Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 14: Line 14:
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->
==== (Closed) 2021 London mayoral election ====
==== (Closed) 2021 London mayoral election ====
{{archive top|[[WP:SNOW]]. No chance. <br>– [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 12:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC) <br> <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>}}
{{archive top|[[WP:SNOW]]. No chance. Inadmissible. <br>– [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 12:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC) <br> <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small>}}
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2021 London mayoral election
| article = 2021 London mayoral election

Revision as of 12:58, 9 May 2021

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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

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

Yahya Sinwar in 2011
Yahya Sinwar

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

May 9

May 9, 2021 (2021-05-09) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) 2021 London mayoral election

WP:SNOW. No chance. Inadmissible.
– Sca (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure)

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

Proposed image
Article: 2021 London mayoral election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 2021 London mayoral election, incumbent mayor Sadiq Khan (pictured) is re-elected (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Election for mayor of the capital of the United Kingdom  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed it is codified anywhere(and I would oppose doing so) but it is fair to say as a general practice we don't usually post such a local election. I can't recall when we have, at least. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 8

May 8, 2021 (2021-05-08) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Bo

Article: Bo (dog) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 6ABC, People, TODAY
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former presidential pet. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

May 7, 2021 (2021-05-07) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

  • A whole-genome study confirms the existence of four distinct species of giraffes, corroborating the conclusions of a 2016 DNA study; previously, it was believed that all giraffes were members of a single species. The study also supports the existence of seven subspecies of giraffes. (Sci-News)

Sports

  • UEFA reveals that nine of the 12 association football clubs that planned to participate in the suspended European Super League proposal agree, through a "club commitment declaration", to financial sanctions imposed by the governing body. This includes a five percent cut in their revenue for one season. Only Barcelona, Juventus, and Real Madrid did not sign the declaration, although UEFA has committed to "take appropriate action" against clubs still committed to the Super League. (IOL)

RD: Shamim Hanafi

Article: Shamim Hanafi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Jang, Urdu
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 updated. Subject was a known figure in the Urdu literature. Will be updating further at the availability of new sources. So far, everything in the article is sourced. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tawny Kitaen

Article: Tawny Kitaen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
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: American actress known for "Bachelor Party". Article looks OK, but might need some work. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

May 6, 2021 (2021-05-06) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Yitzhak Arad

Article: Yitzhak Arad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Yeshiva World ABC News both from the AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Soviet partisan and author, Israeli Holocaust historian, director Yad Vashem 73.81.124.98 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Johnson (ice hockey, born 1942)

Article: Jim Johnson (ice hockey, born 1942) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com; The Philadelphia Inquirer
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Rio de Janeiro shootout

Article: 2021 Rio de Janeiro shootout (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 28 people are killed in a shootout between the police and drug traffickers in Rio de Janeiro. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is reportedly the deadliest police operation in the city for years. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A question I would have if the 25 people killed (excluding the officers) were all part of the drug ring or if this included bystanders. As while 25 deaths is rather "big", if they were all members of that drug ring would make this less of a "tragedy", while if those 25 included civilians, that makes it something far more significant. I read there were two civilian injuries on the metro, but that's not as major yet. Perhaps more detail is needed. --Masem (t) 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If there are reliable sources on how many of them were drug traffickers and civilians, we should adjust blurb accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going off the Reuters source, "The victims included one police officer, and the remainder were suspected members of the drug-trafficking gang that dominated life in the slum, including some of its leaders, police said." (eg no innocent lives were taken, thankfully). However I think the emphasis on the wreckless nature of this shootout needs to be better reflected in the article and the blurb for this to be posted as this is what is being called out. If the same event happened, but it was all confined to a drug warehouse, likely it would not be as significant a story. It is a story because the police actively chased down and shot at these drug people through favelas and put innocents at risk, which is the story, not so much that 25 drug dealers + connected people were killed. --Masem (t) 04:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose in reality at least until it's expanded beyond a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you can expand the article without any new information and get it posted by following the User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub template. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added quite a bit of filler to bulk it up. The AP wire story has a few more details if someone has time to fill in the shooting section else I'll try to get to it later. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There I think that'll do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT  Nixinova   T   C   02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. These are great news that don't happen every moment. But I will only support 100% until the article is no longer a stub. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article quality For a borderline stub, it looks WP:ORish when the "Background" section is backed exclusively by sources not directly tied to the current event. For breaking news, I expect the current sources to be the initial framers of that perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dog bites man. Police shoot criminals. Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major police operation which resulted in a large death toll. It's historically notable. If this had happened in NYC, London, Paris, Sydney etc. rather than Rio, this discussion & the article would have quickly become much longer. It would be one of the world's biggest news stories. It would have been posted within a couple of hours & it's unlikely that anyone would have opposed it being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on quality. The "Background" section is not background for this article, it's a random collection of outdated (14+year old) statistics about crime in Brazil that has little relevance to the incident in question. If we take that out (as we should) then we have a stub with little more information than the blurb would contain. We need some cleanup and expansion before this is main-page ready. --Jayron32 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is relevant. It needs to be improved, not removed. I added the 2010 Rio de Janeiro security crisis to that section. What sort of info do you think should be added to the shootout article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of EXTREMELY marginal relevance, especially given that the text you added says "There was a crisis in 2010". Really? What was the crisis? What were the details? Most importantly: How did it lead to the events in question? The section is still a bunch of outdated, random, national crime statistics. That's not background information. Here's what IS relevant background information:
What is the name of the gang or gangs involved. What is some of their history? How were they organized? How did they come to work in this part of Rio de Janeiro? What were some of their prior interactions with law enforcement? What about the police force in question? What prior interactions have they had with this gang? What have they done in the past to deal with this gang? Other similar gangs? What has led to the growth of drug use in this neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro? What caused it to escalate? This is not an exhaustive list of things I'd expect to see, but a good sampling of some possible avenues to go with expanding the background section. Not "There was a crisis 11 years ago. Here's some random national crime stats from 14 years ago". That's not useful information. --Jayron32 14:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of that info - which would be useful - hasn't been reported by RS. The crisis is relevant because it was about violence in Rio between drug-dealing gangs and the authorities. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, maybe we don't have an article worth posting on the main page. --Jayron32 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can a controversial shootout, with a death toll of 25, which has been responded to with a protest & criticism by orgs & notable people, not be worthy of ITN? Many readers will be interested, but not yet aware that it happened. The info that you suggest will be added to the article as RS release it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not responding to the thing I said. You're inventing, in your mind, something I didn't say, and then responding to the thing you invented. What I said was, we don't have an article worth posting on the main page. Let me say it again, in case you missed the important word. A R T I C L E. I didn't say the event wasn't important, or worth informing people about. I said the article was not good enough to post to the main page. Make the article good enough and the article will be posted on the main page. If the article cannot be made better than the article will not be put up in ITN. I have said nothing about the event. I have said the article is not good enough. Comprendez? --Jayron32 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above: the reason this is getting attention is not that this was another drug raid, but that the police allowed the gun fight to run rampant through civilian homes, and they are being called out by many humanitarian groups for this. That should be a focus, more than two lines in reaction. --Masem (t) 13:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the Reactions section should be the longest part of the article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it should be the longest, but it should be far more than two lines presently. Obviously the details of the shootout are still required, but as I said, if this was the same scale of event but isolated to a warehouse and no innocents were at risk, this would be a yawner of a headline. --Masem (t) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would then have received significantly less media coverage, but it'd still easily be notable enough for an article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right and it wouldn't have been notable for ITN. It's being considered at ITN as widespread media coverage is focused on the fact there was a rampant gunfight through civilian homes that the police seemed to have no regard for in conducting this raid, not that the police killed 25 drug dealers. --Masem (t) 14:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the background section may be dated, but it's sourced and relevant and I explained why in the talk page in response to Jayron32. Either way, I've done as much as I'm going to do to the article. Post it or not. Have a good weekend! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said the words "it's relevant". Saying those words does not make it so. It's just not. I want this article to be posted to, but I'm not willing to compromise on quality standards to do so. We're not just putting any shit article on the main page just to make sure the topic makes ITN because some people find it important. You even called your own additions "filler" which were just added to "bulk" up the article. If it's just there to increase the word count, it's not relevant. I've explained in some detail why the inclusion of outdated, random national crime statistics is not relevant to an article about a specific police shootout in 2021. I've even told you how to add actual good information to the article. I don't know why you refuse to do so. --Jayron32 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:
about six years ago, a shootout in the u.s., in which nine died and police were involved, was not posted.
about a week later, a shootout in mexico, in which forty-three died and police were involved, was posted.
also, i agree that the background information currently presented does not seem very pertinent. perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the police killing of a 14-year-old boy last may, which led to public condemnation during the george floyd protests in brazil and a subsequent ruling by the supreme federal court curtailing such raids in favelas during the pandemic, a ruling that apparently has been flouted since october. dying (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That depends? Was the 14 year old being recruited to sell drugs? I added two sentences one about the rise in drug crime and one about the recruitment of children by gangs. The raid was conducted because police believed such recruiting was taking place. Waste our time with more off topic irrelevant garbage if you feel the need; I've done no such thing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i had suggested adding the information above to the article because i had seen reliable sources providing these facts as relevant background information, and had thought they would be appropriate for the article. if you do not feel the same, then i apologize for having wasted your time.
in the interest of full disclosure, i feel that i should mention that i have had personal experience with such raids in brazil when military police boarded a bus i was on with guns drawn in order to apprehend a suspected drug runner. i apologize for not having mentioned this earlier, as it had not occurred to me to mention it until i was trying to understand why i had felt that the background information currently provided in the article was not very pertinent, while you did. i do not know if the experience has given me a viewpoint that is not as neutral as i would have hoped to adopt.
however, regardless of whether the currently provided statistics are relevant to the article, i currently echo Bagumba's concern regarding the possible wp:or violation as a result of providing such statistics. many of the reliable sources appear to be skeptical of the claims made by the police and the government, and the reason for the raid that the police had provided, that children were being recruited by a drug trafficking gang, is suspected to be a pretext. perhaps this source and this source are more forthcoming about this skepticism.
i believe the 14-year-old boy that was killed last may had nothing to do with drugs, and that was one of the reasons why there was such an outcry over the killing. similarly, it is suspected that not all of those killed in this raid were suspects, and the circumstances of this incident have led the un's human rights office to call for an independent investigation.
ultimately, i think there's a story here, but i'm worried that the article is currently not telling it properly. dying (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Jersey fishing dispute

Consensus not to post. --Tone 06:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jersey dispute (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): (AP News) (Reuters)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Still on-going, so a blurb wouldn’t be right and would just change multiple times. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing, would support blurb. According to the infobox, and the lead, it has been going on for 1 day, since 5 May. The article was created on 21:03, May 5, 2021‎. Given the relatively short lifespan of the article, and the short duration of the dispute, it does not qualify as an "ongoing" story in either sense (a long-term story and an article that receives frequent, quality updates). The article on its own is in good enough shape, and the story is being covered by the news, so I don't see why we couldn't put this into blurb form, but this is not what ongoing is for. --Jayron32 14:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, especially if the residents of nearby Guernsey get involved. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Ajit Singh (politician)

Article: Ajit Singh (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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: Former Indian minister Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn) COVID-19 vaccination

Withdrawn by nom. --Jayron32 12:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: COVID-19 vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The proposal is to add a link to COVID-19 vaccination in parentheses immediately after COVID-19 pandemic. Many, if not most, of the news related to the COVID-19 pandemic are about vaccines or the ongoing process of vaccination so it needs to be somehow separated from the main article to highlight its significance at this stage of development. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I opposed the removal of the special Covid box a few months back, but the decision was made and that's where we are. Vaccination isn't the only aspect of the pandemic that's currently newsworthy, there's the wave in India and Brazil, the variants, changes to lockdown arrangements in different countries too. The pandemic article covers all those topics so it's IMHO sufficient to have that as the primary link into the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary article is not going to be replaced with this one; it's just a proposal to add a link to a secondary article in parentheses (I was also against removing the box with all links to relevant articles a few months ago.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I do understand what you're proposing. I just don't think it's correct to single out out the vaccination programmes for an extra line, as they are far from the only aspect of COVID currently in the news. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It already appeared in ongoing section as part of the COVID-19 pandemic article. I don't see any reasons to nominated it as ongoing. 110.137.163.125 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No reason to link the same article from two different parts of the Front Page, let alone two different parts of just Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous. No need further complicate the MP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Thanks for the comments so far. It seems like consensus in support of my proposal is not going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 5

May 5, 2021 (2021-05-05) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Del Crandall

Article: Del Crandall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; MLB.com; Associated Press
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lucinda Franks

Article: Lucinda Franks (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: American journalist. Article needs some beefing up, but shouldn't take too long. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ashraf Sehrai

Article: Ashraf Sehrai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Economic Times
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: Prominent figure in the ongoing Kashmir conflict, passed away supposedly due to COVID. Article seems to be in decent enough shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

May 4, 2021 (2021-05-04) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ray Miller (baseball manager)

Article: Ray Miller (baseball manager) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun; MLB.com; Associated Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (May 5). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Playing career should list the position he played (pitcher I assume?), and if available, some basic playing statistics would be useful. Otherwise looks good to go, and Conditional support once that info is added. SpencerT•C 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paulo Gustavo

Article: Paulo Gustavo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Folha de S. Paulo, G1
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: Brazilian actor and comedian. Yet another victim of COVID-19. The article was created recently, but it's in decent shape. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Traffic Ramaswamy

Article: Traffic Ramaswamy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
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: Indian social activist. Article is not ready for homepage / RD yet. But, not too far away. Will get to it shortly. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Simon Achidi Achu

Article: Simon Achidi Achu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Journal du Cameroun
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: 5th Prime Minister of Cameroon. Start-class biography, well-sourced. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Manas Bihari Verma

Article: Manas Bihari Verma (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
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: Indian aeronautical scientist. Padma Sri awardee. Article is a start class biography. Can expand based on available obituaries. Ktin (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Looks fine to me but if two citations are fixed. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for such a short article, we should at least have everything cited. For such a long career, I feel like there should be a bit more detail on his achievements too, if at all possible. If not, I could be a weak supporter once the cites are fixed!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alan McLoughlin

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

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

Nominator's comments: Irish International footballer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

May 3, 2021 (2021-05-03) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.

Article: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press ABC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former political candidate and Neo-Nazi who was on death row and was responsible for the Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine aside from the "Electoral History" section. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

Getting off-track again... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: Mexico City Metro overpass collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Mexico City Metro train derails on an overpass as it collapses, killing at least 20 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An elevated section of the Mexico City Metro collapses leaving 23 people dead and more than 70 injured.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is undergoing expansion, but a train accident of this scale is bound to be covered. SounderBruce 05:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
Though there's no fixed minimum number of deaths for an article to be important enough for ITN, a higher death toll makes an event significantly more notable. Do you think this one should be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hmm, on tilt again. Only you bring up "minimum deaths". I was simply offering a comparison that five times more casualties have occurred in this event than the one you helpfully linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want this posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's your standard boiler plate disaster stub with barely a paragraph of relevant information and will never improve so of course it will be posted. I'm just trying to understand the bridge collapse posting criteria since it's not documented at WP:ITN. In the example I cited above there was a consensus that "if it had happened anywhere else we wouldn't post it" and here we are ready to post a bridge collapse from anywhere else. I'm kind of new here, just trying to understand the ins and outs is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, there's no "bridge collapse criteria". Nominations are judged on their merits. Some have little or no merit, some have some or much merit. It depends. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has far more casualties than the one you mentioned. That's the main reason that this one has been posted & that one wasn't. This article has been improving rapidly all day. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is not quite correct. The only reason why this one has been posted, while the other one wasn't, is that this nomination got enough support from people who happened to stop by the ITNC page while the nomination was up, while the other one did not. There are no other reasons why anything gets posted. There is no other rule, there are no precedents, there is nothing except "people who cared said something". --Jayron32 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is why this was posted & previous one wasn't, but this one's higher death toll is clearly a major reason for at least some of us here to say that it should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but people keep looking for ways to circumvent discussion and disqualify the opinions of others by (falsely) claiming that the reason why things are posted is because we have some sort of minimum limits, or because previous articles that were (or were not) posted in the past established a precedent, and that precedent or rule somehow invalidates the opinions of people who think differently. That is just not how we work. You may have your own private criteria as to why something will be posted, but that criteria is not based on any rule or precedent we have here at Wikipedia, and the fact that someone else uses a different criteria is NOT a reason to invalidate their opinion, despite the repeated efforts of some long-time contributors here to get their way. --Jayron32 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with someone, and giving reasons why you disagree - which could include citing informal standards and precedents - is not "invalidating their opinion". Discussion and debate are a healthy part of the consensus-building process. And if it happens that I disagree with someone *and* several of what you call the "long-time contributors", or indeed anyone else, happen to agree with me, then that might be enough to form a consensus contrary to the one I disagreed with. Or perhaps it isn't. That's up to the assessing admin to determine. I'm quite sure everyone who contributes to this page is used to sometimes getting the result they favour and sometimes not.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should be disagreeing with people. We should not be doing it in a way that makes it seem like we're saying their comments are invalid because they violate some rule or that precedent has already been established. --Jayron32 15:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support articles in good shape, long enough and sufficiently sourced. I wonder if certain discussions would be taking place if the same event had taken place on the NYS or London Underground... no, I thought not. ——Serial 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that event, the article & this discussion would have become much longer, much quicker. It would have been posted sooner. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean SNOW closed as "Consensus will not develop to post" in less than 3 hours? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Pierce Fulton

Article: Pierce Fulton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
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: American DJ and record producer; surprised no one had nominated him. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose CV, near-stub. Of the 1,5kb of prose, only a single sentence (Death - a single sentence section) relates biographical information. On the plus side, the dates of birth and death are both listed, referencing is very thorough and the 'ographies are complete and referenced.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Helen Murray Free

Article: Helen Murray Free (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (May 3). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article - good references, notable, and a good article in general. RIP Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Donald Cameron (Nova Scotia premier)

Article: Donald Cameron (Nova Scotia premier) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News (Canadian Press)
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Article seems to be very well sourced. As the former Premier of Nova Scotia, it would be hard to see any other reason besides poor sourcing to not see him on ITN. – Jmanlucas (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All people with a Wikipedia article are eligible to be on RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bobby Unser

Article: Bobby Unser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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: 3 time Indy 500 winner rogerd (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill and melinda gates divorcing

Good faith nom with WP:SNOW chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Articles: Bill Gates (talk · history · tag) and Melinda Gates (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Bill and Melinda Gates announce their divorce --Daikido (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Noor Alam Khalil Amini

Article: Noor Alam Khalil Amini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Millat Times Urdu
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: Announced early morning IST. Known Indian scholar and author. Article updated and is more than a stub. I don't have access to further resources right now and there's not much biographical information available online/offline. The PhD thesis about his book is in Arabic and I don't know Arabic that much. Merits a mention on the ITN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllegedlyHuman – He was both. A religious figure and an academic. He taught at the famous Indian seminary Darul Uloom Deoband and wrote extensively. I do not see where we have given weight to his personal faith? AFAICS, Article speaks about his early life, education and his writings, with specific mentions towards his focus on Arabic literature like his book being taught in dars-e-nizami or his articles etc. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. I've updated the article, and tried to address other related concerns. This should be enough now. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not initially clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject that he had studied Islam. Still, he was labeled as a "religious figure" in the infobox and described in the first sentence as "an Indian Sunni Muslim scholar", which I do not believe would be appropriate if he studied something other than religion. The article appears to be clearer now, thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was really helpful. Thank you. This should be now ready for the ITN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) ITNR: 2021 World Snooker Championship

Proposed image
Article: 2021 World Snooker Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mark Selby wins the World Snooker Championship defeating Shaun Murphy in the final. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2021/may/03/snooker-world-championship-final-crucible-mark-selby-shaun-murphy-live
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: Listed at ITN/R. Almost up to date, just need to update the final slightly in the prose. See previous ITNs such as for 2019 World Snooker Championship etc.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it, but I got a bit behind earlier this week, so I'm not as up to date as usual. I've added a placeholder to confirm he won, and the score and such, just there is some missing detail I'll add ASAP. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

May 2, 2021 (2021-05-02) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ernest E. West

Article: Ernest E. West (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Courier-Journal; The Daily 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: Only announced and reported today (May 2). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jacques d'Amboise (dancer)

Article: Jacques d'Amboise (dancer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former New York City Ballet principal dancer and the founder of the National Dance Institute. I will expand the article further, but with his long career it will take a while, and I think the article is now decent enough for RD. Corachow (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: S. G. Neginhal

Article: S. G. Neginhal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald
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: Indian wildlife and nature conservationist. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Dee Holeman

Article: John Dee Holeman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News & Observer
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (May 2). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Long quote from the National Endowment for the Arts copypasted in the article. It does appear to be public domain, so copyright would not be an issue, but currently it's in there with pretty much no context and doesn't seem to add much; would suggest breaking up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Colombian protests

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Colombian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nationwide protests in Colombia against proposed tax increases result in at least seventeen dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nationwide protests in Colombia against proposed tax increases to fund a basic income program result in at least seventeen dead.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Colombia withdraws a proposed tax reform after opposition riots leave seventeen dead.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Nationwide protests in Colombia against proposals for tax increases and privatized health care result in at least seventeen dead.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Colombian president Iván Duque Márquez withdraws a proposed tax reform after nationwide protests leave at least seventeen dead.
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Large protests involving tens of thousands of Colombians protesting in the nation's largest metro areas against increased taxes. Notable as it is covered by numerous international agencies. Alternate blurb is to possibly include more NPOV and background to the situation. --WMrapids (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When protests kill 6 people, they're called riots. Papering over riots is a WP:RGW but I don't care that much --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The protests didn't kill the people, the crackdown did. Unless you want to say "Police riot and kill 6 protestors". --Jayron32 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the police cracked down on rioters, and a few were killed resisting law enforcement. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on one's perception of "law and order".—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care about the blurb. Article is in good shape. Y'all figure out the wording amongst yourselves. --Jayron32 17:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have understood that this protests began due to a tax plan proposed by the government, what seems is happening is that the sense of the protests, now that the government withdraw the proposal for the tax plan, has changed to show general disconformation with the Iván Duque's government. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 23:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for the delayed comment; I was out eating with my family. Anyways, to answer your question, Alt III looks good to me. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1022254827"