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

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, 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. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

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.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Mudslide in Petropolis, Brazil At least 152 people are killed due to mudslides and floods in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (aftermath pictured). In American football, the Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cincinnati Bengals in the Super Bowl. Cyclone Batsirai makes landfall in Madagascar, displacing at least 112,000 people and leaving more than 100 others dead. In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Senegal defeating Egypt in the final. Ongoing: COVID-19 pandemic Russo-Ukrainian crisis Recent deaths: Chennaveera Kanavi Jim Hagedorn Jack Smethurst Peter Merseburger Charles Juravinski Ronald Lou-Poy Nominate an article

Archives[edit]

February 20[edit]

2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony[edit]

Nominator's comments: The closing ceremony starts in about 20 minutes. I'm unsure about the image of the Beijing National Stadium, which was already posted with the blurb on the opening ceremony. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• The stadium picture wasn't previously posted, we had a photo of the opening ceremony. It is a 11-year-old photo though, illuminated for some different event. Stephen 12:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, my fault. I failed to recall on that image probably because the general coverage of these Olympics in pictures is extremely poor.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The blurbs link to the opening ceremony, not the closing ceremony. Clumsy copying. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  That’s a very lame reason to oppose an ITNR item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support alt blurb, record should be in blurb. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose mentioning the medal count, this is not a competition in how many medals each nation gets (at least nominally). I've now removed the link from Ongoing. --Tone 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment According to Article 6 in Charter 1 of the Olympic Charter, which states "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.", we shouldn't highlight the achievement of the most successful nation. However, those supporting it have always formed a majority in such discussions and we regularly post an extended blurb, so it'd have been unwise for practical reasons not to propose an extended blurb from the beginning. As for the record, we posted the previous record of 14 gold medals set by Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle but oppose both blurbs, and any blurb listing country with the most medals. We had this debate for the Summer Games last year, and we don't post the country with the most medals, as it is inconsistent with the Olympic charter quoted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also, oppose on quality for now, as it needs expansion. So many pointless empty sections that need information added. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

RD: Joey Beauchamp[edit]

Nominator's comments: English footballer. Article is in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Length (400+ words) Y Use of Footnotes Y Formatting Y. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Emile Francis[edit]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Length (700+ words) Y Use of Footnotes Y Formatting Y. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

RD: Jean-Luc Brunel[edit]

Nominator's comments: Disgraced talent scout, Epstein associate, suicide in prison. Kafoxe (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not Quite Ready Two cites needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not Ready per Ad Orientem. Also this death seems mildly suspicious. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 21:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment CN tags resolved. Kafoxe (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per additional citations. Comment I am not a fan of the word "allegedly" in the sentence on his suicide unless it is explicitly used by RS sources. It's not our place to be promoting conspiracy theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • News outlets can't typically explicitly say that someone has committed suicide without an "allegedly" until it's been officially ruled as such, and in this case, I believe the investigations are still ongoing (though I may be out of date on that). Kafoxe (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

    I think we have moved on from using "committed suicide" to replace it with "died by suicide". We should use the latter imo. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• (Note: not Jean-Jacques Burnel) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tom Veitch[edit]

Nominator's comments: notable comics author, particularly for Dark Empire jonas (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Storm Eunice[edit]

Article: Storm Eunice (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Europe, 15 people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Europe, fifteen people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured). A windspeed of 122 miles per hour (196 km/h) is the highest ever recorded in England.
News source(s): BBC, BBC South
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Created by Toonling (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Edl-irishboy (talk · give credit), Pigsonthewing (talk · give credit) and Pohjamadesse1 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant European Windstorm, causing much disruption in Ireland, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Certainly an unusual event of this type, and it's in the news.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment What is the need to put a weather record of a specific country in a blurb that mentions a natural disaster at European level? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Adds to the significance of the storm. Higher winds than the Great Storm of 1987! Posting admin is free to amend blurb as they see fit. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see the need, honestly and respectfully. I would understand if it was the highest wind gust ever recorded in Europe (although I wouldn't support it either), but not when we are talking about a specific country when it's a natural disaster that affects many more nations. Also I don't recall seeing other blurbs about storms mentioning these types of records. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just because we haven't done it before does not mean we should never do it. WaltCip-(talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've restored the original blurb and made that an altblurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support The original blurb (now alt) is better as focussing purely on the body count is crude. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: original blurb is the one without the windspeed record for UK. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose -- doesn't seem that significant to warrant a blurb. Seems not notable. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems significant enough to warrant a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The wind speed was the highest ever recorded in England, not the entirety of the UK. Kline | yes? 04:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unusual weather events are frequently featured. The alt blurb (which I prefer) should be reworded as "In Europe, seven people are killed in Storm Eunice (pictured), a cyclone with gusts of 122 miles per hour (196 km/h), the highest ever recorded in the United Kingdom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not historically significant and the picture is just clouds to all but diehard meteorology buffs, no prejudice against 2021–2022 European windstorm season in Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  

  The only other image availabe is one showing damage to the O2 Arena. If that is used, (damage to O2 Arena pictured) would be the image caption. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Better, but not enough to save it, especially after realizing how many Europeans have been killed by similar wind since mid-October (~62). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support unusual event for that part of Europe, article is clearly good enough. Support ALT0. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Worst storm to hit the UK for almost 35 years. Unusual event, though there is a certain lack of international coverage and notability. PenangLion (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  BBC says it's "one of" the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  If "worst" means deadliest, it's tied with Storm Malik from three weeks ago (our article doesn't count this true Scotsman). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Coverage mostly refers to wind speeds and intensity rather than the death toll. In terms of intensity, it is one of (thanks for the correction) the worst since the Storm of 1987. PenangLion (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  "Strongest". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. SN54129 11:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. Ten deaths in one place would be marginal. It’s a bus crash. Ten deaths scattered over a wide area is no more than routine misfortune on any old Monday. Article is good quality. Praise for the work but it’s not quite an ITN level event. Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah obvs. Daily battering? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [1]

• Oppose Comment – Widespread property damage, but RS coverage has been spotty. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not what you mean by "spotty." The storm has been widely covered by reliable sources, as you would expect from the worst storm to hit the UK since 1987. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Coverage on primary int'l RS sites' main pages seemed thin (overshadowed by RU-Ukraine, still topic No. 1). – Sca (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ottawa number one, Rukraine, hack phooey! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Seriously though, the CBC cares about Russia and Ukraine. But not this, not really. Just carries the AP copy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Significant event and the article looks to be in great shape. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support original only The wind speed record seems trivial to me, but 15 people died which is surely a significant event. But the secondary blurb mentions this, sorry, didn’t see.12.246.51.130 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's 15 out of several hundred million survivors, though, not some shared mass tragedy for anywhere in particular, like in events that people remember later. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've not seen that toll on AP, BBC, Guardian or Reuters. Nor do I see where 15 is specifically documented in the article.
  DW reports nine storm fatalities, two in Germany and seven elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

On Sunday BBC reports 16 storm fatalities, DW 12. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless, as a percentage, it's still 0.00% of those affected, connected only through posthumous world news aggregation, as a number, nothing realer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The article is in good shape, but the wind speed record is trivia, and is apparently only for England and not even the whole country. [2] Looking at the 2021–22 European windstorm season page, this storm isn't the strongest in terms of pressure difference or fastest in terms of wind speed this season. Compared to the Great storm of 1987 or even other storms this season, the level of fatalities isn't particularly elevated, and damages seem quite limited, to less than half a billion pounds [3] With no other civic indicators (e.g. states of emergency), I don't see the significance for posting, though this could change as the situation develops. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, no lasting impact, media hype including the filthy habit of naming a winter storm. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unusual, but not sufficiently significant to be posted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Moderate to Fresh). Can't say I'm blown away by this nomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC) (gusting, occasional Strong)
• Support Decent quality article; receiving international coverage. Spencer^T•C 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in Theory Fairly impactful windstorm, but it seems the article could use some expanding, especially in the Meteorological history section. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Boris Nevzorov[edit]

Nominator's comments: Russian actor, died of COVID-19. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not Ready Article needs expansion. Only eleven sentences of actual prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Hagedorn[edit]

Nominator's comments: Incumbent U.S. representative, cancer. Kafoxe (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though I note that no official cause of death has been announced (AFAIK). He had stage 4 kidney cancer but was recently admitted to hospital with COVID-19. B.Rossow · talk 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment' some election results tables are unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Committee assignments" are unreferenced, too. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• True. I just added new cn tags. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Missing refs are now resolved. Kafoxe (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

RD: Surajit Sengupta[edit]

Nominator's comments: Indian soccer (football) player. I am working on edits to the article. Edits done. Article is a reasonable start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. In the meantime if someone has the powers to mark the article patrolled. I would appreciate that since I do not have those rights. Ktin (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Length (400+ words) Y Use of Footnotes Y Formatting Y. This wikibio is READY for RD. Earlier versions of this wikipage have been deleted due to copyvio, which is no longer a concern per Earwig. --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Martin Tolchin[edit]

Nominator's comments: American political correspondent for The New York Times. Co-founder of The Hill and Politico. Thriley (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• This wikibio with only 270 words of readable prose seems too stubby for ITN. 40 years at the New York Times summarized with a two-sentence paragraph? Then one sentence each for founding The Hill and Politico? Can more be written about his long career? --PFHLai (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

RD: Lorinda Cherry[edit]

Nominator's comments: Bell Labs computer scientist who developed some of the original Unix utility programs. Death coverage is a bit thin, but the article has decent detail about her work. Joofjoof (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment we do not have an exact date of death in the article. However, that's not required; for procedural purposes the date the death was announced can suffice. And we no longer "sort by date of death" on the front page, so it certainly doesn't matter for that purpose. The article certainly could be better, but is probably good enough -- it is fully referenced. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: There are some quotes without context in the article, such as: "Cherry's work on approximate parsing and Aho's on fast pattern search turned out to be just the right foundation for an English style-appraiser suggested by Professor William Vesterman of Rutgers. That in turn was elaborated into Writer's Workbench by Nina MacDonald and others in the Human Performance Engineering Department."[5] Who said this quote? Should be paraphrased into the article not quoted directly. Spencer^T•C 02:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching this. I have rewritten the paragraph and added attribution for the remaining quote. Joofjoof (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Smethurst[edit]

Nominator's comments: British actor best known for playing a racist shop steward in the controversial but popular TV sitcom Love Thy Neighbour Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Short but adequate. Referencing is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gail Halvorsen[edit]

Nominator's comments: Known as the "Berlin Candy Bomber" for his involvement in Operation Little Vittles following World War II; Congressional Gold Medal recipient, among other honors Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solid article and well referenced. Article is justly graded GA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Saw this earlier in the news, and confirming the article's quality is good for posting. --Masem (t) 03:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Article's subject is notable, article is in good quality. Keep on RD. Not sure about blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chennaveera Kanavi[edit]

Nominator's comments: Indian Kannada language poet. Article requires significant work. But, it is worth investing time imo. I will get to it later tonight. Edits done. Rater.js says the article is B-class, but, I think it might be a C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD and good to go. Ktin (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not Ready Article needs expansion. Take out the lists and you have a stub with ten sentences of prose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Edits completed. @Ad Orientem: please can you have a look at your convenience. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Infobox and intro say that the subject's DoB is "28 June 1928", the "Early life" section says "18 June 1928" and this ref says "June 29, 1928". Please confirm and make things consistent / explain the discrepancy in the wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the catch @PFHLai:. I think in this case The Hindu has got it wrong. This article from the Sahitya Akademi has it as 28 June 1928. The Indian Express also has it as 28 June 1928. The Wire also has it as 28 June 1928. I have updated the early life section. Ktin (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for sorting things out there, Ktin. Now Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Yahgan language becomes extinct/dead[edit]

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Cristina Calderon[edit]

Nominator's comments: Last known native speaker of the Yaghan language and last full-blooded Yaghan person, I have been updating and sourcing portions of the article that have been unsourced previously, should be relevant for RD. This is my first RD nomination so if I get something wrong just let me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. Spencer^T•C 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Relevant enough for RD. I did update it when she died but there were no news reports at the time and later I could not continue modifying the article. Bedivere (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Her death marks the extinction of a language. This is perhaps a story for a blurb. As an alternative centred on the language extinction, see the nomination above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Unclear if it's accurate as written. One anthropologist said, The younger generation know the language but not to the same degree that Cristina does,[5] Perhaps it's more nuanced, like she was the last full-blooded, fluent speaker—but that seems too narrow to blurb. RIP.—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb While her passing is sad it is not on a level justifying a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

(Posted) RD: Luigi De Magistris[edit]

Nominator's comments: Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal, short but sufficient article for RD Josey Wales ^Parley 16:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solid article. Referencing is good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Well referenced, meets RD standards. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is a request for citations for an unreferenced paragraph in the Biography section. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

PFHLai taken care of now Josey Wales ^Parley 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the new footnotes there, Joseywales1961. This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support article looks good and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Dorce Gamalama[edit]

 Nyanardsan (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Decent article. Referencing is good. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Well referenced. Seems notable enough. (PenangLion (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC))
• Support Well referenced, article looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Career section is mostly WP:PROSELINE, and could use some organization and cleanup (e.g. is it important to have "In December 2019, Gamalama had a reunion with Sinta Nuriyah, the widow of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid" in that section, and how does that relate to her career?) Filmography is unreferenced. Occupation in infobox says that she was a "singer-songwriter" but career section has no information about her musical career. Rm "ready". Spencer^T•C 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sandy Nelson[edit]

Nominator's comments: 1960s hit drummer. Article seems well sourced with no major issues. peter sellers is my best friend 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The Discography section has been tagged for clean-up since 2013 (and has no sources).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not Ready per Pawnkingthree. Large chunks of the article are unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not Ready per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bappi Lahiri[edit]

Nominator's comments: Indian music composer. Ref issues for awards, discography. Death section is missing Sherenk1 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good enough for RD. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing. I have tagged the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Death section is added. But the article still has many unreferenced items. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. Also lots of links to DAB pages that it'd be good to fix (I fixed a few links, but the rest weren't obvious to me, as I have no subject knowledge and there were many films of the same name). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Petrópolis floods[edit]

 Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is probably better as a blurb as it appears to be damage and loss of life from the amount if rain over a short 3 hrs, not a prolonged period. Article needs expansion. --Masem (t) 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Change made. Nave do Conhecimento (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs work, currently stub Flameperson (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. Needs a lot of work... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Death toll is huge for any standard, but oppose on quality, the article is a stub and needs a lot of work to be ready for MP.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 23:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle, oppose on quality In my eyes, the event is clearly notable enough for a blurb. Article is poor right now, in need of significant expansion; but a simple google search turns up a ton of quality English-language sources, so expanding the article should not be difficult. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll do it myself in a few days if someone else doesn't do it first. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Abstain - Event is supposedly huge enough, but the article says otherwise. More expansions needed. Once it's done, I'll support. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Fairly widely covered, significant mortality. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Sadly, this article has not improved since I checked it yesterday, aside from the infobox. I don't want no stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Death toll is high and increasing. ArionEstar (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose solely on article quality. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried to expand , it should be over 5k of readable prose now, but there's surprisingly little about this event in the news that gets into depth. It's covered (eg ticks that box for ITN) but just not the level you'd see if this had happened in the US or UK. --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose too short. expand then maybe. Redoct87 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Article is expanded. 12.246.51.130 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• This wikiarticle now contains 450+ words of readable prose and is not longer a stub. Time for a re-review, please. --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: What is the current death toll? The footnotes where the figures are found on the wikipage lead to online news articles reporting a different figure. Please update the refs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It would likely be the 136 number from G1 (a Brazilian news outlet). The English sources are a day or so behind --Masem (t) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It's 146 now. I've updated the proposed blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems to have been expanded sufficiently to meet minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 02:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

PFHLai I'm not sure if this happens with US or UK outlets, but Brazilian news sites often update the same post/link with a different title. I had that problem while updating Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe too. Tet (talk to me) 14:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Tet, I have encountered cases where a news agency would update the contents of its online reports without changing the URL. However, when the death toll is part of the title and/or part of the URL, they will need new ones when there is an updated death toll. And then, sometimes, we have bad edits (example) where contents in our wikipages got changed without new source materials added as references to support the new info, producing citation errors that need to be fixed on sight. --PFHLai (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

(Posted) RD: Peter Merseburger[edit]

Nominator's comments: influential German journalist, famous for tv controversies, correspondent from Washington, D.C. and London, biographer of Willy Brandt and others - and had no article until today Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Juravinski[edit]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Long enough (600+ words), with enough footnotes and properly formatted, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Short but adequate and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Lou-Poy[edit]

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date; date of death not specified. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Long enough (almost 500 words), with enough footnotes across the article, and properly formatting, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 06:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández arrested[edit]

No consensus to post at the moment, revisit the nomination in case he is convicted. --Tone 13:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Juan Orlando Hernández (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, who was in office between 2014 and 2022, is arrested on a drug trafficking warrant after the US files a request formally for his extradition. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Honduran police arrest Juan Orlando Hernández, former president of the country between 2014 and 2022, on drug trafficking charges.
News source(s): teleSUR
Credits:

• Nominated by Viva Nicolás (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: He was arrested on a Supreme Court warrant only a few weeks after he left office. Don't know if this should be posted now or we should wait until he is convicted or extradited to the US? Viva Nicolás (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support A former head of state being arrested, especially on serious charges, seems important enough. Article seems well-referenced. The Kip (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. We usually wait for the final verdict and post if the person is convicted. At this point, we don't know how this is going to end, and it won't be significant if he's acquitted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wait until more worthwhile developments occur. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose we don't post arrests, if in the future there is a conviction, then we could post that. But posting now violates WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Simeonovski, Alsoriano, Joseph. Longstanding and well-founded policy for an online encyclopedia. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: PJ O'Rourke[edit]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solid article and well referenced. G2G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support That's sad news. I shall get one of his books down to reread now. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The article looks good. I didn't like the bastard but he made me laugh.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support One of the few Americans to appeal to the cutting British sense of humour and win. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deep Sidhu[edit]

Nominator's comments: Start class and fully sourced Venkat TL (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good and well sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This is ready, what is the hold up? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've marked it as ready (as I agree it's ready)- hopefully marking it as ready will mean an admin sees it. It needs an admin to promote to front page, and I guess no admin is around at the moment. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Joseph2302 I see. Thank you for your action. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

February 14[edit]

(Closed) Canada convoy protest[edit]

Still no consensus to post. --Tone 13:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Canada convoy protest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Canada invokes the Emergencies Act in response to protests against COVID-19 public health measures in Ottawa and at border crossings with the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Canada invokes the Emergencies Act in response to protests and blockades against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions.
News source(s): BBC NYT SMH CBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Patar knight (talk · give credit)
• Created by The Cosmonaut (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Oceanflynn (talk · give credit), Ivanvector (talk · give credit), Zanimum (talk · give credit), CaffeinAddict (talk · give credit) and Matt R Austin (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First time that Canada has used the national Emergencies Act or its predecessor, the War Measures Act, since the October Crisis in 1970. Previous non-ongoing ITN nom was about a municipal declaration of emergency. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose yet again as covered by the Covid ongoing. Yes, evoking the Emergencies Act is unusual but this is to allow enforcement agencies to put an end to these without violent methods. --Masem (t) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close this is the third time this has been nominated, and it's been rejected both other times (for a blurb and ongoing). Right now it's getting repetitive and disruptive to have it nominated again and again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close x2 is not difficult to understand: days ago it was clear that it's a no, and today it's again clear that it is another no. Stop. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the addition of the emergencies act makes it a quicker yes now. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Provincial, not to mention we've been over this. Might be a fitting Ongoing nom though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• It was also previously opposed as an ongoing, since many countries are having COVID protests, so why should we focus on just one country's protests? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not provincial anymore. The Federal government has enacted a state of emergency, and there are protests outside of Ontario. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Orbitalbuzzsaw, even if it was "provincial", #Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Not a strictly provincial article anymore, doesn't take much reading to see that. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We already closed this debate twice already... DarkSide830 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this wasn't about North America, it would have been closed as duplicate by now. But because Canada is next to the US, it's getting special privilege as the only thing allowed to be doscussed for a third time at ITN....... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• And the article hasn't been updated properly about this, so also fails article quality. Though as this is a North American nom, I imagine that can be bypassed too.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This is different from the other times, the federal Emergencies Act has been invoked. We gave the Capitol Riots a blurb, why not this? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support because of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which should be the target article. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the invocation of the federal emergencies act, for the first time in Canadian history, changes my vote to a support. I had previously opposed because it was a "local" issue, but the federal government has now seized control of the response. The blockade of the border crossings and the discovery of the American funding of the protests also increases this from being a local issue to an international issue. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Per Joseph2302, support is "pending update". NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support at last Justin Trudeau continues the family tradition of overracting to minor domestic issues. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a big deal and opposes which ignore this development and simply state "I opposed this last time" should be ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I guess you can respect the arguments of others. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS isn't a vote count people who just read the headline and reacted with "oppose" without considering the new information are making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote and should absolutely be ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent, at no time neither I nor the rest of us who have opposed the repeated nominations in these protests (far from a "civil unrest", by the way) have done so using IDONTLIKEIT, but very clearly you do consider that our oppositions are not valid because "you do not like them". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

When the municipal emergency was nommed, you said, "We will talk about it if it happens at the national level, but I don't think it will come to this end." As a provincial emergency, "Stop wasting our time." National level now, just "another no." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The emergency is still reduced to a very specific provincial and local level, even though we are already at a national reaction level. We are not facing a "the whole country is besieged by truckers". In fact, let us not forget that it still has to be authorized by the Parliament. We are dealing with an "invocation", not "approval"/"application". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're being oblivious. This invocation of unprecedented power is said to precisely disable targets along the world's largest land border, spanning any and all confederated provinces. The NDP has already signaled parliamentary approval, and willful ignorance of the law holds no weight. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there are no more problems at the border, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Twitter no longer supports my browser, but if that's only about the Ambassador Bridge, feast your eyes out west. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Declaring a state of emergency due to civil unrest (not due to a natural disaster) in a developed country is a significant and newsworthy event for ITN. STSC (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not worthy I think. Are we playing whack a mole? Why does this keep coming back. Venkat TL (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I don't have an opinion on this entry and personally don't think that Wikipedia should be pretending to report the news at all, but responding to some of the points: this keeps coming back because it's the top news story basically everywhere across Canada and has been for several weeks. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is significant because the statute that it replaced was viewed retroactively by many scholars as a declaration of martial law, and the new statute is basically unchanged except for compelling an after-the-fact review of the government's actions. As others have said, it is only the second time in Canadian history that such a nationwide suspension of civil liberties has been activated, other than during both world wars. It's difficult and dangerous to draw parallels, but this action is somewhat equivalent to the US President unilaterally suspending the 2nd through 10th amendments to the Constitution. It doesn't mean that Trudeau Jr. is about to send in the tanks like his father did against the FLQ, but he now has the power to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • He can now quarter troops in your house? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert in constitutional law, but basically yes. The police are basically only bound now by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not specifically prohibit quartering troops in citizens' houses. That prohibition comes from a British law that predates Canada by almost 200 years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support When this was first nominated I certainly believed the article was not ready. Now that the emergencies act has been declared, the highest power the Canadian government can invoke, as well as the fact that the protests are no longer Provincial, and that weapons were seized at the blockade in Alberta and the considerable economic loss (almost $1B CAD), I believe the article is extremely notable. It might be difficult for US-centric editors here to fathom but this is officially a really really big deal and is definitely the Country’s January 6th moment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. January 6th was considered by a large portion of the population (both at the time and still) as an attempted subversion or perhaps complete overthrow of a democracy. This hardly rises to that level. If it is "Canada's January 6th" than Canada's January 6th shouldn't be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see any argument here from you other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

      I see an argument that DarkSide830 is making; you do not. He is saying that your comparison to January 6 is a false equivalency. January 6 was a movement by supporters of Donald Trump attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, and overturn an election. Freedom Convoy is a bunch of dudes in their trucks blocking a couple bridges. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Opposing this on the grounds that it's covered by COVID-19 Ongoing at this point is silly. It's become a singularly significant event in Canada that happens to have been inspired by COVID-19. We posted the UK "Marbury v Madison" [10] despite objections that it was covered by Brexit Ongoing. 2607:F470:E:22:2C01:FB8D:E209:78A9 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Even the pandemic is only a provincial and territorial emergency, this stands out (iffy article quality, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Would it be possible to get the body of the article to properly contextualize the importance of invoking the Emergencies Act? The body of the target article doesn't mention or elaborate on the historical weight (i.e., that this is the first time it's been invoked since its passing in 1988), even though it states that in the lead without an inline source (there are sources in the article to support it, they're just not attached to the statement in the lead or any such statement in the body). I'm leaning support this time, but I feel like the article should first contextualize why invoking this is historically of weight, which I feel like should also be mentioned in the blurb if possible? This is generally a "pending some better updates". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • TenTonParasol I've done some work on this. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose with prejudice Four nominations of this article within the last few weeks is bordering on vexatious. Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  They're four separate events, from four nominators, related to an ongoing movement. Some older votes were just waiting for something federal, unusual or "really dramatic" like this one. Acceptance trumps prejudice? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  As Trudeau stated this was to be a very narrow and tailored application of the E Act as to remove to blockage of roads, this isn't the big bombshell of martial law that some were expecting (or as some conservative news commentators are claiming). It could still go that way, but as noted above trying to compare this to Jan 6 is a huge misstep. --Masem (t) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I compared it to the pandemic in the relevant country, brother. There are levels to emergency here, and this one "goes to eleven", one more. Those few hours in Washington do pale in comparison, even as an alleged insurrection, everything just seems brighter and bigger on American screens. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose with prejudice. I don't see why the Canadian protests are particularly notable compared those taking place in other countries around the world. I would be more open to (but would not necessarily support) an ongoing nomination for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, I agree with Ad Orientem, with four nominations in the past couple of weeks, this is now beyond ridiculous. Chrisclear (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well then perhaps you'll be able to identify in advance the fifth unique person who finds these unprecedented events in Canada newsworthy and warn them ahead of time to not upset your sensibilities. Furthermore, objecting without considering the new information and instead simply stating "I opposed this already" is basically worthless. if you think the first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, a NATO member G7 country, is not significant, then please explain otherwise your oppose would be rightly ignored as WP:IDONTLIKEIT by any admin evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"The first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada" is notable in Canada and is notable as a factoid. However, just because Canada did something for the first time doesn't mean it's ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We posted Justin Trudeau's election and reelection. That's a fun bit of man-on-the-street gotcha trivia: "Name the current Canadian Prime Minister." If this once-in-a-lifetime historic event doesn't make it, I better not see another typical quiet election night result overblown on the main page again! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My point was just because something was done for the first time doesn't make it ITN level. How does countering with a routine event disprove my point? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying brand new, manner of government changes in the English world are more newsworthy than routine changes in House seating arrangements. We post the latter, so should definitely post the former. And I forgot to include his 2019 reelection. Remember how it gripped the world? I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose. WP:VNT has tainted this event and it's corresponding article, and highlighting it in my mind goes against the premise of In the News to highlight the best of the encyclopedia, with absolutely no offense intended towards the editors who have kept this article in great shape. - Floydian ^τ _¢
• Strong oppose - 4th time here. I don't really need to say much when I've already loaded my reasons for the previous 3 nominations. Unless something dramatic occurs, I don't think it needs an ITN. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly does something dramatic look like to you? Fire? Upturned cruisers? Blood and gore? Tanks? Tearful resignation speech? Broken storefronts? British children's choir? Black helicopters? Suicide bombing? Monsters? Your last three votes have been nothing but acknowledgment of opposition to mentioning the convoy's small beginning (by four people, not including you). That's not heavy/strong/loaded, say more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Does the protest really differ from any other typical COVID-19 related protests? People are arrested, they're retreating, I repeat the word, retreating. When Trudeau evacuated for safety reasons, people were hyping up like Canada is collapsing. When Trudeau declared "some emergency-powers" people here are panicking like Trudeau is going to start another Tiananmen at Canada.

  
  Let alone there are similar protests in New Zealand. My previous three votes are done without clear elaboration (I sincerely apologize if I did not post a 5 million-word article for my reason) because I don't think I need to elaborate further that my opinions shared the same points made by the people who opposed it. Even if it's important enough, the most critical part of this event is over.
  

  - The comparison regarding January 6 and this event being similar doesn't make sense when one, this protest was made by only a small proportion of people that most Canadians don't even agree with, two, January 6 was the first time in history that people had breached the grounds close to the Capitol. It is considered a coup d'etat, something that hasn't been seen seriously since 1797. Is this a coup? No. Is this going to threaten democracy in Canada? No. It is about some angry people refusing to take vaccines. Using the American bias doesn't make any sense when there are comparable incidents from the States related to this event yet they're not in ITN.
  

  I sincerely hope nobody nominates this again for the 5th time. It's becoming a recurring joke for desperate nominations. Per Ad Orientem. PenangLion (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The protests are perhaps not that different from other COVID-19 ones but further developments and the enactment of a wartime act do indicate notability beyond COVID. The already present link in Ongoing to the pandemic might have sufficed but it doesn't even mention this protest (or others) in the linked [main] article. This seems akin to the Kazakhstan protests to me and a blurb or ongoing would seem apt. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Alsoriano97 and Joseph2302. Enough is enough. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and close. Already rejected, and nothing fundamental has changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Raees Mohammad[edit]

 Ainty Painty (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support looks about long enough, well sourced (checked CricketArchive sources and they verify the content) and covers most of the known information about him. Maybe there's more content in offline/pre-Internet/non-English sources, but article looks good enough for RD in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Partial Support Well sourced however dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's one dead link, which should be fixed, not removed (see WP:DEADLINK). Things behind paywalls are not dead links, I've confirmed they all work. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dead page links, not ref links. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be tagged with {{deadlink}}? --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The one dead reference has been tagged as such. No idea was a "dead page link" is, as that seems like made up terminology. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they mean "redlinks", which don't need to be removed. User should stop making rules that aren't valid for RD criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• A little short at 2112 characters (356 words of readable prose), but long enough to qualify. No concerns with footnoting (except for the paywall) and formatting. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Khayal Zaman Orakzai[edit]

 Ainty Painty (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Bit of a stub but otherwise looks good. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose pending expansion. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a stub, which doesn't meet article quality guidelines (contrary to the first voter's support). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

February 13[edit]

(Posted) RD: Halyna Sevruk[edit]

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian artist. GGT (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Short but adequate. Referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Partial Support Article looks good, dead links need to be removed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I can't see any dead links in the article? --GGT (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  Hcoder3104, WP:REDLINKS are fine. Let them be, or turn them blue! --PFHLai (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support more than good enough for RD, red links aren't a valid reason for stopping this running (contrary to the user that clearly doesn't know the ITNC rules). Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aled Roberts[edit]

Nominator's comments: Welsh politician and Welsh language Commissioner  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Partial Support Article is well sourced, however the dead links need to be removed and the "Personal Life and Death" section should be expanded. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 20:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support The subject's death should be reported in the mainstream press/media. One or more better sources would be helpful. And I concur with Hcoder3104 that his personal life section could be expanded. Otherwise, the article appears to be short but adequate and acceptably referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: Just added a BBC and Wales Online source for the death. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Question: The intro states that in 2019, he was appointed Welsh Language Commissioner. However, the rest of the wikibio does not mention anything he did after the 2016 election -- the following sentence was about his death in 2022. So what happened after 2016? What did he do as Language Commissioner? Did he die in office as Language Commissioner? Coverage of the subject's life appears to be truncated and incomplete. Perhaps that final sentence of the intro should be moved down to become the final sentence of a Career section, unless more about his time working as Language Commissioner can be elaborated. --PFHLai (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @PFHLai: I have added some more about his Commissioner career and merged the personal life section too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you, The C of E. That works. This wikibio is now READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ivan Reitman[edit]

Nominator's comments: Director of many beloved '80s and '90s comedies, most notably Ghostbusters. JOEBRO64 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Even if I wasn't a recent editor, this feels like a slam dunk.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose article is way undersourced- article quality is the only criteria for RD. Also, what's the relevance of the table in "Recurring cast members" section? It lists roles played by many people, not just him, which aren't relevant to a biographical article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joseph2302 Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LVI[edit]

Article: Super Bowl LVI (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cincinnati Bengals in Super Bowl LVI (MVP Cooper Kupp pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In American football, the Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cincinnati Bengals in the Super Bowl (MVP Cooper Kupp pictured).
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bluerules (talk · give credit), Frank Anchor (talk · give credit), ViperSnake151 (talk · give credit), Donnowin1 (talk · give credit) and PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that we usually include the player of the game as the image once that is determined. --Masem (t) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not announced yet... waiting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's Kupp. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- Hydrology (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- one of the largest sporting events in the world. Definitely noteworthy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This proposal would be better without that comment. It's an ITNR event, so will be posted without people having to hype it up, as soon as article quality is up to scratch. Claiming it to be "one of the largest sporting events in the world" is highly debatable, and one of the reasons we have ITNR. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like we're inconsistent through the years on whether the blurb provides a Roman numeral lesson or not. For annual events, we typically don't repeat the year of the event.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've forgotten what's been done in past years and did not check the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Last year we added the roman numeral and the score of the game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Actually, nevermind - score was quickly removed and roman numerals were removed the following morning. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Struck the original. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, annual ITN inclusion. The Kip (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose quality The game summary section seems long, and it turns out to be source solely to a WP:PRIMARY source play-by-play transcript. Secondary sources should be used to pare this down to significant events (and not WP:OR).—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Let’s not delay this ITNR item over minor quibbles. I am not concerned about the claim of WP:OR. The article does not contain any erroneous content. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARY policy is not a "minor quibble" (emphasis added): Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them It's a monotonous wall of play-by-play, which a secondary source is more reliable to use to determine the WP:DUE highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  A secondary source covering the game is not going to be at the level of detail that a quarter-by-quarter recap of the game would seem to require - that would likely focus on 3-4 major plays throughout the game and the overall end stats, but not individual drives or the like. Comparing the prose length to past Super Bowls as well as to FIFA World Cup final games, it is perhaps about 25% a bit too long, but no different from how those games are presented or how sources are used in terms of primary recaps being used as the main sourcing. And at least my read of the ESPN recap is that they are adding some analysis indicating which drives were important, so this pulls it to a secondary source in that regards. --Masem (t) 13:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. I am going to review that section again carefully and I also see at least one naked URL references that need to be fixed. When I'm done I might remove the maintenance tag. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Besides the poor referencing of the game summary, there's nothing about the post-game reactions and ceremonies. The article has some way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba Hcoder3104☭ (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Sports Event of only local significance. Not enough global interest. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:10FD:A40C:A28B:8C40 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not true, and also it's WP:ITNR, so your perceived importance is irrelevant, as it is pre-approved as important enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bagumba BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose until the article is expanded with more information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think it's an important event, like other sports championships that are featured in the news on the home page. However, let's wait a while to, per Kiril Simeonovski, expand the page with other things like reactions and all that stuff. For now, we should not feature it yet. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I had nothing to do with writing up the game summary, but I can replace those refs with better ones this afternoon. "Post-game reactions and ceremonies"? There's a parade today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the article is fine. Post-game reacons? Single source match summary? Neither of those made up criteria kept the 2021_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_Final nom off the main page. I've never heard of anyone complain about "too much prose" before. We get it, everyone else in the world hates America and hates what America calls "football". Too god damned bad. The item is ITN/R and the article is in fine shape for posting. Get it up there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah I did think about that after posting my above comment. Seems like the goal posts (pun intended) are always moving on these. It used to be a game summary is all that's needed, but now it's "post-game reactions and ceremonies"? Why exactly is the ESPN.com play-by-play not a valid source for the game's play-by-play? This article has 29kb prose. It should be enough to post for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  @LaserLegs: I don’t have animosity towards US or the sport which is called “football” there. The reason for suggesting that information on the post-game reactions and ceremonies should be added is the heed that US media pay to it. If something is really in the news, it should be mentioned in the article at the very least. And comparing this to the recently concluded Africa Cup of Nations isn’t spot on because media weren’t that much interested about post-game reactions. Since you referred to the sport we call “football”, please check 2018 FIFA World Cup Final for how a post-game section can fit well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 17:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Fuzheado: There does not appear to be a consensus to post yet, due to quality concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    The event is on WP:ITN/R and there are no orange warnings. Policy-wise, there is no requirement for "post game reactions and ceremonies" as LaserLegs has pointed out. And a game summary that is "too long" is not a justification to delay posting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    But a WP:PRIMARY violation is. The lack of a tag noting this shouldn't be relevant per WP:NOTBURO, but I've added one now to address that concern. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    BilledMammal, WP:PRIMARY, in part, says primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, so where's the violation? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    They can, but only in a limited manner; the section is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There are also several citation needed tags that need to be resolved before this can be posted. BilledMammal (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    The section with primary sourcing is the game summary. It covers what happened on the field, which millions of people were watching, without any scholarly or professional-level analysis of what happened. And yes, there are four (4) citation needed tags, for minor points, and on an article with 151 unique inline citations. Perfection should never be the enemy of the good. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    And I am not suggesting we delete it. However, there is a standard of quality required for ITN, and this article currently fails that, and will continue to fail that until the text is rewritten to incorporate analysis. BilledMammal (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    It doesn't look like a primary source to me. It's published by ESPN, which is independent of the Super Bowl organizers. Just because it's a play-by-play guide doesn't mean it lacks the hallmarks of an independent source, and it is commonplace to include such things for the detail of what happened, for example as at 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final. This is especially true when it's fairly bald statements of fact about what happened. Obviously it would be better to draw the summary from more than one source, and I might insist on that for GA or FA, but I don't see it as necessary for the ITN standard.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    Per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am not suggesting pulling this, I just am surprised at how quickly it was posted, especially when there was apparent legitimate quality questions - and compared to how quickly the Club World Cup nom was closed to discussion, even though some opposes there amount to nothing more than the fallacious "it isn't ITN/R so we can't post". Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Fifteen hours after the event is about what we should be shooting for as far as posting time. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)