Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Abdelaziz Bouteflika in 2012
Abdelaziz Bouteflika

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

HeadersEdit

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • 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 not...Edit

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

ArchivesEdit

September 25Edit

Health and environment


Kamla BhasinEdit

Article: Kamla Bhasin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
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: Indian women feminist Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Release of Michael Spavor and KovrigEdit

Article: Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are released from detention in China, shortly after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's release from house arrest in Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, who were detained in China since 2018, are released shortly after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's release from house arrest in Canada.
News source(s): CBC News, CTV News, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major news in Canada with international implications, due to the descriptions of the Michaels' detentions as hostage diplomacy and the deterioration of Canada-China relations and US-China relations after the initial arrests. Main article still needs some work though. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 04:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose This saga doesn't appear to have made a massive splash outside of Canada, and it met probably the calmest end possible. I also think the impact on international relations will be fairly unremarkable (in other words, China will stay China). Nohomersryan (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


Jitender Mann GogiEdit

Article: Jitender Mann Gogi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Hindustan Times, Times of India, The Guardian
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: India's most wanted gangster killed in most unique circumstances. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support. Sufficiently referenced. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Correction The nominator has written "India's most wanted gangster". This should be "on Delhi police's most-wanted list". BBC DTM (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) :-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFTsEdit

Consensus to post this will not develop now or in any finite amount of time.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Emoticon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​:-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFT's (Post)
News source(s): Future zone
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oppose There is not sufficient in-depth coverage, in terms of type of sources or length/quality of articles, etc. on this topic to indicate that it is a significant enough story. --Jayron32 11:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
:-( as reasoned above. – robertsky (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment I feel I want to frown. (sad face) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Non-fungible tokens are people too, you know!![]
  • 👎🏼 Per Jayron. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Someone got scammed, there's no mainstream media interest, and no long-term encyclopaedic value either. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 23Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thoughtEdit

Article: Settlement of the Americas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At White Sands National Park in New Mexico, United States, scientists discover human footprints which are about 23,000 years old, revising the generally accepted timeline of the settlement of the Americas by about ten thousand years. (Post)
News source(s): AP, NYT,BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs a more substantial update. The NYT article quotes an archaeologist who says "this is probably the biggest discovery about the peopling of America in a hundred years". These footprints are more definitive than the 26,000-year-old stone tools discovered in Mexico reported last year which got some skepticism. Davey2116 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment We need a link to the journal where the paper documenting the discovery was published. AP article doesn't mention it and NYT has a paywall. Also, the one-sentence update citing the NYT article with restricted access at the end of the intro is insufficient. One such discovery requires a separate section or at least a paragraph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Looks like the NYT article gives a DOI, which links to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7586. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. I wasn't able to access the NYT article because of the paywall. Now that this was published in Science, we need a better update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment As stated in the article, there are several known sites that are pre-Clovis, thus "Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought" is not really accurate. The significance of these new findings is that they are ... better quality than the other ones. So, let's not make too much of a hype here. --Tone 08:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The NYT account is good and there's a more accessible equivalent at the BBC. The footprints in time are more evocative than most such stories and they are excitingly evanescent as erosion is now destroying them so there's a race to glean this evidence before it's gone. Carpe diem. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. The finding implies that humans arrived in North America more than 30,000 years ago (consistent with the dating of the stone tools from Mexico), because the ice sheets would have made it impossible to cross over from Asia into North America later than 30,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now. Target article has a one-sentence update in the lead, and the body of the target article does not mention the topic at all. Insufficient update to qualify for a main page notice. If you fix this with a sufficiently in-depth update to the body of an article, consider this vote changed to full support. --Jayron32 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I thought the Clovis hypothesis was already disproved.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. This assertion has been published within the last 24 hours. The scientific community has not had time to respond to this. It is good that it is getting all this attention, because more research in this area needs to be done and actual bodies need to be found. However it also could be a flash in a pan. I do not feel this one instance of evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia to assert humans in New Mexico 23,000 years ago as fact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's why it's in the news. When new research results would start to corroborate this and gradually a pile of independent results is built up that's considered to be large enough that it's considered to be proven that humans settled North America much longer ago, then that won't make news headlines. The incremental scientific steps would likely also be considered too technical to merit big stories in the popular press. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    If it is the first paper to publish on a theory that is contrary to one that has otherwise been accepted by numerous other anthropologists, even as a peer reviewed paper in a high quality journal, giving it presumption of being "right" by giving it ITN weight would be improper (I'll point to the current ongoing discussion related to the COVID-19 lab leak theory as evidence of why we don't give weight to one-off peer reviewed theories that go against the grain of long-standing scientific agreement). --Masem (t) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's the job of the major media outlets, like the NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. to make these editorial decisions on how much coverage to give to certain science stories. We don't have to follow any single such news outlet, but we should use the criteria that a science news story must be published in a high quality peer reviewed journal and must also have significant coverage in the major news outlets. If we deviate from this too much, then we are censoring the news based on our biases. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    But reading the NYT and BBC, their writing emphasis this is a possible result and not firm proof yet. Even a lead researcher on the paper is not certain of the result yet, from the BBC article ""One of the reasons there is so much debate is that there is a real lack of very firm, unequivocal data points. That's what we think we probably have," Prof Matthew Bennett, first author on the paper from Bournemouth University, told BBC News.". We have to be careful here about presenting a paper - which I'm not doubting has grounded scientific method behind it - as the singular source to change a theory that is the subject of debate, based on these sources. This is not censoring news, but upholding SCIRS for all purposes that as an encyclopedia, we're looking to summarize dominate views of the scientific community and this doesn't have it, even if mainstream sources are reporting it. --Masem (t) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle, haven't evaluated quality. It's a big enough deal that it's worth presenting as a piece of research, rather than established fact; "scientists find evidence", etc. Not going to dig through the archives at the moment, but IIRC we've posted other substantive findings when they occurred. FWIW, this paper isn't based on cutting edge techniques; the methods are pretty basic, it's the data that are interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Also, if consensus develops to post, I'd much prefer wording describing how long before the present the evidence is from, rather than trying to spell out the difference between this timeline and whatever was "previously thought", since that's often controversial. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    When we've posted scientific findings in the past, it is usually because those findings are not in challenge to an established theory or where controversy within the scientific community exists. I know we've posted anthropological findings in the past but as best I recall, when they were found they didn't radically present a change to current theories, only extending farther back when humans occupied a certain reason or had developed certain capabilities. Its clear from the sources that when humans were in the Americans is a subject of debate in the scientific community so we should be a bit more careful on giving weight to one paper. --Masem (t) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as written As they say, a lot of people think a lot of things about where and when. I have a hunch about frost giants predating mammoths around Temagami. Regardless, a new paper, even by people who know what they're doing, seems unlikely to change any generally accepted timeline this quickly. In a scientific sense, I mean. Even frost giants from space could seem believable to folks who don't know how magnetic anomalies work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – FWIW, to a layman like me this all seems rather iffy and arcane. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Here, try this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Sca, not that accessible or even interesting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support One small step for a man, one giant leap for Prof. Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not even one of his selected works, nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Brilliant reunion you guys. Great, always a benefit to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "You betcha, Miss Piggy", (as they say in Hollywood) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And as seriously edumacated Wikipedians put it, GARCH! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: John ElliottEdit

Article: John Elliott (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/buccaneering-businessman-john-elliott-dies-at-79-20210923-p58ucg
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: Controversial Australian businessman, former state and federal president of the Liberal Party, and former president of Carlton Football Club. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Oppose Quality issues. Giant orange tag, citation problems. Usual problems. --Jayron32 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Tall el-Hammam and Jericho destruction by an impact eventEdit

Consensus is strongly against posting, and the research is deemed outside the mainstream.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Tall el-Hammam (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Results of the research, according to which an impact event destroyed Tall el-Hammam, as well as Jericho, about 3,600 years ago, possibly inspiring the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorra, have been published. (Post)
News source(s): The Conversation, SciTechDaily
Credits:

Article updated
 109.252.201.66 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose. The Conversation piece you linked to was written by one of the researchers involved, so not an independent source. There are almost no reports in mainstream media - just churnalism recycling of the press release in some less-than-reputable outlets and some reprintings of the Conversation piece. The only vaguely journalistic report I could find was in Forbes but almost all of that is an interview with another one of the researchers involved, no comments from independent experts. This appears to be a sensational over-interpretation of the archaeological evidence, ideologically motivated to match a story from the Bible. In addition, the article is an orange-tagged stub, doesn't mention the impact idea at all, and attempts to add it have been reverted by multiple page watchers. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    PS. I've fixed the nomination formatting. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can find additional reliable sources written by reputable, main-stream publications, such as Smithsonian Magazine and Nature. The article itself, however, only has a single-sentence update, which seems to me to be insufficient given that we're supposed to be directing people to more information... --Jayron32 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Your second link is the original paper (in Scientific Reports, a much less prestigious journal published by the Nature Group, not Nature), that's not an independent source. Smithsonian Magazine should be a reliable source but the actual article just repeats claims from the paper and interviews with its authors, including the Conversation piece already mentioned. I'm sure it used to be standard practice to get a comment from one or two independent experts on the subject... I guess science journalists are busy these days. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I suspect the reason why there are no high-quality news reports with independent comment is that good science journalists approached independent experts, only to be told the research was rubbish and shouldn't be publicised. They don't run the story in that situation. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Under-sourced, not in the RS news, polemical, lacking general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose fringe froth, and Scientific Reports is not Nature (other end of the quality scale, in fact). Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Post-closing comment I seriously object to many of the comments above, rushing to denigrate the announced result. In fact, they are almost certainly BLP violations regarding the researchers involved. For the record, Scientific Reports is not the "other end of the quality scale", it is more of an open-access online spinoff from Nature, which simply doesn't have room for all the top quality science being done, let alone 64 page articles. There is nothing about the paper that suggests WP:FRINGE, and hitting on that, or even the closer's remark that it is outside the "mainstream", is unacceptable. For the record, a much earlier city in the same general area was identified in 2020 (same journal) as wiped out by a similar cosmic airburst (Abu Hureyra, Syria, c. 10800 BCE). This is mainstream science, not fringe. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 22Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Robert FyfeEdit

Article: Robert Fyfe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Sun
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: Scottish actor known largely as Howard Sibshaw in Last of the Summer Wine, Cloud Atlas, many other credits. CoatCheck (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Suggestion: please expand the prose to at least double its current size of 766 characters. Stubs are not eligible for RD. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment also needs more sources in the filmography section- I've sourced about half of it, other half needs to be done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) 2021 Mansfield earthquakeEdit

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. However, a nomination for DYK is worth considering.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: 2021 Mansfield earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An earthquake hits Australia – the strongest in the state of Victoria for 50 years. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake in Australia, not many dead. The article has a nice graphic showing the epicentre but that's done with a special infobox so I'm not sure how we'd do that here. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose no deaths, no injuries, minimal damage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Beaten to the nom Support - Rare for an earthquake this large to strike Australia. Widespread damage, lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "Widespread damage"? The article says "minor damage", no injuries and no deaths at all. No-one said "lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability" but "lack of anything = lack of notability". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Not much in the RS news, as its effects comparatively minor. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose "Tree falls in a forest, no one is around to hear it"-type news. But this could be a DYK type entry. --Masem (t) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Minor damage, no casualties. Unusual event for Australia, but that doesn't make it an ITN blurb. I suggest you nominate for DYK instead. Modest Genius talk 15:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) RD: Gabby PetitoEdit

It is clear that there is no consensus to post this in any form. This is the third identical close by a third different uninvolved admin and I would suggest very strongly that it needs to be the last one. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Death of Gabby Petito (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The remains of Gabby Petito (pictured) are found and her death is determined as homicide. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: This was Wikipedia's top read article when it was just a disappearance and now the body has been found... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Original close

Consensus to post will not form. --Tone 11:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Second close

WP:SNOW. There is zero chance this will be posted to the main page in any format, regardless of the insistence of a very small number of commenters. Leaving it open any longer serves no useful purpose. --Jayron32 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)}}[]

  • Oppose The real news was at the time when she disappeared but that ship has sailed. We don't even have a stand-alone article about her, so this cannot be even properly considered for RD.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose people of no notability get murdered every day, e.g. four people in the UK yesterday. It doesn't mean they are of any encyclopedic value whatsoever, and this is not WP:TOP25 and this story is just another typical example of missing white woman syndrome, stuff of tabloids. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb or RD Per WP:ITNRD, RDs are generally for biographical articles—this is a page dedicated to her killing. As for the blurb, RIP and may justice be served, but let's avoid missing white woman syndrome.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose RD. Article is not a BLP. This could genuinely fit as a blurb, but I'm not sure that I support it even then. I find the above comments and their inclusion in the article to be examples of noxious racism attributed to normal human emotion. Why is there no Dead Black Man Syndrome article?130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're welcome to write it. Good luck. WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per the above. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:655A:2E1F:3D76:8817 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD in principle - OK, so most likely this won't find consensus, but since it was closed very quickly, I am reopening it now because I would like to put a different point across regarding this. So it's clear that Ms Petito is notable only for the killing, and per the WP:NOPAGE guideline, it doesn't seem necessary to have separate pages for her and her death. But on the other hand, I think there's more than enough significant coverage of her life in the recent papers (and covering aspects like her boyfriend, travels and study) to satisfy WP:GNG. The coverage gives her notability in her own right, and the redirect Gabby Petito would never be deleted, only that her bio is covered on another page. As such, she probably ought to be eligible for RD. The same would apply to Malia Obama for example, or Paul Elliott of the Chuckle Brothers. So while the strict rules say only standalone bios are automatically posted, I would support it in this instance as on that basis (other than the obvious quality concerns currently in the article).  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • BLP1E, WP:VICTIM, and several other parts of BLP state that a flood of coverage about a person that was non-notable before their death does not give weight to their notability after death outside of extreme cases. --Masem (t) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Coatrack A page for a death/killing is not a WP:COATRACK for a full-fledged bio. A short summary is all that is relevant to understand the context—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - I was really hoping ITN would not give in to our latest bout of MWWS. I see that I am mistaken.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Subject would not have been notable prior to disappearance and death, unlikely to ever be the subject of a standalone biography per BLP1E. Perhaps a trial and conviction could lead to a mention but even this would be unlikely. I mean no offence by calling it a run-of-the-mill murder but unfortunately that's what it is, and we shouldn't really be adding those to the RD ticker. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't like to resort to comparisons with other stories but it seems that readership/pageviews are part of some peoples' reasoning here. Currently looking at BBC News (even as a non brit it's still a major outlet) Petito's name is not present on their front page at all; another murder victim, not white and blonde, who has no article here, occupies one of their top sidebars. Vice's first story on the case is a specific look at how first nations and black americans are not receiving media coverage in the same circumstances. It's the third murder story down on the Grauniad's front page, nowhere on the Irish News, a footnote for Le Monde ... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's why we constantly stress that ITN is not a news ticker, and we are not here to serve up the news that readers may be searching for, but articles that represent quality work on topics that happen to be in the news that thus may be what readers are searching for - that is, the reader angle is secondary over the quality and encylopedic nature that ITN's box serves on the front page. If readers are coming to the front page of WP to find news, they are absolutely in the wrong place, they should be going to BBC or CNN or whatever news outlet of their choice is for that. We're not a newspaper, and its stories like this that are difficult for us to deal with in the first place due to their gossip-y type nature, much less their presence at ITN. --Masem (t) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Masem: The WP:ITN page says nothing about a "ticker" and one of the WP:ITN#Purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle per Amakuru. I don't get why if non-standalone articles like Ian Brady are eligible for RD, then a standalone article that happens to be titled "Death Of" is not. There is enough coverage here to justify posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    To me, it's not so much that it's not a standalone article; but that the examples given here--Brady, Paul Elliott, Malia Obama, etc--were at least notable enough to be the subjects, even if jointly, of articles independent of their deaths. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose This is one of those stupid "person disappears" gossip heavy stories that periodically flood the news media because it creates this sense of mystery about whether a person close to the deceased actually did it. None of the people involved were notable before and only because of the situation around the death created a news whirlwind around the event, but this is very much still in gossip-heavy territory. The persons involved still aren't notable (WP:BLP1E absolutely applies, its why this has to stay an event article, not a bio article), so this can't be an RD. And if it was suggested to be a blurb, I'd strongly oppose that because it is the fact this is the type of bad reporting that seeps into the news media once in a while (this happens in the UK too) that gives undue weight on the plight of one person while everyday people go missing or are killed and don't get any coverage at all. --Masem (t) 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Indeed. I'm staggered that we even consider it appropriate to have an article on this. It's a complete joke. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose and delete titillating tabloid ephemera per Masem and TRM Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're welcome to take it to AfD. I suspect it will be swiftly kept.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
AfD – Alternative für Deutschland? Why would those rightwingers be interested? – Sca (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Indeed, it's befuddling. Tabloid missing white women syndrome garbage really belongs in an encyclopedia, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Tabloids are old media but this case is more of an Internet phenomenon – see How It Went Viral. And Wikipedia is part of this new media. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD - hey ITN regulars, stop quick-closing this. Just cuz the first few votes are oppose doesn't mean it's a snow close. Sheesh. Anyway, it is MWWS, and despite my personal feelings about this, it meets ITN's criteria and purpose. It's in the news, readers are looking for it (page views), and the quality is sufficient. My personal feelings about the news story shouldn't come into play at all. Levivich 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Have you even looked at it? It's orange-tagged!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The single section undue weight tag? Meh. Btw I'd support this as RD or blurb but leaning RD. Levivich 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Addendum: In thinking about this more, I support RD but not blurb. 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD in principle, oppose on quality. Per what others have said, no reason why a "Death of X" article isn't RD-eligible when other non-BLP articles are, they're just not "automatically eligible", and so need a conversation to be had (rather than continuously being snow closed...). And her death most definitely is in the news, and we post based on reported date (so it is a "recent death" by our definition). That being said, the orange tag would need to be resolved before it could even be considered from an article quality perspective.
  • Strong oppose blurb Another mundane USA news that someone pretends to have an encyclopedic impact and value. Just another (possible) crime among so many that are committed in that country and in the world. There are more important things to discuss. RIP. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - sorry if I've caused a shit-storm, but to be clear I'm not in any way advocating for a blurb. The story is not ITN material in that sense. I'm simply saying that she's notable. For one event maybe, but she's notable. As such, she should appear in the RD section. It's not our fault that the media has created significant coverage of her, and a lot of the opinions above seem to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't our mission here. If you think she's really not notable, then take the Gabby Petito redirect to RFD. Or take the whole article to AFD or something. But don't blame the messenger.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There is a difference between trying to "right great wrongs" and simply not wishing to further contribute to them. When the dust settles I'm sure we will have an article in line with others on deaths or, potentially, murders and which will satisfy GNG. I don't necessarily believe AFD is the right venue. But, that is not to say that this article should be given an exception to our usual RD processes—the supposed "great wrong" would be undue coverage of a non notable individual; going out of our way to make an exception and posting a non notable individual on the RD ticker would be incorrect; not posting it would not be an overcorrection but simply business as usual. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (edit conflict) Comment - RD doesn't apply here. The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death. Being kidnapped is not inherent notability. See WP:BLP1E.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Where does WP:ITNRD say that? Levivich 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article" (bolded mine). WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      We already had an RD for "Barry Chuckle" at [1] so there's precedence that the bit you highlight there isn't always followed. BLP1E concerns the subject of whether someone "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". It doesn't address notability in itself, which would be covered by WP:GNG, noting that not all notable individuals get pages, per WP:NOPAGE.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Nope, you're wrong there too. Note 2 of that same page specifies "individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group)" are eligible for RD on a case-by-case basis. There was no error committed in posting Mr. Chuckle. But there are no notes nor exceptions granted for people who are notable only for being kidnapped. WaltCip-(talk) 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Well, it says it's case-by-case, and here we are discussing it so that sounds valid to me. You're welcome to oppose, of course, but I don't think your line "The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death" is found in the guidelines.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      The full quote is "...if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is: 1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion. 2. Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death. 3. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." Death of Gabby Petito meets those three criteria. Per commenters above, I see no reason to think that this article is not a "biographical article" because it's called "Murder of". A person who is notable for how they died is notable. Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      In fairness, like Ian Brady, that means that Barry Chuckle would be notable in his own right for a joint article, which still counts as a biographical article.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I think this is the first time I've ever seen one of the Chuckle Brothers compared to Ian Brady. So I thank you for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      It's not a biographical article. It just isn't. A biographic article has to not be focused on the event and has to be focused on that person, which is why the article on this is focused around the killing and not the person herself. That's why if you created a "Gabby Petito" article, it would be nominated for deletion. WaltCip-(talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "It just isn't" isn't really convincing me somehow :-P I don't see a difference between an article about a person and an article about a person's death. Saying the latter is about an event and not a person doesn't sway me because the event is the death of the person. A death article is about a person. In the same way, an article about the sinking of a ship is an article about a ship, and an article about a building fire is an article about the building. Levivich 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I can't help you if you are choosing to interpret something with an incorrect definition, but The Rambling Man literally wrote the book on WP:ITNRD. If you doubt whether my interpretation of the wording is incorrect, you could ask him. WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      The WP:ITNRD page was created by MSGJ and The Rambling Man has never edited it. This is presumably the contradictory usage of literally. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Obviously still a god, though? [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "When someone asks you if you're a god..." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Gosh, I didn't realise that ITN was quite so high in the clouds. But you wouldn't get far with a catchphrase like "This chick is toast". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ...."Who you gonna call? Blurb-busters!!"[]
      TRM is a top bloke and knowledgeable on a wide range of topics, but I don't recall him being appointed as the overall God of ITN. My interpretation, and I suspect that of Levivich is that Chuckle Brothers, Family of Barack Obama and Killing of Gabby Petito are all in part biographical articles, because they contain the master record and are redirected to from various subjects who meet GNG but don't have their own page. Certainly I'd expect the BLP rules to apply to those parts of the article pertaining to the individuals concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I'm definitely not a god, but for 100% certain, RD was never intended for this kind of thing. It's literally circumventing the regular ITN process because this is either a blurb (it's the event that's notable, for whatever reason, not the individual in any sense). The target article is not a biographical article (unlike the Chuckle bro, unlike Brady etc, articles) and as such is not a valid RD target. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose both RD and blurb – Purient police-blotter chaff. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Police blotter chaff usually doesn't get three stories on it in the BBC [3] [4] [5], plus BBC stories in Spanish [6], Portuguese [7], Indonesian [8], and Kinyarwanda [9]. Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb, neutral on RD. Human interest story, mainly national rather than international interest, missing white woman syndrome. Sandstein 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. The article looks to be in good shape and this story is in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb as gossip crap and that we are not WP:TOP25. And while we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we also don't post minor-celebrity gossip like the Branson/Bezos spaceflights. I'm also leaning towards opposing RD as well due to her not having a Wikipedia article before the incident and my never having heard of her YouTube channel unlike stuff like ScottTheWoz, PewDiePie (or even, ughhh, Gabbie Hanna), etc. We should wait a couple of hours, though, before closing this for the third and final time. In any event RIP Petito.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb on lack of significance. A tragic case, but one strongly affected by missing white woman syndrome. Also oppose RD as she would not have qualified for an article prior to the disappearance - there's no biographical article per WP:BLP1E. Modest Genius talk 15:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RD comment For comparison, the death of a black man was rejected for RD, citing that it wasn't a bio.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Good research. The bottom line is that RDs is for notable people and blurbs are for notable events. This is neither. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb the article is good quality and the death is certainly in the news in the US (it has crossed over from tabloid news to mainstream news). I'm not sure what the rule is regarding posting "Killing of X" articles to RD, but the rule should be that they can be posted with consensus but not automatically. Obviously not important enough for a blurb. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose. I suspect more traction might apply if it does get moved to Killing of Gabby Petito. But at least I now know what vandwelling is. Had assumed it was either something to do with V-Dubs, or else Wanda in Austria. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Where does it say that deaths of people who only have a redirect are eligible for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There is no hard rule, it is the kind of thing that is taken on a case by case basis. It is not forbidden, and has happened multiple times in the past, for example this posting received universal support and no objections. --Jayron32 17:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Though there, that target article is a bio article of two individual known only as a duo and not individually, and thus still technically a biographical article about a notable duo, while here, we're still talking about an event on a non-notable individual. --Masem (t) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was not the question that was asked. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings. If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    A member of a duo or group can be eligible per WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was not the question the OP asked about. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings. If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Your response positioned Siegfried and Roy as an example of IAR, and I responded to you that it was codified in ITNRD as a possible exemption.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    WP:ITNRD refers to biographies: An individual human ... that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is .... The nominated page is regarding an event, and is not a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - A blurb for a murder victim, no. I was about to support RD but started to think that she is notable per her murder and all media attention, that does not make her RD worthy. SorryBabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The people who have flooded my social media feeds lately complaining about MWWS could have solved their own problem by simply not talking about this episode in the first place. The thing is, they're fearful they won't have as large a following if they don't obediently latch on to every topic the news media is pushing today. The reason I mention this? Wikipedia is evidently content to follow suit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Do we have a third closer volunteer? Consensus to post is even further afield than it was the first and second times. Time to put this horse out of its misery. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3C32:7D8B:2AD5:60CC (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD but Oppose Blurb -- I think RD is fair. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD There's a consensus at Deaths in 20xx that an article with a person's death in the title is as good as a bio for not getting deleted after 30 days. This same level of established notability should be recognized here, too, since the two systems are linked. In my opinion, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Throw it on the Main page now, knowing it can always get binned in 30 days' time? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It can't be binned. Not from the real RD list, per the title rule. From the front page, it'll be trashed in a day or two, maybe fewer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    To me, that shows a failing in the Deaths in <year> system, since per BLP policy identified above, such people are not considered notable and that that page deems to give them that sense of notability is a bad approach. There are reasonable exceptions, obviously. --Masem (t) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD. She's notable and she's dead, and that is enough. BD2412 T 23:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, she is not notable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose and I'll take this to AFD in a few months per WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM but I don't feel like dealing with the rain of "keep"s right now. There is nothing notable about this individual nor her death. Nothing. Agree with both re-openings though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • ITNRD excerpts Per WP:ITNRD (color added for emphasis): In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Gabby was not notable. Her killing arguably is, though. It is therefore not appropriate for RD, which requires the subjects to be notable individuals. Events like these where a white woman is murdered and it causes a media sensation happen semi-frequently, and are not blurb worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Oppose RD General lacking notability of the subject, questionable significance of even having the article, and while it is allowed, I think the fact that the article in question isnt specifically on her somewhat hinders the case for RD posting. EDIT: Forgot to also mention that the general scope of this article is lacking. I recognize The Guardian is being sourced here, but are we still sure that the international implications/regognization of the situation is sufficient as well? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb and RD per Masem. The need for the 24 hour news cycle to fill airtime with gossip neither does not make this unfortunate woman an encyclopedia subject. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Move to close I closed it earlier, but won't again. As of this writing, the consensus stands at 9 in support of posting, 21 opposed. If someone uninvolved can interpret that according to their best ability and decide what to do here, that would be great. It doesn't need to be any more of a time sink than it already has. --Jayron32 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – User comments running 21 to 5 9 against posting. That's a clear consensus in the negative. Support close. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm somewhat hoping an admin will swoop in and post this so we can double the kilobyte size of this discussion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Some men just want to watch the world burn--Jayron32 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I would but I am in no mood to be reverted for no reason today. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Apropos swooping, my Halloween costume this year will depict a masked Wiki admin., purely imaginary of course.
Sca (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 21Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Melvin Van PeeblesEdit

Article: Melvin Van Peebles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: Looks pretty good at a quick glance, except for the filmography. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Suggestion: There is a blue {under construction} tag. Perhaps we should not review this nom while the construction is still underway. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It needs work beyond that section.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now, as needs quite a lot more sourcing, particularly Filmography section. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Willie GarsonEdit

Article: Willie Garson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58647331
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.

 KTC (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Please add references to the Filmography section. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @PFHLai: filmography and rest of article all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks for all the new footnotes, Bloom6132. This wikibio looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Court ruling on Litvinenko's poisoningEdit

Article: Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The European Court of Human Rights rules that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is GA but more update is welcome. Per court's ruling, "there was a strong prima facie case that, in poisoning Mr Litvinenko, Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun had been acting as agents of the Russian state" and that it's "beyond reasonable doubt". Brandmeistertalk 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment The mere outcome of the ruling has no long-lasting impact, unless it results in something that will affect the guilty party, so let's wait to see if the international community follows up by imposing sanctions against Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Agree. By itself, this ruling is more a footnote to the larger story. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support we all knew this was the case, but a supranational court declaring it to be the case and even suggesting that it was sanctioned by Putin is noteworthy. If we had a story suggesting that Trump had sanctioned the assassination of Greta Thunberg using nerve agents in Stockholm (for example) then this place would be utterly mad for it. Serious news and high encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This court has no enforcement capabilities, and Russia is not a voluntary member. If it pays the fine, I'll switch. But it won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Glad you're here for the lulz, just one thing, as per the ECHR article, "International law scholars consider the ECtHR to be the most effective international human rights court in the world". But hey, why let that get in the way of a genuinely encyclopedic news article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I wish you would learn what a joke looks like. I seriously doubt this verdict will be effective. But if I'm wrong, I'll admit you were wiser than me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can help but associate "joke" with everything you and Statler post. There's very little consideration of the encyclopedia in most of it. Whether the "fine is paid" or not, is not really the point, is it? It would be like suggesting that UN sanctions against Israel are of no encyclopedic value. This is an supranational body declaring that Putin sanctioned a nerve agent attack on foreign soil. Meh, perhaps that's just so de rigeur these days, like school shootings in the US, that we can shrug it off. Never mind. The blurb should also indicate the court's decision on Putin's complicity. That would wake up some of the world. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes. If a court has no authority to impose its sentence, it's basically a think tank. And this one didn't symbolically fine Putin. It fined Russia. You can't help telling those apart, either, both habits annoy me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not sure how old you are, but it is abundantly obvious that the "fine" is not the point here in any sense. We have an international court now saying that the President of Russia sanctioned the use of a weapon of mass destruction on foreign soil. And yet you think it's just about the fines? It's clear we're talking about different things. Probably best for you to get back with Statler in the peanut gallery. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Can you link a source mentioning this court finding Putin guilty of anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, I can't. But I guess it's 2 plus 2, sky is blue etc. Fair enough, but suggesting that the only way this becomes notable is if Russia pays a fine is patently absurd, regardless. Let's get back to new Tube stations and Gaelic football then. Well done everyone! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's libel. And no, I'm not threatening to report you for it, I'm just unilaterally finding you guilty and ordering you to perform 60 hours of community service. I don't care where, when or what. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "It's libel"? Ok...! See you in another universe where you start taking this place seriously. Of course, you don't. Your contributions rotate around trying to be funny and make no tangible improvements anywhere really. But you've found a Muppet bromance and that's great for the people who tolerate your "input". You do you, I'll keep writing articles and improving Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'll have you know Bailiff Evans is just a guy from work, and I remain steadfastly loyal to my lovely civil partner of 35 years, Mokey Fraggle. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I guess this is an attempt at humour, from one of our regular muppets. Just highlighting it for those who aren't aware we have a couple of characters who do this kind of thing at ITNC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Bingo. Small text is attempted humour. Regular text is normally just a plain statement of fact that you can't understand, agree with or appreciate as such and insist on heckling obnoxiously instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support posting this determination of an international body. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose on update quality; would be full support if more information had been added to the target article. The total added text involves one sentence in the lead and about 3-4 sentences to the body. If this is a major, newsworthy event, surely our article we're going to post to the main page can tell more about it, no? If this is all that can be said on the subject, it isn't newsworthy. If there is more that should be said, but the Wikipedia article isn't including it, then the article is not properly updated. IF this is fixed, consider this a full support. --Jayron32 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose As per Kiril Simeonovski. Sheesh, "who knew", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose on coverage. While coverage is demonstrated, the sources themselves don't appear to be highlighting this. This event appears nowhere on BBCs frontpage, News nor World sections. This is not featured on the frontpages of: Izvitsia, Pravda nor The Moscow Times, and I would have expected coverage there considering Russia is the major party to this decision. In the US, the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post have unanimously decided this is not important enough feature. While the article is suitable for the Front Page, I and apparently most RSs, believe it's not something to feature at this juncture.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose unless something significant actually comes out of this. Right now, all they've done is blame Russia for something everyone already blamed Russia for- not exactly breaking news. If something e.g. sanctions happens, then it would be ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Somehow, it's never the right time to post an ITN story that shines the light on the authoritarian abuses of Putin's regime. Not even when a supranational court makes a major ruling holding Russia responsible. Regarding the IP's comment above: There has been plenty of coverage of this story in Russia, e.g. Pravda [10], TASS[11], RT[12], Moscow Times[13]. And of course NY Times did cover it too[14], as did WSJ [15], NPR[16], CNN[17], etc. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Russian legislative electionEdit

Article: 2021 Russian legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Russian legislative election, the ruling United Russia retains its majority in the State Duma. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, dpa
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: I know it's a totally expected and uninteresting outcome, but it's still an election in the largest country in the world. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment The article is in great condition. But the results section needs prose, there is some cn tag out there, the summary should include the results and maybe the "Reactions" section could be expanded. I guess in no time it will be completely ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose Tonight at 11, gravity continues to function This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And it still rains more or less vertically in Canada, despite our legislature staying mostly the same, so what's the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Exactly - article quality issues notwithstanding, this qualifies as ITNR even if the expected status quo remained, and so we would post it regardless. --Masem (t) 16:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Only two cn tags and one failed verification tag. Once those are fixed, this is good to go. Please note that "water is wet" is a valid reason to oppose most ITN nominations, but not if it's ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The "Pension reform" section has zero footnotes. The Results table has a couple of empty columns. Can these be fixed, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality, as per above comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on two grounds: insufficient quality and failure of the blurb (and the current version of the lead section of the article) to make clear that this election was not a free and fair election. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's not ITN's job to dispute election results. It's Wikipedia's role to post the facts i.e. who won, and the article itself can deal with the questionable legitimacy of the result. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This subject comes up with every election of dubious validity(some still dispute the last US presidential election). I think there are ways to get the point that the election was not fair across, but there is no consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That the election was not free and fair is "the facts." I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's not "the facts i.e. who won", though. I also think that's the main takeaway. No objection to adding the runner-up party, if that seems fairer. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There's never been a consensus way to assess the validity of an election, as Joseph2302 states, and it's ultimately not Wikipedia's job to do so in a blurb that is in WikiVoice. People generally already know how Russia works, and those who don't can read the article for more.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's easy to make clear in a blurb that an election is not free and fair (when, as is the case here, the sources support it). It is our job to have a blurb that does not mislead the reader or rely on the reader having background knowledge that he or she may not have. Neutralitytalk 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment could we just remove the 'pension reform' section? That would leave a handful of {{cn}} and {{fv}} tags which should be much easier to address. Some prose in the results section would help too. Modest Genius talk 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Off-topic, but just an FYI to the nom, "largest" in terms of human geography usually means "most populous", not "largest in area".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't disagree with you and it's probably the case in almost every Indo-European language, but my preference is to always use "most populous" rather than "largest" in that context. If you google "largest country in the world", what you get is obviously Russia and not China. All in all, it's a matter of personal preference.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support once dubious information is properly cited or removed, per comments above. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose No prose about actual results, only about background, procedures and campaign launches. Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 20Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Volkswagen submits an offer of €2.5 billion for French car rental firm Europcar. The deal, which would give Volkswagen 66% of Europcar's shares, has been accepted by the board but still needs to be accepted by regulators in France. Volkswagen previously owned Europcar and sold it to French investment firm Eurazeo for €3.3 billion in 2006. (RTE)
  • Twitter agrees to pay $809.5 million to settle a shareholder class action lawsuit that accused the social media company of painting an overly rosy picture of its future. (Bloomberg)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Sarah DashEdit

Article: Sarah Dash (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR, USA Today, NBC News, AP
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: Female artist. Article isn't acceptable at this writing. SusanLesch (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Let's wait. No need to rush in an assessment, which can begin upon notification here that the article has improved sufficiently. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Hey, we said "at this writing". If dashing in turns out foolish later, any vote can be dashed out. I might even regret that pun when I'm sober, who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sure. There are merely 5 footnotes for almost 2000 words of prose. I hope someone can dash in and add more refs soon. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thank you, PFHLai, for making room for this nomination. Turns out, that someone won't be me. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    This is all standard practice for RDs. They don't get closed until they're archived, seven days after the death/announcement, and "opposes" on quality are always taken to be void once the article is brought up to scratch.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    YMMV. I nominated a recent death above and it was peremptorily closed in less than two hours. If Amakuru thinks that the process is to keep them open to allow full time for discussion and improvement then please could they oblige by re-opening the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That wasn't an RD nomination, it was a blurb nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As noted, Gabby Petito doesn't have her own article, so it's not automatic that she's eligible for RD. That said, I think this may be a bit of an anomaly in the rules. It probably still won't be posted, but I have boldly reopened the above nom to put a slightly different point of view across. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Canadian federal electionEdit

Article: 2021 Canadian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Canadian federal election, the ruling Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), is re-elected to a minority government. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, CTV, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters
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: They might still be counting the ballots but every major news organization in Canada has already called the election; the Liberals will win, and they will not win a majority government. Article is currently undergoing heavy updates. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Wait until the morrow Detailed election results (a major part of the article) are still very incomplete at this time. See further below RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait until full updates to the article are made per RandomCanadian. Added Trudeau picture as was added for 2019 blurb. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Results need prose and there should be a section on "Reactions" and/or "Aftermath". It would be interesting if somewhere there was also a section/sub-section on the anti-COVID-19 measures that have been implemented for the election day. At least when I edit articles about elections I try to put this kind of information. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Several sources relate criticism that this snap election was expensive and a waste of time. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Agree that this is lacking, and should be added by anybody who has time later today, but the rest of the article, once we can at least put the final number of seats, seems OK enough (the standard for ITN is not FA); and this is a major enough event (national elections) that it probably warrants a wee bit of leeway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I don't care if it's "R" or technically "in the news". Nothing changed. As a voter, I can confirm earlier reports: This snap election was expensive and a waste of time, and that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong support once final results come in This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on article quality. There's no prose synopsis of the election, its results, etc. It's a giant article of tables. If we want to post this article, someone should fix that. --Jayron32 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Still quite thin – mostly tables & background. – Sca (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong support WP:ITN/R is pretty clear that all general elections of sovereign states should be included. No exceptions for snap elections, or re-election. The 2019 UK snap election was included and nothing changed. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on notability. General elections are ITN/R; it may be disappointing to some that nothing major changed, but re-elections are still general elections nonetheless. It's in the news, even if it's underwhelming or boring news.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Our required Results section is a total of 2 sentences, which might as well read "see previous article". There must surely be something more to be written of the outcome.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support --though it's rather annoying that parliamentary systems could conceivably spam ITN by repeatedly calling snap elections or being unable to form a government, it's in ITN/R, so it should be posted. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 06:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support article is just about decent enough- it has the results and info on the undeclared seats, which is just about enough information. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not ready. There should be at least a tiny section called Reactions. Now, the only substantial prose is in the intro and background sections, which is not enough. --Tone 07:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not ready per Tone.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong support As mentioned by other users, elections should always be featured. Additionally, the window for this event being current is slipping away as we speak. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support I think it's safe to say it's a projected minority government. Perhaps the mention that some ridings are still being counted due to close races/mail in ballots etc. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The official results have not been announced as it takes days to count the postal ballots. Unofficial polls and projections are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Andrew Davidson We don't wait for official results to post, because the news does not. We posted Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election once it was clear he won, not when Congress officially certified the result. We also did not wait for legal challenges to conclude. If the projections are that far off, that would likely be news itself. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not ready. The sourcing of the results is fine, but there is literally one sentence of prose discussing the results, reactions, aftermath etc. That's not good enough to post - there needs to be at least a full paragraph with references. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support There's now a half-decent lead; results are quasi-final; and there's also a decent enough background section. For something of this significance, that seems enough - waiting further would defeat the point of this being ITN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose No prose in main body apart from the background Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The article is pretty good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Paul Rusesabagina convicted of terrorismEdit

Article: Paul Rusesabagina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina is convicted on terrorism charges for the actions of FLN, the armed wing of his political party. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NYT, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Interesting development for the famous hotel manager, including that he was essentially kidnapped by government agents in order to be tried. Human rights groups are calling this a show trial. Davey2116 (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Leaning oppose - the guy was arrested last year, claiming he was abducted by the Rwandan government, and he's been an outspoken critic of said government for some time. I don't regard today's development as at all unexpected, to be honest; the Rwandan government has a bit of a reputation with Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and so on, for locking up political opponents.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support It's like the case of Raman Pratasevich which we posted in May. And it's certainly in the news -- I was listening to a report on the radio just now. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Support but oppose blurb as written. Paul Rusesabagina is considered a political prisoner by the European Union, and his arrest was essentially the same thing as Roman Protasevich, as both involved hijacking a flight. I think the high-profile nature of this arrest makes this noteworthy enough for ITN. However, political neutrality in a blurb will be difficult to achieve. To fail to mention that his conviction was controversial is to give legitimacy to the Rwandan regime's show trial. On the other hand, to do the opposite would be biased in favour of the west. A good, neutral blurb that mentions the controversial aspects of the trial is best here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose article which is a BLP is under-referenced, amongst other issues. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose sourcing is lacking and also quite a chunk of refs are to his autobiography Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Northern line extension to BatterseaEdit

Consensus to post will not develop.—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Northern line extension to Battersea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​London opens its first tube extension this century, serving Battersea Power Station (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The London Underground opens an extension to Battersea
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the most popular news story on BBC News currently. I know this because they have a Most Read sidebar which is a good way to find the best stories. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Congrats, London. Great news, Govey (irony alert). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. "first major expansion of the underground since the Jubilee Line Extension opened in 1999"[]
  • Oppose ITN is not WP:TOP25, nor should it be. Two new stations on top of nearly 300 which already exist. Of very limited parochial interest and practically zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I'm certain that a tube extension is surely one of the least blurb-worthy things to be nominated. Not even the linked article has any page other than the English one. And just because it's the most popular story on the BBC doesn't mean it can be globally. Good luck if you manage to change my opinion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It doesn't have much competition. We've been blurbing a Gaelic football match for over a week now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • SFC is blurb-worthy because this was decided by the users of Wiki, who surely did so considering its notability and popularity. Feel free to propose to remove it from that list. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - the first new stations to open for more than 20 years, on one of the world's most notable rapid transit systems, is significant enough for ITN I would say. This is the kind of encyclopaedic topic which it's good to cover. I would include Nine Elms in the blurb though, as the extension doesn't only serve Battersea Power Station.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The first extension to the oldest metro system in the world in over twenty years, and reading Northern line extension to Battersea it is obvious the project has had sustained news coverage and attracted attention both good and bad. "Zero encyclopedic value" is subjective, I completely disagree with The Rambling Man's comment and point to the 89,000 byte long encyclopedic article that has been written about this topic. Alsoriano97's comment appears to oppose inclusion due to a lack of global appeal, one of the arguments to avoid listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Disagree with me by all means, but don't feel obliged to ping me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Ah, then I'm sure when the Kongō Gumi opens a new headquarters in I-don't-know-where, there will be blurb and you will support it. It doesn't make sense. This is not for a "London Main Page". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Had they considered Battersea?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    What a bizarre comment. The London Underground is not only old, it is an iconic system and I reckon the trains, stations, roundel, etc would be recognised internationally. However, as I already pointed out, items do not need international interest to appear here. NemesisAT (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, if it's truly ICONIC, it's a shoo-in. Has the International Iconography Commissiion certified this status?
Sca (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
[]
London Underground is a Level 4 Vital article. That has to count for something, right? WaltCip-(talk) 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I guess you'd have to ask the three or four people who own run the vital articles "project"... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I guess a link to Level 4 Vital article might help to get a blurb on Main page. But if the proposed bold link was to a new article for man spills another cup of coffee on the Northern Line, maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It depends on how hot the coffee is. WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support. It's a fairly underwhelming story but we do need new blurbs and the article is in good shape. I've added an altblurb - it's not appropriate to use an image of the power station to illustrate a blurb about a railway line that was built decades later, nor to WP:EGG link to the tube station and call it the power station. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, it doesn't just serve the power-station-which-is-no-longer-a-power-station anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. I can't recall the last infrastructure blurb we posted for comparison, but an extension to an already-extensive network feels far less groundbreaking than where the bar, at least on gut instinct, should be—something on the scale of the Øresund Bridge would probably merit inclusion but not this, for me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agreed - a good example of a metro/subway in the news would be something like "an new extension to the XYZ Subway has made it the largest network in the world" or "first Metro in region ZYX opened today" Turini2 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose Personally a big fan of this extension - I did a big 5x expansion on this article in the last 2 weeks or so. But an extension to the London Underground surely isn't one of the most important news stories around. Isn't the Canadian federal election today? Turini2 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Absolutely. We would post major renovations to New York's metro system, especially if it came to something like replacing its outdated switching system.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, we wouldn't. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    We absolutely would, because it's New York. It would at least get nominated and last long enough to not be SNOW-closed. WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If it's any consolation, my opinion would be exactly the same. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Per TRM. Not even middling whelming. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose being probably more interesting than gaelic football isn't a reason to post this(we should judge on ITN-worthiness rather than comparison to other articles). If this were an extension to any other country's large metro system, don't imagine we'd consider posting- Paris is planning 4 whole new lines in the next few years, NYC had multiple extensions in last few year, and I doubt anyone would consider nominating any of these for ITN. Outside of London/England, there is almost no coverage of this event, and the coverage inside England shows this isn't an "earth-shattering" event. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Good for Londoners but irrelevant for the rest. I don't see how this affects 99.9 per cent of the world population living outside of the city, and the benefits measured in 20,000 new homes and 25,000 new jobs can't change my opinion. The article is in excellent shape, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Um, do we have an agreed residency percentage criterion for posting new infrastructure projects? Might prove a little contentious? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I can't remember to have ever supported posting the completion of an infrastructure project, and that would probably happen if the final product has the distinction of being 'largest', 'longest', 'tallest' or 'deepest'. In this case, nothing makes this extension, not a completely new project, even close to it. Beijing and Shanghai have rapid transit systems with 13 times the total annual ridership of the London Underground, but we didn't even consider posting their most recent expansions a couple of months ago. Similar extensions with much greater impact are being carried out around the world all the time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Did they make the news? Did they even get updates in our articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's probably worthwhile to point out that (nothing wrong with this) WP has a number of railfans here that have worked to extensive build out articles on the UK rail system to this level of depth that doesn't happen in other systems. So that this new line has a well developed article is of little surprise while similar expansions elsewhere probably got one or two sentences at most. But that's why we're trying to judge on the overall impact here, and the expansion of one metro public transit system has rather limited world impact. --Masem (t) 14:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support Trying to understand the standalone clarity ("tube" or "line extension" because of the power station mention) of the blurb. Is this something to do with trains or electrical infrastructure? Maybe something to the effect of " In rail transit, service of the London Underground is extended by two miles to the south London district of Battersea" CoatCheck (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose, per Rambling Man. "very limited parochial interest and practically zero encyclopedic value" 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:10EC:7D8E:A977:ED64 (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per TRM. One would have to ask if there would be a similar level of support if the NYC Subway opened a new station in a similar fashion. --Masem (t) 14:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sure, I personally would find that more newsworthy than some of the items on the main page today. NemesisAT (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose Transport networks are routinely expanded everywhere, especially as population generally is increasing. No indication of any technical/engineering advance or notability Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment it's interesting to note that the OP's suggestion that being in the BBC's "most read" is a good way to find the best stories, but it's no longer in the top ten, even just a few hours later. I suppose it's all about "today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip papers" with respect to this particular piece of rail trivia. To be fair, it is the 30th story on the UK page of the BBC News website, but so far "below the fold", and way below "BBC Weather presenter pulled over by dog on live TV"... I'd be surprised if it remains there much longer.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Has made the Evening Standard. Am tempted. Ticks many boxes. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    TBH I would support the nomination of this "doggy affair" for the Main Page. Worse things we've had to see around here. And dogs are cute. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As predicted, the Tube story has now rolled off the bottom of even the UK page, and is now 15th on the England page. This is one of the "best stories"? I think the weather presenter/guide dog combo has edged ahead.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose because a rail line being extended is commonplace & nowhere near important enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment @WaltCip: in fact, we would not post the same thing if it happened in New York --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The newest NY subway thing was Ida or amongst subway-only things, the yearlong partial L shutdown to repair hurricane damage which wasn't posted. Besides weather stuff it was a replacement   station (which was 20m from Twin Towers, far closer than any other subway, crushed by their east wall(s) and was the final train thing to return to normal), it was closed @ 6 opposed no support. The newest besides that was the aforementioned phase 1 of the second East Side Line which had been vaporware for 100 years, relieved massive overcrowding of the East Side Line (25% of the rides in like 4-5% of the miles) and wasn't posted. The newest thing before that wasn't nominated and allowed NYC's 3rd biggest skyscraper forest+3rd tallest building to be built in a subwayless area by connecting it to the busiest subway nexus and completing its 8-way intersection of subways (9-ways including "double bonds"). The new thing before that was an all-new 2009 station that replaced an old one in the same location (meh) and wasn't nominated. The new thing before that was a short stationless bypass cause the wealthiest Queens line was approaching capacity of 2,000 adults/train, ~2 trains/minute and this was cheaper than becoming Earth's first 6-lane subway (hexuple-track/dodecuple-rail). ITN didn't exist then (2001, the first new subway thing since 1989). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per many above, does not seem remotely notable enough for ITN. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I'm disappointed but not surprised that this even got nominated. If there are two things that ITN loves, it's mundane U.S. news and mundane UK news. Mlb96 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Perm State University shootingEdit

Consensus will not develop to post.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Perm State University shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least six people are killed when a gunman opened fire at a university in the Russian city of Perm. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Developing. Blurb will be updated as more news pours in. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • We've not had a school shooting which killed 8 or more people in the US since 2018. Russia had one this year. This is disingenuous. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 10:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not at all. The statistics speak very clearly for themselves. You have literally had hundreds of school shootings in the last couple of decades. That is simply not the case anywhere else on the planet. Defending the indefensible once more. Thoughts and prayers etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yet very few of those resulted in deaths. We already posted a school shooting in a Russian school just 4 months ago. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
MissingThePoint.com. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
2008 Jerusalem yeshiva attack (8 dead), Yeshivat Otniel shooting (4 dead), Ma'alot massacre ("When they broke into the classroom where the students were being held, Haribi grabbed a student, Gabi Amsalem, and held him at gunpoint on the floor. Rahim was shot dead but Linou managed to reach the classroom, grab several magazines from the teacher's desk and reload his weapon. He then sprayed the students with machinegun fire and tossed grenades out the window. When a burst of fire broke his left wrist, he threw two grenades at a group of girls huddled on the floor. Several students leaped from the windows to the ground, some ten feet below."), Avivim school bus bombing (3 gun deaths in school bus), Shaar HaNegev school bus attack (27kg missile, 2kg tube). Likely incomplete, with 57 times more population this is equal to 285 similar school gunmen attacks since 1970 in USA or 5-6 per year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
All of this is true, and yet has no bearing on the current discussion. Naming random other school shootings neither a) produces news coverage about this school shooting or b) produces quality, referenced prose in the Wikipedia article about this school shooting. Those are literally the only things we need to assess in order to decide whether or not to post this on Wikipedia's main page. There's no need to discuss other matters. --Jayron32 16:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My mistake, wrong indent. Was giving counterexample to "School shootings anywhere on the planet except for one notable exception are incredibly rare.". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Still not actually relevant to the discussion on this page, which is where we are trying to decide a) are reliable news outlets covering the story in an appropriately in-depth way and b) is the article quality good enough. --Jayron32 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the counter-examples. The rarity of them in locations other than those which are almost literally warzones is more than amply exemplified by your list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
So can you say except warzones and near-warzones when you say we're the only ones? Thanks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Peruse the list; the last school shooting in the United States that killed at least 6 people was the Santa Fe High School shooting in 2018. Before this shooting, the last school shooting in Russia that killed at least 6 people was the Kazan school shooting in May of this year. How is a school shooting which kills 6 people notable in Russia but not in the US? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Because literally of the sheer volume of school shootings. If you have a hundred a year, then you'd statistically expect one of them to be be bad. If you have two per year, or like in the UK, one per decade, you report them. They're unusual, anomalous events. School shootings in the US are just part of everyday life, regardless of the outcome. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
6 people is 0.0000041% of the population in Russia. That's equivalent to 13.628 people in the USA! And of course, everyone in the US has a gun. Several, I think. Russians just have those old Soviet guns that don't work very well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes everyone, even premature babies. Except me, I must be the only one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment This is clearly more notable than similar events in the US where shootings are a daily routine, so the set of criteria for posting shootings there is simply not applicable to this. However, the article is a one-line stub with absolutely no relevant information and there's long way to go even if consensus develops on its notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per now Agree with TRM and Kiril. There's a lot of work to be done on the article so that it can be on the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality obviously we won't post a one-line article, but unless people actually improve it then the discussion of importance is moot. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Agree with Joseph2302. The article is a stub. Unless that improves substantially there's no point in discussing the importance. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait – Pending expansion of article. Arguably significant due to rarity, but motive unknown at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong support This thread is embarrassing. I get that the democratic party operatives writing this encyclopedia would much prefer this massacre to stay hidden because it runs against their narrative of school shootings being a product of lax gun laws, but the arguments these people try to come up are embarrassing. This event doesn't deserve a mention because it's the second major school shooting in Russia in 2 years? Come on. This is just lazy Daikido (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Most of the opposes so far have been on quality grounds, so your indignation here seems a little misplaced.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    What did I just read? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Your !vote violates WP:NOTFORUM and not incidentally WP:NPA. I urge you to strike it before it becomes hatted. WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – If the shooter – who was wounded – turns out to be a stereotypical 'disgruntled' loner, it probably isn't ITN/significant. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not sure that matters much to the dead people (or their families)? Better to be murdered by a nice family man? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, if his motive was personal rather than ideological, which seems likely since he was a student there, the import of the event would seem somewhat less weighty. (My personal choice: Being blown away by a jilted ex-lover, if I had one. Alas...) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think you can get them ready jilted (for small extra fee). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support pending article expansion. Article is a bit on the short side, would be full support if it were more fleshed out, but it's long enough for the main page and fully referenced, IMHO. The topic is receiving news coverage, so it passes the significance criteria as well. --Jayron32 15:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose because a killing with a single-figure death toll that doesn't have an ideological motive is usually not important enough to post. Deliberate killings of this size happen many times every year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Many times a year. In which countries? Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I mean in the world as a whole. They're far more common in some places than others, but its relative rarity doesn't make it notable enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah right. I thought you meant in Russia (where it would be rare). Obviously a shooting like this would be inherently non-notable in the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Where are all the "other" countries with all these regular school shootings please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Jim Michael sorry, perhaps you missed this, where are all these "many times a year" school shootings happening? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
So by this logic, we will post the first school shooting for each of 200 sovereign states, as they are rare in that state. And each state gets one train derailment, and a flood, a military coup...what else? A common place event does not become notable because it's been awhile since it happened here. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"its relative rarity doesn't make it notable enough to post." this is literally the best thing I've ever read at ITN. It supersedes anything I've ever read before. By an absolute mile. I guess this was written ironically, but good grief, some of us reading this would think this was utterly insane. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I said killings with a similar death toll happen many times a year in the world - I didn't narrow the scope to school shootings. If the same number of people were killed in a house or bar anywhere in the world, it's unlikely it would have an article & even less likely to to be nominated. Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority. Its tiny stub article would have no chance of being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well your "scope" is irrelevant to this context then. This was a school shooting. And yes, we know it happens all the time in the US. It happens, but rarely, anywhere else in the world. It's a complex equation, I know, but when I'm looking at the context of a news story, it involves context, and for school shootings, if it's not in the US, then it's almost certainly significant. If it's in the US, then it's business as usual, unless the death toll gets to maybe more than 20 or 30. I think that's just standard here. And suggesting that "Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority" is utterly missing the point. It's context that's important. And the ignorance of the "vast majority" is not something we should be using as a gauge against which we decide what is and what is not of encyclopedic value. The "vast majority" of readers live in a country where gun crime is accepted and a daily routine, where kids are taught how to deal with "active shooters" etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Do you have any evidence backing your claim that the vast majority of (English language) Wikipedia readers live in the US? Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You first, do you have a shred of evidence that "Twenty people killed at any type of location by any method in Maiduguri, Mogadishu or Parachinar would be ignored by the vast majority"? Let's see evidence for that and then we can go on and discuss that Ameuricans are the most likely readers of Wikipedia. After you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Mass murders in those cities are very common. Many of them don't have articles & most of those that have articles are short, with few editors. Most aren't nominated for ITN & when they are they're typically quickly rejected. The July 2021 Baghdad bombing, which had a death toll of 30 plus the bomber, was rejected at ITN & has since been turned into a redirect. Jim Michael (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Last time I checked a long time ago only 46% of readers were American and it was decreasing. That's not a vast majority or even a majority at all. Also I've never been taught active shooter survival ideas at school or had shooter drills or over-the-top wargames with 14-year old girls with a fake gun wound on their head and I'm a millennial, I think that's a modern thing. I did have monthly drills of walking out of the building to practice combustion escape (even if the building is brick) and some places have earthquake and/or tornado drills. In Florida and the Gulf alligators are almost everywhere and can even kill grownups so they teach primary schoolers to zig-zag if one's trying to eat you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
46% would be a massive majority ahead of all other demographics. Wow. Thanks for letting us know that. 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Being the biggest minority doesn't make Americans a majority, it makes them a plurality. But I think I remember something about majority having a different meaning in England now so this could just be American English difference. USA has a massive plurality cause it got lucky several times: 1. In 1781-87ish, USA could've split into 2 or more countries if the "distant national capitals are bad" sentiment had turned on the US capital more but after Shay's Rebellion a large group of men haggled like fuck all summer till they could agree on a constitution of (vaguely) unleavable union that a majority of each state might ratify (it took 3 years for state 13 to ratify, 1 year before the the weird right to keep+bear arms shall not be infringed law was added). 2. The leader of the 13 colonies' rebellion AKA POTUS 1 was willing to (and did) send an army to the Whiskey Rebellion to enforce this hypernew constitution even though to be honest it was deeply unfair for so much of government funding to be whiskey tax when for mountain transport reasons maize whiskey was the main "export" of the hinterland which is why they rebelled. Imagine if he left them alone, separatists would be emboldened and USA could be tiny now. Pittsburgh could've been a national capital. 3. Napoleon offered land to POTUS #3 (the size of 16 Englands) for slightly more than he was willing to pay for just the port of the land but he almost turned it down cause the Constitution explicitly allowed treaties and helping trade but didn't explicitly mention enlarging the country. This is your brain on right-wingism. 4. An earlier Civil War would've likely succeeded if the North/DC didn't back down several times. The North's Industrial Revolution and population boom was decades behind Britain so the slave states could've become their own country if they rebelled soon enough. Who knows if the western states would even be USA now if the east was like a DMZ? On the other hand Europe doesn't want to fuse into a country which is the only thing keeping our "majority" massive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I once heard it said that two thirds of readers are American. Or perhaps it was two thirds of editors? I have no idea of the truth of it, anyway, so this is a pointless comment, but that would be in keeping with quite a bit of this thread.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Uh, what? Of course it would. For example, a earthquake in the UK that killed 20 people would be notable because it literally hasn't happened before. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In 1931 one woman in Hull had a heart attack. And Dr. Crippen's head fell off at Madame Tussauds in London. Does that count at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I mean, a coup, even in a country where they happen often, is inherently notable. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Successful coups (but not attempts) should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
More incredible opinions. If there was an attempted coup in the US (!!) it should probably be posted, right? Or in the UK, or France or Germany or Switzerland? Are you being serious? I think we've heard enough from you about these kinds of things to judge your opinion going forward..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Still opposing; barely enough stub level but not enough detail to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I am also opposing on significance; six deaths is not normally enough to post going by previous shooting nominations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support What is in the article should suffice for the time being and this is not the US. Brandmeistertalk 07:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Lacks broad significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm only seeing 6100 bytes of readable prose, we're usually looking for around 15000 to get out of stub range. --Masem (t) 13:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The readable prose tally is currently 1794 according to the tool I use, with 1500 being the threshold at which we usually no longer consider it a stub. The article is still sorely lacking in detail of the event, however, so I wouldn't advocate posting at this stage.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm now about 10 times more or less confused than before. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC) []
If it's a shrink you need, I can recommend Dr. Pangloss He even made me feel good about DYK.
Sca (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
[]
  • Support Beyond a stub, and there may not be much else to add at the moment. Event is more notable than some of the other shootings we have posted in recent times. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Still less than 400 WORDS (as opposed to meaningless bytes) – no longer a stub, but pretty thin for a supposed internationally significant event (which it ain't, IMO). And what's up with "at least" – don't the Russians know how many were killed? Not good enough. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The article says six; the proposed blurb just needs to be modified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I don't give a flying fuck what country it happened in, so spare me the discourse. Shootings with such small death tolls are not noteworthy without something more to it. For example, if it were a terrorist attack or motivated by racism or sexism then it might be noteworthy. But there's nothing like that here. Mlb96 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree; without an ideology, this isn't more important than the many other mass murders this year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - I've added a bit more detail from an ABC article on the subject. I think all the known material is there now, and it's well above stub size at this point. There are a few opposes on notability, but I think there's a rough consensus above that this one's good to go. I'll leave that to an independent assessor though!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support article is now 3437 characters- more than twice was it was yesterday, and certainly good enough quality for the front page. The story itself (mass school shooting) is also ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as per User:Rockstone35. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - Well, we originally thought 4 in Belgium was not enough. I guess now 6 in Russia is not enough.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    In a country of 146 million, six is not a big number. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I'm not really sure personally where the bar is/should be in regards to size and impact but I think we're well above stub level here; 573 words and with a fairly thin lead section that means it's not including any real reduplication. It seems from the article as well that it will lead to further legislative changes so the impact is more than simply a tally of the dead. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Very thin content on the impact of the event. STSC (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on significance (or lack thereof). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment -- it appears that there won't be consensus to post this. Can someone uninvolved close this discussion? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 19Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: András LigetiEdit

Article: András Ligeti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Remonews, Budapester Zeitung
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: Hungarian classical violinist and conductor who conducted internationally. Grimes2 (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: first please look at Bussotti below, by far the more influential person, celebrated NOW (20 to 25 Sep) with a festival in his hometown - and not even a comment yet, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Sylvano BussottiEdit

Article: Sylvano Bussotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Stampa
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: Mostly composer of stage works, but also painter, set designer, opera and festival manager, professor, writer and much more. Died days before his 90th birthday on 1 October, which will be celebrated anyway by a 5-day festival in Florence where he was born. They were practically no references when I looked, it's better now but not perfect. I need a break. the image - cropped from another - is horrible. The Italian Wikipedia has one when he was younger but it's not on the commons (yet). GRubanGerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Eh... I looked around a bit and couldn't find anything obviously public domain. In my humble opinion, the current photo doesn't look that bad, especially compared to the one on the Italian Wikipedia. Sure, he has (some) hair in that one, but it's much lower resolution, and he's looking off to the side somewhere. It is marked as if it could be copied to Wikimedia Commons, on the theory that it's a "simple" Italian photo before 1976, so if you really want I can do that. It'll be debatable but probably survive review, though the rules for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Italy are a bit vague on what it means to be "simple". (For example, it's clearly posed, costumed, etc, but film frames, which are usually posed and costumed, are specifically called out as simple.) --GRuban (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for looking, but don't bother if you don't like it. From the article I get that he was a fascinating vital man, and on the crop I don't see that, mostly to those reflections in his eyes. As you probably saw we have one more on the commons but that seems sort of stretched. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
ps: I wouldn't take the "young" one for the lead, but for illustrating work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Several more refs - in English! now added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Sourced, but the reference Granmilano was invoked but never defined. size ok, lead ok. Grimes2 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sorry, I just made a typo, it's defined but Gramilano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The prose is long enough for RD purposes. There are quite a number of footnotes in the prose and quantity-wise they appear adequate for RD purposes. In cases where a sentence ends without a footnote, I assume (AGF) that the footnotes in the following sentence would apply. However, I'd suggest that the bits about the prostitute and his sexuality should be specifically footnoted, too. Also, do we need refs for all the bullet-points in the "Works" section? None of the "Other compositions" is currently referenced. --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    When I looked now, the "Other compositions" were referenced, also they are covered by the Ricordi reference for all works. - I have a problem with the 1991 event. I found it like that, and it's repeated all over the internet, so we don't know what came first, Wikipedia or any of the others. Can we comment it out for now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Grimes2 has taken care of the referencing and commented out the questionable 1991 event. As far as I can see, this wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 06:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Primetime Emmy AwardsEdit

Article: 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At the Primetime Emmy Awards, The Crown becomes the first series to sweep the major drama categories while Jason Sudeikis (pictured) wins an award for his role as Ted Lasso. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At the Primetime Emmy Awards, The Crown wins Best Drama Series, while Ted Lasso wins Best Comedy Series.
News source(s): BBC, NYT, The Wrap,
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: Netflix's first big win at the Emmys Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose lots of unreferenced tables, practically no prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per now ITN worthy, but article is not ready. And why the blurb focuses only on Jason Sudeikis and not also on Jean Smart, who also won the same award but as Lead Actress? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The news coverage highlights The Crown and Ted Lassoo as the two outstanding shows at the awards. The Crown doesn't provide an appropriate picture so Sudeikis seems the best choice, as he's the creator and title character for Ted Lassoo. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's usual only to mention the best picture for hooks of this nature, or the one which "sweeps" the awards. If we're going to mention best actor then we certainly have to mention best actress too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's probably better to mention Ted Lasso as the comedy winner rather than single out Sudeikis, although both shows were able to win all the acting categories for which they were nominated (maybe next season Ted Lasso can get a leading actress nom). rawmustard (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Suggested altblurb reading the headlines, there's so many different ways that the news is focusing on how the wins worked out (victory for the streaming services, sweeps for the Crown, etc etc.) that compared to other cases in recent past where we are calling out a notable factor beyond just the ITNR part (the qualifier winning grand slam, first female jockey to win a major horse race) that it was clear that notable factor was singularly called out by the media, there's just no singular agreement what's the big first here for the Emmys. As such, it is probably best to fall back on how we usually do it and not try to second guess what is important. That is, Best Drama + Best Comedy. --Masem (t) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose no prose Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Needs serious expansion of prose in main body of article to be main page ready. If someone fixes that, it can be posted. --Jayron32 15:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cumbre Vieja eruptionEdit

Article: 2021 La Palma eruption (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma, Canary Islands, has erupted (eruption pictured on 20 September). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Cumbre Vieja volcano erupts (pictured), forcing thousands of residents of La Palma of the Canary Islands to evacuate.
News source(s): El Espanol, The Guardian ABC News, AP, Reuters AFP via Radio France Internationale
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing event, the eruption started this afternoon, no idea how long it will last for. Mike Peel (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Wait I was going to nominate this as the last eruption of this was 40 years ago, but the extent of the eruption is yet known. --Masem (t) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Definitely something that's rapidly evolving - not sure at what point the extent would count as big enough?. Anyway, I'd recommend not driving near it... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Oh this could potentially be an issue, and I know they are evacuating people now, just that could be an interesting thing to watch live streamed, or could be the fear of that major tsunami if it really went. --Masem (t) 15:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Reuters has a vid too, but so far it's just smoke. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm watching [18] (in Spanish), definitely not just smoke - easily visible lava flows!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait I agree that we have to wait to see what impact it has if we conclude that the eruption of a volcano for the first time in fifty years and in a very little volcanic and seismic country is not noticeable enough. In fact, until a few hours ago it has been a bit "missing" in the national news in Spain. In any case the quality of the article should be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait – Developing. About 1,000 to be evacuated, says AP. – Sca (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Sca, Alsoriano97, and Masem: As far as I can tell, over 1,000 people have now been evacuated, with more expected. The eruption is continuing, and has affected properties and roads. Still not sure what the threshold for this being ITN is. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    A volcano causing evacuations is not a surprise. There is the concern, slim as it may be, this could cause tsumanis that could hit the US east coast if the eruption is large enough, but that hasn't happened yet. --Masem (t) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Masem: This is 'In The News', not 'This Is Surprising'. Tsunamis seem unlikely, and I've not been focusing on any of that here - just that there is a significant eruption. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Mike Peel According to some sources, there are already 5,000 evacuees [19] and this figure is likely to double [20]. Several houses and banana crops are burning, so it could be serious also because this will be for many days/weeks or months. It would be great if more users would join this discussion because I find it very interesting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Alsoriano97: Europa Press says that the evacuation of 5,000 is under way (not completed), which is consistent with what I've said above (1k so far) + added to the article. It's now night here, so I suspect most of the evacuations will happen during the day tomorrow or a bit later. The total number depends on the area affected, so it's not a final number (worst case is if the flow goes north towards Los Llanos). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks for the clarification. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait untill death count becomes clear. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 20:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The AP report, updated about 21:50, says 5,000 evacuated, eight homes destroyed, but doesn't mention any casualties. Reuters, updated around the same time, mentions "at least three incandescent orange rivers" of lava, but likewise no casualties. – Sca (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: If the Cumbre Vieja wikipage is going to be the boldlinked article in the blurb, please address the {off topic} tag under Cumbre Vieja#Historical megatsunamis soon. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Glad to see that the bolded link in the blurb is now pointing to 2021 La Palma eruption. --PFHLai (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ongoing I've been following the similar eruption in Iceland which has been evolving for months now. These things can last for years and seem quite unpredictable so ongoing is probably the best place for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • That's a good idea. I don't think there's a blurb-worthy impact here (yet), but it's certainly in the news and events are continuing to unfurl. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support as either blurb or Ongoing: at least 5,000 evacuations, 20 houses already destroyed by lava flow.[21] New article 2021 La Palma eruption should be the boldlink IMO. 46.114.1.172 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I just fixed the blurb nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've removed the image: Crater del Hoyo Negro isn't the same as Cabeza de Vaca, I think that was from an older eruption. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Real news, at last. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Note, however, that Spanish Tourism Minister Reyes Maroto called it "a wonderful show." – Sca (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes indeed. There's No Business Like Volcano Business!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose At the moment, no demonstrable impact beyond any run-of-the-mill storm or bushfires that never get posted Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not only bushfires [22] [23]. A volcano has erupted near villages, not a little rain has fallen on an island. Let us not trivialize something that is serious. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Its not so much trivializing it, but people residing on a island with known volcanic activity are already at risk. The specific factors here would have been if there was no time to conduct an orderly evacuation (like if the volcano created a lahar), and the potential impact on the surrounding area including the eastern US if it created tsunamis. That homes were destroyed and flora burnt, but no other major lives lost makes this a curiosity in terms of larger news for the time being. But it is still spewing lava and thus far from over. --[[[User:Masem|Masem]] (t) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Well, at least from my point of view, the point to take into account is that, although it's a volcanic archipelago, its low level of activity makes an eruption of this magnitude historical and disastrous, even if there are no fatalities (and I doubt it will happen because the management of the warning to the population has worked wonderfully). At least this is how it is being perceived in Spain (something obvious, of course). So I do not think that the possibility of a tsunami reaching the coasts of the American continent is what is remarkable because the probability of it happening is extremely remote. Let's wait and see. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Oppose for now. The text of the article does not indicate that this eruption has had enough impact to make it a major story in reliable sources, it's barely above a stub. There are some stories out there, but this does not appear to be getting the level of coverage I'd expect from an ITN item. Significant expansion of the article would likely convince me otherwise. --Jayron32 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Per Jay, Bumbu – Impact much less, so far, than many other natural disasters. – Sca (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Short-and-sweet quality, hot like volcano news and there's more to this world than death. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment This is still in the news and the article is being updated by colleagues and me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment II Habemus pic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The paragraph on lava flow needs refs, otherwise this article looks ready for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Honestly, this is interesting but really not ITN-type disaster (no lives lost yet, only destruction of some homes/buildings and land). It could still get worse, but I think most news covering it now see it as an interesting spectacle (seeing the damage that an active but rather constrained lava flow is doing to human-built areas) and less about any plight of the people on the island since this doesn't seem like it is intensifying in any dangerous way yet. Looking at recent articles, the last eruption lasted three weeks - and there it was just general spewing of lava over that time until it petered off. This is absolutely ripe for a DYK, I would think, if ITN is not proper. --Masem (t) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The size of the evacuation was enough for me. No one needs to die to qualify for ITN, imo. Deaths would simply make the case stronger. --PFHLai (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Maintain oppose I don't think there is any consensus for this. If natural disasters that wipe out 200 houses/4 square kilometres and forces 5000 ppl to flee, then there will be at least 20 bushfire articles just from Australia each year, and probably more hurricane articles in the US, and likely even more in monsoonal rivermouth places such as Bangladesh Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The difference is that fires in Australia and hurricanes in the US are common and a volcanic eruption on that island is exceptional and historic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Volcanos erupt all the time too; most don't affect human settlements obviously. The point of interest of this specific volcano is the projections that should it be a big eruption (not the current level of lava spewing) of the potential for tsunamis that could reach the east coast of the US and cause damage there, and hence there are eyes on it from that angle. And while upwards of 10,000 people have been evacuated and dozens of homes lost, its really not a major disaster in terms of things, yet. But that's why I pointed out that this same volcano's eruption in '71 ran 3 weeks. Something worse could still happen, and if that does that could likely be in the news, but right now, this is mostly a point of interesting spectacle which makes for a great DYK as a new article but fails ITN as lacking major impact or interest on the world. --Masem (t) 14:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'have said on that island. The fact that Etna erupts very often does not mean that if a volcano erupts for the first time in fifty years it ceases to be important. And forget about the tsunami to the United States. It's a pretty rejected theory. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Since this seems to be unlikely to be accepted here, and we now have a new article specifically about it, I've posted a DYK nomination for it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: John ChallisEdit

Article: John Challis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [email protected], Wales Online, ITV, Sky News, BBC, The Independent
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: English actor. RD only. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment needs a lot more sourcing. And date of death not supported by sources (which say he died over the weekend). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agreed. Date uncertain, but looks like a choice of two. (It is still the weekend). Feel free to improve sourcing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose in current state: page needs serious work from dedicated authors. His entire TV career pretty much is condensed into a list sentence. One would think there would be more to write about somebody who published two autobiographies which, presumably, covered his TV work. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Are you a dedicated author? Do you have his autobiographies? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I never said I was either, and I don't see why that prohibits me from making a vote on the suitability of posting this to the main page. If you are defending the quality of the page and believe this is post-worthy, I disagree. Nothing against you or Challis Unknown Temptation (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Your Talk page suggests that you are more than just a drive-by ITN voter. Any improvements you could make would be very welcome, whether or not that amounts to "serious work" or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also shouldn't be posted until date of death issue on talkpage is actually resolved, rather than people just assuming that it happened on 19 September, as that was the date is was announced. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The way I'm reading this, the exact date may not be known for a few days, the family kept the death quiet to have a few days of mourning to themselves, and so unless its resolved in a few days, ITN is fine with posting on the date the death was first widely reported. --Masem (t) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, but the article states outright that his date of death is 19 September, and keeps getting reverted to this. Which is not acceptable for ITN to out on front page, when there's currently zero reliable sources for that death date (that's the announced date, and The Sun (United Kingdom) also claims it's the death date, but they're a depreciated source). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just to clarify, there's a written rule that says we cannot post until a date of death is fully sourced? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, but we shouldn't be posting an article with an unverified death date on the front page. Would have no objections to it being changed to September 2021, if no source currently exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Date now verified by independent.ie source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This discussion belongs at the article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’ve added The Times to the article, which says 19 Sept. (See here) for verification. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4F7:4D9C:9851:1878 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's behind a paywall. The current source, which was SkyNews, did not seem to give a specific date, so I have reverted it. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If someone with subscription could check out the Times source, would be good thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have, which is why I added it. There is nothing to say behind paywall sources can't be used. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It might help if you added a relevant quote from the article into the ref. The date is also now supported by the indepedent.ie source, which has no paywall, anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, there's no point in adding a quote: it's just a date, nothing more. Repeating it in the reference just needlessly bloats out the sources section. Just because you can't see what it says, there is no basis for you to remove a reliable source - just don't do it please. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:PAYWALL is pertinent here and explicitly states not to discount a reliable source on account of cost to access. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Adding a quote shows that someone who has access has verified the pertinent fact?. It's standard practice. I don't see any "bloat" problem. When did I remove a reliable source there? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Quote=19 September 2021". That's not at all useful to anyone. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:AD17:2D47:C820:DC4B (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Refs are needed in the prose for his many other roles on TV and on radio (two footnote-free paragraphs), as well as in the Personal life section for his 1st and 3rd marriages. The Filmography table also needs more refs, too. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Jimmy GreavesEdit

Article: Jimmy Greaves (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: England footballer, died age 81. Article is a GA. RD only - not blurbworthy 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4F7:4D9C:9851:1878 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - Article is a GA, no issues I can see. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Good quality article. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Article looks good for RD, RIP Greavsie JW 1961 Talk 10:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Looks good and high quality. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment some lines need sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support there are 3 citation needed tags on an article that long. That shouldn't hold up this RD, as per Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality: one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. It's a GA after all, so clearly good enough for front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Two {cn} tags left. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment RIP Greavsie, a staple of my Saturday viewing as a child. In future, though, could we please fix the citations before posting. That line quoted above does not match modern practice, which is that all uncited material needs to be fixed before posting. GA or otherwise, this is a nadic basic requirement of material we're presenting to our readers on the most visited page of the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Shall we get Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality rewritten? --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Yeah, as Joseph points out above, on an article of this size, a few CNs, particularly on statements that are more factual than subjective in nature, and where the rest of the article is impeccably sources, isn't a holdup for an RD posting. Posting was reasonable. --Masem (t) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        No, it really isn't reasonable. There's no excuse for posting articles that aren't fully cited to the main page, and fixing the citations isn't hard at all when there are only a few of them left. (Unless the facts concerned are unverifiable or inaccurate, of course, in which case it's a much more egregious error to be posting with them included). As PFHLai says, let's change the guidelines because they're out of date. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        A small number of {{cn}} tags in a long and otherwise high-quality article is not a reason to hold up posting. It doesn't have to be FA standard. Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality is correct and does match current practice. The same thing happened with Clive Sinclair just a few days ago. Modest Genius talk 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        This just isn't correct. If the article has cn tags, then that means someone has actively identified claims in the article which require citation and don't have one. It's not the same as saying a few odd unimportant details are uncited, it means that more citations are actively needed. We have a template for this, which is {{More citations needed}}, and that's an orange-level tag and therefore an automatic blocker for ITN. DYK and OTD operate on exactly the same principle. If I had seen Jimmy Greaves before posting, then I would certainly have opposed and asked for the necessary cites to be provided, as Alsoriano97 did above. This isn't rocket science, it's a basic main-page standard.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Yes, if the situation is bad enough that the orange-level tag is (correctly) applied, that would preclude posting. But three {{cn}} tags on unimportant details in a 4000-word article, that was already assessed as GA, does not justify the tag. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Only 1 {cn} left! --PFHLai (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Dinky SolimanEdit

Article: Dinky Soliman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Filipino Times, CNN
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: Member of two president's cabinet in the Philippines. This wikibio needs more refs, but is already close to be ready for RD.--PFHLai (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Now, no more {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Posted to RD. CN tags addressed. SpencerT•C 00:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Jolidee MatongoEdit

Article: Jolidee Matongo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]
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: Article looks okay for someone who was in office for one month Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose While it's okay not having additional info for his final position since he was only in office for a month, the article should have a little more detail/depth about what Matongo accomplished in his prior roles. SpencerT•C 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Spencer I have added a few sentences on some things he did as MMC of Joburg. Let me know if that's enough- cannot find much more. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Sabina ZimeringEdit

Article: Sabina Zimering (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [25]
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: Polish-American ophthalmologist, memoirist, and Holocaust survivor. Died Sept. 6 but not announced until Sept. 18. TJMSmith (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Long enough and has enough footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 00:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Ali KaloraEdit

Article: Ali Kalora (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SCMP, Al Jazeera
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 wanted terrorist in Indonesia. Any blurb possibility? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - short but Start status. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Thanu PadmanabhanEdit

Article: Thanu Padmanabhan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
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: Padma Shri winning Indian theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - fully sourced and ready for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

ReferencesEdit

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: