Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
→‎April 10: changing to support
Tag: Reverted
Line 107: Line 107:
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> article is inadequately referenced. Also, no need to tell people who have supported a sub-standard article about RD criteria, it's plainly written. Assessing admin will discard such votes when article quality is clearly not suitable. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> article is inadequately referenced. Also, no need to tell people who have supported a sub-standard article about RD criteria, it's plainly written. Assessing admin will discard such votes when article quality is clearly not suitable. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
*:'''Support''' much better. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
*:'''Support''' much better. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now''' 2 orange tags, a few CN tags and a large part of ''Notable Clients'' not cited. Will support when fixed [[User:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:green">''JW 1961''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:#0000CD">''Talk''</span>]]</sup> 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose for now''' 2 orange tags, a few CN tags and a large part of ''Notable Clients'' not cited. Will support when fixed [[User:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:green">''JW 1961''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:#0000CD">''Talk''</span>]]</sup> 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)<s/>
:Changing to '''Support''' as issues were addressed throughout the day [[User:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:green">''JW 1961''</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Joseywales1961|<span style="color:#0000CD">''Talk''</span>]]</sup> 21:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
::The man was internationally known and lived to be 93. The article has <s>73</s> 90 refs. Common sense calls for posting as an (ephemeral) RD only. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
::The man was internationally known and lived to be 93. The article has <s>73</s> 90 refs. Common sense calls for posting as an (ephemeral) RD only. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
:::<small>''PS:'' Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>''PS:'' Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 21:56, 11 April 2021

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Gitanas Nausėda in 2023
Gitanas Nausėda

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

April 11

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


Ongoing: Uyghur genocide

Article: Uyghur genocide (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, USA Today
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Both "continuously updated" and "frequently in the news." Article is "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" – judging by the page's history, updates are added nearly every day to detail the evolving situation. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – It's ready. Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This has been ongoing for years. We can blurb important developments when they occur. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't change that it wasn't on ITN in the past. The fact of the matter is, as you said, that it's ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ongoing like the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and Darfur genocide and Rohingya genocide and Somali Civil War and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Syrian Civil War...let's permalist all those too. Yes the world is a dark place. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This has been a significant news item over the past week. Turkey summoned the Chinese Ambassador and issuing what at least one expert called the "most public rebuke of China in more than a decade." (For context, Erdogan accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs in 2009). China released a musical as a part of an intense propaganda campaign to deny its human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang (a quote used in the NYT article was declared to be the NYT Quotation of the Day.) China has been intensifying its attacks against Uyghurs and Uyghur allies overseas, China has sentenced Uyghur officials to death, France is seeing a court case filed against multinationals relating to labor rights abuses in Xinjiang, and there are public discussions among the United States and its allies regarding whether or not to boycott the Winter Olympics, earning a response from Beijing. The Uyghur genocide is indisputably in the news, and it is one of the biggest stories currently. I believe that the article would be certainly fitting for inclusion here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is high quality and fully cited, but I have to question the word "genocide", as it's not completely agreed on (the BBC article states it's an allegation, for example), and it's not comprehensive enough about what's happening; I think the term "persecution" should be used for the title instead. Is there any reason against this, or should I suggest a rename? The article is also one-sided, with mostly commentary from activists and NGOs, and little commentary from China or its allies; you don't need to believe it (I don't), but it has to be given in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses x, this title was very recently decided on in an extensive talk page discussion, which resulted in a one-year moratorium. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman That was changing the name from "Uyghur cultural genocide" to "Uyghur genocide". None of the titles the article has had or have been suggested, giving five in total, have used the word "persecution", so my point hasn't been discussed yet. The moratorium isn't an endorsement of the current name, so "If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists" I can suggest it on the talk page, but that would take over seven days so I can't support the current nomination anyway, unless I'm convinced "genocide" is the widely-accepted term. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See FAQ point two: "If I wish to rename the page, should I go ahead and open a move request?" "No." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: The title "Persecution of Uyghurs" was proposed in a February 2021 move request, which resulted in not moved, with nobody other than the nominator supporting it. The discussion was not as lengthy as the April 1 move discussion, but there was still a consensus present not to move the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10 "was not as lengthy" - that's an understatement if I've ever heard one. The singular oppose doesn't deal with what I said, as the IP user who suggested it didn't give any kind of rationale for the change, and the current name was based on other factors ("cultural genocide" vs. "genocide"), so I'm not convinced.
Take a look at the talk page for the recent rename, and tell me there isn't a huge amount of personal research and WP:ACTIVISM there. Remember, the editors who are even involved in article re-naming are usually those involved in the article itself (and look at the sheer number of now banned, recently registered, and IP users in that bunch), so talk page concensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN concensus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for article subject and overall article quality. Any concerns raised though should probably be fixed before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Uses x. As long as this article is calling something a "genocide" despite reliable sources not yet referring to it as such, it's not suitable for inclusion on the main page. The closer of the recent RM acknowledged that the title was problematic, but appears to have closed it as "not moved" on the grounds that no better title has been proposed. That may be the case, but it doesn't make the current title suddenly OK. I also agree with TarkusAB's oppose - this tragedy did not begin recently, it's been going since 2014, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight - if we put it up, then we're basically saying it's going to be up for the next five years. There haven't been significant new developments in the past week and it's unclear why this is being proposed now rather than at any other time.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that "there haven't been significant new developments in the past week" per Mikehawk10. And as the nominator, I'll tell you frankly: I nominated it now because I thought of it now. Should it have been nominated in the past? Probably, but I can't go back and change that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's fair enough, you thought of it now, and my point is not to say that nothing has happened recently. This is an "ongoing" event in the sense that terrible things are happening to people on the ground on a daily basis. I'm not belittling it at all. But as tragic and concerning as that is, that isn't what the ITN "Ongoing" section is all about. There are several ongoing conflicts and tragedies in the world right now - the never-ending wars in the middle-east, the War in Donbass, unrest in Venezuela, the persecution of Rohingyas, wars in Africa etc. etc. But the question is whether anything going on those conflicts amounts to global breaking news that we might consider posting as an individual story. When I do a Google news search for "Uighur" I don't see anything that would ever be considered as an ITN story in its own right. And honestly, from personal experience as someone who reads the UK news, nothing on this has crossed my radar this week. That may be a fault in the way international outlets are reporting it, but it's also not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but as per BabbaQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Amakuru. Allegations of Chinese genocidal activities have been shooting for quite a while, and should have been nominated earlier if it was proven true. Until there are boots on the ground to verify the allegations, I would rather this be held off. – robertsky (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These alleged human rights abuses have been occuring for years now. Officially, the Chinese Government says that there are no currently operating internment camps in Xinjiang. There is no evidence that Uyghurs are still being arbitrarily detained, let alone at a mass level. If new evidence arises that this alleged "genocide" or "ethnocide" is still occurring, its status as an ongoing event should be reassessed. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral Support - clearer important but per TarkusAB this is not recent news and needs ITN context. Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: But if our goal is to turn Wikipedia into a US State Department mouthpiece, then let's go right ahead. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm saying that we shouldn't push an obviously non-neutral article into ITN that parrots the US State Department's allegations. Those allegations are widely contested, not least by the US State Department's own legal advisors. See, for example, this article, which describes how the political appointees at the US State Department ignored the legal advisors and accused China of genocide. The article Uyghur genocide puts extreme claims into Wikivoice, despite the fact that reliable sources describe these claims as allegations. This is not the sort of content that we should be pushing onto the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You essentially called me and every support voter a fed for daring to think that a current genocide is in fact major world news. Now, I have a pretty thick skin, but you ought to strike that remark for those who don't. If you have concerns about neutrality, oppose on that principle and, if you're really so concerned about the article's current form, I would strongly encourage you to follow up on it by taking it to the article's talk page, making a better encyclopedia for all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per reliable sources, these are allegations of genocide, made by the US State Department, contradicting its own legal advisors. There's a difference between allegations and facts, and it's important to note this distinction on Wikipedia. Putting an unproven (and heavily contested) allegation in Wikivoice is bad enough. We shouldn't then push this non-neutral material to the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides for the Chinese government nobody appears to be contesting the allegations of human rights abuses, WP:RS have confirmed the allegations as far as they have been able to. Also just FYI the page name predates that US State Department designation as you well know because you participated in the naming discussion, your personal attacks are inaccurate as well as hurtful. Just because you personally don’t agree with a community consensus does not mean you can disrespect it or lie about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
64 UN member states have signed a declaration rejecting the allegations - far more than have supported them. Even the US State Department's own legal advisors advised that the accusation was unsupported by the evidence, but they were overruled by the political appointees. RS specifically describe "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as has been shown over and over again at Talk:Uyghur_genocide. The fact that reliable sources report that allegations have been made does not mean that those allegations are true, as the Iraq WMD fiasco illustrates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, usually edits or discussions which aim to sway an article to pro-Chinese or anti-Western views are quite often met with "CCP trolls" or "wumao". I'm not saying that we should be allowing accusations of ethnocentrism, but we should be careful about applying double standards especially on a Euro and American centric website if we are to aim for a clear, balanced and worldwide take on topics. 58.167.153.79 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - (1) per Uses x. The article name is contested, (2) Not particularly in the news (looked on the front and "world news" pages of several major news organisations and searched for "Uyghur" with no hits. AntiVan (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the CPC isn't going to stop because we stuck this article in ongoing. It will continue for generations until the Uyghur people are assimilated, exterminated, or driven out and the region repopulated with Han Chinese. Are we really going to leave this in the box that long? It's akin to putting Climate Change or Israeli–Palestinian_conflict into the box it is never ever ever going to stop. Nominate the occasional "blurb-worthy" event instead please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominate the "blurb-worthy" event instead please. Otherwise we end up filling the infobox with ongoing events, like Rohingya genocide,Yemeni Genocide all of which are current. When US designated a genocide in January 2021, that was a good point for "blurb-worthy" nomination. Albertaont (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Same old allegations do not qualify as "ongoing" for ITN. STSC (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I could see the only legitimate support is from the nominator itself and Mikehawk10. All other supports other than that doesn't clearly state the reasoning. The oppose section raised various concerns regarding the neutrality of the article title and the content, and the fact that putting in on ongoing is an act of WP:RGW as the event itself has been going on for several years and the recent coverage is just about the "expose" part. One IP user pointed out to balance the take of the topics.
  • Oppose' - While I do believe this is a genocide, what I do not believe is that this is a recent event. This has been ongoing for YEARS, the Myanmar protests and the COVID-19 pandemic have not (albeit the latter has been occurring for c. 1 year, so touche. Also per Albertaont, the blurb? Maybe. Ongoing? No thanks. We needn't flood the Ongoing page, shall we? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, the only support for this ongoing based it on the fact that there has been continuous widespread coverage over the past week. Judging through the refutations of the nominator on oppose comments, the nominator nominates this item due to the continuous development of the event's article in Wikipedia and the recent widespread coverage. The nominator refutes the neutrality allegation put forward by the oppose, stating that the matter has been discussed for a while and there is a moratorium for that. The nominator recommends whoever questioned the support to bring it up on the talkpage.
Judging by the weight of both opinions, I oppose the notion of nominating this item for ongoing. The continuous coverage of the event is only for the various actions of nation in response to the event and not for the existence of the event itself. Other than that, I believe that this article is sufficiently neutral due to the continuous consensus. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Ramsey Clark

Article: Ramsey Clark (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ramsey-clark-dead.html
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former U.S. Attorney General &c; significant figure and substantial article, some refs missing. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Looks quite thorough. A household name in the U.S. for those of a certain age. A champion of personal rights. – Sca (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - decent article, interesting. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good sources. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Reasonable conditition for a longish article. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are too many tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, major historical figure during the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a factor for an RD; all people with articles are important enough to post. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My personal iVotes on these issues takes notability into primary consideration. Just because someone nominates someone who played one professional game of football but has a cracker-jack polished page doesn't mean I'll be coming by to support an RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooookay, but editors have raised legitimate concern about this page's current quality, the (agreed upon by consensus) sole issue for an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is an iVote? Is that the Spanish version of !vote? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Si. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one is disgruntled with RD criteria, take it up at an appropriate venue, this is not it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the novella-length RfC and discussions, and it seems that the close of the RfC is far from supportive of the criteria without criteria expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're saying is that you think regular ITN users have misinterpreted the RFC linked to every RD proposal, then that's something to take up higher than this individual nom; I would suggest Wikipedia talk:In the news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC close accepts the criteria as defined but seems to ask for further refinement. If someone can come up with a coherent sentence portion to add to it then your advice is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn ... that's the literal point of RD. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who has a Wikipedia page is eligible for RD, which you can read on the text of the nomination itself. You don't need to come by if you don't support that, the regular contributors here will manage. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the close of the RfC which asks for further criteria refinement in addition to article quality. This has been done in the case of inclusion of animals, yet it seems that the need for additional language to address other good faith concerns hasn't as yet been fully addressed and resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn It has already been refined. Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, and the article doesn't meet that. And remember, if there are citation needed tags it means no one has put much effort into fact-checking the article, so the citations that are present likely haven't been verified. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until CN tags are addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems a lot of people need reminding RD isn't based on notability, it's based on article quality. There are CN tags, so the article is not of the required quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've sorted out most of the citation needed tags, the only two bits missing are two dates (both tagged) that are not particularly important, and that's fine according to the critera. Pinging everyone who was also opposed, in case you don't see the update: @Hanamanteo, AllegedlyHuman, The Rambling Man, Joseywales1961, and Pawnkingthree:
Changing to Support as issues were addressed throughout the day JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The man was internationally known and lived to be 93. The article has 73 90 refs. Common sense calls for posting as an (ephemeral) RD only. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca Take a look at those pages, and you'll be able to say why those got posted yourself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always amusing to see how poor the de. and fr.wiki standards are for BLPs. Something we should definitely not aspire to. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until orange tagged section and cn tags are fixed. P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Grand National

Article: 2021 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman to win the race in its 180-year history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman jockey winner in the races 180-year history.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In horse racing, Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first female jockey to win in the race's 180-year history.
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: It's already ITNR, but the "first female winner" would justify it regardless. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Why am I tagged in this? L1amw90 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've made significant contributions to the article so people think it reasonable to credit you with doing so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Race card table is largely empty. Nothing said of horses that failed to finish. Why did they fail to finish, what happened to them? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Riders come off at a jump, it's the only reason and so common and expected to be unremarkable. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only reason a horse fails to finish, and you know it. We are covering an historic event, so the info should be there for those in the future to be able to read. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the only reason. I mean, if they have to shoot a horse, I hope the rider's come off it by then. Which is the disqualifying factor. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - issues raised above have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - tables all completed and sourced JW 1961 Talk 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That blurb seems odd since I recognized as horse racing, seems odd to identify Blackmore as the "first woman to win" it. I know what was meant but had to do a double-take, and so perhaps add "jockey" in there somewhere? To add/affirm the second part of the blurb, her "first" is definitely a factor collaborated by multiple news sources, so it is appropriate to note. (ESPN, AP, The Guardian, etc.) --Masem (t) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, Alt added, might look better JW 1961 Talk 20:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's much better to me, doesn't require an odd double take. --Masem (t) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't we usually include the name of the sport in the blurb? -- Calidum 20:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt2 to this effect, with other corrections. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one refimprove tag now. Did you look at 2019 Grand National? Same format and two sections there also no sources. But did it get posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually checked how 2019 Kentucky Derby looked like, and that's a lot better than this one, but I dunno if any of those two (KB and GN) were posted, nor should it matter. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think people look back at past year's events to guage the expected format and quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. I have to agree with the above. The event is noteworthy enough, but the article is insufficient. The horse's article is also a redirect (to the race) and the jockey's article is a stub. -- Calidum 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't, but the event article needs to be of quality, and if that isn't there, the pull is appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with pull Most prose content is unsourced save the lead (which doesn't even need to be). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources added to the 3 orange tagged sections of concern and the block quote JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Pull. I would have pulled it myself if I'd seen this 30 minutes ago, but the sourcing is there now. IMO this is good enough. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've made a Minella Times page so it can be linked to. Lankyant talk 00:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still of the opinion that this should be pulled as there is zero prose about the race itself. Do I need to remind everyone here of Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality (Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page)? For comparison, look at 2019 Kentucky Derby, which is the last horse racing event posted here. That article contains a three-paragraph description of the race, not just background on qualifying and media coverage. -- Calidum 00:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still pull. No actual prose of the race itself. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Too quick to post. The race isn't even in the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who knows how to add racing colours of the placed horses still very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Nikki Grahame

Article: Nikki Grahame (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support Sudden death of someone with a 17 year career in mainstream British television. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is comprehensive enough and fully cited. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not had much of a career beyond reality TV and Big Brother, not had anything within the last 10 years. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason to Oppose on ITN. Secondly, you obviously has not read the article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article had over 300.000 views yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because admit it, she was popular back in the days and that was the last series of BB I've watched. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great; not a valid reason to oppose. Read the notice at the bottom of the tan box. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ross Young (politician)

Article: Ross Young (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support Not a great rapper or elder statesman, but a fine little article. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Late-middle-aged statesman, technically. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fully referenced and a decent length. Honestly I'm impressed you could find this much info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Short but sweet, decent and appropriately balanced biography. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Aten (city)

Article: Aten (city) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The lost city of Aten is discovered in the Theban necropolis (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Archaeologists announce the discovery of the ancient Egyptian city of Aten.
News source(s): Nat Geo, CNN, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Described as the "second most important archeological discovery since the tomb of Tutankhamun" Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Provisionally oppose on quality, support on significance. Whoa, this is big news, but I'll withhold my support until after the article is improved to post-able quality. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the stories point out, they started excavation around the area in Sept 2020 and only seem to now have a better idea that this is Aten. That said, these discoveries are usually accompanied by journal articles that affirm things like carbon dating, etc. I'm not saying they're being fraudulent here, just that we'd usually want the scientific backing of peer-review to confirm this. --Masem (t) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Was considering nominating myself. Quality is sufficient by now + maps and coordinates. Brandmeistertalk 16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very significant discovery. Quality improved since nomination. Looks good to me Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can the blurb start with something like "Egyptian archaeologists announce the discovery ..."? Otherwise, a great ITN story. --Tone 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD only) RD: DMX

Proposed image
Article: DMX (rapper) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50 following a week of hospitalization.
News source(s): LA Times, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, XXL
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Sadly, it has now been confirmed. 50. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Article is currently full-protected, so I literally can't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bloody ridiculous to have it fully protected. Shambles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the protecting admin, who dropped it back to semiprotection. Edit away. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb notable death of an influential hip-hop figure, covered by reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC); Edited 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Nice4What, as the note in the template says, all recent deaths get posted, and comments should be about the article's quality, which as of now is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've removed all uncited claims from the article. Anyone can feel free to readd the information with a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb when sourcing issues are fixed --LaserLegs (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD due to quality at present time, Oppose blurb, while probably one of the first well-known rappers, a read through the article (ignoring the sourcing) does not give me any good indication that he was a transformative figure to the scene. --Masem (t) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The likes of TIME and USA Today called him a “legendary rapper” who “changed hip-hop forever”. On top of his number-one albums breaking Billboard records. So a transformative career is irrevocably the case. Trillfendi (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, oppose blurb. A few citation needed tags present, and not notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Article looks good enough for RD. A cleanup is due for the 'Legal issues', but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Masem and Uses x: Nice4What has now removed claims that were missing citations from the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllegedlyHuman Done, the article is acceptable for RD. Thanks for the ping. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two major things that are still a problem: All of the Apperances need to be sourced (standard for any actor), and I'd beg the question if we need to detail every arrest/time in jail in "Legal Issues"; that he was frequently arrested and in jail is summarized in the lede, and if there were any major notable ones, those can be mentioned but it is highly inappropriate to post a rap sheet for a BLP/BRDP. --Masem (t) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD posting, oppose blurb - article is in OK shape now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. As someone who listened to DMX growing up, this news is tragic, but he has largely been out of the limelight for the past decade. I also don't think he rises to the level of say Dr. Dre or Eminem in terms of importance to the genre to make him noteworthy enough for a blurb. -- Calidum 17:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Calidum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Masem and Calidum. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb While his rap career is noteworthy, it's not transformative in the way the likes of Grandmaster Flash or Dr. Dre would be. rawmustard (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD per rawmustard. CoatCheck (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD not influential and transformative. just your daily rapper. on the other hand article is well-referenced and clean. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when sourcing complete (Awards, Filmography need sourcing). Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD Never heard of him but article looks good for an RD inclusion. Certainly not as well known as Prince Philip so definately not deserving of a blurb. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I oppose posting this a blurb, frankly I find comparing DMX and his career to Prince Philip screams of all sorts of horrific systemic biases. Wikipedia has been endeavoring to drive out these biases for a reason. WaltCip-(talk) 19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Five consecutive number 1 albums but I personally believe there's a huge gulf between that and, for example Eminem (biggest selling artist of 2000s and 2010s decades) or Jay-Z (most Grammy awards for a rapper, billionaire through extensive business interests) Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb because he is not significant enough within his own field. Would support for a person who can make a claim as one of the greatest rappers of all time (e.g. Eminem, JayZ, Tupac, etc.), which DMX falls short of. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if JayZ makes it to 99 we can blurb him just for being married to Beyonce.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Great rapper but not transformative.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Consider this a pointy !vote if you will, but... If Phillip is transformative in whatever field merits his blurb (marrying into the monarchy? Serving as a stunt double for the Cryptkeeper?), DMX is subjectively as household a name as Eminem or JayZ when it comes to hip-hop/rap and arguably transformative in that field. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recall this rapper chap setting up a worldwide youth programme or inventing a new sport. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, and I do not consider him a role model by any means (DMX). I do, however, consider him top of his field. I'm not sure what field Phillips is top of, nor what groundbreaking accomplishments he's made (although carriage driving seems like an entertaining variation of chuckwagon racing, so I'll have to check it out!). Again, I'm being pointy; there's a double standard between who is "notable, end of story," and who has to be considered "top of their field" before qualifying. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are we using his real name, Earl Simmons, or his stage name, DMX? Osunpokeh (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Osunpokeh, DMX is his WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only His contribution in global music industry is unknown, but the article is in really good shape to be posted in RD. 182.3.100.65 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking Ready Consensus support for RD seems to exist. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Awards section and Filmography will need to be sourced first.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, unmarked as ready, two sections pretty much without a single ref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also again add that the "Legal issues" section, equating to a rap sheet for all purposes, seems highly inappropriate. One can sum up he had frequently arrests and fines, but we should not iterate each one. --Masem (t) 21:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only Nice article (ready for RD), but not a major music industry star to be put as a blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only - when the orange tags on awards and filmography are addressed JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Neutral on Blurb: Once the awards and filmography are taken care of, otherwise this looks good to go. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Simmons was noteworthy enough to mention in passing but doesn't rise to the level of a blurb given his relative lack of success compared to his contemporaries. Frevangelion (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD but I don't know if he's notable enough outside the US for a blurb. Connor Behan (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the guidelines say the deceased must be "notable enough outside the US for a blurb"? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking for Connor, but as I read it, that was a kind way of saying "he might have been blurbworthy at his peak based on US popularity, but not when you think of all rappers globally". Of course, Connor might be saying "people outside the US don't listen to good rap" or something... Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chart peaks in DMX discography show hotness in Canada and not bad at all elsewhere after 2001. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs referencing. When ready, Support RD only: I thought I knew music, but I have never heard of him. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but in a rapper hierarchy of who might possibly get a blurb one day (currently opining none), he's not even on the list. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD Had he died a decade earlier, may have justified a blurb. Has been out of limelight. Albertaont (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - At no point in his life was he anywhere near important enough for a blurb. Claims that he was a household name are ridiculous. Try mentioning DMX to elderly relatives - they won't even know there was a person known as DMX, let alone that he was a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure the elderly would have actively avoided any such kind of "that hip hop music", just as I'm sure many free-spirit young punk whippersnappers would have avoided any sign of fealty to those monarchists in England. Singling out one group or another to determine what's important to society overall is myopic. (I doubt most of those grannies would have even heard of Kanye.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of young people don't care about Prince Philip's death, but they know who he was. (By the way, I'm opposed to him having a blurb as well, but realised long before he died that there'd be a strong consensus for a blurb.) Ask your octogenarian/nonagenarian (grand)mother/(grand)father/(great-)aunt/(great-)uncle what (s)he thinks about DMX & (s)he won't even know you're talking about a person, let alone a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you said that before. And as I said before, it's a ludicrous argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant in refuting the claims that he was a household name. Most people haven't heard of him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to American rap, something that most people have no interest in. Being a household name means being very well-known across all demographics. Someone merely being well-known in their field isn't sufficient for them to have a blurb - they need to be at the top of it. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bar here is "transformative", not "top". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what way(s) was DMX transformative? Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, doing a cursory glance through what Wikipedia has to say on rap music, it's about 90% one and the same as "American rap music", especially in the period DMX was most notable. (Sorry, UK drill.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not say "support RD" when you are merely opposing the blurb. Support RD means you think the quality is sufficient to post now. On that subject, I think we have enough oppose blurb votes - it will not happen. Lets just focus on getting the RD ready. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Have finished referencing the filmography and awards. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 02:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Posted RD "Legal issues" could use work, but no consensus that NPOV concerns there preclude posting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, only. While it may be true that "By late Friday afternoon there was one death dominating the most-read stories on the BBC website: that of the rapper DMX", [3] even if mistakes have been made with other blurbs, no need to compound them, and the article is fine for RD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-RD posting support RD oppose blurb - Article is in good condition for RD. Tom Petty situation here - excellent music, premature death reports unfortunately bringing his actual death a bit more into the media spotlight, but just below the blurb line IMO. -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mahyuddin N. S.

Article: Mahyuddin N. S. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kompas
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Governor of South Sumatra for five months and member of parliament for five years. COVID-19. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support Comprehensive, well-referenced, and very sad. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree the article is basically fine. Actually, better than many others. There were a couple of points I noticed that might need an Indonesian speaker to check against sources; perhaps waiting a few hours would allow more attention from the country. The page appears to have been moved and moved back fairly quickly, but I assume the nominator knows what's right. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have trimmed and re-written the article, looks good now and is well-cited. Vacant0 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whoa, five !votes in six hours. Usually it was just like 2 !votes in 48 hours. Thanks, DMX and Prince Philip. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) La Soufrière eruption

Proposed image
Article: La Soufrière (volcano) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: La Soufrière erupts in Saint Vincent, causing the evacuation of close to 20,000 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Associated Press
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Many people evacuated, volcano hasn't erupted in 42 years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose for now; information in the target article is exactly identical to the blurb. Unless we have something more to tell people in directing them to the article in question, there's no reason for an ITN posting. Please expand the article with sufficient information about the eruption, and then we can look at assessing those additions for their quality. Right now there's basically nothing there. --Jayron32 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bueno. --Jayron32 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated / expanded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Looks good. Definitely worthy enough to be included ITN. Nice job! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is of decent length, appears to give all the current information, and it both affects a lot of people and is "likely to continue for days and possibly weeks", so it's notable. There's also plenty of media attention. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good enough article and ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is "in the news"; is a significant event, and the article is good enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support HurricaneEdgar 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've put the blurb in its correct place, at the top of the template. Although the Duke has died, the world moves on. There is no need to keep the story artificially at the top of the template. Let it cycle down in the normal order. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The old photo's still showing, bit out of whack? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the volcano image to WP:CMP. Once it is protected the image can be added to the template and the stories swapped back to their correct order. Apparently a photo story goes above a non-photo story if both posted on same day, irrespective of order or posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Image protected, stories and images swapped in order. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

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


Proposed image
Article: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Prince Philip (pictured), the Duke of Edinburgh and the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, dies at the age of 99. (Post)
News source(s): NBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Member of the British royal family, husband to the Queen. 99 and was notably in declining health before now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blub per WP:BARBARABUSH --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such a lengthy article, the referencing looks quite good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb RIP Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beaten to the nom Support blurb - this will be worldwide news, and is inherently blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only the article is good enough for RD, albeit there are a couple of citations needed. He is not the head of state of a country, and so not blurb-worthy in my opinion. We wouldn't post to blurb the death of the head of country's spouse for any other country. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Definitely very notable. Wretchskull (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb article is solidly B-class. Eurocentrism, arguably, but this'll be front-page news most places I wager. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, blurb (edit conflict) Prince consort for 72 years is notable enough alone for blurb for me. That position is his, not just "spouse of head of state" (though that would be head of state of 54 nations, so, it wouldn't be "just" comparable anyway...), but he was also a very long-term figure in military and charity in his own right. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you really want "transformative in his field", he was a commander of the Royal Navy and literally helped invent a modern-day equestrian sport and the premier award for encouraging community spirit in young people internationally. In short, I'd expect the same treatment for any equivalent figure, though there are none (internationally impactful constitutional monarchy, military career, charitable career, dynastic longevity, etc). Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb this isn't just the spouse of the queen, he's a well-known public figure in his own right. Major news worldwide and will likely be until the funeral. OMG just the Meghan/Harry aspect lol... —valereee (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on quality. Unsure between RD/blurb, but leaning towards RD. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, notable, blurb is fine. May he rest in piece. — Berrely • TalkContribs 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only While he is very notable for having a longest Duke of Edinburgh per Wretchskull argument, he is not popular as the Queen. I believe if the queen dies, the blurb will be more significance than this. Having it has posted as a blurb is unknown for most ears as they assume the queen is death. 36.77.94.210 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that's a very convincing argument. I'm pretty sure most people will not assume the Queen is dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb after MANY edit conflicts - I think The Crown has helped more people become aware of Prince Philip's life and career, so he is internationally well known, and that's probably why the article is in pretty good shape, as people have probably used WP to fact check his early life and naval career. Shame he didn't quite make it to 100, but he had a good innings. (For the record, I am not a fan of his at all and this is probably the last word I will say on this) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only Old man dies in same year as thousands of old men have died = meh. ——Serial 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've sent the image to WP:CMP should it be required. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support blurb might not be the norm, but few heads of state are as visible and long-lived as the British royal family and given the coverage this will receive I believe it warrants a blurb.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD with no current consensus for a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I'm no fan of the royal family, but there will be few if any deaths this year that garner the amount of news copy that this one will - and this, in the end, is ITN. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - incredibly well-known in the western world, which is where most of our readers are. People would expect ITN to have something on his passing. Anarchyte (talkwork) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD but Oppose blurb, not a transformative figure, not a major head of state. Yes, this will be news the world over, just like many other deaths. For example the death of Hans Küng is being reported worldwide, but he doesn't warrant a blurb either. The death of Paul Ritter is reported worldwide, doesn't make it blurb-worthy. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - one of the major events of the year, its not often they interupt normal scheduling.
    SSSB (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, notable in his own right. Will make front pages everywhere. 49 TL 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (a recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb comparing Philip to Barbara Bush is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb this is worldwide news. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb leading news item for most of the western world AntiVan (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support picture (ec) We have an excellent free picture to display (above). We don't need lots of words to go with this so an RD entry or short blurb to go with the picture and caption would work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Very strongly. Not only The Queen's consort for so long, but also founder of the internationally recognised Duke of Edinburgh Award which was so inspirational for young people. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only -- don't think a blurb, here, is good practice, per several above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb As dumb as I may find royal family gawkery, few people will spend 75 years in the active conscience of millions. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh now exists. — Berrely • TalkContribs 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb If there is anyone that should be an exception to the Barbara Bush precedent, it is Prince Philip. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Worldwide news. P-K3 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking ready for blurb It seems that consensus for blurb has been achieved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Must avoid systemic bias tempatation for white, male spouse exception. And some continent out there is still sleeping as we !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this moment, almost the entire world is awake. It is 10 pm on the east coast of Australia, daytime in Europe, and early morning on America's east coast. The west coast coast of America is the only major english speaking area that is currently mostly asleep. Steelkamp (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Because everyone gets up to !vote on Wikipedia right when they get up. See confirmation bias. —Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as blurb -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It might be worth noting that the picture was taken in 1992. He didn't look much like that recently... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I noticed that when I put it as the alt text. It seems strange to provide a photo from nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to provide a decent newer photo (maybe the one in the infobox?), and I don't know if it's strange to note "in 1992" directly in the caption. -- tariqabjotu 12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn't standard already, it's best to show a deceased person in their prime, when possible. Picture is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is relevant: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be the only picture available, and as far as I know, we don't have a rule dictating the use of the most recent image of somebody. At least, I know we haven't tended to for other public figures. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The image that I added to the blurb was this one from 2015. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe we need a rule that anyone whose funeral will likely be televised live in its entirety on multiple continents automatically gets a blurb? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the British have majority territory (disputed) on Antarctica, I would expect all continents. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd set that rule to anyone with a death article but that's yet a two-edged sword. People will fight to work up such articles in order to make the nominations qualify but, on the other hand, we'll probably end up with an increased number of RfDs on notability grounds as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled for now. As described to User:Tariqabjotu on his talk page: "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here. Consensus may emerge to post, but there is valid policy- and precedent-based opposition at this time." -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced already! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And now User:Stephen has re-added with "clear consensus" when that is not the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't wheel war. WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WaltCip, it's not a wheel war. It's a BRD with "clear consensus" not being the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD-NOT explicitly says BRD does not apply to edits using advanced permissions. The blurb had barely been up for seven minutes before you chose to revert. The proper method in this case is to discuss with Tariq prior to reverting. We're not in the cowboy admin days anymore. Don't shoot first and ask questions later. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't appear to be pulled on my end. Maybe your edit was reverted? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't see the other two comments. Please stop wheel warring. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was reverted with a poor rationale of "clear consensus" -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - there are only 3 "oppose blurbs" and 4 "support RD only"s. Consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of the blurb being posted. Now that it has been, can we please leave it there until it naturally drops off the template. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mjroots, I don't think this meets the spirit of WP:WHEEL, Stephen reverted Fuzheado because he saw consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHEEL: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action: Fuzheado reverted. OK. Stephen reverted. Wheel. —Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Fuzheado's second action, and Stephen's action, were technically WHEEL. It might be a good idea to stop there for the time being unless there's a clear consensus to change it, I think. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite. Let it end there, rather than everyone heading on over to WP:DRAMAFEST. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your action, as you've noticed, has already been reversed. There is plenty of participation, probably far more than most items added to ITN. And the suggestion that only one region is awake is particularly bizarre. Which region? Euraustrafricasia? -- tariqabjotu 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sleeping refrain is common when a U.S,-related blurb is posted while Europe is sleeping and was at prominent at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2020#(Posted,_Closed)_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that was a sneaky one. This story is, however, global in its reach and we clearly have consensus, so there's no need to clutter up the nomination with further chatter about it. Such concerns should be addressed elsewhere. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. Might reconsider in the future if the media coverage keeps up. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as a cultural/social figure. Widespread ambassadorial impact for 70 years and the UK still has links to many countries eg Australia, Canada etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as per Bumbubookworm. Also a leading force for environmental issues in his time. Martinevans123 (talk)
  • Support blurb, still an active figure, and plenty of media attention. The article is also of excellent quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb, I think the funeral will be more notable than their death. 108.41.156.233 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Philip had asked for a military (not state) funeral and in current lockdown conditions, the numbers allowed to attend will be highly limited. The news is his death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, BBC1 and BBC2 (the main UK TV channels) are broadcasting news coverage solely on his death. Other UK TV channels also. Extraordinary level of worldwide coverage. Difficult to find a more notable RD. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Relevant news story re importance: ""World leaders pay tribute to Prince Philip following death at 99". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why can't ITN be as crowded as this in other discussion of blurbs? This way we're gonna get better consensus in less time. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine most of the responses here are prompted by people looking at their phones and seeing a notification: "Oh my, the Prince Consort is dead. Better hurry to my computer and post support on WP:ITN!" WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's if they have a phone, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ironically provides more evidence for a blurb, there can't be many deaths that set mobile phones all over the globe off. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting blurb oppose per apparent precedent on spouses of leaders. When Winnie Madikizela-Mandela died who was far more a prominent figure in her own right, she only got a RD treatment. Same with Barbara Bush (mentioned above). Can someone point to other examples where a spouse whose notability was mainly derived from their partner got a blurb treatment? Regards SoWhy 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to add white, Euro male spouse ITNR.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barbara Bush?! Eight years president wife for one country vs 72 years consort to the Queen of the Commonwealth? Funny! And no, his notability was completely independent, but not to worry! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Currently from the article: "The Duke will not be given a state funeral, which are usually reserved for monarchs." Great job everybody at being objective and consistent. 2601:602:9200:1310:F45F:78EC:5FDB:B9CD (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Jovan Divjak

Article: Jovan Divjak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Avaz
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Top-ranking ethnic Serb in the Bosnian Army during the Bosnian WarAllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

(Posted to RD only) RD: Phillip Adams (American football)

Proposed image
Article: Phillip Adams (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former professional American football player Phillip Adams (pictured) kills five people and injures one in a shooting in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and then kills himself. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Major news. If consensus is to post to RD rather than blurb, I would suggest disambiguating as Phillip Adams has a primary topic (per the recent discussion re Martha Stewart). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose Several unsourced sections. If fixed, leaning RD only (beats most proposed death blurbs). Would not disambiguate, per recent Paul Ritter precedent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I mean it beats most celebrity death blurbs, not a particularly deadly event. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Domestic crime (no terrorism or hate crime motive has been suggested at all) and not a high-level player. RD is sufficient for this. --Masem (t) 02:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD per lack of sourcing for much of his career. Clearly not worthy of a blurb regardless. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb Great work, AllegedlyHuman. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD, a middling NFL player and short-sectioned article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD Aside from aforementioned sourcing issues, there are too many short sections due to rote creation of section per team. Per MOS:OVERSECTION: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. Otherwise, "middling" players are notable enough for RD—that's not a valid issue.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've removed the team sections per your comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllegedlyHuman: Some citations are still outstanding. While he was a journeyman player, anything to avoid the prose being monotonous series of just signings and releases would be helpful (not expecting GA, but still).—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Blurb. Seven spots higher on BBC homepage than the riots. That says something. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article hit 500,000 views yesterday, for those of you who care about that sort of thing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, no need to disambiguate display Sufficiently sourced with acceptable coverage, better organized now. No need to add disambiguation to the display as Phillip Adams seems mostly local to Australia and is not widely recognized. It's questionable if that February discussion represents real practice. Bobby Brown (third baseman) was posted a few weeks ago w/o any disambiguation,[4] and Bobby Brown, the singer, has thousands more daily viewers. No complaints were lodged by any readers. Perhaps a solution looking for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do you think Phillip Adams should be moved? I understand there's the possibility of this Adams' notability being a flash-in-the-pan moment, but if it holds out even a little bit then I would think he's clearly just as notable if not more so than the other one. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually in no hurry to move pages based on recent news. However, an argument for WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC could gain traction. As an alternative, one could consider expanding the WP:HATNOTE to list the football player explicitly, w/o readers having to click on the dab first.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a hatnote per your suggestion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba: I've requested a move at Phillip Adams, if you're interested. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only we don't need yet another category of mass shooting, e.g. "Mass shootings in the United States in April 2021 by former NFL players". Business as usual (as Biden said), this guy just killed 6 out of the 316 people killed that day by firearms. But his death should geet RD and the article is of adequate quality. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I recall, this is the only mass murder by an NFL player, in any month, at any place, with any weapon. So yeah. No new cats! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the one guy, but the court did the thing, and... yeah. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was only a double murder, not even counting himself (if he did it). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found some for you, InedibleHulk: Robert Rozier and Anthony Smith. Those are the only ones I could find who killed at least three; there's several more who did less at List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But actually, those are serial murders. Mass murder is at once. Cool how Smith and Winship both had a "Ponce", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, looks like the nom I submitted is indeed a unique, major event. Might need some time to reflect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor shooting in the US = unique/major?? Seriously, pull the other one, it's got bells on it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (most recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kiril Simeonovski, did you mean to post this at Prince Philip's RD discussion? Poydoo can talk and edit 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, it seems like I've posted it twice because of the frequent edit-conflicting. Stricken.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Northern Ireland riots

Article: 2021 Northern Ireland riots (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Riots erupt in loyalist areas of Northern Ireland as a result of escalating tensions from Brexit and loyalist groups withdrawing from Good Friday Agreement. (Post)
News source(s): BBC CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Widely-reported riots from area which has seen decades of peace.

  • Support Certainly in the news, and the article quality is good (although some images would be nice). Mlb96 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sources are covering the topic, article is of sufficient quality. Meets every requirement for posting. --Jayron32 18:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sources looks ok. Good for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the article should be piped to "riots"? The blurb is a bit long but the article looks good. --Tone 18:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of doing just that. --Jayron32 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although given its current nature, ongoing may well be a better home for this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose and wait how many riots we’ve seen in the lasts months and didn’t had any ITN nomination? I’m aware this is worrying, but riots are not unusual, sadly. I prefer waiting if this escalation worsens. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. The article is a bunch of PROSELINE and not a WP:SUMMARY. Blurb needs to mention brexit. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't going to help - please just drop it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment - would we post this if it happened in the U.S.? Serious question. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but as per the George Floyd protests we'd need four days of discussion and someone saying "nothing really novel here". Howard the Duck (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nominated at 18:03, posted at 19:23. If this was a US blurb, people would've lost their minds... well at least Europeans were awake when this happened, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going to bring up the Boat Race now? Jesus. Change the record. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • 100% agree with your observations. It's outrageous. As much as I understand the desire to avoid pro-American bias, demonstrating anti-American bias isn't the solution either. American news dominates the world because American culture dominates. Simple as that. Anyway, this is the wrong place for my musings on this, so I'll shut up now. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the old CFP vs. Boat Race argument: anything of Anglo interest is globally significant, while American stories are all boring. Were this to happen in NYC, the UK-based editors would point out the lack of deaths and serious property damage as rendering it trivial. We've talked about it, they see nothing wrong with the double-standard as "each nom must be judged separately." GreatCaesarsGhost 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing rather than blurb. Looks similar to any riot/protest/social conflict that likely will not end immediately. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For something new like this, I think the typical thing we do is add it as a blurb, and if it's still ongoing when it's about to rotate off the main page, then we move it to ongoing. I don't think it's common to send directly to ongoing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was fashionable for a while, fortunately it's gone out of vogue. The notability here comes from the Brexit connection. The article itself is of meh quality. Ongoing won't change that. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose current blurb. Support blurb which contextualizes the riots as being part of the fallout of Brexit. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose altogether. Actually, am I crazy, or is this not even on the BBC's frontpage? We wouldn't post a riot happening somewhere else that got this little coverage from the media of its own nation. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 23:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I just checked the BBC homepage and it appears there now. SpencerT•C 03:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eleventh-most read, at my check (behind seven blacklisted supercomputer makers, just ahead of a Satan Shoes recall.) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment interestingly, for those of you who actually give a shit about this, the UK media are being slated for not covering this in much more detail. Of course, places like the US were terrible afflicted by The Troubles weren't they? Even the great Lord Biden has seen fit to wade into this issue. As for what appears on your bbc.com world homepage, give me strength: they know who they're attracting (you have adverts, right?) so it's all the happy clappy crap which is easy to understand. Still, keep on rotating the record. Eventually it might play a different tune. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked BBC.co.uk/news, if that matters, and always block ads. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. Because of the UK's despotic television tax people outside the UK get an international edition of bbc.co.uk. It used to be possible to circumvent but they use IP geolocation now. You can find a proxy in the UK to get the UK edition but I think then you're technically violating UK law unless you have a TV license and you will end up in the tower of London awaiting beheading. Other UK news sources like the Guardian don't have the same affliction --LaserLegs (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Grauniad, FWIW. US: 4 stories on the homepage, one of which is in the top section. UK: 2nd-to-top story to COVID, 5 stories overall. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
COVID, COVID, Beltfast, Scottish Independence --LaserLegs (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • :@The Rambling Man: Can you stop being a dick? I'm checking BBC.co.uk/news as well, but even if I wasn't, I would think that if these riots are as notable as they should be to be acceptable to ITN, then the BBC should be covering it as front page news even for foreign readers. They aren't. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Actually, strike that. I have egg on my face now. I just checked www.bbc.com and the headline is the riots. My apologies. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're seeing the one I am about a water cannon, don't be sorry, it just got there. Let's see where it is in three hours before settling on who's the dick. And stay away from BBC.ca, it's misleading and wants our money. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article about riots (which apparently have nothing to do with Brexit) has two decent images proclaiming "no Irish sea border" if we're tired of looking at Butler. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced we should be putting politically-motivated banners up on ITN. Also, I'm not 100% sure about the copyright status of these- I don't believe they fall under the UK's freedom of panorama, as FoP applies for permanent works stored in public areas (according to Commons, which neither the banner or graffiti are.
  • Support, as much for the controversy about the lack of UK newspaper coverage as the riots themselves, although it might possibly be usefully moved to ongoing if it continues - that's 7 nights now. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull blurb, I'm not seeing the significance of the riots since there seems to be no esclation. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support pull Practically nothing more than the usual has happened since it was published in ITN. It's still of no particular significance. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kyaw Zwar Minn

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


Proposed image
Article: Kyaw Zwar Minn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Embassy coup. Ambassador of Myanmar to the United Kingdom locked out of the Embassy of Myanmar, London after speaking out against the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. Position terminated by Myanmar. Ambassador wishes to be granted re-entry to the embassy and does not wish to return to Myanmar. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Independent
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The incident has triggered international attention 61ontime (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article listed above is far too short (basically WP:STUB level), and what little is there is vastly imbalanced, suffering from major WP:UNDUE/WP:BLP1E problems. Please propose another target article to highlight, or expand the target article by a LOT if you want this posted. --Jayron32 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the BLP1E issue that Jayron32 points out can be overcome but we have this story in Ongoing (as bad as that article is) specifically so we don't need to blurb incremental updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another tidbit for the 6,600-word behemoth in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article needs to be more comprehensive, the List of ambassadors of Myanmar to the United Kingdom needs to be sourced as well as a cleanup, and the event is not significant enough to be posted on top of the ongoing. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

April 7

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Charles H. Coolidge

Article: Charles H. Coolidge (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Chattanooga Times Free Press; WRCB
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (April 7). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

(Posted) RD: Emmanuel Evans-Anfom

Article: Emmanuel Evans-Anfom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GhanaWeb
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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.

 Ghanaian physician and public servant. Article has thorough coverage of Evans-Anfom's medical and political career and is referenced. SpencerT•C 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

First results from the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab

Article: Muon g-2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Results from muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab are unveiled (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Results from the muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab suggest the existence of a undiscovered fifth fundamental force of nature.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Physicists at Fermilab report that observed measurements of the muon g-2 appear to differ from predictions made by the Standard Model.
News source(s): Fermilab
Credits:

Article needs updating

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose for now. We can't be pro-active with posting, we need to wait for the actual results, update the relevant article with that, and discuss the quality of that article as well as whether the results are particularly impactful. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, the fact that the results have not been posted means that we will have to wait until experimental results are published.--Osunpokeh (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we actually get the results. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait to see what the results are. If there's nothing beyond the Standard Model, there's no reason to post. If there really is new physics here, the article(s) need(s) to be updated first, which I expect will take longer than most current events and require subject-matter expertise. Modest Genius talk 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, it's not clear if there is a peer-reviewed journal paper associated with this announcement. Modest Genius talk 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait too soon, as no results have been published. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We're not going to post anything scientific without a peer-reviewed paper to back it. --Masem (t) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continued oppose based on the published paper. Yes, the paper's out, but reading through it (most going over my head), there's no such indication of anything suggested in the blurb (namely the fifth force of nature), but only a better confirmation of the results to prior tests at BNL. Reading ArsTech take on it, the results nearly eliminate that the BNL results 20 years were statistical anomalies, but it doesn't bring the field closer to proving that there's a fifth state to the Standard Model ; more work is needed for that. --Masem (t) 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not only has the seminar not happened yet, but also the topic seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's just me, but I think I'd prefer something obscure and arcane get posted to ITN instead of just continuing to post mass casualty events and ITN/R and nothing else. Mlb96 (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How did you feel about the boat race? – Sca (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not an issue that demands immediate attention to a preprint. Peer review comes first. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Having now seen the results, they find almost the same thing as the 2006 measurement. The precision has improved slightly, but it's still less than the five-sigma threshold required to claim a discovery in particle physics. I still can't see any sign of a peer-reviewed paper either. Lots of theorists will find this interesting, but for the general public it's incremental stuff. Modest Genius talk 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: there's now a paper in PRL, which is good to see. However another paper in Nature was published on the same day, which claims the measured value is consistent with the Standard Model after all. That diminishes the excitement level even further. 'Physicists measure the same value as they did in 2006, and argue whether it is or isn't consistent with standard theory' isn't significant enough for ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't see the contents of the Nature paper but comparing its contributors to that on the PRL one, it seems to be by a different team altogether and not related to the Fermi data (Nature is by French and German researchers, none that are on the PRL paper?) --Masem (t) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct, it's by an independent team presenting new theoretical calculations of the Standard Model value. The simultaneous publication is surely not a coincidence. I have no idea which theoretical value is superior, but it does demonstrate that the experiment is not necessarily discrepant with the Standard Model. Or another way of looking at it: the anomaly may have been a problem with the calculation methods, not due to any new physics. Modest Genius talk 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened I'm reopening this not because I think it should be posted (I am ambivalent for now), but because many of the opposes claim no peer reviewed paper, and such a paper has been published: [5]. Banedon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That paper came out after this item was nominated, at which time people voted for other reasons. (Notice the "Wait" votes becoming "Opposes".) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle but the article hasn't been updated yet. As the paper was only published today, I think it's fair to give editors time to update the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until result is 5-sigma confirmed. -- KTC (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Exciting for particle physicists as it suggests a crises in the theory so as to lead to advances in human understanding, but still not yet at the confirmed crises. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify, there have been three published peer-reviewed papers related to the result. Very roughly, the theoretical overview in PRL, the experimental details in PRA, and the remarkably sophisticated magnetic calibration in PRD. Calculating the higher-order effects is mostly a difficult black art. The Fermilab papers took past theoretical calculations (most recently 2020) as their go-to comparison. The new Nature calculations (using an intense amount of supercomputing) were not available. As for the Fermilab results, these are based on less than 10% of their data, so updates will doubtless be soon enough. But it's going to be unclear for quite some time whether a 5-sigma claim has any meaning! An overview of all this can be found at quantamagazine.com. 73.81.122.254 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an obscure topic with an insufficient update.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems forbiddingly obscure and arcane. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Mrs. Sri Lanka controversy

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: Mrs. Sri Lanka 2021 controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Mrs. Sri Lanka 2021 contest sparked public outcry as the contestant who was adjudged as winner of the competition was unceremoniously de-crowned by Mrs. World 2020 winner Caroline Jurie. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The incident has triggered wide international attention Abishe (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No evidence of major significance, and the page is very obviously written from an advocacy standpoint. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unlikely to see this in the top 10000 stories of the year. Better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When the balance issues are resolved, I recommend posting to DYK instead. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and recommend close by WP:SNOW. Significance of event is minimal, while article is lacking in both quality and NPOV (only one major edit, and that was by nominator). --Osunpokeh (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the significance to be posted. This is not headline news around the world. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Tommy Raudonikis

Article: Tommy Raudonikis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC NEWS, NRL, FOX Sports
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death of a rugby league legend JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose on quality. Too many unsourced info. INeedSupport 😷 04:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cleanup needed as the layout could be better, and too much info is unsourced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • A Norwegian rescue coordination centre says the crew of MV Eemslift Hendrika was evacuated by helicopter overnight, with some having jumped into the North Sea, after the vessel began listing heavily. The ship, which specialises in transporting luxury yachts, has lost power, may sink, and is drifting towards the Norwegian coast. (The Independent)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Grischa Huber

Article: Grischa Huber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Actress who became a role model for self-determined women, by one role in 1975. New article, translated from German. No idea where the dates for theatres and the private life come from, probably the offline Further reading. Sorry for offering this late, but Küng was a tad more notable ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

(Posted) RD: Hans Küng

Article: Hans Küng (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Swiss Catholic priest, theologian, and author. After he rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility, he was not allowed to teach as a Catholic theologian. Grimes2 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: Thank you for the groundwork, Grimes2 and Bmclaughlin9. I added the last missing sources. Just for the one thing "citation required", I found only what could be mirrors, - commented out for now. If someone can verify they are not mirrors, please restore. Need sleep. Will dream of more lead, - would be nice to wake up to it done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the Dutch say, Slap lekker....Sca (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive article, and is well referenced. The layout could be a bit better, but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decent article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced and looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Widely known in religious/theological circles. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alcee Hastings

Article: Alcee Hastings (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): South Florida Sun Sentinel CBS
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Sitting US Congressman and impeached/convicted judge. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support decent article, obviously qualifies. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to mention that every person who has a Wikipedia article 'qualifies'. Discussion for RD comes entirely down to article quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations are needed in some places, the "Elections" section oddly only includes specific mentions of his first US House election (1992) and then 2016 and 2018, despite running every two years and 2018 being unopposed, no mention of his 2020 primary challenge, some possible POV issue around the Lexus lease (if he didn't break any rules, why is it mentioned?) and his ten year service as a judge is not covered beyond his impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Muboshgu said. Some citations missing and the content selection in "U.S. House of Representatives" is strange. Wait, if it's still problematic in 8 hours and the current heavy editing slows down I'll try to fix it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Citations needed and the article has balance issues. There's a lot of detail about his impeachment, finance problems, etc,(the negative stuff), which all seems fair and well-phrased, but nothing about what he actually did in his career at that time (the positive and neutral side of things). Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's basically a hit piece at the moment, as 90% of it is about the negative 10% of his career, and only 10% is about the other 90%. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the few people removed from office by an impeachment trial, I would expect an article about him to focus on that. What more positive aspects are missing? 331dot (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Australia-New Zealand travel bubble

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: Travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern announces quarantine-free travel between Australia and New Zealand to commence on 19 April (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Two-way travel bubble between Australia and New Zealand opens
News source(s): ABC News (Australia), 1 News, BBC World News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Pro: Major travel bubble announcement regarding two countries with very low COVID-19 transmission. Con: Still an announcement, maybe wait until 19 April; No specific article yet. JMonkey2006 (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Con: wait for the opening and for an article. --Tone 08:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the linked article barely mentions it, and is orange-tagged. If it's really a notable event, then surely it's worthy of its own article? Also, this already half exists (as travellers from NZ can enter most Australian states without quarantine according to BBC World News. So is it really that groundbreaking that it's been implemented the other way? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's a "good news story" but not really ground-breaking nor super-notable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I guess I'm not seeing how the lifting of any COVID restriction merits posting. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the lack of a specific article & lack of importance. There are many examples of restrictions being lifted/reduced this year which are of similar or greater relevance. Jim Michael (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

April 5

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Veronica Dunne (soprano)

Article: Veronica Dunne (soprano) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; Irish Independent; Raidió Teilifís Éireann
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment: Working on it. We still need refs for her students, and the world premieres, and we have little about opera. Help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything has a ref now. More roles would be great, but not needed. Irish soprano and voice teacher of generations of singers, teaching until age 87, "a national treasure". Sold her pony to study in Italy, - great story ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Nice article and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent little article well sourced JW 1961 Talk 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Ritter (actor)

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: Paul Ritter (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Friday Night Dinner dad ("lovely bit of squirrel") and plenty of other roles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thread I opened about an image awaits your valued input. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added my opinion here, thanks for all the off-topic bloating here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Article quality" part of ITN suggests "not omitting any major items", has for a while. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure and if no-one knows his date/place of birth, we have to go without that. It won't preclude it from being posted. This is all well-trodden ground and simply wasting energy and further bloating this debate which is not related to this nomination. Take your concerns to the article talk page if you really care. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. You followed me there, called it a waste of time and repeatedly collapsed the conversation. Just for the record. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "concerns" were failed attempts at humour with your pal Martin. I collapsed the elements which included goading me, and left whatever remained. Cheers now, you can get back to your witticisms. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You told me I don't understand missing birth dates, and should stick to jokes. Then you followed me, called them hilarious and still didn't get it. Calling you lucky is a compliment, to be clear, not an invitation to fight. Neither is this. Peace! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I told you that you don't understand, full stop. I didn't "follow" you anywhere, your pal "invited" me to the talkpage where I discovered the Chuckle Brothers making jokes at my expense. Stick to trying to be funny. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship

Article: 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, the NCAA Division I Men's Championship concludes with Baylor defeating Gonzaga in the final. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Game just ended, information still being added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support Updated and sourced with prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good to go. Only issue is redlinks for some players. TheMrP (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Posted Red links in article are not an issue (see WP:REDLINK)—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern - Why is just the men's championship mentioned, when the women's championship article is equally well-sourced? This makes little sense, especially considering the men's and women's boat race listed just below. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GaryColemanFan The women's tournament is not ITNR. You are welcome to nominate the women's tournament using the regular ITNC process. Adding it to ITNR has been discussed in the past and not gained consensus. They are separate events in separate locations, unlike the boat race. In addition, rightly or wrongly it does not get the attention of the men's tournament. Note that the WNBA final also is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Women's championship got a ton of coverage incl. Stanford's first title in 29 years. It was certainly in the news. It was widely covered by ESPN, USAToday, etc. AvatarQX (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting the women's result. Same time frame, same effective league, so this is nothing like comparing the NBA to the WNBA. While it is clear the mens play get far more coverage, we should not hide the women's result if it happened nearly at the same time. --Masem (t) 23:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, GaryColemanFan, AvatarQX, and Masem: I've created a nomination for the women's tournament. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting proposal to add women's tournament to blurb - As well-sourced as the men's article. Different venue has no bearing on notability. Women's tournament has plenty of coverage and was discussed more than ever this year, including player's claims of gender discrimination in training facilities, food, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GaryColemanFan My suggestion would be for you to make a separate regular(not ITNR) nomination for that event. "Different venue" is simply the reason we don't post both as ITNR, they are separate events. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what kind of food is strong enough for a man, but made for a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sigh. Another year and it currently appears that once again many of those editors that come out of the woodwork every January to strongly oppose the posting of the NCAA College Football Championship solely on the claim that "amateur college sports do not belong on ITN" (despite the cultural significance and viewership) are silent in April when similar college events like this and The Boat Race are posted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we've ever posted NCAA Division I Football Championship Game... Due to COVID, the 2021 edition will be later this year. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unlike NCAA College Championship, this one managed to get into ITNR. So, as one of the opposers, I dropped the stick in this case. Brandmeistertalk 18:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least with the basketball tourney, there's actually a championship structure and more than a handful of games to decide the winner, and thus more representative of an actual "winner", compared to the BCS structure and its favoritism. --Masem (t) 23:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • ... there's actually a championship structure ...: Unlike The Boat Race?—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Boat Race is the only top level organized rowing event short of the Olympics. --Masem (t) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • World Rowing Championships: The World Rowing Championships is an international rowing regatta organized by FISA (the International Rowing Federation). It is a week-long event held at the end of the northern hemisphere summer and in non-Olympic years is the highlight of the international rowing calendar. Is that even true? Boat Race > World Rowing Championships? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • But given the sourcing I'm seeing there, does that even get covered by non-specialist sources (eg "in the news"?) Boat Race at least does. --Masem (t) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • NCAA Division I Football Championship: Not to be confused with the College Football Playoff National Championship (2020 was posted), the top level of college football.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much point in making noise about it when it's ITNR. WaltCip-(talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New president and PM of Vietnam

Articles: Nguyễn Xuân Phúc (talk · history · tag) and Phạm Minh Chính (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Nguyễn Xuân Phúc is sworn in as the new President of Vietnam and Phạm Minh Chính its new Prime Minister. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera Reuters
Credits:

One or both nominated events are 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: New Vietnamese leadership. Articles needs a lot of work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Namnguyenvn Support on the merits is not required for ITNR nominations, this discussion is only to judge article quality and a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on article quality, and the fact that neither have any real power in the Government. (although if that doesn't matter for ITNR purposes, then strike that. The article quality is still way too poor.) -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality I really wish people would fix articles before nominating them (this is a general criticism rather than being aimed at this editor in particular). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Head of state changes is definetly notable Nyanardsan (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment on the quality of either article? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nyanardsan Notability is not at issue for ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agree I agreed with the important of news; the quality of article will be better in some days. Newone (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are significant leadership changes, but both BLPs have poor quality. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Robert Mundell

Article: Robert Mundell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Canadian economist Robert Mundell dies at the age of 88. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Canadian Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): Forbes, BNN Bloomberg
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian economist. Death just announced. Article requires some work including referencing before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Will get to it later tonight. If someone wants to get to it earlier, please feel free to. Ktin (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support blurb Mundell was definitely one of the greatest and most influential economists of his generation. He made major contributions to monetary economics for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics and played an instrumental role in the introduction of the euro for which he was dubbed "Father of the Euro".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only quite famous, but doesn't quite rise to blurb level. We probably have someone die about every week or two in the world that reaches this level of impact. 1779Days (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only when it's properly sourced. While he's very famous, he's not famous enough for a blurb. An excellent quality article would make up for that somewhat in my view, but that's not the case. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as needs a lot more sourcing. Would support RD if sourcing issues get fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - his article shows he was in the top tier of his field & that he has a great deal of historical & international notability. A lack of fame is irrelevant - the large majority of people in the top tier of academic fields never achieve that. Jim Michael (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, when it is fixed support RD only; their death was not unusual or unexpected, and requires no further explanation than that they died. --Jayron32 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, oppose RD until referencing issues are fixed.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Palma

Article: Battle of Palma (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mozambican counter-forces take back the city of Palma, ending the Battle of Palma. (Post)
News source(s): Daily Sabah, BBC Sky News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Battle was on ITN when it started; see no reason not to include it, now that it has ended. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support if the article makes clear that the battle has ended. Its conclusion is important enough to post & the article is well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - didn't we just post this? Is it a wrap, or is this city going to change hands every two weeks for the foreseeable future? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I should have clarified; if the city is decisively seen as taken back by Mozambique, then we should keep it. If it does change hands over and over and over, however, then I will proceed to end this proposal. :) Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but would you say it is or isn't clear that the battle has ended? Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you consider Sky News a reliable source. – Sca (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it's conclusive per LaserLegs.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mehli Irani

Article: Mehli Irani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India, New Indian Express
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced 5 April. Short article, I'm running through obits to try and get as much additional info as possible. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support - seems sufficiently sourced to me. And long enough for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Could use an "early life" section but as is, I think its good enough. Dan the Animator 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


RD: Marshall Sahlins

Article: Marshall Sahlins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: One of the most influential anthropologists in recent decades. Wishva | Talk 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment For the purposes of ITN, I do not think a tweet will suffice for verification that a person has died. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a Recent Death has to be "in the news" in the sense that at least one reliable source has reported it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close, with the option to reopen if a reliable source is added. RD is understandably a very sensitive space. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve found the following source from the University of Chicago, where Sahlins taught. [7], I’ve replaced the Tweet in the nomination with this link. Wishva | Talk 06:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Currently no reference in prose to his death. Article still uses the tweet as a citation, which is no bueno. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game

Nominator's comments: Nominating per side discussion on men's tournament nom. (Yes, "the Stanford Cardinal defeat" is correct here.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Not really sure the NCAA tournament, i.e. the most prominent in American college sports, is really "plumbing the depths." The women's game was watched by a peak of about 6 million people.[1] The 2020 NBA finals (Lakers v. Heat) peaked at 8.29 million.[2] Nobody called that "plumbing the depths." AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combining with men's blurb per Alt blurb. In the past, the women's tournament winner has been combined with the men's winner (already posted above) e.g. 2015 (discussion, post) and 2017 (discussion, post). WP:ITNSPORTS says Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) ...Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue has been in part that the men's and women's events are two separate tournaments, held in different locations. No issue with posting, just saying. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a technicality that should just be WP:IARed. AFAICS, the years recently when the women's wasn't posted was because it wasn't nominated, not because it was explicitly opposed. FWIW, the recent women's final got 4M TV viewers.[8]Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support media coverage was extensive and it seems sensible to just include both the mens' and womens' NCAA results in one blurb. AvatarQX (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is in good shape, and the audience figures indicate this wasn't just some "routine game". Could we combine both basketball hooks though, because 2 basketball hooks in 4 ITN items seems like an overkill? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Even the men's tournament is kind of borderline, from the experiences from previous years, when there were contentious discussions. But it is ITNR, so I won't argue about it. Women's tournament is not ITNR. Since we don't post the WNBA results, arguably the highest level of sport in the US, we should not post the college-level event. (clearly, the NBA title is ITNR as well) --Tone 12:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combining with men's blurb. Received extensive media coverage (more than the WNBA, so that's not a great comparison). Article is in good shape. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europeans may find this mind-bending, but the women's NCAA tournament is more popular than the WNBA. A female basketball player would get the most attention of her career playing in March rather than October in the WNBA Finals. Might as well codify this in ITNR if this will be posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Game 3 clincher in 2020 WNBA Finals had 570,000 TV viewers.[9]Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do love people insisting that we only post the "highest level of sport/professional competition" when that's not even in the rules. It's just made up bullshit to oppose items such as this one. Either this is in the news or not.... you know like... college football lol. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape, topic has been covered appropriately by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any and all amateur university sport on ITN. I know the men's version is on ITNR, as is the Oxbridge rowing, so there isn't anything I can do about those. However I will continue to oppose adding any further items of this kind. Stick to the highest levels of professional competition. Tone also makes good points above. Modest Genius talk 14:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - combined with men's tourney per Alt 1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cheryl Gillan

Article: Cheryl Gillan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a 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: Good depth of coverage, a few refs needed but will add those shortly. SpencerT•C 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

(Closed) 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election

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


Proposed image
Article: 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Boyko Borisov's GERBSDS coalition wins the most votes in the Bulgarian parliamentary election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Bulgarian parliamentary elections, incumbent prime minister Boyko Borisov's GERBSDS coalition wins the most votes but fails to attain a majority.
News source(s): Euronews
Credits:
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITNR and article is good. The results are currently preliminary but any changes are unlikely to change the general outcome. Dan the Animator 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't agree with the assessment that the "article is good". There is no prose about the results, and the majority of the article at present is large tables and graphs. SpencerT•C 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality the article has 1779 characters of prose, this isn't enough to fully summarise the election. The lead is also way too short, as it doesn't even mention which party got most votes and the impact i.e. if Government/coalition was formed. For reference, 2021 Liechtenstein general election had around 4k characters of prose, and that's for a country with 0.1% of the population of Bulgaria. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, doesn't look like 100% of the votes have been counted, so too soon for this to be on ITN. The article also doesn't mention anywhere in prose that the incumbent Prime Minister. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now The voting will be probably concluded by the next morning, and the article needs to be expanded and fixed. Vacant0 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Table farm with very little in the way of prose. Needs much expansion before it is ready for prime time. --Jayron32 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) New president of Kosovo

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Kosovan presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Vjosa Osmani becomes the 5th President of Kosovo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Vjosa Osmani is elected as the 5th President of Kosovo.
News source(s): Reuters US News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: My first nomination on the change of national leader, so excuse me for any mistakes. As it's a state not fully recognized internationally I have doubts whether it fits within ITN. The article is brief and some sources are missing. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Kosovo may not be fully recognized but it is on List of sovereign states which should qualify it for ITN/R. P-K3 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Vjosa Osmani needs a lot more sources before it's acceptable to be on the front page. Entire Biography section is unsourced, plus multiple other paragraphs. If the article quality is fixed, I would support- as Kosovo is a sovereign state. As an aside, I also bolded the article in the blurb nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: I removed some of the unsourced content. Take a look now. Dan the Animator 14:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks just about long enough, and is now well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I removed some extra words, but a large chunk of sourced professorship stuff I couldn't cut and paste to Academic career, need help (see 14:42 revision for chunk). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All better now. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • done. i'm trying to figure out if she still holds the positions, though. she appears to be an assistant professor (which is distinct from an assistant professor) at the first mentioned university according to this, but i can't find her listed at the second. dying (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC) [corrected. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)][reply]
  • Weak support bolded article is short, but sufficient. Some expansion would be nice. --Jayron32 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are couple more sentences that are missing references, if that gets fixed then it will be fine. Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All cited now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and not ready. Kosovo is not a country. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the inclusion criteria. It's BS but Kosovo passes. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly, i have no issues with the list of sovereign nations being generously inclusive, as i worry that being fairly more exclusive could potentially raise pov issues. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sovereign states includes Kosovo because of the rather generous criteria so ITNR is appropriate. I was just wrong before. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: we had exactly the same dispute a few months ago re Northern Cyprus. And in the end that was not posted, so we effectively have a precedent that the countries in the "disputed" section of List of sovereign states aren't part of the ITN/R list.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only the lead mentions she became president on 4 April. No details in body on how she transitioned from earlier title of acting president, or what happened between the parliament election in February and now.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As of 07:38, 6 April 2021, the article has explained the election of her as President. --Jayron32 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my oppose based on updates.—Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • hah, yeah, i noticed that too, but only hours after the first time i looked at the page.
    regarding your first point (osmani's transition), it's now partially resolved. also, osmani apparently voluntarily resigned from the position of acting president in accordance with article 90 of the constitution, but i haven't figured out why.
    regarding your second point (what happened in two months), i'd like to know too, but am not sure it would be appropriate for this article unless it involved her, and also wouldn't consider its inclusion necessary for posting to itn unless it directly related to what is mentioned in the blurb, i.e., her becoming president.
    in any case, her transition to president is now covered, so i feel that the article has been properly updated with respect to the blurb, even though her transition from acting president, which happened about two weeks before, isn't covered yet. there's more that could be added about the election itself, but i think that what's there currently meets the minimum requirements for updates. dying (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • question: should "5th" in the blurb be spelled out as "fifth", or is it better as is? mos:ordinal refers to mos:numeral regarding "guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth" and mos:numeral states that, in general, "[i]ntegers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", while i couldn't find any applicable exception for this case, though it's entirely possible i missed something. however, in the article on james monroe, he is referred to as both "the fifth president of the United States" and "the 5th president of the United States", and i can't figure out if there were any reasons for using one format or the other. (the "5th" used in the infobox i can attribute to the infobox exception in mos:numnotes, and the "5th"s used in the references are there because they are in the titles of the references.) in any case, i think the word "president" should be uncapitalized in the blurb due to mos:jobtitles. dying (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think the election of a ceremonial office-holder by the national assembly (not by the people in an open election) in a partially recognised and non-UN member state merits inclusion. We didn't post the election of the presidents of Albania, Greece, South Africa and Switzerland who were elected in a similar way so I don't see a strong argument why this should be an exception given that it would set an undesirable precedent that some people are waiting for to use in the future. In general, there's no point to post the election of a head of state when there's no stand-alone article documenting the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: We usually don't post presidential changes in UN member states elected in this way. Do you have a specific reason why this partially recognised and non-UN member state should be an exception (and please make a stronger argument than comparing this ceremonial office to the prime minister of the UK)? This sets an unwanted precedent for other disputed territories (Disclaimer: I have friends from Kosovo and don't have anything against the country's independence but the fact is that it's still not a UN member state and that very fact may encourage snow-balling with nominations about states in similar situation or even regional politics in some large countries.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Presidency in Kosovo is not a ceremonial position (see Article 84 of the Kosovan constitution), and they are also the head of state. They are always elected indirectly by the Assembly, however it is always just after a direct election for the Assembly (this year's was 14 February), so the Assembly elections are effectively electing them. Also, check the ITN inclusion criteria. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two discussions at WT:ITN to consider the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true. Changed. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you didn't add it to the blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an altblurb, although I haven't bolded the election article as no-one has been !voting on it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't bold it. It's OK, but shouldn't be the target. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked ready. Her article is good enough and there is no substantive opposition. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is comprehensive enough and is well-referenced, and it qualifies. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is fine, ITNR. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus PostedBagumba (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Pull. Per precedent of Northern Cyprus, we established that only states in the main part of List of sovereign states are WP:ITN/R. The line which counts here at ITN/R is: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". I see no discussion above of the merits of posting this, and given that this is effectively a mostly ceremonial role, I don't think it should be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems an odd reason to pull. The ITN/R banner was removed three days ago, and no-one withdrew their support. There was still consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - I admittedly haven't looked into the Northern Cyprus discussion, but I think it's clear from the "Further Information" section on List of sovereign states: Kosovo is recognized by 113 UN Member states, while N. Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey. Kosovo also has de facto control over its claimed territory, which is a strong indicator of sovereignty IMO. I don't have an opinion on inclusion/pulling based on the ceremonial nature of the role, but I think Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be included. AviationFreak💬 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an odd reason to pull at all. Most of the !votes are based on the assertion that it's ITN/R, which the Cyprus precedent suggests it isn't. Very few of the !votes actually addressed the question of significance at all. And I'm sorry, AviationFreak but the whole point of using the "List of sovereign states" article is to give us an objective standard of what counts for ITN/R and what doesn't. Note that if this was the PM of Kosovo, I'd support it in a heartbeat, as someone of true significance within a territory that is under that person's control (as indeed Northern Cyrprus is). But the largely ceremonial post of presdident just isn't that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't have an opinion on whether to include or pull based on the importance/ceremoniality of the role - My main opinion is that Kosovo is "sovereign enough" to be covered at ITN. I think we agree here, seeing as you would support posting a change in PM of Kosovo. Even if there is currently consensus against posting ITN blurbs relating to, say, Northern Cyprus, that doesn't rule out posting blurbs about other disputed states (in my interpretation, this is what is meant by the phrase "Disputed states and dependent territories should be ... judged on their own merits"). Hope that clears things up! AviationFreak💬 22:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AviationFreak: sure, yes I understand your point. I did say after the Northern Cyprus debate that we should clarify the rules once and for all on this, because it seems to cause procedural arguments every time it comes up. Personally I think Northern Cyprus, and indeed Kosovo, Taiwan and other places, should be on the list of things we always post, because however much they're disputed they do control real territory with a real population, and act to all intents and purposes like a nation state.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Cyclone Seroja

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Seroja (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cyclone Seroja (pictured) makes landfall in Indonesia and East Timor, killing at least 113 people and displacing thousands of others. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Time, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Actively edited, ongoing, notable Nyanardsan (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support a blurb for significant impact once the issues are fixed, oppose ongoing. NoahTalk 00:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Fuck it... I'm done putting up with all the bull shit arguments to oppose any significant weather event that happens. We don't need to participate in ITN period if you guys don't want us here. Go ahead and keep posting all the sports stories and awards while ignoring items that are definitely "in the news". We have better things to do then keep arguing with brick wall. Let the more sensible editors comdemn you all when the next Hurricane Katrina occurs and it doesn't get posted. NoahTalk 01:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like the wall of opposition for the first nomination and lesser but present opposition to the second nomination for what was literally a record breaking Atlantic hurricane season? there was an inconclusive discussion about it. Relax, this will get posted, almost all death toll stories get posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wont get posted. The regime will oppose it in mass and close it before anyone else gets to respond. Nobody wants to cooperate and establish any kind of criteria for weather events. I think it's time the weather projects just leave ITN and focus on more important things. NoahTalk 02:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the "snow close" mentality has got to stop, but you'll see, this will get posted. If not, you could try DYK. These articles are always new, DYK has a high rate of churn, and there is always some bit of trivia to use for a hook. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, it was posted like I knew it would be. Relax. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit, calm down. The internet is not serious business. Mlb96 (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. He needs to calm down, lest we're going to see what happened on February this year. MarioJump83! 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't working, then WPTC boycott is the best choice unfortunately. I'll still be involved in the ITN however as the part of WPCE (WikiProject Current events), especially about the events involving my country. MarioJump83! 04:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb or ongoing. Storm during storm season does storm things, not uncommon for the Timor sea. Relatively low death toll for a developing country with poor infrastructure. This is no different from an Atlantic hurricane killing 40 in Central America with landslides and flooding. It's sad, it happens. Article isn't terrible by disaster standards. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that my country really has a bad infrastructure, it's important to note that Indonesia is a country of islands, not a single landmass, and Java is very dense for an island, contributing to 56.1 percent of Indonesian population. And the floods affected Timor Leste which is far smaller country than us and was formerly colonized by us, contributing to sorry state of our situation. MarioJump83! 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing and blurb for now on quality grounds. When the article is fixed up (grammar issues, etc) then I will be happy to support a blurb. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 03:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per the above. HurricaneEdgar 03:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for blurb only. This disaster killing at least 50+ in two countries. --Tensa Februari (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Tropical cyclones in Indonesia that causes major damages like this are rare meteorologically, and as an Indonesian, this is worthy of a mention. But, this isn't a plane crash, which garners way more attention from the Indonesian media than the severe weather events. MarioJump83! 04:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to this being an ongoing event, oppose. I don't think Seroja will do much outside Indonesia or Timor Leste. MarioJump83! 04:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb We don't typically post storms in ongoing, so I'd support a blurb instead. Regarding a blurb, the article quality is much better than the usual disaster article, being well-cited and well fleshed-out, with only minor grammar issues here and there; and on significance this is the deadliest cyclone to hit the Australian region since Cyclone Guba 14 years ago, and the deadliest to hit Indonesia and East Timor since Cyclone Inigo 18 years ago. Therefore I see no reason not to support a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The cleanup tag (which I agree with) needs to be sorted out. Otherwise, it's notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality cleanup tag needs to be resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Significant death toll. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the maintenance tag is addressed. Honestly, the snarky outburst at the top of this nomination is really quite unnecessary. If you want to play, play, but don't go off into swear mode just in case things don't go your way. That's part of why most of the strange behaviour of that Wikiproject is summarily ignored these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb – The storm has become a major weather disaster for Indonesia and East Timor, and the crisis is far from over. The death toll as it is is already significant and will likely continue to increase in the days to come. Also, the article quality has dramatically improved since the nomination was opened up, and the article is no longer missing any key information. Oh, and anyone who thinks that this event is not notable enough for ITN either clearly doesn't understand what WP:NOTABILITY constitutes or has a rather messed up view of what does and doesn't belong on ITN. This storm is all over the news, at least for that part of the world. This is definitely more than notable enough for ITN. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the expand section tag should not prevent a posting on the MP. Mjroots (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is clearly notable. I would also strongly suggest to the first poster that forcibly ejecting your toys and attacking other editors when anyone opposes in what is meant to be a discussion is indeed not conducive to participating in a collaborative environment. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: This is what happens when you have over half a year of a specific group of editors opposing (and closing in most cases) every nomination no matter how severe the storm was. Killed over 100? Too bad, it wasn't enough. Crippled a whole state's powergrid and water supply? That's just a normal snowstorm. I'm sorry if I got upset, but this is getting ridiculous when this group comes out and does the same thing every nomination because they WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We tried to discuss with them for criteria, but that discussion was not fruitful in the least. I see no need for myself or my project to participate any further in this toxic environment. We might as well just stop nominating anything here if people don't want us to be here. NoahTalk 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "specific group" are you referring to? P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specific group opposing and closing? I've begun to suspect you are just ranting emotionally at this point.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disagreements here between regular editors on storms are no different from any other subject at ITN/C. Go back and have a look at the history of the discussions on US mass shootings, or the deaths of very-well-known-but-not-quite-legendary celebrities. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again, more toys. The weather fans need to stop this faux indignation (glad to see no repeat of the co-ordinated oppose like we did for the America's Cup nomination though) and suggest that if you and your project don't "like" the way ITNC operates, you do something positive about it rather than these fruitless outbursts. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricane Noah: Hi Hurricane Noah, I understand your pain. I've had similar experiences with you in this ITN/C, seeing bias towards certain countries, double standards, and else. My method is just to rant on your own talkpage and quit ENWIKI for a while. If you are addicted to Wikipedia and multilingual, try contributing to other Wikipedia. After a while or so, return back here! Please, whatever you do, don't try to blame anybody on "toxic, bias, etc" unless you have sufficient evidence to back it up. And try to rant somewhere else other than in publicly visible place. Thank you... :) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: It's kind of nice that you have a lot of watchers in your talkpage, so your ode has literally a lot of views. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I more appreciate having 123 watchers than a lot, given my namesake's incredible 1-2-3 over The Iron Sheik on 1/23 of '84. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At ITN we try not to post weather storms or other natural disasters like earthquakes that simply involve disruption of everyday life, unless that disruption is on a massive scale or that it because a major loss of human life. Storms and disasters happen all the time, and many simply knock out power, cause flooding (without loss of life), and other types of property damage but because this is "routine" , we avoid those. It's when there's clearly something more fundamentally critical in the damage and disruption post-storm or disaster that we consider to be significant. Plenty of storms make it to ITN (like this one is definitely going up), we're just not going to post storms with minimal impact even if these may be seen by weather experts as major events. --Masem (t) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Venezuelan clashes

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


Article: 2021 Apure clashes (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera Bloomberg Swissinfo
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Recently nominated as a blurb. Ongoing, at least fifteen deaths and 6,000 civilian displacements. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. It's certainly ongoing, but the updates are not long enough for me (last was 10 words) combined with the fact there's not much else to read. I recommend expanding the background, as most of the article is just from news updates of, and reactions to what's happening. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: Expanded last events a little bit more and added a Background section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus Is there any information about why the conflict is starting up again after the ceasefire? The article is still missing that. There are a few things that need explanation too, such as what "Infobae" or a "mixed patrol comission" is. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: Thanks for the ping. The article mentions that "Experts have argued that control of drug trafficking routes is the motive for the clashes", and Colombian President Iván Duque has also declared that the conflict "was between the Venezuelan Cartel of the Suns and the FARC dissidents", but I have avoided placing it in the lead or repeating it to try to keep neutrality. Infobae is an Argentine news website and according to the references, a "mixed patrol comission" performs patrol, recconnaisance and search operations. I have added these details to the article, along with other updates. Notifying editors that voted in the last nomination: @AllegedlyHuman, Jim Michael, Dantheanimator, Fakescientist8000, Gotitbro, Jayron32, and Amakuru: --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will solely state the following; this is not ongoing-worthy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is a lot of filler in this one (background/reactions). Of the events, two soldiers blew themselves up by accident, four agitators were arrested (by whom, and why?). Looks like the last actual clash was on 3/31 but the updates are thin and border on nonsensical (who is Vladimir Padrino López? What radio transmissions and why are they relevant? Whose armed forces? And WTF is a Tiuna FM Radial Circuit?). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Oppose - still ongoing. More can happen. for now.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing Article is ok and well-sourced but I don't think it rises to that of an ongoing article. It was better as a event nom. Dan the Animator 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing I agree with Dantheanimator above: would consider a blurb, and in general items like this nominated for Ongoing should start as a blurb and roll onto Ongoing if warranted. Neutral for a blurb right now since I don't think the article clearly explains recent events. SpencerT•C 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) The Boat Race 2021

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: The Boat Race 2021 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rowing, both Cambridge men's and women's crews win The Boat Race. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Update incoming... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Chhattisgarh Maoist attack

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


Article: 2021 Sukma-Bijapur attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least twenty-two security personnel are killed in a Maoist rebels attack in Bijapur District, Chattisgarh, India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Twenty-two people are killed in a gunfight between Maoist insurgent forces and the Indian security forces in Chhattisgarh
News source(s): Al Jazeera NYT Washington Post CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant event in one of the world's longest-running insurgencies This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Currently two sentences on the event. (Also, these blurbs could use ce and the links are pretty MOS:EGGy.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree the update isn't long enough. It appears only soldiers were killed as well, and I think a higher bar is needed for that compared to civilians being killed, especially since they died during a raid (part of the job description, to be insensitive). Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest snow close. Dan the Animator 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that we have an article. Disclaimer: I updated the blurb and the nomination. @AllegedlyHuman, Dantheanimator, and Uses x: this nomination needs a re-look on your part. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has no body paragraph about the incident. SpencerT•C 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Article could use additional expansion, but meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - so we have a "Background", and we have "Reactions", but absolutely nothing in between. This reminds me a little of the Collect underpants ... ? ... profit meme...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Spencer and Amakuru: the article does have a body now. Depressed Desi (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -The event got enough media coverage in international media. This attack with two dozens casualties of armed forces qualifies to be in WP:ITN. USaamo (t@lk) 22:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The coverage by various third party source satisfies WP:GN--Sylvester Millner (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for ITN is higher than simply the general notability guideline. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Black Kite, Fuzheado, Jayron32, Tone, and Bagumba: I hope if this isn't stale yet, IAR and post this as the 3 Oppose !votes above are from when there wasn't even an article for this or from when it wasn't expanded. There are 4.5 Support !votes to this incl. the nominator hence it must be posted or maybe all lives aren't equal. --Depressed Desi (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that escalated quickly. Agree that people should take another look, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the deaths seem to be reported on 4 April, this could still just replace the Osmani blurb, which is also on the same date.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nom says "one of the world's longest-running insurgencies", but the "Background" section begins "On 23 March 2021 ..." Article doesn't give an indication of what are the motives.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop tagging this as needs attention. This doesn't need attention. Use that if it's like tagged as ready for days and about to get stale. This one isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Jordan alleged coup attempt

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


Article: 2021 alleged Jordanian coup d'état attempt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The former crown prince of Jordan says he has been placed under house arrest as part of a crackdown on critics. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant arrests. In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose grammar is pretty bad, article is light on details. 2021 Jordanian coup d'état attempt is no better. Was there a coup attempt or not? Did Abdullah smell a coup and strike pre-emptively? Once the government releases a statement there might be something here, right now it's just media speculation and scattered reports. No reason to rush an inadequate article to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Some coverage, but situation seems murky. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not notable enough, and it left the news fairly quickly. Probably a bit stale by now, in fact. The article is also too short for my liking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Let’s wait and see if further events happens.BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Article is decent, and what's there is sourced. Unsure about notability per above. Dan the Animator 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems mainly a celeb/royal foofaraw. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jordanian coup: arglebargle or foofaraw?--LaserLegs (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

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

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

Leave a Reply