for a blurb, only to crumble when it's actually posted. Guess I'm no clairvoyant. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Blurb NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Its the "Thatcher–Mandela rule".—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb in the strongest terms. This is the whole reason the RD section exists, and quite frankly there are bigger things to put in the news box This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please propose those "bigger things" for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Post-posting support A legend for the sport of baseball. The fact that there might be other ITN/C is irrelevant. Nihlus 01:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning support blurb after the fact, given remarkable achievements both as an athlete and as a civil rights figure. BD2412 T 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - unknown to many around the world who died of old-age. I guess only Babe Ruth would have qualified for a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose blurb - does not seem to meet the criteria at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths i.e. not a transformative figure on the world stage. Also, completely unknown outside the US. This is a world encyclopedia, not a US encyclopedia. MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all. I don't know baseball that well and I don't live in the US but I have heard of Aaron and his death is being reported in the UK (BBC.co.uk, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph etc etc). Also making headlines in other countries such as Canada, Germany, Australia, India etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Global recognition is not a requirement for any ITN posting, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Observation - this discussion makes an interesting comparison with this one about a different top-of-their-field "national icon" (leaving aside the technical issue of whether that article initially needed a tad more work). Davidships (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Post-posting support blurb is referred to quite literally as a "legend" of baseball. The "old man dies" argument is ridiculous, do we think if Pele dies we won't blurb it?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not blurbing Dave Bolton, also referred to quite literally as a "legend". We haven't blurbed a lot of alleged "legends", in a lot of fields. When Pele dies, he'll be called one, too; he'll get the blurb by sheer numbers, I bet, but I already Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have noticed a few people citing his civil rights accomplishments as reason to post, but I'm not familiar with them and when I go to the article, CTRL+F "civil rights" returns zero results. If it's just his status as an accomplished black player through the civil rights era, I get it but the article doesn't make it seem important (the term "black" is only mentioned twice in the article). I am leaning support though because of his numerous baseball accomplishments and how well-known he was. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Post posting Support blurb The bottom line is that he was an influential figure and the article is in good shape PERIOD. The “he’s old” argument is overused and frankly a weak one (everyone gets old, even influential figures) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That he got old and died, like everyone who doesn't die young, is the content of the blurb. It doesn't say shit about his feats, his influence or what changes now. The "old man dies" story is overused and weak, hence the routine opposition. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - same as for Larry King, WP:NOTNP and having the RD entry is enough for encyclopedic coverage whereas this entry crowds out the space for another entry. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support blurb The article is in great shape, and has attracted over 500,000 page views yesterday. It's nice to see a black face on the front page after the events of the past two weeks over there, and readers could learn a lot about the United States from this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - Doesn't even seem to be close. This only matters to people who are fans of baseball, and even then it matters less than the results of major baseball events. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Probably matters to BAME people too don't you think? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb per Banedon. Larry King was very known outside U.S and his death was reported as a "Breaking News", unlike Hank Aaron, who even his passing has not had an impact on other countries around the world. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Post-posting Support blurb He was an African American historymaker.-TenorTwelve (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Post-posting oppose. American boomer navelgazing, unknown elsewhere among those who are not fans of his sport. Sandstein 22:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meherzia Labidi Maïza[]

Nominator's comments: Tunisian politician died overnight of 21/22 January. I've updated the article with her death - Dumelow (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Political deaths have value. WikiLove Goat (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the value of the death, political or otherwise, is irrelevant to this process. The article quality is what we're assessing here and it's satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the writing needs to be copyed now, and there's some conflict over the manner of her death, the prose claims "rumours" about COVID and the categories claims COVID (for example). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, looks like someone messed up the death section a bit when adding (in good faith) the dispute over cause of death. I've given it a tidy and removed the cause of death category - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, marked for admin attn now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 21[]

Mongolian Prime Minister resigns[]

Article: Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Prime Minister of Mongolia, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, resigns after COVID-19 protests. (Post)
Crs:

• Nominated by 125.165.82.168 (talk · give cr)

 125.165.82.168 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per orange banner, needs better referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Henryk Chmielewski (comics)[]

Nominator's comments: Papcio Chmiel was a comic book artist, very popular in Poland. Millions (not an exaggeration) of young people were raised on his comics. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd love to support, but the article is almost entirely sourced from the subject's autobiography. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - hesitant to support per above, referencing is questionable. - Indefensible (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nathalie Delon[]

 AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fully referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support one citation is missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, sourced now. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good to go for about 24 hours now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Bolton[]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support "stasis" or whatever it is you kids say these days Gex4pls (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support "stacist" or whatever. Well sourced and not a stub. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Blurb Quality is sera, BBC headline screams "legend", no-brainer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Pointless and disruptive. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support satis, once I addressed the gratuitous overlinking . (It stands for "satisfactory" for those above struggling with it). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Spencer - Larry King was posted for less than 24 hours and there was even significant support for a blurb, would it make sense to extend the RD list temporarily and add him back? - Indefensible (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Had not realized the posting time; my apologies. ITN needs to better figure out its RD processes, as the turnover time is becoming even shorter and shorter: at present there are 3 "ready" noms, 7 RDs on the template, and there's still not going to be space to keep King in for at least 24 hours. Spencer^T•C 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Resignation of Canada's Governor General[]

2021 Baghdad bombings[]

Nominator's comments: Major suicide attack, first of it's kind and magnitude in 3 years. Gex4pls (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - easily notable enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Definitely a major news story that merits greater coverage, especially given the U.S.' role in creating these conditions. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Missing too much Who, How and Why. Basically a stub, like a hundred before. These feeling new again is no excuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

ISIL claimed it; explosive belts, strapped to the bombers in a busy marketplace; to try to force Iraq to submit to becoming part of an ISIL-ruled caliphate.

Had this happened in the Western world, it would have been posted within minutes of being nominated, with every comment strongly in favour of that. Suicide bombings having been common in Iraq from 2003-2017 doesn't make this double bombing less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support – Per previous. The first such attack in three years; claimed by 'IS' – with more than 100 wounded. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For the 999th time, IS isn't an "IS-affiliated website", Amaq News Agency is (social media presence, anyway). Seriously, this isn't hard, never has been. Simply read past the headlines, read past the headlines, read past the headlines! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Amaq is the propaganda arm of IS. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And The Washington Post is the propaganda arm of Amazon. CNN and Fox have their favoured subnational entities, too. There's a clear difference between any thing and an affiliate of the same distinct but related thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I can see this event important enough. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Significant death toll, international coverage and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this really is another disaster stub, and like every other one we post it'll not be expanded once it rolls off the main page. No one will ever be held to account for it, nothing will change in the Iraqi security situation because of it, once the wire services stop covering it the English speaking world will never think of it again, unless it's needed as filler for OTD. Could we please stop posting these rubbish articles? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

LaserLegs Could you stop putting the English speaking world over everyone else? A person killed in a bombing in Iraq is no less significant than one in the States. Just because people there don't/can't here doesn't make it less newsworthy. 180.151.224.217 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

People in Iraq can en WP, providing they understand English & have internet access. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the English Wikipedia. Not sure what else to say. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Writing in English doesn't mean that we should favour the Anglosphere. Prosecution & change in a country's situation aren't requirements for posting. If you think the article could & should be improved, you're welcome to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose like LaserLegs says, this has almost no value from an encyclopedic perspective and could be covered in a single line in a "list of terrorist attacks in Iraq" article. There's no long-lasting value, nothing will change as a result of this, no-one notable was killed, nothing notable was destroyed. It doesn't make it any less tragic but it does call into question the entire EV of the story and certainly isn't something I'd expect to see in the top 365 news stories of this year. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It couldn't be covered in a single line, or even a single, short paragraph. Your arguments could be used to reject the vast majority of mass murders. Would you be against posting this article had this double suicide bombing which killed over 30 people happened in NYC, London or Paris? The mass media give stories priority based on popularity, but we don't. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it could. "A double bombing in Baghdad which killed 32 people was claimed by IS. Everyone else condemned it." And yes, I regularly vote down "mass murders" in regions where mass murders are commonplace. It would be fascinating to see where this article is in a year. As LaserLegs calls them, they are "disaster stubs" and usually remain that way, simply because they have no encyclopedic value. And yes, if a double suicide bombing afflicted New York, London, or Paris, of course it would be newsworthy, because they are not war zones and mass murder through bombings in those locations is far from commonplace. This is about context. This particular event would not make the top 365 news stories of the year. Probably not even the top 1000. See also: Category:Suicide bombings in Baghdad, Category:Suicide bombings in London, Category:Suicide bombings in New York and Category:Suicide bombings in Paris. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass murders ceased to be common in Iraq 3 years ago. Many fatal bombings have occurred in London and Paris (London attack & Paris attacks lists them). The main reason for there being less media coverage of the Baghdad bombings is that the public are less interested in them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The categories speak for themselves. "many fatal bombings" have NOT occurred in London and Paris in the past 30 years. And certainly not with 32 deaths. But nice try. Nothing more to say than the two sentences I suggested for this "news". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Less interest, less coverage, less article information. If a single victim or killer profile ever emerges in English from this objectively obscure and very different story, I'll eat my left shoe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the mass media, we don't measure importance by popularity. A perpetrator or victim of a mass murder having their own article isn't a requirement to be posted to ITN and there's no article about any of the people involved in the large majority of our articles about mass murders.

If you think the article is missing info it should include, you're welcome to add it. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it. There's literally nothing notable to report about this event, just a location, a date, a number and a perp. And the usual "everyone condemned it" blather. Two sentences in a list. Job done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote "profile", not "article". As I used to regularly remind you years ago, reading genuinely helps when arguing about mass murder norms. We have no names, no ages, no hometowns; if this was about London, Paris or Tokyo (which it isn't), we would. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The media haven't said anything about the identities of the bombers or victims. Even if names & profiles of the victims were released, we tend not to include them in articles about mass murders. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per other supporters. ArionEstar (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The article is in no better shape today than it was 4 days ago, when it was nominated. In fact, it might even be a little worse off. "Disaster stub" is pretty apt. Apparently, nothing of note about this has come out or been added, and I highly doubt that another 4 or 40 or 400 days will improve things.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Suicide bombings are much more often described as mass murders &/or terrorist attacks than as disasters. Although they can be classed as a type of man-made disaster, the term disaster is much more often used to describe natural & accidental events.

The length & quality of the article are sufficient for ITN. It would be improved significantly if it were posted, because it would greatly increase the number of people who read & it. Most of our readers probably don't even know that it happened. Jim Michael (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't improve at all, there's literally nothing more to add to it. As noted, could be adequately covered in two (or three, at a push) sentences. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Newsworthy current event with significant number of deaths. STSC (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kamala Harris[]

January 20[]

(Posted) RD: Aslan Byutukayev[]

Nominator's comments: A member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I don't know if this is appropriate to put it in the RD section. I would withdraw this RD nom if deemed inappropriate. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Once the person has an article they are deemed notable enough for RD, So the only things that have to be checked are quality of the article and its referencing (I'll come back and read this one later) JW 1961 Talk 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Seems fine to me. @Joseywales1961:, did you have an opinion? Otherwise, seems ready to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it looks fine for RD Support JW 1961 Talk 20:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment has support, can't read most of the refs myself, but marking for admin attn. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mira Furlan[]

Nominator's comments: Actress best known for playing Delenn on Babylon 5. Prose in good shape but short filmography needs sourcing. Masem (t) 05:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – filmography all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Brief article, but I think sufficient for an RD and now fully sourced. Took the liberty of removing an IP that had snuck in an unsourced addition to the filmography. Miyagawa (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Satis. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Sad and unexpected, but the article seems in good order. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Spencer, Stephen, Black Kite, and Dumelow: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mulyadi Tamsir[]

Nominator's comments: Victim of the Sriwijaya Air 182; body has just been identified on 20 January. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak OpposeSupport Well sourced but a stub, only has two sections. Article's been fixed up now. Changing to support.Gex4pls (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gex4pls: I'll change it to a start. It is over 300 char above stub if we used the DYK counter. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage, per above. Spencer^T•C 02:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Gex4pls and Spencer: I have expanded the article by two-and-a-half fold, please check again. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice job, I think the Personal Life and Death sections could be merged, but other than that seems good. Gex4pls (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I hadn't seen the article before the recent expansion, but certainly the current version meets the requirements IMO. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Important Enough. Also, liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Much improved, nice work. Spencer^T•C 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Baptist Kaggwa[]

Nominator's comments: Ugandan Roman Catholic bishop. Looks to be reasonable - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support just. Brief but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Meh. Pretty fine all around. Gex4pls (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose At present, essentially a resume in prose format with limited depth of coverage. Spencer^T•C 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Spencer, I've added some more information now if you'd be able to take another look - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the ping. My apologies for the delay. Spencer^T•C 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Not important enough, but liked how you written the article. WikiLove Goat (talk 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@WikiLove Goat:Notability is no longer a restraint on RD noms, if they have an article they are eligible :/ Gex4pls (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Cross[]

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (January 20) Bloom6132 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Article is pretty good, but a bit on the short side. Gex4pls (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Article is well referenced and in good shape. Key figure in one of the biggest incidents in Canadian politics. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: the "histori.ca" and "crimelibrary.com" domains no longer appear to be active so it's hard to judge their reliability. Any opinions? - Dumelow (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Dumelow: The first is a reliable source from Historica Canada (and the archive info has now been updated by another or). I've replaced the second source with an entry from The Canadian Encyclopedia (which is published online by Historica). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Posted, thanks for the extra info - Dumelow (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibusiso Moyo[]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fine article, could use a little bulking up. Gex4pls (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Madrid explosion[]

(Closed) Inauguration of Joe Biden[]

January 19[]