Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎(Stale) Atlanta spa shootings: partial self rvt, mistakes were made in calculations
Line 366: Line 366:
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Posted'''  — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


==== (Stale) Atlanta spa shootings ====
==== (Ready) Atlanta spa shootings ====
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate
| article = 2021 Atlanta spa shootings
| article = 2021 Atlanta spa shootings
Line 474: Line 474:
*'''Support''' getting a lot of coverage/attention and the article looks decent. I was a bit surprised this wasn't already on the main page. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' getting a lot of coverage/attention and the article looks decent. I was a bit surprised this wasn't already on the main page. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Ready''' by a straight !vote count the supports outweigh the opposes by 7. Some of the opposes complain about [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] which is invalid and contrary to the [[WP:ITN]] guidelines. The rationale really boils down to the opposes "just another mass shooting" vs the supports "this time it's different" (of which I'm one). Good discussion, the ayes have it. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Ready''' by a straight !vote count the supports outweigh the opposes by 7. Some of the opposes complain about [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] which is invalid and contrary to the [[WP:ITN]] guidelines. The rationale really boils down to the opposes "just another mass shooting" vs the supports "this time it's different" (of which I'm one). Good discussion, the ayes have it. --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:* This nomination is older than every single thing on ITN already, so is stale. It would therefore be ridiculous to replace ITN blurbs with less relevant, older content. It would be a really poor precedent to be set to remove an event that happened on 17 March from ITN blurb to replace it with an event from 16 March. Therefore, I have marked this as stale, instead of ready. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:* <s>This nomination is older than every single thing on ITN already, so is stale. It would therefore be ridiculous to replace ITN blurbs with less relevant, older content. It would be a really poor precedent to be set to remove an event that happened on 17 March from ITN blurb to replace it with an event from 16 March. Therefore, I have marked this as stale, instead of ready. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:* The relevant guideline is [[Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting]] point 3: " Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box." All events on the current ITN blurb happened on 17 March UTC time, whereas this happened on 16 March UTC time (17:00 Atlanta time = 22:00 UTC). [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:* The relevant guideline is [[Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting]] point 3: " Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box." All events on the current ITN blurb happened on 17 March UTC time, whereas this happened on 16 March UTC time (17:00 Atlanta time = 22:00 UTC). [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)</s>
:* Apologies, my timings were off- [[Pritzker Architecture Prize]] was announced 10am Eastern US/15:00 UTC on 16 March, which was before this shooting. So my above stale comment seems not to apply- have struck and marked it as ready again. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#000000">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 01:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


==== Mar. 14-16 sandstorm ====
==== Mar. 14-16 sandstorm ====

Revision as of 01:47, 19 March 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.

Nemo
Nemo

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

March 19

March 19, 2021 (2021-03-19) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

March 18

March 18, 2021 (2021-03-18) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Major Olímpio

Article: Major Olímpio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UOL.com (in Portuguese); Globo.com (in PT)
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 senator. Another Covid victim. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Spanish legalization of euthanasia

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 21:53, 18 March 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: Legality of euthanasia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Spanish Congress of Deputies approves the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in a 202–141–2 vote. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Spanish Congress of Deputies votes 202–141–2 to approve the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, becoming the 4th EU country to do so.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Spanish Congress of Deputies votes 202–141–2 to approve definitively the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with serious and incurable diseases who want to end their life, making it the fourth country in the European Union to do so.
News source(s): RTE
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: 4rth EU country to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide 72.68.176.223 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is no article about assisted suicide in Spain that we can evaluate. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It'd need a larger section in the 'Legality of euthanasia' article, or another article, before it's worth considering since people clicking on it would want to read into it. It's getting attention in international news, so it's notable. As for the blurbs I don't think there's any point adding how the votes went as it's just confusing - people who want that information should be able to click on an article. Uses x (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "4th EU country..." says it all. While the legalization of euthanasia is a major issue, we don't track "latecomers" to pass legislation to that. --Masem (t) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem. And not covered much. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good-faith nomination, but we tend not to post the 4th (or sometimes even 2nd) country to legalize something. Perhaps if they were the first in the region to do it, then it would be more significant.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Fine and big news for Spain, not internationally though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting the 4th of something. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good news but not blurb worthy. Vacant0 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 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.

March 17

March 17, 2021 (2021-03-17) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Steve Jagielka

Article: Steve Jagielka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Shropshire Star
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 footballer, 43. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the article is under 1200 characters, so only a stub. I hope there's more that can be found, but I couldn't find much on a quick search. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agreed that it needs to be expanded. I looked into the charity matches, but I can only find one mention and he's not even the focus of the article. Uses x (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Cvijan

Article: Vladimir Cvijan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Beta
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: Serbian politician. Actually died in 2018, but just confirmed today. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Died in 2018? They thought he was in the United States? This is an odd case. The article before the updating is a stub that doesn't mention his disappearance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only media that mentioned his disappearance was the Tabloid Magazine which actually discovered his death a few days ago. In this article from 2019, they claimed that he was a protected witness in the United States. No other media ever mentioned his dissaperance or possibility of him being dead until a few days ago when it was discovered that he died in 2018 under suspicious circumstances.
  • Oppose Way too late, potential DYK. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITN/RD: "Individuals who disappear are eligible for a recent deaths entry for the day they are declared dead in absentia, subject to the standard criteria above if there is no concurrent blurb about the disappearance." That policy also says RDs can be from the "date of announcement". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and DYK Considering the novelty of the case and the already-done expansion, that's a perfect (and more high profile) place for this.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
¿Por que no los dos? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, but I won't oppose the nom in any case. I just think an actual blurb would be merited, and the ITNRD blurb requirements prevent it here. There's a few things under Works which need references, but the B(elated)BLP is otherwise in good order.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now made a DYK nom. That shouldn't affect the discussion here, though. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD. It's an odd case certainly, but I'm not aware of a time limit on the "use the date the death was announced" clause. It also closely parallels the declared death in absentia case, which is explicitly permitted. Yesterday he was not officially dead. Today he is. That's it. Quality looks OK too, so good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD his death was announced yesterday, and so is eligible for RD. We couldn't have had him at RD in 2018, as he was presumed alive. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Notable, high-profile case, as the death discovered now we could not have had it in RD 3 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elserbio00 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Notable person for RD Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Odd, indeed but good enough for RD CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Abel Prize

Proposed image
Avi Wigderson and László Lovász
Articles: Avi Wigderson (talk · history · tag) and László Lovász (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mathematicians Avi Wigderson and László Lovász (both pictured) share the Abel Prize for their work in complexity theory and graph theory. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mathematicians Avi Wigderson and László Lovász (both pictured) share the Abel Prize for their work in theoretical computer science and discrete mathematics.
News source(s): The New York Times, Quanta Magazine, Nature
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 2021 award of the Abel Prize, "regarded as the [mathematics] equivalent of the Nobel" (NYT). The first blurb uses the more specific fields given by the Quanta article while the altblurb mirrors the official Abel Prize citation. — MarkH21talk 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) John Magufuli

Proposed image
Articles: John Magufuli (talk · history · tag) and Samia Suluhu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Tanzania John Magufuli dies at the age of 61. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President of Tanzania John Magufuli dies at the age of 61 and is succeeded by his vice-president, Samia Suluhu.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Vice-president Samia Suluhu becomes Tanzania's first female president after the death of John Magufuli at the age of 61.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death of an incumbent head of state would, I believe, almost certainly qualify for a blurb over RD. Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be a blurb; the article quality is close but isn't good enough yet. Depending on how the succession works, we may want to include the new President in the blurb. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added in alt-blurb. Sceptre (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that say that Suluhu has been sworn in; the only sourcing in the Wiki article is the constitution of Tanzania. If we're going for a merged blurb, we need to wait (hopefully only an hour or two) for coverage of the succession. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose a few citations needed. And we ought to include the current reason for his death having taken such a different approach to Covid. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article President of Tanzania is not in good shape; it currently has only three sentences and a chart. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not being targeted. But you could have List of heads of state of Tanzania if you like. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The death of an incumbent head of state is not ITN/R. The succession of a new head of state is ITN/R. So, I oppose any blurb that doesn't include Suluhu. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally post the deaths of heads of state while in office anyway though, no? A recurring scenario doesn't have to be ITN/R to get posted. Mlb96 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we? The death of an incumbent head of state means a change in head of state. So, what are we actually posting? The death, or the succession? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb it feels like yesterday when I last read his wiki page. Rest in peace Magufuli and good luck to the incoming Suluhu administration. Thanks Sceptre for nominating this so quickly. Dan the Animator 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1 - Magufuli's article is in pretty good shape, but Suluhu's could use more sources. Alt blurb 1 includes all the relevant details without being too long. Poydoo can talk and edit 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 Magufuli's death is getting sufficient news coverage and Suluhu's succession is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1 Regardless of whether succession is ITN/R, Magufuli's death is the bigger story here. His death should be the first thing in the blurb imo. Mlb96 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the VP succeed to the presidency once the president had died? ITNR covers the succession of a head of state. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt1. Both articles look in on condition to me, and we can bold Samia Suluhu as a second target article, but I think the bigger story probably is the death at the moment. Marking as ready, unless there's anything I'm missing, an admin can pick some formulation to go with.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I orange tagged early life there is one ref that doesn't support section, and some content without refs. Maybe more in other sections, it's late here I won't be checking the rest of the refs tonight. Neutral once the ref issues are fixed --LaserLegs (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently massive content edits are automatically approved but adding an orange tag gets "pending review"? shrugs good night y'all --LaserLegs (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt1. The death of a siting head of state, especially of a relatively large country like Tanzania, is certainly worthy of a mention. The Samia Suluhu article could and should be improved I admit, but references about her should be more available now that she is the country's president, and the first woman at that. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rm ready; orange-tag for an unreferenced section. SpencerT•C 03:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either alt No notability concerns. It's not ready on quality yet, but the article's not in terrible shape by any means, so it shouldn't take too long to address the orange tag.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb for the death of any sitting head of state, which should be ITN/R as it results in a succession. Davey2116 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-2 Looks fine and ITN/R. Gotitbro (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-1 which is the only appropriate blurb here Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-1 the main focus should be on his death, to me blurb 2 makes it seem like his death is a positive thing (maybe it's worth rephrasing). Certainly blurb-worthy as it's the death of a national leader. Uses x (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt1. Article seems good enough on a quick look. I'm not convinced he was transformative of politics in the same way Mandela or Thatcher were, but being a sitting head of government (so there's now a new one) tips it over the edge for me. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 1 per Uses X. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Interesting case, partly due to RS-reported Covid rumors. (Not that we would want to go there.) Prefer Alt2 but Alt1 would be OK. (In both, "the age of" is unnec. as that will be understood.) – Sca (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - the orange tag issue has now been resolved, and although I !voted above, there's plenty of support here anyway so I'll strike my vote and posted. There is somewhat more support for Alt1 than Alt2. Hopefully this isn't controversial!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Levine

Article: James Levine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/obituaries/james-levine-dead.html
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The death itself was more than 7 days ago (on 9 March), but it was only announced today. sentausa (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: not sure about the nomination credits: JG4236 seems to have indef blocked, and Zuzazu777 seems to have only made one minor edit. Will leave to the poster to decide though. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support added a couple of citation needed tags, but that shouldn't stop it from running. A good quality article, that focuses appropriately on the allegations (i.e. not too much focus on them). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sabine Schmitz

Article: Sabine Schmitz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky 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: Queen of the Nürburgring. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well known in car circles for her work on Top Gear and activities on the Nürburgring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalty254 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's notability should not be a basis for supporting or opposing; all people with Wikipedia articles are presumed important enough to post to RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quick scan looks like everything is sourced and well written. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's a couple of uses of The Sun newspaper, which need replacing, as per WP:THESUN. Also, mentions she joined Top Gear, but did she leave Top Gear? And the "Race results" section is unsourced. Minor issues, and once fixed, will be happy to support. Still remember when she drove a van round the Nürburgring- possibly the best Top Gear episode ever. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now the issues I highlighted have been resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; of note however she was never intended to front the Top Gear crew post Clarkson; other than be in a similar role to the Stig. I haven't found any sources that say otherwise Nightfury 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I watched the van on the Nurburgring episode that Joseph mentions today. Top class entertainment.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pwning Jeremy Clarkson by going round the Nürburgring in a Ford Transit was brilliant! Rest in peace.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 America's Cup

Article: 2021 America's Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sailing, the America's Cup concludes with Team New Zealand beating Italy's Luna Rossa. (Post)
News source(s): 1 News
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: Completion of this year's America's Cup, which is retained by New Zealand.  Nixinova   T   C   04:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support ITN/R, and article's ship-shape. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Smooth sailing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the sections on Venue, Boats and Nationality are too short. Merging them maybe needed. Otherwise, the article's fine... I can't think of any sailing puns... 45.251.33.203 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Timeline section needs sourcing. Also should the blurb be "wins" or "win"- in British English, I would say "Team New Zealand win", but not sure if that grammar is correct in New Zealand. Once timeline is sourced, then I will support, as ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the top event in the Olympic sport of sailboat racing (and more Greek storms should've been posted too) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "we don't post A because we didn't post a completely unrelated B". Sorry guys. This is a little bit sad to be honest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Maybe it should be since it is very poor, that significant weather disasters aren't posted on the main page but boat races are automatically accepted.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need me to explain how ITNR works? Have you or your Avengers tried creating a proposal for your weather systems at ITNR? No, I didn't think so. Sad. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes me and several editors have tried to work with you guys and work out some criteria and figure out whats notable enough for WP;ITN and Wikipedia as a whole including here & here. However, we don't get anywhere for various reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, clearly the community doesn't place as much value on the weather as you guys. If you don't want to see sailing or boat races or whatever else on ITNR, start as many delist discussions as you see fit. I don't see you doing that, just throwing some toys out that your weather didn't get posted. It won't stop this being posted either, it'll just have a negative impact on any future weather nominations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would have an effect on future weather nominations. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, not hold personal grudges, after all. – atomic𓅊7732 01:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us are yes, some people clearly are not. Cheers for your input! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per @HurricaneCovid, Hurricane Noah, Zagalejo, and LightandDark2000:.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I cringe at the grammatically dubious phrase "the America's cup", even though that's apparently what it's called. Other editors' objections are worthy of consideration even if they contradict ITN/R. There is a big disclaimer at the top of that page reminding people to apply common sense and consider exceptions. Einsof (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually an explanation for this one: the America is a boat, not the USA. Fun! AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an explanation. I can't think of a single construction of the form "the [proper noun]'s [other noun]" that sounds grammatical. It should be "America's cup" or "the America cup". Einsof (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that is the explanation. Whether you like it or not! It was America's Cup. Fun!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only way that could pass as an explanation is if the ship were named The America (hence "the" would be part of the proper noun), but it's not—the name was just America. So it's either "the America cup" or "America's cup" (no definite article). Not sure what the explanation for this weirdness is. Einsof (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's called America's Cup, the boat was called America and the cup is named for the ship, i.e it was America's Cup. It's not weird in the slightest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I think you misunderstood the objection. "America's cup" is fine. "The America's cup" isn't because that kind of proper noun construction doesn't take the definite article in English. Einsof (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand I think. "the America's Cup" is fine too. It doesn't have to follow rules of logic for it to be correct. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue of grammar, not logic. Einsof (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps you've been learning the wrong thing. "The America's Cup" is perfectly grammatically correct. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as noted, the Timeline section needs sourcing, as do the two tables used in the article. The first table also has some entries struck out, which should be accompanied by an explanation as to why. After that it's good to go. The above opposes will not be considered, as consensus is clear that ITN/R entries can only be opposed on quality grounds. If you want to remove this from ITN/R then go and propose the change at WT:ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: As i said in my oppose consensus can change and sometimes its good to challenge the norm especially when disasters that are causing major disaster declarations to be issued are opposed and not posted.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, consensus can change. But if that's the case, the place to bring that up is on the ITN talk page which is where we discuss additions and removals from the ITN/R list. The whole purpose of ITN/R is to avoid having to pointlessly regurgitate the same arguments year after year. As Einsof notes, WP:IAR (a.k.a. common sense) may occasionally apply, but there's nothing here to suggest that's necessary. Admins considering ITN entries routinely discount opposes of ITN/R and RD nominations on notability grounds and this is no exception.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Amakuru: I think the fact that five editors have decided to come here and oppose this nomination, means that it is worth discussing why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "it is worth discussing why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page" - of course, you're entitled to have such a discussion but this is simply the wrong venue for that discussion, and it's almost certainly too late to effect a change in the recurring items list for this year. If you do start such a discussion, I advise you to come up with some better reasons than "Cyclone X, Y and Z were not listed". Those nominations were decided on their own merits, and have no bearing on the suitability or otherwise of the America's cup.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wow, this is like "WikiProject Hurricanes Assemble!!!!!". Nice try lads. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of the day @The Rambling Man: things have to change around here and why the America's cup is so notable to go up on the main page when several major disasters arent notable enough is rather confusing.Jason Rees (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid this is rather pathetic. The objections given i.e. "oppose because we didn't get our weather posted" are all invalid and will simply be overlooked. By all means gather your troops for every news story, eventually they will all be TBAN-ed from ITNC. It's really sad to see this kind of unconstructive, disruptive and unhelpful co-ordinated terror attack on ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its rather pathetic, unconstructive, disruptive and unhelpful to see you constantly oppose weather events for stupid reasons such as it snows every year or a lack of deaths.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. What I don't do is co-ordinate a pathetic attack on ITNC and make a bunch of normally reasonable editors look foolish for no gain (in fact, the opposite). Really pathetic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I haven't coordinated an attack on WP:ITN/C - if I had I would have had a lot more editors, it just goes to show how people feel about the pathetic opposes that get put down about weather articles.Jason Rees (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Crews and Timeline sections are currently tagged with {{unreferenced section}}. Once that is resolved, I see no reason not to post. Titoxd(?!?) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - THIS IS ITN/R. Stop opposing on notability, as those opposes will be summarily ignored. If you have arguments about notability, take it up on the talk page and not here.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imagine how these discussions look to people who aren’t knee deep in Wiki culture. ITNR is not a mandate sent down from heaven. We can talk about this article here. Zagalejo (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Luckily, it's nowhere near close to a mandate from heaven. It's just a process that we all follow to establish consensus, the same way that we don't choose Presidents in the U.S. by mobbing the Capitol and declaring the previous election null and void. Consensus is not established via a bunch of aggrieved people showing up on a nom just because their favorite hurricane didn't get posted. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WaltCip: I would strongly suggest that you take a step back and look at what's been going on with WP:ITN recently, our opposes arent because our so-called favourite hurricane didn't get posted. Its because we are fed up with seeing significant disasters being opposed, closed within an hour and laughed at because it snows every year in the United States.Jason Rees (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want the process changed, do it on the talk page and not on an ITNR item, which when sufficiently updated, should be posted, will be posted, and indeed has been posted (though briefly pulled for article quality concerns). Your argument is one that has been brought up many times over the many years ITN has been around, and the answer is always the same each time. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And so far I haven't seen you or any of the other "oppose" !votes comment on the newly-formulated Remove ITN/R item on the talk page. Whenever you want to make your voice heard in the proper venue, please do. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "our opposes arent because our so-called favourite hurricane didn't get posted". Of course not. You all just pressed "Random Page" and ended up here simultaneously. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • At the end of the day @Black Kite and WaltCip: there is something wrong if a typhoon whose name is later retired for causing significant damage can't be posted but some random boat race can. Also, I would strongly suggest that you take a good step back if you think we are nominating hurricanes just because we like them, as I can guarantee you that we would rather not see the damage or deaths associated with them.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            I don't think "random page" includes project pages does it? So there's that excuse out of the water!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            I came here because I was curious how the Atlanta shootings were being discussed. I don't look at ITN every day. Zagalejo (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will support, upon sourcing issues addressed per ITNR. Also, can someone interested go fix America's Cup#2021 America's Cup. (It is certainly tragic that natural and man-made disasters occur much more frequently than this race, but those arguments are quite irrelevant). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment marked as ready, unsourced sections have been removed/addressed and no substance in the weather-based opposition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality issues fixed. Can the weather posse head over to Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Remove_ITN/R:_America's_Cup and make your arguments there. P-K3 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted (with an ENGVAR-compliant blurb), ITN/R, feel free to carry on arguing. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on quality grounds (obviously - since that's the only valid reason for opposing!!). Urggh so I've looked at it again, and unfortunately I can see the usual issue with this sort of nomination - there's no prose covering the actual event despite there being some on the qualifiers. As with golf and tennis tournaments, we need at least a paragraph or two to summarise what went down and who the winners and losers were in prose form. Removing "ready" for the time being, hopefully that can be added soon and we can move on with our lives.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: sorry, we edit conflicted but this is not ready yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right - sorry, I read the "Qualifying event" part as the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled. See above. Quality issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and snow close Completely unnotable, not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now. Seems more like a timely distraction from real events in America. That this was even considered for ITN/R is laughable. Albertaont (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Albertaont (1) It is automatically eligible for ITN, as it is included on WP:ITN/R (2) Snow closes are for unanimous or otherwise obvious consensuses, and any oppose here that does not address quality issues rather than notability ones is automatically invalid anyway - see (1). Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to think this is a concentrated effort to make a WP:POINT. Like Jesus Christ, how many times do people have to say ITNR EVENTS AUTOMATICALLY PASS THE NOTABILITY CRITERIA.  Nixinova   T   C   18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Small nit: an individual event normally of an ITNR may be of so little importance as to be deemed not appropriate for ITNC even if it passed the quality mark. (For example, we used that with Chang'e 5, holding off posting when it successfully completed its sample-and-return from the moon rather than other ITNR points for space missions) This is a IAR-type rule however, and depends on the situation greatly. That said, I certainly don't see this iteration of the America's Cup - nothing unusual about this iteration of the race to not have it featured on the main page after quality improvements. It is definitely wrong for editors to be !voting and arguing about the notability of the Cup event in broad terms, particularly as it is one of the top events in competitive sailing in the world. If they want to argue about removing that ITNR, WT:ITN is thataway. --Masem (t) 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Albertaont: Completely unnotable, not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now. If completely "unnotable" then I suggest America's Cup is taken to WP:AFD where it's sure to be deleted of course. If by "not found in any of the major news sources as a story right now", do you mean it's covered in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald etc etc? Which part of your oppose had any foundation in the truth? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3,200 words. Time to do something with it. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're like that guy at a concert always yelling at the band to play Free Bird.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked Ready. I've added a piece of prose to the Cup Match section (there's probably more that can be added, but the table gives you the results of each race and they all looked fairly straightforwrd apart from the 8th, which I've mentioned). Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ITN/R is ITN/R. If you want it not to be posted, get it taken off ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

March 16, 2021 (2021-03-16) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Moudud Ahmed

Article: Moudud Ahmed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dhaka Tribune
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: Bangladeshi politician; former prime minister. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Pritzker prize

Proposed image
Articles: Anne Lacaton (talk · history · tag) and Jean-Philippe Vassal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal are jointly awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Architecture's highest award, on ITNR. Unusually this year's winners are a duo famous for low-cost renovations of existing structures, not flashy new builds. Lacaton's article has a few uncited paragraphs; I'll get on those. Vassal's article was only created yesterday; it's short but adequately referenced. Modest Genius talk 14:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) Atlanta spa shootings

Article: 2021 Atlanta spa shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A series of mass shootings at three massage parlors in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., leaves eight dead and one injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A series of mass shootings at three massage parlors in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., leaves eight dead and one injured, including the deaths of six Asian American women.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the United States, a series of mass shootings at three massage parlors in Atlanta leaves eight dead, including six women of Asian descent.
News source(s): CNN, NPR, NYT, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major breaking story in the U.S. Believed to be an act of anti-Asian hate. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and comment If we cover this, we should make a mention of anti-AAPI hate. I recognize the story is "still developing." I'll also note that there have been over 3800 anti-AAPI hate incidents in the past year[1] magnified by Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic and this is a boiling point getting national attention. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fourth mass shooting of the year so far to make it to a Wikipedia article. As noted above, this kind of race hate crime seems to be highly commonplace and while this is obviously even more tragic than usual, it's still a case of "business as usual". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait it's a disaster stub. Notability comes from it being a hate crime, if confirmed before staleness. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or an Incel attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like both. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also the guy went to three different massage parlors and killed six Asian women. There was nothing random about this, this was a targetted killing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per UNDUE. The racial angle to this is tenuous and circumstantial, yet it is inappropriately and strongly inferred in the article. 6 Asians, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic sounds about right for a random mix of people in a massage parlor. While the crime itself is I think notable, the article must be toned down significantly unless and until there is some sort of unambiguous statement (from the perpetrator or victim) otherwise.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whats with the racist angle behind "6 Asians, 2 Whites and 1 Hispanic sounds about right for a random mix of people in a massage parlor." Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? Its clear this is a racial attack, did we ever get an unambiguous statement from death of George Floyd (hint: he was dead) or from the cops (hint: admitting culpability) about it being a racially motivated? Albertaont (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you think the event itself is notable, but your problem is that the article accurately follows the sources by mentioning the significance of most victims being Asian? I hope that whoever determines the consensus isn't counting this utterly bizarre !vote...  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(to both above) Well, it's certainly good that we at least gave this a day to develop, because if we're "following sources" then the original slant of the article and the nomination has fallen apart. There's a preponderance of evidence that this was sexual frustration or addiction or revenge, including statements by the perpetrator and hospital logs and others. You're zealousness on this issue is COATRACKing a tragedy.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In general, a series of mass shootings in the United States is not news that merits inclusion mainly because of the extremely loose policies on possession and acquisition of firearms. The real news to post would be a policy response that would restrict access to guns or impose stricter gun control, thereby reducing the likelihood that similar events might happen in the near future, as was the case with the Nova Scotia attacks last year when the Canadian government promptly responded (see that discussion).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per all of the above; Shootings in the US are very common in the nation due to lax gun laws, also the low death toll in the single digits doesn’t help either. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And lax gun violence sentences and social safety nets and free therapists/counselors and psychiatrists and high ownership rates (especially in some states). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per User:Kiril Simeonovski. "Long was a hunter and "into religion"". Not a happy ending. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there have been 4 notable (i.e. they have Wikipedia articles) shootings in the US this year. Whilst this one has the most deaths, that still doesn't make it ITN worthy when unfortunately mass shootings in the US are common. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly a targeted hate crime/domestic terrorism and not "just another shooting". It took a while to piece together the separate attacks, but more R/S like CNN and BBC are now saying this was racially motivated. That IP "users" are downplaying the nature of the attacks should also be noted. Albertaont (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment – Widely hyped due to disreputable connotations of the crime scene, but notions of race/hate significance are sketchy. Unfortunately for the U.S., significance is slight. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even if this ends up being a racially-motivated domestic terrorism attack, that would be far too commonplace for the U.S. for this to be posted. --Masem (t) 14:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It just doesn't meet that threshold of notability generally required for such events. WaltCip-(talk) 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very much in the news, probably the biggest story in the U.S., on the front pages of all the national outlets I just checked (CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.), and it's very much relevant in the moment as we need to Stop AAPI Hate (I know, I know, WP:RGW, but this is why this shooting has become big news and those "others" we've had this year haven't). Also the article is in good shape. I nearly nominated this last night but I knew that the typical brigade that doesn't want to post any U.S. gun shootings would shoot it down. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful, y'all have talk pages if you want to continue --LaserLegs (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • No, we'd talk it down. No guns here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'd probably massage it down. But there still might not be happy ending. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ninth on the BBC homepage I see, really not of interest, but the article highlights the overwhelming crass stupidity: Hate crimes against Asian-Americans spiked in recent months, fuelled by rhetoric that blames them for the spread of Covid-19. I'd like to say "unbelievable" but sadly it's not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Shoot it down" pun was not intended. You non-Americans really do not understand American gun culture or the problems that we have with it. Not understanding it does not make it not newsworthy per ITN standards. And this is tied in with the results of Trump calling it the "China Virus" for a full year. We have a problem with violence against AAPI in our country right now, and it is newsworthy outside of the gun violence issue. "Unpredictable" is not an ITN judgment criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You non-Americans really do not understand American gun culture or the problems that we have with it. ooookkkkk. I think my "being patronising" jar just started to overflow. The death of Sabine Schmitz is far more important and longer-lasting than this story. And yes, we do understand and who said anything about "unpredictable"? This shooting is altogether predictable much like all the other shootings. The fourth so far this year to get its own article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That came off stronger than I wanted, but so many of these dismissive comments are ridiculous. The widespread AAPI violence in the U.S. is a bigger deal with greater impact than the death of a racecar driver dying of cancer, what a ridiculous comparison. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. I know which one makes more of an impact to most of the rest of the world. And an incel shooting? Please, give me strength. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop feeding the troll. Nobody thinks a hate crime by a sex-deprived white supremacist resulting in the deaths of innocent asian women is less impactful than the passing of an amateur racecar driver from natural causes. Or maybe they do, but that says more about them than anything else. Albertaont (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disengaged from this conversation already. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Far more consequential than the sports and pop culture stuff that gets posted with ease. Zagalejo (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least we've avoided the Meghan & Harry show. So far. And sports is/are always consequential – somebody wins, somebody loses! – Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Comment looks like it's incel, not MAGA - at least according to the suspect --LaserLegs (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. With The Chosun Ilbo's latest reporting that the shooter said he wanted to shoot all Asians, it seems pretty clear that initial assumptions about the motive were unfortunately correct. ITN has always placed increased importance on ideologically-motivated shootings vs. non-ideological shootings, even if they have relatively lower fatality counts and take place in the USA (e.g. Charleston church shooting - 9 dead, 1 wounded, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - 8 dead, 3 wounded Dallas anti-police shootings - 6 dead, 11 wounded, Santa Barbara incel shooting - 7 dead, 14 wounded, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting - 11 dead, 7 wounded). Also not really a criterion but the last ITN item up right now is over two weeks old. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a murder spree with significant deaths and global coverage. Would hold back on connecting with anti-Asian attacks until non-speculative reports published, but otherwise should be clear. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Incel? Sex addict? Anti-Asian racist? Anti-porn crusader? Nobody knows, but definitely drawing eyeballs. Einsof (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question this is the 98th mass shooting of 2021 in the United States (according to Wikipedia). Is it just the number killed that makes this more notable than the others? Another mass shooting on the same day in Houston killed four but doesn't even get a mention. Or is it the lurid nature of a sex addict going rogue that makes this tabloid enough for people to write more about it (on top of the race hate speculation which seems to be going away)...? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 98 mass shootings listed, only 5 or so have an article. This is one of the ones that generated enough news coverage to deserve an article, and consideration here. The "why" is likely the AAPI angle, as the nonsense about his libido didn't come out until today, after coverage was already significant. Plus it was a spree killer going to three different places to shoot people, who apparently was planning on crossing state lines to kill more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, but the "angle" seems to have been somewhat dismissed now. Is it really hard to cross state lines then? Are there checkpoints and border crossings or is it like me driving from (say) Suffolk to Norfolk? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because he says it was because of his "sexual addiction" doesn't make it so. We need to wait and see to determine if there was racism at play. Even if it wasn't, it gets into a whole 'nother issue with these "spas" if that is the case. We do not have checkpoints on state borders. The point there is that it's noteworthy that his spree wasn't over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: let it go, you know better than to try. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I boldy changed the article's title to 2021 Metro Atlanta spa shootings because one of them was in Acworth, an Atlanta suburb 30 miles from the city itself. I explained why on the move page comment and on the talk page too. I'll update any links to it I can find. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you've already been reverted. A move of a high-profile article usually needs a discussion first.P-K3 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is a bit short, but with the suspects motive disclosed it provides an answer for "why". I don't think either rationale (MAGA or incel) belongs in the blurb. The fact is, Asian massage parlors were deliberately targeted, and six of the eight victims were Asian. This was not random, nor was it the consequence of some other crime, it was a deliberate attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The proposed blurb is appropriate. I note the event received limited coverage in the initial hours after the attack, but has since exploded and is all over the news currently. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready article is as good as any new article, support exists to post --LaserLegs (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and I sincerely hope that the blurb mentions that six of the victims were Asian. I would add an altblurb myself, but I'm not sure how to word it. (edit: Support Altblurb now that it exists) With all due respect to TRM, I don't care what the shooter himself says. It's pretty hard to find a source that doesn't explicitly and prominently mention that most of the victims are Asian, and it is the secondary sources that decide what aspects of the story are most notable. I'm not saying that we need to use Wikipedia's voice to term it a hate crime (yet), as I'm going to wait for more sources to call it one, but it would be incredibly silly to exclude something that pretty much every existing source puts in the headline or subheading just because the perpetrator says that he totally doesn't have anything against Asian people.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the Ready tag. There are 10 Support and 9 Oppose comments, that definitely isn't a consensus to post at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant domestic and international press coverage; moreso than "run of the mill" US mass shootings. SpencerT•C 03:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not seeing much news coverage on this. The top US news currently trending appears to be how Biden called Putin a killer and is going to retaliate for the election meddling. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's not going to be on the CNN world tab, because the CNN world tab excludes all United States news... you could just go to the cnn.com webpage and see that the top story displayed in the largest font is the one we're talking about here. Your method of seeing if a story is getting "much news coverage" (or even seeing what the "top US news" currently is) seems to be flawed, to say the least.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean the CNN world tab excludes all US news? I'm seeing this headline there: "Biden says he believes Putin is a killer and Moscow 'will pay a price' for meddling in the 2020 election". Banedon (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it now and I apologize for the inaccuracy: they appear to exclude domestic US news. That particular story made it into the world tab because it's also about Russia & international relations. All of that said, I fail to see the relevancy. Of course the Biden-Putin drama isn't the #1 US news story right now, because to find out what the top US news is, you don't need to add /world to the URL... not to mention that the world tab of an American website isn't a good way to figure out how relevant an American story is around the world. For that, you'd want to go to a non-American website entirely, such as the BBC (where this is currently the #1 story).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that the CNN world tab did not feature, e.g., Biden's election victory? That piece of domestic US news was in the world tabs I looked at. Right now BBC also has the death of Tanzania's president as the top piece of news, although this is second (if one reads left to right). Banedon (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top news in CNN International for me is "White supremacy and hate haunt Asian Americans", followed by Megxit and Biden calling Putin a killer. To deny this is reported outside the States is delusional. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top news in CNN World for me right now is "Covid-19 drove hundreds of Africans out of Guangzhou. A generation of mixed-race children is their legacy" followed by "Taiwan urges citizens not to change their name to 'salmon' to get free sushi", "President who urged citizens to 'pray coronavirus away' dies", "China's ambassador to US doesn't have 'high expectations' for Alaska summit" and "Dead Sea Scroll fragments found in desert cave". So nope, still opposed. Banedon (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still fourth story on CNN International, still above the fold; pushing down Africans in Guangzhou story. Checked out their Spanish edition, and it is the #2 story. People here have filibustered long enough though so the opportunity for this item has passed. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have an explicit link for this? As I said, I am simply not seeing this story on CNN World. Hell, it isn't even in the Americas section, where the top story is "Exclusive: Former Brazilian leader Lula leaves door open for return as he slams leaders' pandemic response". Banedon (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added an alt-blurb to mention the deaths of six Asian American women. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing Someone smarter than me made a good point, this is not notable at all as an individual event as AAPI violence is the norm in the US. Ongoing seems more appropriate given that mass shootings recur with fair regularity in the United States over the past year. Albertaont (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been both a Support and a Support ongoing from this user. Might lead to a double counting if votes were tallied to check consensus. 202.8.114.174 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new event, there is no reason to relegate it to ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not to sound callous, but we haven't posted many American mass shootings in a while, and this one is all over international news. In addition, this story has an added layer of relevance as it fits into a broader surge in anti-Asian American violence and racism. Davey2116 (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have not posted other similar mass shootings and this is no different from them other than the presumed race angle, which shouldn't count towards a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree this is getting a lot of coverage because of the victims chosen, but we are not obligated and usually do not follow the media's cue in such matters. Mass shooters are typically aggrieved by something (real or imagined); the motivations here do not rise above the ordinary. I doubt it will be of ongoing historical interest (like Columbine, Parkland or Sandy Hook). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added ALT II: Georgia probably doesn't need to be included and certainly does not need to be linked—Atlanta is a major city. The women victims were of Asian descent; it's unsourced that they were Americans. The number injured is less significant, and was removed.—Bagumba (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 2. This is not your "typical" US shooting, it's still getting a lot of coverage two days after the event. The article quality is fine and posting it will be a service to our readers. The Asian angle should be mentioned in the blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT II The victims' demographics—women and Asian—is the main story, not the mode of killing itself. Sexually frustrated man kills women. Climate of rising Asian hate crime. Asian fetish phenomena.("Robert Aaron Long, the Atlanta-area shootings and the way white men look at Asian American women". The Independent) This is all a story even without a definitive motive. And the blurb will anyways be NPOV. Let the readers be informed and make their own judgement. We've posted domestic stories before, like the Charlotteville car ramming. Don't tell me we'd post if a car was involved instead of guns.—Bagumba (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Withdrew my oppose in view of second-day RS coverage of assertions of anti-Asian motives [2] [3] [4], which I don't necessarily buy. Still in the news, whatever opinions we may have. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not headline news outside of the United States, aside from news organizations that already have an international focus. Really, just another US mass shooting that'll quickly be forgotten. Uses x (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt or alt2. Article is of sufficient quality, and 40k page views on the first day means readers are interested. Some editors may not think this is a significant news story, but the readers do, and that's whose opinion matters. Also not for nothing but as an American I get really offended by the "oh it's just another shooting in the US" line of opposition. We post kidnappings in Africa and landslides in Asia. There is no rule that common tragedies are not ITN-worthy, nor is any such rule applied outside the US, and I'd ask some of my colleagues to try harder to hide their anti-American bias. Levivich harass/hound 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Vanilla Wizard and Levivich; the blurb should mention that six of the victims were Asian. Some1 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Mass fatality incidents from shootings are uncommon in the U.S., despite what non-American Wikipedia editors may assume. Given that this appears to be a hate crime, or at least a crime involving "incels", it should be posted. We included the Isla Vista killings in 2014, didn't we? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is now a stale nomination: everything on the ITN blurb now happened since this event (as they all happened on 17 March, the shooting was on 16 March). So would be illogical to add this and remove a newer ITN blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tragic but par for the course. 15 shot, 2 fatally, in a mass shooting two days prior to this mass shooting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's the problem with lumping all shootings into this "mass shooting" category. It's true that there are a lot of incidents in the US where multiple people get shot. They're not all the same. This one is unique, which is why it's getting so much media coverage. Levivich harass/hound 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is with rightists and Chicago derangement syndrome? Every time a triggered incel MAGAt goes off the rails and kills innocent people in some racially motivated attack we get this endless parade of "What about Chicago" and "What about black on black violence" while the whole sad gang just parrots the inane nonsense from Faux Noise. He later updated that statement, saying there was a disturbance “among several patrons and gunfire erupted striking multiple people.” -- if you wait literally a day or two you find out that the violence in Chicago is almost always due to domestic violence or organized crime not at all the white nationalist terrorism sweeping the country but oh no whenever this happens we can't consider context instead the rightists have to shriek about Chicago and the foreigners cluck their tongues and insist "well what do you expect this sort of thing happens all the time in America". #sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The opposes almost had me, but Levivich is right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support getting a lot of coverage/attention and the article looks decent. I was a bit surprised this wasn't already on the main page. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready by a straight !vote count the supports outweigh the opposes by 7. Some of the opposes complain about WP:OTHERSTUFF which is invalid and contrary to the WP:ITN guidelines. The rationale really boils down to the opposes "just another mass shooting" vs the supports "this time it's different" (of which I'm one). Good discussion, the ayes have it. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is older than every single thing on ITN already, so is stale. It would therefore be ridiculous to replace ITN blurbs with less relevant, older content. It would be a really poor precedent to be set to remove an event that happened on 17 March from ITN blurb to replace it with an event from 16 March. Therefore, I have marked this as stale, instead of ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting point 3: " Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box." All events on the current ITN blurb happened on 17 March UTC time, whereas this happened on 16 March UTC time (17:00 Atlanta time = 22:00 UTC). Joseph2302 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, my timings were off- Pritzker Architecture Prize was announced 10am Eastern US/15:00 UTC on 16 March, which was before this shooting. So my above stale comment seems not to apply- have struck and marked it as ready again. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mar. 14-16 sandstorm

Article: 2021 North China sandstorm (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A sandstorm from the Mongolian Plateau has caused at least 10 people died in Mongolia, several cities in Inner Mongolia shut down and half of China in sands. (Post)
News source(s): Casuality in Mongolia increased to 10; Strongest sandstorm of the decade, some cities shut down
Credits:

Nominator's comments: RIP. Article still needs some ongoing work. A Mar 15 satellite photo may be added from zoom.earth where Mongolia and half of China is in soil color, if NASA's photo is in public domain. 173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The content was mentioned in that article, but my edits was reverted and I was threatened not to edit that article. So please someone else add the casuality data into the article. The article is currently very China-centric. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (I undid that revert. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose on quality the article is still a stub, and has a neutrality template on it. Therefore, not currently good enough to be on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is too short, has referencing problems, is tagged with several "dubious" tags, and has other issues. Once this has been fixed, I will re-assess. --Jayron32 12:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable event, but reporting is a bit spotty currently. Going to see if I can improve the article a bit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Awful for people on the ground, but is it unusual? How much of that soil color is typical of the Gobi Desert, where "dust storms have increased ... in the past 20 years" – ?? — Sca (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Worst sandstorm in a decade" seems unusual? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless that means the Twenties, 75 days old. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sca: It is. Mongolia doesn't lose lots of nomads every spring due to sands. Sandstorms were common in the North China Plain in the late 20th century or even early 2000s, but people haven't seen it for decades; even for the city Yinchuan on the Loess Plateau this is the strongest sandstorm for the past 19 years. North China may not be that green during the winter but rarely turned into this color (checking just earlier images in zoom.earth we can see Hebei Province was turning green from a dry-grass/tree-bark color). Facilities in Inner Mongolia are built to be sandproof so simply some cities shut down their public transport system is an unusual thing. The only reason we have here is the article quality. I put the POV tag for a strong Sinocentric tendency in the article. Now it reappears, with a NASA disinformation diagram arrow. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Globalise isn’t the same as POV. And we can only write what the sources say, and the Western sources focus on China. If other sources exist, add information, but there’s no reason to add maintenance tags as a badge of shame or something. Yes, articles are a work in progress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that "in a decade" means for 10 years i.e. since 2011. If people meant since 2020, I would expect it to say "this decade". Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – At 300 words, the article is decidedly thin for Main Page presentation. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, for now – The subject is clearly worthy of an ITN posting. However, the article quality is currently rather lackluster, and thus, I cannot support this nomination right now. I'll change my vote if the article is brought up to standard. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on notability The article looks well-sourced, but it's still very thin. There's currently only one sentence about how it affected South Korea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clark M. Blatteis

Article: Clark M. Blatteis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Memphian; The Commercial Appeal
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 today (March 15). Not known outside of his field, but a giant in environmental physiology. BD2412 T 00:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please do not get me wrong. Legacy.com is not a WP:RS. Given the sensitivity of WP:ITNRD, you would agree with me that we should not be discussing nominations that are pending a mention in WP:RS. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopening based on listing in the Daily Memphian. BD2412 T 21:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with the above closure. While that might not be a RS in way of confirming biographical info, one would think a family-placed obituary is good enough to at least confirm a death date. Perhaps this will become moot at some point with some other website picking up on his death, but there is always a chance that this is the best we'll get, especially for some academics, and people long retired and out of the spotlight (another example is Bill O'Connor (American football)). Connormah (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can post it on RD with that level of sourcing, but I do agree with you that it shouldn't have been closed. Closure is for items that stand no chance of being posted, not for things where just one person has input into the process.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi folks. I was the one who closed this one, because I believed that we should not be discussing nominations (and definitely not posting), specially WP:ITNRD ones, that do not have a mention in WP:RS. But, if others disagree, please do revert the closure. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, perhaps it is a discussion for elsewhere, but I think there is some nuance in whether that is a RS or not. I think it should suffice for the simple fact that someone has died, though, of course, we'd prefer something better if available (though sometimes it is not). Connormah (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite confident that he has in fact died as reported. This is now also reported on the Legacy.com subpage for The Daily Memphian, which is a published source, but which hosts its obituaries on the website. How do we handle things when published newspapers use another website in this way? BD2412 T 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Legacy.com page was taken from that of a funeral director's site. The concensus (note: with very little discussion) on the reliable sources noticeboard is that they're not RS for specifics such as date of death as they're essentially self-published sources. [1] [2] I personally consider them reliable enough to add a date of death on an article as a placeholder, but I wouldn't say it's reliable enough to then link to the article on the front page, so I agree with the closure. Uses x (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
    I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. With less local news outlets as before, there are bound to be notable people by WP's standards that do not get news obituaries in bigger publications. I can see the argument against using these for sourcing biographical information as it is obviously written by the families, but for something as simple as a death date, the sole purpose of publishing an obituary, it's hard not to see why this cannot be used. It's not like newspapers just publish obituaries without any form of oversight confirming that a person has died. Connormah (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reopened the discussion since the Daily Memphian obituaries are available from its front page, even though the link leads to Legacy.com. @Ktin: let me know if you agree that this is sufficient. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @BD2412. I also found the obituary on Page 8 of The Commercial Appeal on March 16, 2021. Not able to find it online. But, this is good, imo. Ktin (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commercial Appeal syndicates Legacy.com content too. You can see the obituary on their Facebook page linking to it. Uses x (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Needs more coverage of his research; right now the article only states that he investigated the "physiologic mechanism that initiates fever and its associated reactions to infectious pathogens." Fortunately the Quan reference has thorough detail of his research, and a paragraph in the article based on that (particularly the final sentences for paragraphs in the Quan article) would make this a relatively quick fix. SpencerT•C 03:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spencer: I have added some details from the Quan piece. I'm not sure how far into the weeds to get with the technical terminology. BD2412 T 04:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very glad that an RS obit came out before this got stale. The description of his work is suitable, I think, and any more detailed would run afoul of JARGON. Refs spot checked.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose on source. I'd like for this to be posted before becoming stale, but just because a newspaper is syndicated with Legacy.com doesn't make it a RS. It's all coming from the obituary on the funeral director site which isn't RS for specifics as it's WP:SELFPUB ("The family of Dr. Clark Martin Blatteis created this Life Tributes page"). It's probably fine enough to update his article since it's not an exceptional claim, but in my view not good enough to post to the front page of Wikipedia. Uses x (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support With some Facebook searching I'm not going to link out of respect for privacy, it seems his colleagues and family members are confirming his death, so I'm now confident that it's reliable. Uses x (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

March 15, 2021 (2021-03-15) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ian Waddell

Article: Ian Waddell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Vancouver Sun
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 (March 16). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yaphet Kotto

Article: Yaphet Kotto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
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: US actor, Bond, Alien etc. Died 15/3, anounced today. Needs some citations. Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weal oppose for now, not in a horrible state, but several things (early roles in Career text, his religion in Personal Life section) need additional cites. --Jayron32 12:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-posting support Fixes have been made. --Jayron32 18:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Names is for ITN, baby. ——Serial 13:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BAM!! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If there were issues at the time of Jayron32's comment, I'm not seeing it now, we actually have a fully completely sourced filmography section here. --Masem (t) 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I applied a few citation needed tags. His religion is still unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now dealt with, Muboshgu ——Serial 16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I saw those just now and have fixed sourcing including the statement on his religion. --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted now that citations are provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (after the fact), a solid effort. BD2412 T 17:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stephen Bechtel Jr.

Article: Stephen Bechtel Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
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 industrialist. Article requires some work. Will get to it later tonight. If someone wants to get to it before, please feel free to get started. Expansion and edits done. Article has shaped into a neat C-class biography and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frankie de la Cruz

Article: Frankie de la Cruz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Ann Arbor 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: Only announced and reported today (March 15). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Vatican bars gay union blessing, says God 'can't bless sin'

Clearly no chance that this will be posted. Regards SoWhy 16:29, 15 March 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: Catholic Church and homosexuality (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rules against gay union blessing (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 15 March 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.
Sorry, misread. Might have supported if it concerned unionisation of staff in Vatican gay bars. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
lol Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

March 14, 2021 (2021-03-14) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

  • 2021 Myanmar protests
    • Security forces kill at least 54 anti-coup protesters in several cities, thirty-seven of whom were in Yangon. A policeman is also killed. It is the protests' deadliest day. The civilian Vice President, Mahn Win Khaing Than, says that they will pass legislation to "give people the right to defend themselves against the military" and calls for a "revolution" to overthrow the junta. Meanwhile, a junta spokesman labels the protesters as "criminals" but refuses to elaborate. (BBC News)
    • People armed with axes and crowbars attack and set ablaze ten Chinese factories and a hotel in Yangon, resulting in injuries to several Chinese nationals. Some protesters have accused the Chinese government of supporting the Burmese military. (BBC News)

Arts and culture

Health and environment

(Posted) RD: Sally Grossman

Article: Sally Grossman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
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: Woman in a red dress on the Bringing It All Back Home cover. Actually the wife of Bob Dylan's manager. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Only announced and reported today (March 14). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A pass should be taken on the article to de-puff the article. e.g. "noted for being a striking businessperson while eschewing media publicity". Furthermore, other than the album cover narrative there is not sufficient depth on her career. Noting her contributions that made her a "striking businessperson" will be good. Happy to change my vote once these have been addressed. Ktin (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has devolved into being unconstructive and, quite frankly, childish. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Direct quote from Rolling Stone obit: "Grossman developed a reputation as an imposing businessperson of her own – and one who also largely avoided the media spotlight." Restoring ready, since it seems you're grasping at straws to make a WikiCup oppose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is a legit oppose. The Ready tag was honestly premature. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman: Well, this isn't the first time this editor has attempted to pick apart one of my noms for frivolous reasons (he decided not to less than 30 minutes later). So I'm a bit skeptical over whether this is indeed a "legit oppose". The common denominator is we're both competing in the WikiCup. Unlike him, I don't vote on any of his noms to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But hey, to each their own. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132 -- Please assume good faith Wikipedia:AGF. It is a central tenet of editors' contributions here. Ktin (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: AGF ≠ be deaf, dumb, and blind. You have a track record – this isn't your first time making a spurious nitpick; I'm certain it won't your last (for the record, the Robert Dean nom mentioned above was promoted without me having to make additional changes, demonstrating that your comment was indeed bogus and contrived, much like your oppose here). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please be polite and kind to your fellow editors. Calling someone's views spurious, bogus, and contrived, just because you do not agree with them, is not in keeping with a behavior that we would ever want to condone. Ktin (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I'm calling a spade a spade based on evidence (not, as you like to smokescreen it, "just because [I] do not agree with them"). Yes, your views can be disagreeable, but that's not the reason why they are spurious, bogus, and contrived. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight -- my views are spurious, bogus, and contrived because I once opposed this i.e. Robert Dean nomination of yours with the rationale of it might fall short of the Spencer test -- specifically, what did he do in his political career. What policies did he advance? Currently reads as a list of positions and elections and then later decided against that comment? And, hence, you believe that my views here are in bad faith? Ktin (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Hits on what the subject was notable for-- while it might be just be an album cover, it is appropriate. Conditional since I would like to see the sentence stating that she was noted to be an "imposing businessperson" with a ref after it. Otherwise, good to go IMO. SpencerT•C 03:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Thione Seck

Article: Thione Seck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde; France 24 (Agence France-Presse)
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) 01:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Grammy Awards

Posted, other meta-discussions about posting records or equality should take place somewhere less ephemeral than ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:51, 16 March 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.

Proposed image
Articles: 63rd Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag) and Everything I Wanted (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Billie Eilish's Everything I Wanted wins Record of the Year and Taylor Swift's Folklore wins Album of the Year at the Grammy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: As I write this, we're still waiting for the last few awards including Record of the Year (one of the two normally featured). I will note that of the last 5 years, only the 2020 awards were posted, the others not due to lack of updates beyond the awards table. That said, this year's awards article - pre-ceremony (which is still one of this semi-remote things due to COVID) has more than just nomination tables, so in decent shape ahead of time. Masem (t) 03:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And updated for Record of the Year. --Masem (t) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also tagging both the song and album as bolded targeted. "Everything I Wanted" is a GA and looks in good shape, and while Folklore is not yet a GA, it looks fairly complete as well. --Masem (t) 03:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Articles on Billie and Tay Tay are in great shape, as well as the song and album. Grammy article looks fine too; we might even want to link to the individual awards in the blurbs, so long as those articles are OK. ITN/R, so not much else to say, except great work from the community to get these to such a high quality. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We might also want to do a split image (for the people who actually know how to do that). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the split image is when we have a mens/womans sport and thus we don't want to prioritize one winner over the other. It's not that we can't here, but given that we have two female winners, and this is just two among many winners, I don't think we need to. At worst, in a few days if this is posted, we can swap a Swift image for Eilish's. --Masem (t) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I did notice something else, though: if this article happens to go to ITN today, then the Main Page will have the same photo of Billie Eilish twice. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah didn't see that. Fortunately, plenty of other free images of her. I swapped that out for now. Maybe we can have a Swift image to start then. (eg File:Taylor Swift 2 - 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg) --Masem (t) 05:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice to see a proposed blurb adequately describe the key updated points of its target articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All 3 articles look fine on a superficial review. One point: Credits and personnel for Everything I Wanted is both unexpectedly short, and sourced to Tidal. I'm not certain that a music streaming service is actually authoritative or exhaustive, and I'm certain that more than 4 people contributed to the album. See Folklore's personnel listing, which includes a much more complete list and is sourced to the artwork itself. Would it be better to just incorporate the few credited individuals into the text and get rid of the section?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning Beyoncé in the blurb? [5] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely include Beyoncé in the blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting the blurb above. Feel free to change. Not sure how to mention Beyoncé and keep the blurb short. --Tone 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's probably correct. The ITN/R entry covers Record of the Year and Album of the Year. Beyonce's record breaking is interesting, but perhaps not fully ITN-worthy and would need a full consensus in any case. I'd lean oppose on that one myself...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless it was a record within the scope of the current awards, we would generally not add those types of "overall" records. --Masem (t) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support all article look really good, and ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyonce Knowles she didn't win album of the year, or record of the year, so we don't need to include her in the blurb at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After seeing the Grammys languish without ITN updates for several years, seeing this one go up so quickly is certainly a pleasant surprise. That said, I'm not pleased about the racially biased blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not following you. Isn't Album of the Year and Record of the Year the standard blurb format?-- P-K3 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard blurb format, yes. But this is not a standard award show, and the broken record is notable, just as a broken record during a top sporting event is occasionally mentioned on ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we're trying to racially swing anything, just that these types of records (career-spanning, not event-spanning) don't work well in posting the blurb in the context of a single award show; but I agree it is one of those records I'm seeing in headlines now from the show. We could add, as briefly as I could see it "and Beyonce becomes the most awarded female artist." to the end of the current blurb, which would make it three lines long and push the Zamfara kidnapping off. --Masem (t) 13:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange comment. Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift won the most important awards. If there really was racism at play here, it's by the Grammys, as Zayn Malik and others claim (without evidence, FWIW). It's not our fault in reporting the news. But moreover, they're just two people – it's hard to force diversity with a group that small. If you randomly selected two people from the U.S., there's a good chance you'd get two white people pretty often. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'd support making this blurb extra-long and adding Beyonce to it, mostly because (a) as Masem says, that aspect is widely in the news, and (b) it would push off a stale item that's been on the main page for more than 2 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avatar had a Chinese release last week and reclaimed it's spot as the highest grossing film of all time. We gonna post that too? Or maybe we should leave arbitrary milestones for another section and stick with the awards. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I initially brought it up, retracted it, retired in shame and went to bed. But now that it's out there, yes. Selecting two pop stars from a widely-reported four major winners who just happen to not be H.E.R. and Megan Thee Stallion looks a bit...lopsided. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research I believe that the now WP:RENAMED user ixgysjijel is actually a time-traveling racist who deliberately selected which awards would be featured when the grammys were added in 2008, to prevent Beyonce from having a sliver of the front page of Wikipedia in addition to the relentless drumbeat of media coverage she gets. The username was likely scrambled by Nazi skynet to mask the identity of their agent and ensure their lasting damage to the Space time continueum. It can't possibly be that past discussions later found that album of the year and record of the year were most significant. This is a big deal, we can't be certain what other damage was done, and it might be best to scrap ITN/R all together. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we already understood that you're opposed to Beyoncé being added to the ITN, per your two prior comments. The above comment is indeed well-researched, but a slight exaggeration and probably unnecessary... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was intentionally racist, I said it looks a bit lopsided. A rap or R&B fan might see it as a slight to the genre, too. In any case, we could just as easily list all four actual winners (two songs, an artist, an album) next year, instead of arbitrarily excluding any just to attach singers to half. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 16 March 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: Laxman Pai

Article: Laxman Pai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian artist. Padma Bhushan awardee. Basic checks and edits done. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the article is sourced and in decent shape. There is room for some formatting and sourcing improvements (i.e. self-published source), but I didn't see anything glaring enough to bar posting this RD. TJMSmith (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as usual the article is in good shape whenever Ktin nominates JW 1961 Talk 11:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support easily good enough for RD. Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Remove: Osaka, Djokovic, and Porfirije

This is not something we do here.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:54, 14 March 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.

These blurbs are now beyond stale, referencing events whose media coverage crested three weeks ago. Einsof (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the blurbs would leave the main page unbalanced. We have to wait for new blurbs to be promoted. --Masem (t) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one way to do this would be to be less stringent about approving stuff to go onto ITN to replace these old items. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WaltCip's claim that "This is not something we do here": in fact I was directed to this page by the template at the top of WT:ITN, which says "Nominating a current item for removal? Go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C)." So clearly it is something we do here. Einsof (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the reason you gave. WaltCip-(talk) 16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no instructions on this page for what is or is not an acceptable reason to nominate an entry for removal, so I inferred from the general criteria set out in WP:ITN (specifically the obvious-sounding requirement that The event is current, and not stale relative to other events.). If instructions about removal nominations exist somewhere else, where can I find them? Einsof (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Einsof — The longstanding problem is, many readers don't understand that In the News is not a source for news per se. Instead, it is a listing of Wikipedia articles about topics that are (or recently have been) in the news. To be listed in ITN, these topics must judged important or significant to a reasonably large share of readers or potential readers, and the articles must be up to date.
If you're looking for actual news sources that have proven to be reliable, try news agencies such as AP, BBC, Reuters – or try large newspapers in or near anyplace you're interested in. Does that help? – Sca (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this goes beyond one or two particular stale blurbs, I've started a more general discussion on the main ITN talk page here. Einsof (talk) 18:27, 14 March 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.

March 13

March 13, 2021 (2021-03-13) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Bob McPhee

Article: Bob McPhee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC.ca
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian music artist; CEO of Calgary Opera. Article requires a good amount of work. Not knowledgeable on this topic at all. But, can give it a shot later tonight. If someone is an Opera aficionado, jump right-in! Ktin (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


(Closed) 2021 Western Australian state election

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 22:50, 14 March 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.

Nominator's comments: This is a very significant landslide election victory, one of the largest in Australian history. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per regional election. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We wouldn't post for Texas. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don't post sub-national elections, we declined ITN for Indian state just a few days go. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't just a routine regional election - it's one of the largest landslide victories in the history of such elections in Australia, with far more significant consequences than a regular regional election. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Landslide, sure. But for the incumbent party. Fewer people oppose business as usual in more populous states across the world every day. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Arrests at Sarah Everard's vigil

No consensus to post and extremely unlikely to change. Regards SoWhy 08:06, 16 March 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: Death of Sarah Everard (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Multiple people are arrested during a vigil for the murdered Sarah Everard in London. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Multiple people are arrested during a vigil for Sarah Everard in London.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A Metropolitan Police officer is charged in relation to the kidnapping and death of 33-year-old Sarah Everard.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A Metropolitan Police officer is charged for the death of Sarah Everard, a 33-year-old woman from London, sparking mass protests.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ A Metropolitan Police officer is charged for the death of Sarah Everard, sparking mass protests.
News source(s): The Telegraph ;The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Is getting a lot of coverage. The police are getting some major stick for this and I think this is important enough for a blurb. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very much a local incident of violent behavior. --Masem (t) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Obviously parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose borderline trivia right now, but will no doubt balloon into something #metoo or #blm for the UK. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of vigil as headline this case is dominating the headlines in the UK (can't avouch for anywhere else) but the only consequence would be resignation/dismissal of nobody policemen, or at most the resignation of the Chief of the Met, whose authority is over one city. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change blurb to Metropolitan Police officer remanded in custody, having been charged with the kidnapping and murder of Sarah Everard. A policeman being prosecuted for this high-profile crime is the most notable part of this event. We particularly shouldn't use blurb 1, because we don't know how she died & we don't want to be seen as prejudicing the suspect's trial. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the 'blurb' is not supported by the known facts of the event covered by the article. We do not know what happened yet, there has not even been a trial, let lone a conviction for murder. And the arrests were unrelated to the topic of the article, they were apparently because of the danger being caused to the public resulting from hundreds of people breaking the Covid lockdown rules, and not for holding a vigil, many of which occurred peacefully across the rest of the UK without incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't know what they were expecting would happen in a post-COVID world. WaltCip-(talk) 16:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb, but support in principle This IS getting international news – I'm from the US personally and this has gotten on my radar some through what we all recognize has been a very slow time for news. However, I have to agree that the story here is Everard's death; if the vigil arrests were significant enough, they should have their own article. Also, we should be very careful about terminology when right now the accused perpetrator is only a suspect. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some altblurbs; let me know what y'all think. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per AllegedlyHuman. This is getting a fair amount of press on the other side of the pond, but I agree the blurb should be closer to Jim Michael's suggestion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for uncertainty over whether this is pro-woman, anti-cop or COVID-related, but support all of our rights to walk the streets together or alone safely, in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-male & anti-police placards were held by protesters. This is a major event for the police & public. Major politicians - including Boris Johnson, Priti Patel & Sadiq Khan - have commented on this case. Jim Michael (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians always talk. No blurb mentions anti-male motivation at the protest or vigil, even implicitly, nor the article. Still seems uncertain to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rare for protesters at the same place & time to have varying grievances - it doesn't make it less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This article seems favored by users who have adopted the death of Ms. Everard as a cause célèbre. That a police officer has been charged in the case is not proof of significance by ITN standards. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb III per AllegedlyHuman. This is getting a lot of attention in international news, and the article looks good. Uses x (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't mind that the allegedly good-looking article only mentions one protest of unspecified mass "outside Scotland Yard", contrary to Blurb III/IV? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @InedibleHulk: Online protests are happening as mentioned in the article, making the plural correct. That's a new addition which certainly needs to be extended. Uses x (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think a virtual protest is real enough to be called a protest, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong on the Internet. Maybe it is more than mundane keyboard warring, I'm not hip anymore. But it seems less substantial to me than what "sparking", "mass" or "protests" suggest actually happened in the physical realm. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, and keep the nomination open for a few days. It's too hard to assess the significance of this episode right now but it certainly has the potential of developing into a transformative metoo type moment for the UK. If the protests and the political fallout grow in the next couple of days, a blurb may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait we shouldn't post about non-notable people being arrested/charged per WP:BLP. And it's unclear whether this is going to attract lots of news or not. Also, it was one main vigil, and I virtual one, so protests seems the incorrect terminology. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arrestee's name is stated prominently by many media sources. The case has already received a great deal of media coverage. There were vigils yesterday & today, as well as a protest today - each with hundreds of people illegally gathered in very close proximity. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca above. Yakikaki (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for being an event currently discussed in the news. Einsof (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Significance? – Sca (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in the news, while one of the current blurbs isn't—not for three weeks now. Beggars can't be choosers. Einsof (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors can. That's what they're for. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very much ITN, although why this case and not others draw more attention is puzzling. We shouldn't be debating whether or not something "should be news", but rather only evaluating if it is "in the news". Albertaont (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know how the news cycle and spring works, not complaining. Just concerned that the blurbs don't accurately reflect the news or the article. The general theme of this digital uprising is also getting a bit lost, the problem seems to used to be more about systemic sex predator inequality, like Home Alive, not cops again. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A single day's worth of protests is practically routine, and criminal proceedings should wait for conviction for blurbs.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of there being a rule/guideline against high-profile (apparent) serious crimes being posted to ITN. I think it notable enough even before the trial. Jim Michael (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crimes, yes, depending on significance. Charges being filed against suspects, no – innocent until proven guilty. Convictions of suspects, yes, depending on significance. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sca. Banedon (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have to support this, even though I don’t live in the UK media in my country have reported on this.BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very surprising. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Local event with no real significance; pretty much standard lockdown enforcement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:46, 15 March 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: Bob Walkup

Article: Bob Walkup (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Arizona Daily Star; The Arizona Republic
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 (March 13). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) Former Bolivian interim-president Jeanine Añez arrested

Proposed image
Article: Jeanine Áñez (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former interim-president of Bolivia, Jeanine Áñez (pictured) is arrested on the charges of of sedition, terrorism and conspiracy (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Bolivian interim-president Jeanine Áñez (pictured) is arrested by police
Alternative blurb II: ​ Jeanine Áñez (pictured), former interim-president of Bolivia, is arrested in Trinidad
Alternative blurb III: ​ Former interim President of Bolivia Jeanine Áñez and five members of her government are arrested.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Former interim President of Bolivia Jeanine Áñez and five members of her government are arrested on charges of terrorism, sedition, and criminal conspiracy.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, France 24
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems important enough for a blurb, a sovereign state's former leader being arrested and facing the charges of terrorism, sedition and conspiracy --Civciv5 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Arrested, but not convicted (at least yet). Precedent is for mere arrests to only be posted when it's headline international news, which this is not. The section about it should also be more comprehensive than it is now; beyond "terrorism, sedition, and conspiracy", if that information is available the reasoning behind those claims needs to be stated. Uses x (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written Eight other people were swept up in the same raid, all formerly high-ranking, two with English Wikipedia articles. This is more political than personal. Should be linked to a notable event article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It appears I nominated this independently around the same time without noticing (this OP was first, however). I clearly support, and I've added the blurbs I wrote as altblurbs to the nomination for the community's consideration. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Domestic politix. – Sca (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, preferably version V. Important turn in an ongoing political crisis in the country. Einsof (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is a major development for a national-level leader. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Former interim leader. Bigger for the country's current military leaders. Just as big for the other two notable named and known ministers of government and presidency, inexplicably ignored in favour of singling out one untried BLP subject for the hotseat. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renominate once convicted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man Ajshul 😀 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this kind of event isn't common - how often does it happen a year worldwide, five times or fewer? - so I'm supporting, especially since it's dominating local news. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even if she is not convicted, the arrest would have been equally or more notable.--TZubiri (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) alt IV preferred, no picture due to relevance concerns proposed by editors, and mentioning other arrests.--TZubiri (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator (alt IV preferred). ArionEstar (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and prefer alt IV. It's notable enough that the government had its predecessors detained on the highest charges possible; no need to wait for a conviction.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are {{citation needed}} tags in main article. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked Ready There seems to be a slight majority to post it, though ultimately an admin will have to decide --Civciv5 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ready to be posted, per above. Dan the Animator 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marvelous Marvin Hagler

Article: Marvelous Marvin Hagler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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 boxer. Undisputed middleweight champion of the world for seven years. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the current version based on sourcing. There are several sections missing in-line citations. TJMSmith (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose like TJSmith says, too many ILCs missing right now. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport while the article's development seems mired in wiki-argument, there's a bedrock, and it behooves you to recognise one of the significant athletes of the 20th century.
  • I came here from the talk page. I think Hagler is probably more famous than say, Sabine Schmitz, rip, so what we are waiting for and why is this debate is still being had.

(Posted) RD: Murray Walker

RD posted, no consensus for a blurb. --Tone 14:17, 14 March 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.

Proposed image
Article: Murray Walker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British motorsport commentator Murray Walker (pictured) dies at the age of 97. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British Formula One commentator Murray Walker (pictured) dies at the age of 97.
News source(s): [6] 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: British motorsport commentator  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support And I interrupt yourself to bring you this ..... unless I'm very much mistaken ... I am very much mistaken .... with half the race to gone, there's still half the race to go. One of my most favourite sporting commentators of all time. On a spot check, article looks in okay enough shape. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support RIP, good quality article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - near GA class article. Super sad death. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article, I can't see any problems with it. Uses x (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This RD is unique, except for the one behind it which is identical." Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support, but this is surely blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not American enough, a couple of Americans will probably come and say that they don't know who he is and that would derail a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian saboteur here, I heard nothing, "old man dies". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why must you always assume the worst in people? --WaltCip-(talk) 20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the worst on some people at ITN. Pushing for blurbs on American state politcians, but opposing blurbs on much more notable non-Americans. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I support blurb- an icon of Formula One. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Alex Trebeck didn't get one. Neither did Regis Philbin. -- Calidum 20:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A national treasure but doesn't rise to blurb level in my view. P-K3 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'd be okay with posting a guy who is THE voice of a major sport in a large English-speaking country. But then that qualifier could create quite a list. I'll note we didn't even consider Keith Jackson, who was THE guy for college football for decades. I'd like to think Al Michaels will get in. Reading the obits and our article, Walker seems a bit closer to the former than the latter. Like all borderline cases, it would be no tragedy to post or omit. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - In retrospect, I think he meets that key criteria as being transformative in his field.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • also Support blurb agree with WaltCip, RIP JW 1961 Talk 22:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The British systemic bias is back in action I see. There's nothing in this article that suggests he was "transformative in his field". "97 year old announcer dies" is not a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The widespread conflation of announcers and commentators also remains strong, it would seem. Combined with the gathering dark cloud of sentences that start with numerals, and society's increasing aversion to hyphenation, you're absolutely correct. Oppose these blurbs! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose altblurb 1, neutral on altblurb 2 The article motorsport is not in good shape, but Formula One looks fine. However, this currently isn't even front page news on the BBC – though I acknowledge the Main Page right now is very stale. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Just wake up and hear the sad news. So sad to lose such a legend. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - can commentators who haven't previously had a successful career competing in sport ever be important enough for a blurb? Jim Michael (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Having only just seen this, as the nominator I would support a blurb for the most recognisable commentator in English speaking motorsport. ITN could do with a new blurb after all, especially after complaints on the MP talk page of lack of new news and the fact the most recent blurb is a week old. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per being some bloke with a funny voice who lived a long time. More power to him! Lovely bloke and all, I remember he told me about his dog on the 17:30 to Norwich. But Σ!=MP. ——Serial
  • Support RD but oppose blurb I'm having a hard time using what is on his page to assign a level of importance to a blurb. May be a household name in terms of sports broadcasting in the UK, but there's a lack of being a tranformative figure in the field here. --Masem (t) 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb he was a "well known" commentator who made lots of mistakes. He had a long career in a very niche field of entertainment. He was not transformative in any sense. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:36, 14 March 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.

March 12

March 12, 2021 (2021-03-12) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(New) RD: Ronald DeFeo Jr.

Article: Ronald DeFeo Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, 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: American convicted murderer, whose case inspired The Amityville Horror, dies at age 69. Davey2116 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chao Kuang Piu

Article: Chao Kuang Piu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Standard (Hong Kong)
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: Founder of Hong Kong based Dragon Air. Article requires a good amount of work and is not ready in current state to go to homepage / RD. I will get to it shortly. If someone wants to lend a hand with some edits / adds, please feel free to get to it. Edits and content expansion done. Article has shaped into a neat C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I agree with Ktin. Marking as ready for RD. TJMSmith (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sourcing is good, and no tone issues. Joofjoof (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Short but meets minimum requirements. SpencerT•C 02:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cliff Simon

Article: Cliff Simon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rahman, Abid (11 March 2021). "Cliff Simon, 'Stargate SG-1' Actor, Dies at 58". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 12 March 2021.""Stargate SG-1" Star Cliff Simon Dead at 58". E! On line. March 12, 2021. Dicker, Ron (March 12, 2021). "Actor Cliff Simon Of 'Stargate SG-1' Dead After Kiteboarding Accident". Huffington Post. He played the villain Ba'al in the long-running space exploration drama. Wan, Jessica (March 12, 2021). "Stargate SG-1 actor Cliff Simon, 58, dies in tragic kiteboarding accident". news.com.au. An actor from the hit sci-fi show Stargate SG-1 has died in a tragic accident in California, his wife has announced. He was 58. WENN - World Entertainment News Network (March 12, 2021). "'Stargate SG-1' actor Cliff Simon dies in kiteboarding accident". Toronto Sun.Stolworthy, Jacob (March 12, 2021). "Cliff Simon death: Stargate SG-1 actor dies in tragic accident, aged 58". The Independent. 'He died doing one of the things he loved most,' his wife said.
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.

 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AllegedlyHuman Frankly, I am perplexed. I don't see anything that fits this criticism. If I did I would remove it. If you don't like whatever, perhaps you could remove the offending passage(s)? Thank you 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's just a handful of the many that are there:
  • "Simon travelled solo globally for the show, searching for hidden clues to some of history's most nightmarish myths."
  • "From a very young age, Cliff aspired to be the first South African swimmer to win an Olympic Gold medal."
  • "His mother, a swimming teacher, taught him from a very young age, and at age 6 he began to show talent as a gymnast."
  • "After his military service, he danced and performed in cabaret and stage shows in South Africa before he was offered a coveted spot in the chorus at Paris's Moulin Rouge, becoming a principal dancer after six months."
This article just oozes with flowery language in support of him. It reads almost like a press release, not an encyclopedia article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've edited all that down or out. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in better shape; good work. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is now about as well sourced as I think possible. I also believe it is fully updated and in good and proper form. I would note that the page has gotten 75,000 views in the last three days. There seems to be reader interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really User:Sunshineisles2 tagged as "problem sentences" due to "excessive citations" and you chose not to fix it. This article is fine. The citations are all fine, other than their number. They are real citations to real articles. The decision apparently is that you don't want this "in the news" and that it will become stale and evaporate. Problem will then be resolved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you on my talk page why I tagged it. It wasn't practicable for me to go through the sources and pare them down at that time. That's all. I don't know where you're getting this idea that anyone is trying to purposefully trying to slow down this nomination or that somebody doesn't want this article on the main page.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of what you put on your talk page. I guess they crossed in the mail. I'll take a look and reply there. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add User:Sunshineisles2 as an updater. Someone beat me to it. Very helpful! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John F. Sandner

Article: John F. Sandner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune; Chicago Sun-Times; Crain's Chicago Business
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 (March 12). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fatima Aziz

Article: Fatima Aziz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaama 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: Afghan physician and politician who died of cancer. TJMSmith (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose it's very short at 1700 characters. Surely there's a bit more that can be said for 15 years in office? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph2302, While not much, I just added more details. Maybe there are sources in her native languages that could be used to expand this. I was hoping more details on her medical career may turn up also. TJMSmith (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I added a couple more sentences too, but it looks like we've reached the limit of the coverage there is online for her life. Good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - does meet the ITN:RD Criterias although indeed somewhat "thin". CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support True it's short, but what is there is well referenced and suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any information on what party she was in? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AllegedlyHuman, the National Assembly website identifies her as independent. I added that to the article. I still wish we had the spelling of her name in her native language, Dari. TJMSmith (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TJMSmith VOA Dari on FB has her name as "فاطمه عزیز". SpencerT•C 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Antikythera mechanism

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:45, 17 March 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.

Proposed image
Article: Antikythera mechanism (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers at the University College London publish the first complete model of the Antikythera mechanism (front pictured), an ancient Greek device for calculating planetary positions. (Post)
News source(s): Original research paper, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of the earliest predecessors of the computer. Article has three CN tags, but looks good otherwise. The research paper is under a CC-BY-4.0 license - can its pictures be used here? Joofjoof (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images can be taken right from the paper and added to the article for the reason you've said. I've added the details to the article talk page. Uses x (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If true, this discovery is very cool, and there's a lot of great info in the article about the device generally – but there's currently only one line about this event in text. Sending this article to the Main Page in its current form would leave readers wanting more. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although very nice research, this is an incremental update to the knowledge about the device. In such cases, only the discovery would be an ITN story, I think. Also, the update is short. --Tone 09:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an objection to linking to a paper under a CC-BY-4.0 license? Enquire (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean. If you're talking about for a source, you could use even a copyrighted work; however, images have to be under CC or similar license. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is very nice, and the topic is in the BBC and Guardian, as well as scientific journals from Science and AAS. While the update is incremental, it does relate to the world's first known computer, which gives it a superlative appeal.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a fascinating object but the new research is incremental. They're making an improved/updated proposal for what the missing bits were (only about a third of the mechanism survived), which is fine but essentially informed guesswork. There have been multiple proposals by several competing teams, some of which have constructed working reproductions of their proposals, so it's misleading to call this the 'first complete model'. The new work is nowhere near as big an advance as the 2008 study, which performed the first CT scan of the fragments. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 16 March 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: Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu

Article: Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
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: King of the Zulu nation. Article needs work. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 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:

  1. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/there-were-3-800-anti-asian-racist-incidents-mostly-against-n1261257
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1012921118"