Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 305: Line 305:
*'''Support''' Every stage has been summarized now & it's well-referenced. [[User:Blaylockjam10|Blaylockjam10]] ([[User talk:Blaylockjam10|talk]]) 07:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Every stage has been summarized now & it's well-referenced. [[User:Blaylockjam10|Blaylockjam10]] ([[User talk:Blaylockjam10|talk]]) 07:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Plenty of good prose on the background and the whole race, a good quality well-sourced article. --[[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Plenty of good prose on the background and the whole race, a good quality well-sourced article. --[[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''', A significant event and the article is fine. [[User:Alex-h|Alex-h]] ([[User talk:Alex-h|talk]]) 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


====(Ready) Spain general election====
====(Ready) Spain general election====

Revision as of 16:44, 26 July 2023

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.

Lawrence Wong in 2023
Lawrence Wong

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives


July 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

  • Moldova–Russia relations
    • Moldova orders the expulsion of 22 Russian diplomats by August 15. Several days earlier, a journalist investigation alleged that Russia installed satellite dishes and antennae on its embassy rooftop that could be used for spying. (AP) (RFE/RL)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


July 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Rocky Wirtz

Article: Rocky Wirtz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Sun-Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Principal owner of the Chicago Blackhawks. A few things will need citations, but otherwise the article should be in good shape. rawmustard (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Monte Kwinter

Article: Monte Kwinter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TorStar
Credits:

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

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Article is an appropriate length, but there are too many uncited statements. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Johnny Lujack

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

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support pretty-well cited and an appropriate length for ITN ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Chris Bart-Williams

Article: Chris Bart-Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Sierra-Leonese-born English footballer. Article good length and content, but needs a few more citations. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan floods

Article: 2023 Afghanistan floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Floods in Afghanistan kill at least 31 people, injure 74 and 41 people are missing. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Flooding in Afghanistan leaves at least 31 people dead and at least 41 missing.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, CNN, VOA, DW, RFE/RL
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Needs expansion Ainty Painty (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as it's a stub. Did propose better-worded altblurb, however. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is this that unusual a death toll? Floods, heat, and fire everywhere, with the increasingly unstable weather. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arid country, usually sees rainfall in December-April. Koltinn (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article needs to be expanded more. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Cecilia Pantoja

Article: Cecilia Pantoja (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BioBioChile
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: One of the greatest chilean female singers of all-time and one of the founders of the "nueva ola" movement in Chile and Latin America Wikipexi2552 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) (Ongoing/Blurb) 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests

Article: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Israel, the Knesset approves of a judicial reform that would prevent judges from striking down government decisions (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After months of protests, the Israeli Knesset approves of a judicial reform that would prevent judges from striking down government decisions.
Alternative blurb II: ​ After months of protests, the Israeli Knesset approves a judicial reform bill that would prevent judges from declaring government decisions unreasonable.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Israeli Knesset approves a judicial reform bill after months of protests against it.
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I think it's time to put this back on the main page. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The protests will get more headlines and more intense now that the Knesset have approved the controversial judicial reform. Article's also in good shape and it's been updated appropriately. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to have a new blurb along the lines of "Israeli government passes New law reducing the power of the country's courts, sparking a new wave of protests" (or along those lines) Masem (t) 21:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a blurb seems more appropriate, now that the law has been adopted. In lieu of that, I would support ongoing, but right now, it's the top headline and should be treated as such. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I stated, I would support it going into ongoing, but I would not be opposed to a blurb. I wasn't sure how to add a nom showing a blurb and an ongoing nom together. Please feel free to fix it if I screwed up :) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to a blurb, but if we do go that route, it should mention the ongoing protests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb, then ongoing if it's still going on after the blurb rolls off. Meets notability standard, considering coverage of law and protests. The Kip (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb - per The Kip. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nomination does not list any sources. Having looked into this myself, it seems clear that the proposed blurbs are inaccurate. The law does not "prevent judges from striking down government decisions" as judicial review will still exist. The limitation is on the use of reasonableness as a justification. When you look at our article on reasonableness, it's easy to see why it's problematic because it is quite fuzzy and so tends to be a matter of opinion. The general topic here is judicial activism which is also being rolled back in other places such as the US. Explaining this clearly seems beyond the power of ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: What do you think of alt blurb 2? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsatisfactory. The bill does more than curb use of reasonableness; it also affects the appointment of judges and legal advisors. The target article has much to say about this and I haven't read it all but it seems easy to see an orange tag and substantial paragraphs with no citation. Note that our own supreme court has mandated that this part of the world is contentious and so must be treated with special care. A hasty, slapdash posting is therefore unwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed & support alt blurb 2 This is important enough to post, both articles look good enough to post & the alt blurb I proposed mentions both of the important articles & I think it addresses Andrew's concerns. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2, with ongoing optional if the protests continue. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose altblurb to remove the need for us to come to an agreement on what the bill actually does: "The Israeli Knesset approves a judicial reform bill after months of protests against it." QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb3 to the nomination, since (as I understand it) that's the procedure for proposing an altblurb. Please reprimand me or revert that if this is not, this is my first time diong this. THanksQueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 2. I also nominated the protests before the Knesset approved the judicial reform.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either altblurb and we should monitor to see if moving to ongoing is needed mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - I went with altblurb 3 (but with the same links as the others use) as this is the most concise wording, but if people still prefer alt2 instead we can edit it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Trevor Francis

Article: Trevor Francis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Britain's first £1m footballer. Died of a heart attack aged 69. Article needs a lot of citations. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Although the article seems thin on the content it's fine for ITN-RD. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready per nom. Poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support He's definitely notable enough, as a key figure of English football and a Serie A icon, but the article definitely needs more citations, especially in the sections about his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oltrepier (talkcontribs) 15:13, 2023 July 25 (UTC)
    • Notability is no longer a criteria for recent deaths, as it is subjective. The career is pretty much the whole article, and there are eight paragraphs with no citations, including his entire international career and three clubs. There is also no mention at all in the text about his brief stay in Australia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Alagiah

Article: George Alagiah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC 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.

 The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Article well sourced except for the three cn tags in the first paragraph of the awards section.Support Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I've found references for the cn tags and it's otherwise well sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well sourced, no maintenance tags. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • A deal to sell a controlling interest in the Israeli financial firm Phoenix Group to a consortium led by an Abu Dhabi state holding company falls through. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


2023 Greece wildfires

Article: 2023 Greece wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thousands of tourists flee their hotels in Rhodes, Greece, from wildfires in what officials say is the largest emergency evacuation in the country's history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Wildfires in Greece result in what officials say is the largest emergency evacuation in the country's history.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Largest evacuation in country's history, spreading to other islands. Could be ongoing nomination as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This *should* be under the 2023 heat waves article that has been proposed as a topic or ongoing but which has not seen much improvement or getting close to posting. I would Oppose this as an isolated event from that heat wave article since there were no deaths, and there have been dozens of heat-related wildfires in the world to do this year.
Also the blurb is completely missing the wildfire part which is a key driver. Masem (t) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Emergency alerts were sent to residents on the island to warn them of the wildfires and to evacuate." Technology stopped the deaths but can't stop the fire. Well 1 death, 20 injured, 600 million euro damage and rising. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is but one wildfire in the world as part of the heat waves, and the only reason this one is getting coverage is that Greece doesn't get frequent wildfires, and the images of thousands of tourists trying to flee. TEXTURING this wildfires while letting others go unnoticed is absolutely an example of extreme bias in the news that we should avoid. Masem (t) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news with large impact on the tourist industry in one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. I don't think this can be directly linked to the 2023 heat waves because it's a common misconception that heat waves cause wildfires (they may pose a major difficulty in the process of extinguishing the fires, but the most common reasons are arson and lightning).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RS are clearly linking the wildfires to the heat wave that creates conditions for small sparks to spread quickly and unpredictably [2] Its the same situation in Canada and the US. Masem (t) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have suggested an alt blurb which isnt focused entirely on tourists in Rhodes (as there have also been evacuations elsewhere), even though "tourists flee hotels" is the angle most English news outlets are taking. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It's a bit light on info and heavily oversectioned (the international assistance could take up less screen space with a single table, for example), but I think there's enough here for the main page. Prefer altblurb for concision and more encyclopedic tone. --Jayron32 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, though it is on an important and widely reported issue. The article needs to be fleshed out more. Right now it reads like a telegram noting locations of fires and how many firefighter other countries sent. I find that a bit thin. Yakikaki (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Multiple uncited claims, mostly in the international assistance section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, but the article needs quality updates. The Kip (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cambodian general election

Article: 2023 Cambodian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The ruling Cambodian People's Party, led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, claims a landslide victory in the Cambodian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The ruling Cambodian People's Party, led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, claims a landslide victory in the widely viewed as unfair Cambodian general election.
News source(s): (AP)
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: Obviously rigged election by a dictatorship but an election nonetheless. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - sham election, and the article doesn't make this clear. Some international reactions (if anyone has even bothered paying attention) would be a start. We can post an ITN item when/if the current leader hands power to his son. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There was a similar discussion a few days ago where WP:IAR was used to justify not posting sham elections. The article's lead doesn't make the sham quality clear enough IMO. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 17:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as precedent holds that sham elections are posted (c.f. Russia, Uzbekistan, etc.) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle We have poste·d parliamentary election that are neither free nor fair in the past, but the blurb has to be worded carefully (not a fan of the current blurb); in this case, an opposition party even broke through and was able to win several seats. Results table needs updating, and would like some more international reactions/condemnation besides just the US. Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be included in the article: "Hun Sen issues threat to Cambodians who spoiled ballots". Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough in the article illustrates/gives context to its rigged nature. The Kip (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per The Kip. Once updated, I will support. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb (which I added), showing its rigged nature. Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supportaltblurb, informative, well expanded article and ITN/R Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's Nations League

Article: 2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's Nations League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hosts Poland win their first VNL title after defeating the United States 3–1 in the final at the Ergo Arena in Gdańsk. (Post)
News source(s): Volleyball World
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Worldwide tournament watched by 1.2 billion people apparently according to the article, big news in certain parts of the world. Needs more prose in support of tables but nicely updated otherwise. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now based on article quality. Table farm with very little prose describing the event. More overview is needed. Would support if that were fixed.--Jayron32 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Nations League does not appear to be the sport's main international championship, as FIVB also has the World Cup and World Championship. Given that FIFA's minor championships for men's soccer aren't also posted, it'd be only fair to reserve the right for other sports to be similarly limited. SounderBruce 22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    we post individual continental championships and the nations league, as well as certain domestic club competitions, so this is not true. We also post the 4 Grand Slams in tennis not just the Davis Cup and certain golfing events. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should amend my statement to say FIFA's minor intercontinental tournaments. The FIFA Confederations Cup and similar competitions are not posted. SounderBruce 03:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SounderBruce. The Kip (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 2023 British Open

Article: 2023 Open Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Brian Harman wins the Open Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In golf, Brian Harman wins the British Open.
News source(s): ESPN
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: Major golf tournament. ITN/R. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A handful of unsourced sentences/paragraphs but nearly all there in terms of good balance of prose to tables for this. Masem (t) 00:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article seem to be up to the level of the previous majors now. Since its a ITN/R, it shouldn't take long to get support. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has a solid amount of prose and seems to be good quality otherwise. The Kip (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Criteria and exemptions subsection needs clearing up and clarifying, very confusing; maybe a table like for the others would be better?. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-cited and good looking article, should be posted soon mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 2023 Tour de France

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Tour de France (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Jonas Vingegaard (pictured) wins the Tour de France. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
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: Major cycling event. ITN/R. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back of the race is completely absent from "Race overview" (assuming I'm reading all the tables right). Needs to be added, but the rest of the article seems ready to go once that's done. Masem (t) 00:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on it today. Turini2 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have written the lead section - the article now looks good to me! Turini2 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have added the time trial and the two decisive mountainous stages of week three and the final stage as well. So back of the race overview is included now. I will expand week two a bit to balance it out.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most famous cycling event, and an international event. 2607:9880:2D28:108:453C:13F1:EDA4:394C (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Every stage has been summarized now & it's well-referenced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Plenty of good prose on the background and the whole race, a good quality well-sourced article. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, A significant event and the article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) Spain general election

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Spanish general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Spain, the conservative People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo (pictured) comes first in the general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Spain, the People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo (pictured) comes first in the general election
Alternative blurb II: In Spain, the People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo (pictured) wins a plurality of votes in the general election
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Spain, the People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo (pictured) receives a plurality of votes in the general election
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In Spain, the general election results are indecisive, with the People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, (pictured) receiving a plurality of votes.
Alternative blurb V: ​ In Spain, the People's Party, led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, (pictured) wins the most votes in the general election.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ In Spain, the general election results in a hung parliament, with the People's Party led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo (pictured) receiving a plurality of votes
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Significant, especially if the government ends up being PP/VOX. Not formally ITN/R but strong precedent for general elections. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response to nominator's comments. It won't be a PP/VOX government as they're around 10 seats short of a majority, unless they form a minority government or form a bigger coalition which includes others as well. Could very much end up in a grand left-wing coalition government too. The blurb may very well need changing a lot potentially as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Isn't this ITN/R? But wait because the ultimate result is not yet decided. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait results section need be filled. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regardless of the current state, the identifier "conservative" needs to be removed from the blurb. I know the story is the concern that this is establishing a far-right majority in the Spanish gov't, but here at ITN, we're not to politicize these things, we don't do this for other elections. --Masem (t) 23:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until all the results come out. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and added altblurb2. We know which party received the most votes, and that is what we post. As to who actually "won" is very much up to interpretation and analysis, as is often the case in multi-party democracies with outcomes needing coalition agreements to secure a majority. Added a blurb in the forms usually used for elections in such situations. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support altblurb 3 as the better blurb and withdrawing altblurb 2.
  • Comment From what I'm hearing, if PSOE can't form a grand-left coalition, then there is likely to be another election in the fall, which is what happened in both 2015 and 2019. PP is unlikely to form a majority government here, as that would involve a coalition between Vox and the separatists, who are opposed to each other. This is still ITN/R, but I think putting the focus on PP in the blurb right now gives a false impression of where the results actually are. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ALT3 or 4 Still ITN/R, and the article looks pretty good. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Preference for ALT6. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, and leaning oppose, we'd better blurb the new government once it assumesParadise Chronicle (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a blurb like "... receives the most votes". This is in the news now, and a government might take months to form. Sandstein 09:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 3 This best describes the outcome of the election, without being editorialized. At this point you can't meaningfully say more about what government will be formed, and we might not know for several months, especially if there is another election. Gust Justice (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support modified Alt 3; use "the most votes" for "plurality" per MOS:COMMONALITY. --Jayron32 15:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @СтасС: your nomination was a duplicate of this. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 4. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 4 The article looks good & alt blurb 4's the most accurate description of what happened. Since it looks like there's a hung parliament, Idk if there should be a picture of Feijóo. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 3 Article looks ready. They are not so indecisive. Seeing the positions of the different parties, what is evident is that the Popular Party does not have enough support (and will not have), support that tends to move towards the PSOE, whose parliamentary support it had in 2020 tends to be reedited. With the ghost of the electoral repetition present, of course. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose altblurb 3 I don't think "receives" should replace "wins" because it's a fact that the People's Party won the most votes. The only uncertainty is whether it'd be enough to form a government, which is not our business at this moment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But you could argue also that they lost because they did not receive enough votes to govern, which in a way is how you win an election. Having the most votes isn't necessarily the same as winning. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The results of the general elections are on ITN/R, not the outcome of the ensuing process of government formation. Note that we’ve posted multiple election winners in the past that failed to form a government. Having the most votes in a Spanish general election translates to most seats won and the right to form a government. So, it’s the same as winning the election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All the blurbs proposed here show the results of the general election though. My argument is that in this instance this isn't a win if the opposition has a bigger chance to form a government due to the result of the election. We posted large coalition formations previously and worded it as altblurb3 when unclear before too. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposition didn’t form a coalition that won the election, and whether it has a bigger chance to form a government lies on a crystall-ball territory (What if the People’s Party manages to form a government with the smaller parties?). Furthermore, words such as “receive” are inappropriate even for sham elections, not to mention fair and free elections in democratic countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summon admin as consensus seems to be in favor of posting This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vince Hill

Article: Vince Hill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

 Abcmaxx (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support pretty well-cited otherwise, but the discography needs more citations ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa

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: Bombing of Odesa (2022–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Transfiguration Cathedral in Odesa is partially destroyed during the bombing of the city by the Russian forces. (Post)
News source(s): CNN - Reuters
  • Oppose Covered by ongoing. --Masem (t) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' - covered by ongoing.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eh... Why the hell was this snow-closed after what seems like just an hour? It's Sunday - people have lives aside from checking Wikipedia on an hourly basis. I would have appreciated it this could have been kept open for some more time - I personally might have supported given the damage caused to part of the Odesa World Heritage site. For all the destruction caused in Ukraine so far, this is a sad new highlight. It would have been nice to give people the opportunity to make the case for this nomination. Khuft (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd agree that the ongoing item shouldn't be seen as all-encompassing. If atrocities take place that are very bad, it would be appropriate to mention them. I'm not sure this event quite reaches that level, though. Blythwood (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment excessively fast close per above. Nonetheless, Oppose on the merits This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that this post was closed early as per above, however, given that the event is covered by ongoing, I would still Oppose. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened. Stephen 22:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close - covered by ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, leaning Strong support. Major world heritage site. Odesa was relatively unscathed until the past week. This is like the first Kerch Bridge bombing. Not infrastructure, but religion is a major issue to both sides in the conflict. This is like when Notre Dame Cathedral was burned down, but imagine if it was done deliberately. Wait for a few more !votes. 142.116.141.121 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third Strong Close and Eighth Overall Oppose Imagine if men, women and children were bombed, scathed and burned down deliberately. "Wait", you don't have to. It's also "ongoing"; war is Hell. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agree with previous supporter. Major component of Odesa World Heritage Site severely damaged, which resulted in UNESCO "strongly condemning" Russian actions (first time they explicitly did so, I believe). I get it, everything is part of ongoing, but we've done exceptions for major events in the past. And it would be nice once in a while to feature news from the Cultural sphere. Khuft (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened after Paradise Chronicle tried to close it again. Support per Khuft. Stop closing this, this is far from SNOW and we need to be a bit more judicious as to which discussions we rush to close, because most of the time, consensus isn't as clear as it might appear after just a few hours. Let it run. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just like to point out that this is apparently covered by WP:GS/RUSUKR, which apparently means that all votes from non-extended confirmed users (including myself) should be disregarded. YD407OTZ (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSorry for closing, didn't see it was reopened. I just saw the at the time large majority of oppose votes and didn't believe this will make the turn around. Anyhow, there are still three unsourced paragraphs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close per above. Consensus isn’t going to change here. The Kip (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (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.

July 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Sherry Ayittey

Article: Sherry Ayittey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://myjoyonline.com/former-fisheries-minister-sherry-ayittey-dead/
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: Notable & renowned Ghanaian politician, minister for several ministries in Ghana. Well written article Ampimd (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a bit of ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    References have been improved. Better now? If not kindly point out the areas for improvement thanks. Ampimd (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) UN World Food programme member killed

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: Killing of Moayad Hamidi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Moayad Hamidi, a senior UN World Food Programme (WFP) staff member from Jordan, was shot and killed by unknown gunmen in southwest Yemen in Turbah, Taiz. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3][4][5]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sadly there are no articles about this this person and the tragic event that happened to him and if someone can create them that'll be very appriciated Abo Yemen 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not how ITN works. You need to first have an article. Then you propose a blurb at ITN, where editors will judge the blurb based on quality of article and significance of event. Tradediatalk 15:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close No article, a theoretical article doesn’t seem to
meet WP:EVENTCRIT (tragic but looks fairly routine given the civil war in Yemen), and even if there was an article the event just simply doesn’t seem significant enough for ITN. I don’t think this nom is going anywhere so I’m suggesting a snow close. For the nominator if this is your first nom don’t be discouraged, keep trying. I also recommend you read How ITN works (and how it doesn’t), it’s a good essay that’ll inform you about common practice in ITN. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ill be sure to read it! Abo Yemen 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. Create article first Kirill C1 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2023 (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.

July 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Mike Ivie

Article: Mike Ivie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Article lede mentions he played outfield and designated hitter, which isn't mentioned in the article (which discusses well his switch from catcher to first base), but otherwise meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Washington Commanders sale

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: Josh Harris (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A group led by Josh Harris (pictured) purchases the NFL's Washington Commanders from Daniel Snyder for $6.05 billion, setting a record for the largest sales transaction for a sports franchise. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I believe being buyer of the largest sales transaction of a sports club or franchise to date is notable enough for a blurb. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it isn't. Sales ard happening every day, someone will hold a record.. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. In this case, the actual majority holder is the Danaher Corporation. There might be something to this proposal, but I'm not seeing Tony Bennett's photo getting upstaged by a living person I've heard even less about. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was not meant to upstage any existing photo. Its source is also unknown and will be replaced by something better once the option is available. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my comment wasn't intended to accuse you (or whomever might have nominated this), it's just what would happen, matter of coursely. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including a photo that you know can't be used seems... well, absurd. Just don't add a photo to the nomination. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see the significance. Sports teams have basically become status symbols for rich people and thus prices are inflated significantly (although the value of sports has actually increased). There will always be sports team sales and people looking to display their wealth among other reasons and with the increased competition and interest sports team sale records will eventually be broken. We can’t just post it every time that happens and we didn’t even nominate the last record-breaking sports team sale (Todd Boehly buying Chelsea). I know Triple C is a thing but I’m just saying. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me, Triple H is also a thing and the sports franchise he leads is (tentatively) worth nine big ones. Yes, it's entertainment. But it's still sports entertainment to me, dammit. Not a dealbreaker. Just maybe it should read "team" instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t even notice my omission of team from other two instances haha. Thanks for telling me! Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 10:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that, either, but now that you mention it, sports sale is technically undefined here. Kind of sounds like a sporting goods sale and kind of like what you meant. Could go either way, honestly...but that's a worry for another day, you're welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's something of a niche "record" and it's one that could very well be overtaken quite quickly with the sale of Manchester United; I don't see that we could keep posting these every time it happens. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not that relevant outside this sport. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Washington Commanders? Never heard of them... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW Not front-page news, and a record that will be broken repeatedly for many years to come. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how the sale of a local club, in a national league of a sport only played in a single nation, is notable. Maybe if it was well-known and moving to a place far away; but selling a franchise in a top league is a dime-a-dozen. I'd think that a sale like they controversial sale of Chelsea, or the selling of Newcastle to the Saudi government would be more notable - but still not ITN; at least it'd have wider coverage. It's a big amount, but it's not that dissimilar to the sale price of Chelsea, or the Denver Broncos last year. Nfitz (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2023 (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: Malú Urriola

Article: Malú Urriola (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Tercera
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.

 gobonobo + c 22:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good (assuming good faith on Spanish sources). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine Alex-h (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian O'Neill

Article: Brian O'Neill (ice hockey, born 1929) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article appears sufficient in terms of depth, length and sourcing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 03:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Articles appears to be well-cited, and I am quite impressed with how in-depth the article covers his career in just three paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) Blurb/RD: Tony Bennett

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: Tony Bennett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American singer Tony Bennett (pictured) dies at the age of 96 (Post)
News source(s): Variety, BBC, AP, 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 singer, GA article (from 2009) --Vacant0 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support you just beat me to the nom mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: Support RD, Weak Oppose Blurb per Humbledaisy below. Personally, I feel like we are going a bit overboard with blurbing RD's lately mike_gigs talkcontribs
  • Blurb - easy pass on quality, merits a blurb on significance, seeing as the Washington Post and NYTimes already have obits, and Id expect BBC with its breaking news alert to follow shortly. nableezy - 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support blurb There are a handful of last sentences on paragraphs in his bio about more recent performances that are unsourced but that these could be removed. RD is clearly ready, I really want to support a blurb because this is a case that should clearly have a blurb, but really would like to see some type of section about impact/legacy, which should be possible from the obits that are coming out (eg career spanning many generations and musical styles, influence to other singers, etc.), this is not a case where I think the importance is being handwaved but it really needs to be documented on its own in the article itself. --Masem (t) 12:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically, currently "Great American Songbook" -which Bennett is nominally credited for and supporting through his career, only appears once and in a parenthetical. This is clearly part of a legacy that needs to be discussed from the obits. --Masem (t) 13:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, support blurb Not really much to be said. Article is a GA and is excellent in terms of length, depth and sourcing. I also think it’s worth a blurb as well, due to the quality of the article (although some extra work to establish the sui generis significance needed for a blurb in the article itself would be nice) and the notability of the person. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Eight decades (or more?) career, twenty Grammys, large than life personality, what else should be for blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taking a quick look at the article, there are paragraphs and lines without sources. It needs to be revised. I think Bennett is one of the most deserving of a blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alsoriano97:: Fixed up by adding sources. Are there any more areas that need sourcing?
    TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TDKR Chicago 101: I've just added a CN tag in Personal life section. Nothing serious. Thanks for your work! _-_Alsor (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb in principle, but the article contains unreferenced lines of text (it's very weird that this is a GA).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It even had unsourced text when it became a GA in 2009. Things were different then. Weak Support by the way, when quality issues are resolved; Bennett seems to be right on the borderline of ITNability. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: I tried adding some more sourced to the article. The recent obits have been a great help to fix up his article.
    TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, article is excellent and is GA. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb Bennett was an influential singer with a career that lasted for decades and won numerous of accolades. The article is in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Slam-dunk nom, extremely influential and long-lasting career in the world of music. Article needs some quality fixes, however. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD posted Consensus that quality is met. Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Tony obviously had a long and distinguished career, but I think the last man standing factor might have magnified his cultural significance somewhat. He was not quite the top in his field during the 1950s-1960s height of his career; his peak roughly coincided the commercial and critical peaks of the likes of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby and Perry Como. I don’t think he’d be getting considered for a blurb if those performers hadn’t predeceased him. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Had Sinatra or Perry Como died when Wikipedia already existed they would have been blurbed, I don't understand the argument. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb mostly per Humbledaisy. A popular and well-known figure in the entertainment world but not quite in the top tier. The article is in excellent shape (for a change) and certainly good enough for RT. But a blurb is not warranted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If he wasn't in top tier, then who was? Kirill C1 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Sinatra, who achieved almost 40 US top 20 studio albums over the 1950s and 60s. Bennett made 27 studio albums in the 50s and 60s and just six of them made the US top 40 (only I Left My Heart in San Francisco charted in the UK). Only one album charted in the 50s. Obviously he was successful, but he didn't have the kind of sustained success I'd say would qualify as top tier. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sinatra died long time ago.
      We blurbed both Elizabeth II and dos Santos, and both Kumar and Sidney Poitier, and Tina Turner and Indian singer. We blurb different people, it is not like only one person qualifies for each field. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That was exactly my point in my earlier comment on this nomination - if Sinatra and co were not long dead, we would not be considering Bennett. It is his longevity that has made him appear more prominent than he was, IMO. Your mileage may vary but Sinatra, Martin, Como et al all have recordings that are still intensely well-known today, at least in the Anglophone sphere, and I don't think Bennett's best-known recordings are quite at that level of recognition. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m more familiar w/Bennett than I am w/Como. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per above. estar8806 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD This is a well-written article and I saw no {cn} or orange tags when I checked it. As for the blurb, I am leaning towards strong support earlier but I think Humbledaisy raised a good point; however, I am still voting weak support blurb because although Sinatra, Como, Cole, etc. were clearly more famous than him and had more lasting legacies, I think his longevity in the music industry is enough to warrant a blurb (albeit less convincing than the others that were blurbed/not blurbed in the past; the discussion re: Barbara Walters last December/January comes to mind.) Vida0007 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb This person does seem to be a very well known figure over in America, article is in great condition, and person is very influential with a very long career in the Music industry. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I was on the fence until remembering that what I think of his legacy shouldn't matter. Reading obituaries mentioning his singing for presidents and royalty, winning 20 Grammys, having #1 albums a half-century apart, taking part in civil rights marches... the importance and relevance are there. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Singing for presidents and royalty, winning 20 Grammys and having #1 albums a half-century apart is a rather extraordinary achievement. Even doing one of those things could set a person apart from his or her peers, regardless of age at death. But taking part in civil rights marches is all about blending in with the crowd, which is why the title characters from the Million Man March, Million Woman March and even Million People March are largely unsung. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Nothing about the death requires the extra explanation that a blurb provides. All that needs to be said is that he died. RD is designed exactly for that. --Jayron32 18:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't we recently put up a blurb for Milan Kundera? All it says is "Czech-French writer Milan Kundera dies at the age of 94." Then why can't we do the same for Tony? 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb for Kundera should never have been posted in the first place. Same with Bennett. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same for everyone whose "story" is just a truncated version of their lead (past, present and future). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an idea that with RD blurbs, we should be able to include a 6-10 word phrase that succinctly gets the reason the person who is important across quickly. Eg for Bennett "who popularized the "Great American Songbook" over five decades" or something like that. I'm sure wordsmiths could make that tighter. But I would think we need to brainstorm how to do this first on the talk page. But I do see the valid issue that if we are just saying "X dies at the age of YY", that's not really any more helpful than an RD line mention. Masem (t) 01:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main RD page covers this death as Tony Bennett, 96, American singer ("I Left My Heart in San Francisco", "Rags to Riches", "Because of You"), 20-time Grammy winner. We could replace the final comma and add "dies" to end our copy or could go Photo RD or could let the established necrology exclusively do its job. I think all of these fine ideas have been pitched at Talk, in various words, to no avail. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Blurb Household name, and an excellent opportunity to prominently feature a GA on the main page. SunsetShotguns (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb, and Post Support RD Bennett is one of the rare cases where the article is a GA, and his legacy crossed several generations. From his hit making days in the 50's and 60's, his strong popularity with many of his time (I.e, can think of think of Sinatra saying something along the lines of "Money's worth" to see him preform.), and the many modern day artists he's worked with or influenced (Lady Gaga, Amy Winehouse), and winning 20 Grammys, seems to me blurb written to a t. TheCorriynial (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb He has accomplished way more than enough to deserve this. Grammy and chart topper across the decades if not the better part of the century. CoatCheck (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I also think both the article and Bennett's career have all they need to deserve a mention. It's quite a shame he never achieved that kind of fame in Europe, as well, but still, he was definitely an important figure within American music. Oltrepier (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - GA article, multi-generational icon, ITN blurb consensus clear. Jusdafax (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb No issues with sourcing now (although there shouldn't be cites in the lede—why are they there?), and his strong significance merits a blurb. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The article’s quality is good enough & his career merits a blurb. He easily merits a blurb if Kundera deserves a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Blurb Article quality is sufficient. Leading figure in his field. Household name. Popular appeal and public interest are inadequately weighted in death blurbs and RD. Dr Fell (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as blurb Stephen 00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question Have we come up with sensible rules about blurbing old, dead people yet? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
“Awarded” to HiLo48 for breathtaking lack of clue and general insensitivity to consensus. Take to the Talk page, if you must. Not here. Jusdafax (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously though, no need for another Talk, we've already decided to decide anew each time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, still no rules. It sure looked that way here. The absence of rules will inevitably lead to a seeming lack of sensitivity. How long can we keep up this idiocy? HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an unwritten rule I've noticed about getting five or more Ayes or Nays in a row, seems to seal the deal, loosely speaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes, that seems to be the case. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trout seconded. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 12:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Never heard of him before now.Fdfexoex (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He made duets with Stevie Wonder and Sting, among other things. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a very bad argument. Imagine opposing a blurb of, let's say, George Michael, dying, just because you've never heard of him. Granted, everyone's heard of George Michael, but that's basically your entire "pull" argument. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull It happens Not on any of The Rat Pack's "level" (among other still well-regarded crooners of yore). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he is more famous than Joey Bishop or Lawford.
    And there are 22 votes for blurb and 5 opposes. There was a clear consensus before posting. You could have voted then, I mean. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are supposed to assess the content and quality of comments, NOT count votes. Otherwise I could just get 50 of my friends to agree with me here. Or post under 50 aliases. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's check content of an oppose comment "Oppose blurb Nothing about the death requires the extra explanation that a blurb provides. All that needs to be said is that he died. RD is designed exactly for that."
    I have to give it to Jayron, he is consistent in his opinion and uses the same argument always. But this is not what is written in guidelines, because this concerns one blurb type, where death is the story, and there is another one, for which we blurbed Sidney Poitier, Milan Kundera, Tina Turner, Jim Brown recently. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying there ARE guidelines? Where? HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths
    There are Death as news story and Major figure types of blurbs.
    Here is major figure type. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So how do we unarguably identify a major figure? Don't say "consensus". It obviously doesn't work, because so many editors read that as counting votes, which we must not do. And such an approach would eliminate almost everyone not from a popular activity in the US or the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my household, he isn't (though his most famous song gets more play than any Lawford movie). And I could only have voted in time in theory. In practice, I wasn't here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw your replies to posts and didn't check time code. Indeed, they were done after the posting of article. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew it! I'm not the only one, either. It happened with that Czech guy whose best book I believe most English readers only saw the movie about, it happened to the guy who got this Pull rolling and it'll happen to you one day, too. It's as unenviable a position as it is inevitable. Anyway, since you were so kind as to admit your mistake, I've given y'all a pass on my end of the Pull, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2023 (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.

Raigad Landslide

Article: 2023 Raigad landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, a landslide in the state of Maharashtra kills at least 26 people and traps more than a hundred others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In India, severe weather causes a landslide in Maharashtra and flooding in other states with hundreds of casualties.
News source(s): AP - Reuters - Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: More than 100 people are feared dead in India after a landslide traps dozens, with 16 already confirmed dead. Article needs work. — Knightoftheswords 01:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - not seeing the long-term significance of this. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 02:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the death toll seems insignificant on ITN, there seems to be no long-term significant impact, and this only seems to affect Maharashtra. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a blurb for Indian flooding and landslides. Stephen 02:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Northern Indian. Maybe this could be worked in, the toll combined and the qualifier removed. But maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don’t see how this event is that significant right now, but can be persuaded if further developments occur. Quality wise the article isn’t the worst but still needs a good amount of work. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 02:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs article improvement but support updating the related blurb to reference both articles once ready. - Indefensible (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now based solely on article quality. It's quite light on information. If the article were expanded to a more appropriate depth-of-coverage, I could fully support this. --Jayron32 10:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as the article's not much more than a stub. Undecided on notability, but leaning oppose. The Kip (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, This does not seem to be a significant event and the article is too short. Alex-h (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Bambang Kristiono

Article: Bambang Kristiono (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://news.detik.com/berita/d-6833162/jenazah-bambang-kristiono-dibawa-ke-san-diego-hills-untuk-dimakamkan
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: Politician and criminal from Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: One CN tag; otherwise, has appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 04:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Merrill J. Fernando

Article: Merrill J. Fernando (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 7News (Australia)
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: Sri Lankan industrialist. Article requires some work. I will work on it tonight. If someone wants to get to it before me, please feel free to jump in. Ktin (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry folks. Something came up irl, and I am unable to work on this one. The article is not too far off. Appreciate if someone can take a look at this one and take it forward. Ktin (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He's quite a significant person. Ktin I've added a bit more, and more sources. Also updated the Dilmah article the other day. Could be too late though?
Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


RD: Bill Geddie

Article: Bill Geddie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/bill-geddie-dead-the-view-barbara-walters-abc-producer-1235676692/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Television Producer. Article looks alright. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Article lists info in lede that is not mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article (e.g. May Avenue Productions, Barbara Walters show); could use expansion to include information on those shows. SpencerT•C 04:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Matei-Agathon Dan

Article: Matei-Agathon Dan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/a-murit-dan-matei-agathon-fostul-ministru-al-turismului-2432993
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Romanian politician. Article looks good Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose for now. Article has some quality issues; it reads like a machine translation given the awkward phrases it uses in places ("suspended himself" rather than the "resigned"), has some capitalization issues, inconsistent use of the hyphen in his name, and could use some expansion, a 1-paragraph biography seems a bit light. --Jayron32 11:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready Needs more work; had to place a citation needed tag. Schwede66 04:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Mirko Novosel

Article: Mirko Novosel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Mirko Novosel, a FIBA Hall of Fame basketball player and coach, dies at 85 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Croatian FIBA Hall of Fame basketball player and coach Mirko Novosel dies at 85.
News source(s): B92, Eurohoops, Vecernji.hr, Index.hr
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Sadly, the article doesn't have adequate sourcing, so it would be a great help to help fix up the late Mirko's page to add some more sources, since he was a famous basketball player. Being in Croatia at the moment, I saw him on the national news, meaning he is quite famous in Croatia. There should be a source somewhere 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose RD and blurb Article is in poor quality for even RD. In terms of blurb, I cannot see how Novosel was influential in his field and the article does not reflect that either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, oppose RD for now (edit conflict) Sadly, this is an undersourced stub and cannot be posted like this. It should not be a blurb merely for being famous in Croatia or a member of the FIBA HoFer. Individuals listed at List of members of the FIBA Hall of Fame are not automatic blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not created by me. The creator was User:Karaboom, in this edit[5]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, oppose RD until article is improved Mooonswimmer 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality, as it's missing a ton of references. Strong oppose blurb per Muboshgu. The Kip (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD at the moment, as the article is quite brief and unsourced; I think we can SNOW the possibility of a blurb, since that will obviously not occur, so it's not worth discussing. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is in poor condition for RD, let alone a blurb. lots of unsourced stuff in the article, will need to be improved for RD, and I think we can just forget the blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, oppose RD on quality Blurbwise I don’t see how he deserves a blurb and the article doesn’t indicate how this person was influential, he just seems like a famous basketball player and nothing more. As for RD the article is pretty stubby and extremely sparsely sourced, needs a lot of work. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 02:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb & RD He isn’t notable enough as a player or coach for a blurb & the article’s quality isn’t good enough to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, He fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready It's still a stub and has a long way to go before it's ready for RD. Schwede66 04:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nick Benedict

Article: Nick Benedict (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Entertainment Weekly
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been expanded and updated. Well sourced as well. He died on July 14th however his dead was announced today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup

Article: 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: per WP:ITNSPORTS Happily888 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point of Order ITNSPORTS says ongoing nominations like these typically fail and to wait for a winner. An exception was made for the 2019 Women's World Cup, but that's it. So far, anyway. This is not an Oppose vote. Just saying it's not guaranteed (even if the article is written well and updated continually). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2014, all FIFA World Cups have been added to ongoing (see: 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2022). Happily888 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the FIFA World Cups, unqualified, and even those discussions had to work for it; no free passes and no green banners. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this World Cup won in 2015, but my point mostly stands, case-by-case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO the ongoing nomination should not have the ITN/R template (the policy cited in ITNSPORTS states that 'FIFA World Cup is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry.', but it's unclear whether this includes the Women's World Cup as well, nor is a discussion cited, and all previously linked ongoing nominations have not had the ITN/R template). Given that both World Cups have been posted consistently to ongoing, a separate talkpage discussion to be able to cite for future reference could be worthwhile. 107.203.253.33 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No-brainer this really; there is precedent for doing so, article is on good quality and is being maintained, and there is a fixed end-point that it can be removed on. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and removed the errant ITNR tag. Consensus discussion on the subject is that while a great many sporting events may be described as "ongoing" only the absolute highest in interest would actually be listed as such. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the tournament that is higher in interest in women's football than this one is...? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't pretend like you didn't understand my comment then prompt for a response like you are engaging in discourse. It's not civil. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah come on, I am curious as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was against posting the 2022 FIFA World Cup onto ongoing but, given it’s been posted, this should be as well. There also seems to be a good precedent for doing so.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. The Kip (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems to have been done uncontroversially in the past, and the target article seems to be in good shape. I don't see where there is any qualification on "Men's but not Women's" in the statement "The FIFA World Cup is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry." This is a FIFA World Cup; and this reflects practice, given that every such World Cup has been posted to ongoing since 2014 (without regard to gender). I don't see any reason to break that standard just for this year. --Jayron32 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The" suggests "one" to me. "A" could be better, but also potentially worse since I don't think the community is ready to accept the under-20s as equally important to those over. That said, Support per posting. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gender does not equal quality. Not forcing expected gender into text that doesn't exist is not the same as not understanding that the under-20 tournament is not the same as the top-level tournament.--Jayron32 10:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is the primary topic for FIFA World Cup is just that, and everything else that can be considered a FIFA World Cup is in FIFA World Cup#Other FIFA tournaments. But yes, there's nothing stopping any ongoing sports event article from conveying high-quality information in a timely manner, if given the chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality looks good, and ongoing was created on part to feature topics like the Workd Cup. --Masem (t) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted per discussion and precedent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Beat me to posting by mere seconds. Let this serve as a post-posting strong support. Kicking222 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats We have about 8 years of detailed stats now so FYI here's how such big sporting events have performed over the years. The women's event seems comparable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Auckland shooting

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: 2023 Auckland shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In New Zealand, three people are dead from a shooting in Auckland's CBD just hours before the city hosts the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup opening game. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Two people are killed and seven injured in a mass shooting in Auckland, New Zealand.
News source(s): BBC News; CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A shooting with three fatalities (including the shooter) is certainly not a notable event. Make it happen right in the city centre of a place where the FIFA Women's World Cup is to kick off a few hours later, and you have the whole world showing an interest. Schwede66 01:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt Ec'd on the nom, but added alt that doesn't mention World Cup. Support as creator and per nom comment. Apparently the World Cup was not the perp's motivation (hence alt), but he certainly picked a time and place to make an international scene (hence support). Also, there's been 6 (if I can count) mass shootings in New Zealand, take that information however you want. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three people dead, though, including the perpetrator, who I suggest should be included in the count. Schwede66 01:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been thankfully quite a while since we've posted an attack incident, I can't remember if we usually include perps in the body count. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there's no reason to suspect that this will have sustained notability. I wouldn't support posting this if it happened in the US, so I see no reason to support this because it happened elsewhere. It just sounds like a crazy person with a gun, unless the world cup was related to this person's choice to do it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't support if it happened in the US either, but it did not happen in the US, and in terms of shootings, location is newsworthy context. I do not think this would be in the (real) news at all if it happened in the US. There's a chance it wouldn't really scratch the surface if it was in Paris or London, either. Likewise, while the World Cup was apparently not a motive, I do not think this would be getting as extensive live coverage in the news if it did not happen where and when it did specifically. The newsworthiness is very affected by context in this case. Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Already ruled not related to terrorism or the like, and thus sounds like a normal domestic crime with no connection to the Women's Cup. --Masem (t) 02:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not terrorism, not WWC related, not significant. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt (but prefer three dead and six injured) Not natural causes, not an act of God, good to mix things up. The coverage is certainly there. The article's fairly brief, as are the "flooding and landslides" ones; no glaring problems. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A young man lost control and killed two people with a shotgun, and ended up dead himself. This does not meet most definitions of a mass shooting. No connection has yet been established with the athletic event taking place nearby. This is a run-of-the-mill murder. The article has serious undue weight issues. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't in the US, where these things are common. Secretlondon (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A young man also shot six people with a shotgun who lived to tell about it. Victim impact statements can go a long way in a coroner's inquest. And an inquest can have some pretty drastic effects on gun laws. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't see how this is notable. If the death count was higher I'd most likely look at this an other way, but 2 deaths is pretty insignificant (although tragic nonetheless) for ITN. TwistedAxe [contact] 08:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article seems to be very WP:COATRACKy, conflating other events that were close in space and time, but otherwise unrelated, to the subject. The article has only about 10 sentences about the shooting itself, including information about the killer themselves and about the response. There's not a lot here to hang a blurb on, really. It's a horrific, tragic event, but unless the article can be expanded significantly, about the event itself and its significance, I'm not sure it merits the main page. If more information comes out that allows us to expand the article significantly, I would be willing to change my vote.--Jayron32 10:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt Context is important, whilst this event wouldn't be notable in the US, it definitely is if country has very low mass shooting rates were to have one. Happily888 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is quite short when you remove the chunk about its effect on the Women's World Cup, and otherwise, it barely meets the definition of a mass shooting as it is. Agree with above that sustained notability is likely to be low. The Kip (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While gun violence is relatively uncommon in New Zealand (though not as unheard of as some might assume), this incident isn't particularly notable. The "Women's World Cup" section is unnecessary, as the shooting was unrelated to the event, despite headlines suggesting a connection.Mooonswimmer 19:56, 20 July 2023 (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.

July 19

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Silvana Lattmann

Article: Silvana Lattmann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L'Osservatore
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Swiss biologist, known as a poet and author (in Italian), died on 19 July at age 104, but reported only yesterday, obit above is from today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Darrel Aschbacher

Article: Darrel Aschbacher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Prineville Funeral Home, Central Oregon Daily
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: Died on July 15, first reported on July 19, just noticed now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support The career section could be a bit bigger, but the article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a 60 year gap between his career and his death. That concerns me more than the length of the career section. BeanieFan11, can you add anything about his post-career life? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: Got a sentence out of the obit about him serving as a pilot, but it seems there's very little out there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That'll do. It's not much, but I assume it's all that's out there. Support and marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready Unreferenced date of birth. Schwede66 04:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Date & Place of Birth are now next to a footnote. -- PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66: It was already verified by PFR in the infobox, but now we've got an in-text citation as well. Do you think its ready now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted No, it had not been verified; that was the exact issue. But that’s now been fixed. Schwede66 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Reston Jr.

Article: James Reston Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/us/james-reston-jr-dead.html
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Author. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks generally good, except for the one CN tag at the end. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well sourced. One cn tag in a vastly well sourced article shouldn't keep it from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Formation of opposition grand alliance in India

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: Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, 26 opposition parties unite and form the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In India, 26 opposition parties unite and form the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance.
News source(s): The Indian Express, BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This nomination will probably get opposes, but I think it's still pretty significant (tbh I'm from Bangladesh). Significant opposition parties like TMC and AAP, who are (now were) political opponents of INC-led UPA have also joined the I.N.D.I.A. alliance, just with the aim to take on the ruling BJP-led NDA. — Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally just saying that India is a populous country. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. An event like this greatly affects nearly 1 billion voters. I'm not one to complain about American or Western bias on ITN, but I do feel like if this kind of event happened in the USA (if the USA was a multi-party democracy that is), it would probably be posted.PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Democrats joining the Republicans? You bet that would be worldwide news. A single-party system would alter the political trajectory of this country forever. Of course, the nomination would likely still be contentious, because of the usual apprehension towards U.S. political intrigue. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read too fast and realized you were referring to a multi-democracy system, or perhaps more likely, splinter parties in the United States merging into one. Still, it would be a big deal. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Another equivalent scenario would be a populist, right-wing party becoming dominant by a wide margin in US politics, leading to the Republicans, Democrats, and other small parties to enter a coalition to oppose them. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support a similar story if China becomes a democratic country one day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BJP led National Democratic Alliance is still bigger then the new INDIA alliance. So it is not the largest ever made party-wise. Rushtheeditor (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the NDA is now bigger but not sure if it used to be at the time of its formation in 1998. That's why I used "perhaps".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually NDA's number of members doesn't actually matters very much here (IMO).
In INDIA, there maybe less parties, but there are more than one party which has major significance in Indian politics. TMC, AAP, JD(U), NCP, SP... these have significance in Indian politics, if not national then regional.
Also, it's the first time all major oppositions of the BJP has came under one coalition.
Now, BJP has been much powerful to rule India solely, and it's still the most major. And many analysts say that BJP is hard to defeat because 'opposition isn't united'. Now that's no more relevant. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I think in general, these kinds of internal political machinations are best left for when such alliances and coalitions actually win elections. When they take the majority in the next general election, and when the next Prime Minister gets selected from said alliance, then we will have the time to post such a thing. --Jayron32 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty much guaranteed we'll post the 2024 Indian election anyways. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A lot of people would oppose solely for the reason that this is really just domestic politics and has no widespread significance, but the fact that this has happened in the largest democracy in the world, with nearly 1 BILLION eligible voters, that's big news. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm very uninformed about India and its politics, this is a pretty unprecedented event.
Population isn't the only reason I support (this is In the News, article is being well updated), but it is a significant factor that elevates the notability of Indian affairs for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This alliance of the 26 parties is a major event in the politics of India and it has quite significant representation in both the Lok Sabha (143/543) and Rayja Sabha (96/245) and could very well shape up to be a strong force against the NDA and, by extension, Modi's nearly decade long position as PM. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose This could have some major political ramifications in the upcoming general election let alone in Modi's nearly decade tenure as PM. However, the later half of the article is unsourced. Once this is fixed, I can fully support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the orange tag. The article is a lacking some prose, but I'd be willing to support if the tag gets removed mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once fixed. I agree with the voices above. The depth and impact of this is quite significant, and it would be nice to post some India-related stories that aren't just disasters. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Chandrayaan-3 successfully lands on the Moon, that’ll be an ITN/R story involving India that isn’t a disaster. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pre-election alliances are somewhat commonplace in the parliamentary system, and I do not recall another one being nominated previously. Being bias-averse, I would strongly object to breaking new ground due to the country's population, especially when that country is English-speaking. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you are much aware of Indian politics in the recent decade(s).
    This alliance isn't just a normal electoral coalition in a parliamentary democracy. In the last 14years, oppositions of the ruling BJP has never been this much united. They had feud within themselves. But it's the first time many years that parties which are actually enemies, have formed one grand alliance to take on the ruling coalition (In India). Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment; India is not an English speaking country, despite it being an official language in much of the country. Only 12% speak it fluently and 70% do not speak it at all. There are far more fluent English speakers in many other countries - 31 countries are rated as "High" or "Very High" in fluency and India is not amongst them, being rated 52nd out of 111. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even if it were true, why would India being an English-speaking nation be relevant? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The concern specifically is bias in favor of locations where a substantial portion of our editors reside or identify with. Upon further review, I believe only the US and UK have such a significant proportion of editors as to raise this concern. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to be very much a work-in-progress. And it's interesting to read that Rahul Gandhi has been officially disqualified as a candidate while we ran a similar ban on Bolsonaro for weeks. All such countries have political news every day and our general practise is to just report the most major results such as election outcomes and other changes of power. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot still be hung-up about the Bolsonaro blurb which had near unanimous support and was well within ITN tradition for former national leaders; comparing him to disqualified opposition leaders (never posted) is not really justified. Gotitbro (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point in that case was that use of the law against opposition parties was commonplace. In this case, Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified while the INDIA acronym has already been reported to the police as an improper use of the country's name. Meanwhile, the parties can't quite agree what it stands for -- D = Democratic or Developmental, depending on who you talk to. As I said, it's a work-in-progress. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability - this is clearly important. Oppose on quality - not good enough yet. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would like to see precedent for this, AFAIK we have not posted such coalition "announcements" ever before which only become significant (for us) at election time. Leaning oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - wait what? A group of parties have agreed to form a coalition, but that coalition is not the government, as this coalition is still in the minority? These parties usually vote in opposition to the government anyway. So what? Coalitions are formed in nearly every election cycle in nearly every parliamentary multi-party system. Otherwise this is internal political machinations that is trivial to most people, including Indians. nableezy - 19:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is certainly notable, and this may as well be one of the largest political coalition ever made, once the article is fixed, this should be ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not even the largest coalition in India? That would be the governing coalition National Democratic Alliance with, checks notes, the majority in the Lok Sabha. nableezy - 02:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions What does "List of governments" mean, in context? Also, doesn't an alliance require multiple parties? And wouldn't "uniting" make them one? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nableezy and GreatCaesarsGhost. There’s nothing especially notable about this compared to other coalition formations, beyond the fact that India has a massive population. The Kip (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - did we post the turkish untiy coalition? this is awfully similar to that. it would set precedent. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't post something that wasn't nominated, and absence is not evidence of insignificance. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    oh. its a shame it wasnt nominated. Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability; certainly a massive group of parties and from a diverse background. Oppose on article quality (referencing; disambiguation needed) and depth. Schwede66 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GCG. Unnotable. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not tracking the significance unless they, per Jayron32's comments, produce a PM to office. CoatCheck (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not even a formal coalition, it's an electoral alliance and these can be very short lived Abcmaxx (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Abcmaxx. Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose wait elections results Shadow4dark (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

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

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