Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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

Alexei Navalny in 2011
Alexei Navalny

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Archives[edit]

October 21[edit]

Health and environment

Politics and elections


RD: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi[edit]

Article: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Forbes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) Sakharov Prize[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Alexei Navalny (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny (pictured) is awarded the Sakharov Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny (pictured) is awarded the Sakharov Prize for his contribution to protecting freedom of thought.
Alternative blurb II: ​Opposition politician Alexei Navalny (pictured) is awarded the Sakharov Prize for his work against corruption in Russia.
News source(s): Euronews, dpa, DW (Eng.), WaPo, NPR, AFP (Via Yahoo), NYT (paywalled)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Update currently may be small, but otherwise the article looks ok. Brandmeistertalk 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

These two aren't too bad. [1] [2] Favor the first one. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – A significant gesture vis-a-vis Russian autocracy. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – Worth putting in, considering the article quality and the significance of the subject.ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support while there are a few unsourced claims in the BLP, "it's got more than 400 refs" etc etc, and I haven't the energy to argue. It would be just fine to bold the prize article too which, after all, is a featured list and isn't in bad condition. I would say that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support, as prize article is excellent, and this is a significant subject.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted Stephen 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

Consensus is not going to develop to remove this from ongoing. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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


Article: COVID-19 pandemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Our oldest blurb is from October 14th. Since that day, nothing has been added to this article. Nothing at all. This plainly fails the Ongoing criteria the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information in every sense. If there is a specific article linked within this that is getting updates, then that article should be nominated for Ongoing. But we've had a static article featured on the Front Page for months that any interested reader has probably read many times over. If there is to be a specific carve-out for this particular article and Ongoing, please make a Talk section for it. I can't think of any non-IAR reason why this is still here. 130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support No longer an urgent developing story, overall, just became its own daily genre of mundane statistical reports, like weather, stocks or sports. New normal, as they say. Certainly doesn't need us to spotlight it anymore, if it ever did, the word's out. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose one would be hard-pressed to find a news outlet which doesn't publish COVID-related stories every day. Banedon (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support the requirement to stay on ongoing is that significant additions are being regularly made to an article. That isn't the case here, as there's barely any updates in October 2021. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - this is still the single dominant story worldwide, even a year and a half after it started, and it still kills thousands every day. We've always treated it as an exception to the "continual updates" rule, in the interests of providing a quick link to this ongoing story from the main page. And having it as an Ongoing item was already a compromise given that we previously had a dedicated box to it at the top of ITN, whose removal many editors opposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • When was there an agreed consensus to treat this as an exception? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Amakuru. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The main reason why the article linked from ongoing doesn't receive regular updates is that it's already attained a stable version, and most of the daily updates are therefore done in its numerous sub-articles. If this is not enough to justify it, there are cases where we can invoke WP:IAR, and this is surely one of them. In the long run, we'll probably remove this from ongoing when WHO declares that the pandemic is over and post it in a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Given the unequal distribution of vaccines globally and the unequal vaccination rates across different regions of individual countries, it's unlikely that the WHO will declare the pandemic to be over any time soon. So we can't wait for such an announcement. The only criteria we can use is public interest which is still very high and will remain so for a while Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. The pandemic is not only still going on, it's still front-page news in many (perhaps most?) countries. Coronavirus stories are currently the top item on the websites of the BBC, CBC, Guardian, New York Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. Life has not returned to 'normal' in most places. I understand the argument that the article isn't receiving frequent updates, which has merit. The traffic is also down to 20,000 hits per day - not insubstantial but not as high as I thought it would be. The numerous sub-articles are being updated, so we could switch the link to a more active target, but then it would be difficult to decide which one and we would be missing parts of the story. We shouldn't penalise an event for being so big that it spawned dozens of articles. This is the biggest news story since ITN began; I think we can treat it as a special case and IAR. Modest Genius talk 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Per Banedon, Amakuru. The pandemic remains the paramount condition of life on Earth and as such is comprehensively covered by RS media worldwide on a daily basis. – Sca (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This is, quite literally, ongoing, and as others have said before, this is the biggest news story, and it's been so for over a year and a half. It would be wrong to remove this from Ongoing. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - We can't wish COVID-19 away. Even if vaccines are now widely available, the ongoing supply chain issue caused by pandemic lockdowns is definitely still present and covered by RS.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The pandemic is ongoing and will be still for a long while. Sadly that link may remain there for a really long time but so be it. Rhino131 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Amakuru.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Suggestion Would it be better to change the link to a piped link to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2021 which is fully referenced and regularly updated? We could just shift the link each month to the new month's timeline. Just a thought... --Jayron32 13:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well, that's listed in the 'Series' box below the infobox. Perhaps it should be added to 'See also' list below the text? – Sca (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I would say no, at that would be an Easter Egg link. If we're keeping COVID-19 on ongoing, it should be the main article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    A reasonable suggestion in principle, but in practice those timelines are a random selection of facts with little consistency and no coherent narrative. I doubt they would be of much use to readers. Modest Genius talk 13:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Still top news around the World. Change to "COVID-19 pandemic (October 2021)" to include an updated article without removing the main article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Plenty of daily updates in subarticles of the topic - the top level is too broad for most of those to perculoate into that. --Masem (t) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – The main problem with the Covid article is length – more than 18,000 words. That equates to some 70 pages of typescript, or over 500 column-inches of the newspaper type of yore. Maybe a contingent of courageous copy editors should set to work on paring it down somewhat? (Not that it's unimportant, it's just unwieldy.) – Sca (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose WP:IAR, much like the pandemic itself.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Closed) RD: Megan Rice[edit]

WP:NAC: stale (died on October 10 and reported the next day, which is beyond the oldest date not yet archived). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Megan Rice (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT WaPo The Independent
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: Anti-nuclear/peace activist and Catholic nun, most famous for breaching a nuclear storage facility aged 83, referred to as the biggest security breach in the history of the nation's atomic bomb complexjonas (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • When? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.58.81 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Note Article quality looks good EXCEPT 1) there is no prose explanation of her death, either the manner or location of it, except that there is a date of death in the parenthetical at the beginning 2) The date, Oct 10, is to old to be considered for current inclusion on the list, unless news of her death has only been more recently released, and the explanation of her death in the text should indicate such a discrepancy as well. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • WaPo obit added by the nominator is dated the 11th. Suggest Close. 159.53.78.141 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I see that this is the nominator's first nomination with WP:ITNC. I see that they have missed out by 1 day. I also see that the article is well-referenced and from the looks of it -- pretty much ready to make it to homepage / RD. As a one-time exception, I would request the Admins to consider this nomination, given that it is the nominator's first submission. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russia-NATO relations[edit]

Article: Russia–NATO relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russia breaks off relations with NATO after NATO expels 8 Russian diplomats for alleged espionage (Post)
News source(s): [3] [4] [5]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Surprised that this hasn't been nominated, might need a better blurb though. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

  • Russia announces that it will be suspending its mission to NATO in Brussels as early as November 1, in response to the expulsion of 8 diplomats accused of espionage from the mission earlier this month. The NATO information bureau and military liaison in Moscow will also be terminated. (CNN)

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: David Finn[edit]

Article: David Finn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; PRWeek
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment First spot check of references turned up problems, now tagged. 'Ography in good shape.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I've removed the first part of the sentence in question and added a ref for the second part. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The article seems to be fully sourced, including the bibliography. So, I think it's good enough for a RD.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 06:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Edita Gruberová[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Stellar Slovak coloratura soprano who sang leading roles for 50 years, based at the Vienna State Opera. Farewell concerts cancelled due to pandemic. The article was rather well developed, and we are still at it, because she really deserves more, but it looks well sourced as it is. Enjoy. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support. Well cited throughout, should be ready. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. A voice hard to forget. Article looks pretty good. cart-Talk 11:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: János Kornai[edit]

Article: János Kornai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HVG.hu Hungary Today
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Hungarian economist. Found this one in Deaths in 2021. Article requires some work including references. However, before we proceed, we should really look for additional news sources confirming death, unless we have a Hungarian editor who can confirm that the HVG.hu site is WP:RS. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose – At a grand total of 46 words, this article seems to have been prematurely nominated. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    Hi there @Sca: -- did you mean to post this above comment on a different thread? This article has 662 words and is considered by rater.js to be a C class biography. It needs some work in organizing and tidying up, including adding refs for unreferenced sentences. But, definitely has more than 46 words. That said, if there is a Hungarian editor, I would like some additional news sources if available. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm pretty sure he meant to comment on Electron quadruplets which has exactly 48 words. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Ooops! Sorry... – Sca (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment If you still need more sources,Hungary Today recently published an English-language articleon his death Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Electron quadruplets - New state of matter[edit]

WP:NAC: regardless of what people think of the significance, this is a two-sentence stub with one reference, which is not WP:IS. There's no point in debating this unless/until there's an actual article to assess. Feel free to re-open if that happens. Modest Genius talk 11:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Electron quadruplets (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Professor Egor Babaev and collaborators with the KTH Royal Institute of Technology publish an experiment showing evidence of a new state of matter called electron quadruplets. (Post)
News source(s): (Phys.org), (Mirage News),
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I feel like a new state of matter being discovered is big science news. Article is still a stub, so we might want to hold off on posting for a while, but I think this is 100% ITN worthy once the article is no longer a stub. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on Quality Article is two sentences long. However once the article gets expanded I think this is notable enough. Jbvann05 21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – At a grand total of 46 words, this article seems to have been prematurely nominated. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021
  • Oppose as of now, very much a stub. Unsure of notability; there seem to be a lot of weird states.  Nixinova T  C   22:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as really really early in the discovery process. Yes, it's a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal, and appears to have replicated experiments elsewhere, but even reading these news reports, they're not sure if these results conclusively give this answer, only that it continues to support this potential theory which has been around for a decade+. --Masem (t) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Questions Is it visible? Tangible? Some "thing"? Is the thing in the Phys.org picture the matter? How is that not a solid, if so? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Technically, the new state of matter hasn't been directly observed yet. There was experiments done that show evidence that a new state of matter may exist, but it may not. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Source comment - The two attached sources in the article are press releases from the professor's university that have been re-printed as the outlets haven't written their own pieces yet Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    With science stuff it is different. The real information was published to Nature Physics, a big science journal. Also, the professor listed you could consider the "main author" of the research and information, but there is tons of Universities from different countries involved in this. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality as a single-source stub. I'm always unsure of when the right time to post a science story is, but this seems like something we could post at this point were the target article better. State of matter is currently largely uncited too otherwise I would suggest an update to it, which may still be feasible if someone with a science background is familiar with useful sources for it—I think we're more likely to get an update to that page than to get a main-page worthy article out of the new state in a timely fashion. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 01:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Masem. I could just be ignorant here, so please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding of the situation is that evidence has been found which could suggest that a new state of matter may exist, as opposed to researchers coming to the conclusion that a newly discovered state of matter does in fact exist (or that it most likely exists). I'm worried that posting a blurb about it would imply that the findings are more conclusive than they actually are.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Phys.org churns press releases. No article should ever be written with it as a starting point, let alone run on Wikipedia's main page with the most hyped-up possible description of the result presented as fact. Beyond that, it's not even in the news, having so far only been picked up by the typical press-release aggregators. "ITN" isn't short for "In the clickbait". XOR'easter (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality - We could never publish a two lines one source orange-tagged article on the Main Paige.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose the article isn't necessarily even notable enough to exist, no way it's notable enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption[edit]

Article: 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: A paragraph was added on Oct 8 to prevent removal and nothing pertinent since then. A few updates about lava flows and some trapped dogs. There was nothing between Oct 1 and Oct 8. There is a List of currently erupting volcanoes and for good reason we do not have every one of them in the ongoing section. Simply put, the article and the story are stale. Per the guidelines "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening.". It is time for this one to come down. I've published an updated content diff if anyone wants to review the changes and highlight any new, pertinent information that I've missedLaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support removal Even though the eruption is still going [6] it has lost the necessary interest of type of coverage that needs regular updating as to keep it in ongoing. This is an honest look at the news covering it, and while there's a story or three daily on it, its "yup, it's still going, still causing damage to the same parts of the island and we're still waiting for any big eruption", but otherwise like watching a teapot boil at this point. Should there be an actual destructive event, I can see a new blurb on that. If the eruption peters off, then that's it. --Masem (t) 13:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal Even more than the sparsity of updates, what convinced me is that all of them are sourced to local Canary Islands news sources, and almost all of them from a single source. In other words, not wide coverage.130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose removal there are updates as recently as yesterday (17 October), and some updates for almost every day in the last week. This is still ongoing therefore. There is continued coverage in other sources in the last few days: The Times (paywalled), CBS, Sky News. All of these sources could be used to expand it, and demonstrate there is more than just local coverage of the ongoing event. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The problem is that the event is (literally) slow moving - there's still lava flow and the occasional quake, but the situation is not radically changing quickly as to necessitate updates that would have been ITN on a somewhat daily basis. Ongoing's not great for such slow-moving events either. As I noted, if there's a major event that happens, we can reconsider. --Masem (t) 13:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The update on Oct-17 was one sentence about lava slowing and one about rescuing some dogs. Are five stranded dogs pertinent enough to keep a story in ongoing? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose removal The OP's diff table is huge – over 200K – and so tends to prove the opposite. The intensity seems to be getting stronger, as reported in the news – Lava tsunami; No end in sight; More cancelled flights; Drones deliver food to dogs. And it's not like the space is needed for anything else – we'd just be printing white space otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose removal. I'm updating this regularly - am trying for updating it daily. Saying that it was only updated on the 8th and no updates since is clearly incorrect per the article history (compare this with the other 'Ongoing' at the moment, last had a big non-bot edit on the 20th September). There are regular news stories about the progress of the volcano - the one I follow most is Canarian Weekly, so that's what I tend to reference, but there are others I could reference as well (e.g., El Pais has a whole section on its English front page dedicated to the volcano). Suggestions / messages about gaps would be really useful on the article talk page please (as would a notice about this discussion!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Daily content tweaks are not new, pertinent information as stipulated by the criteria Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section. The edit history doesn't reveal content changes, which is why I provided a diff of rendered content per revision. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I'm not doing 'content tweaks' (fixing typos?), I'm adding updates to the content. There appears to be no definition of what 'pertinent information' means in this context. Mike Peel (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Ok then show me the new, pertinent information. I saw one about slowing lava and some stranded dogs. Did I miss one? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • You still haven't defined 'pertinent'. But the current status is that a second lava flow will start going into the sea shortly (it's <200m away; nearby people have been restricted to their houses to protect them from the gasses - waiting for this to happen before this gets included); the town of La Laguna is at risk of going the same way as Todoque (football stadium and a supermarket already gone - mentioned in the article); and there have been the biggest earthquakes in the area recorded since the volcano erupted (up to 4.6 - in the article already). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal all the time people are reminding us that this is still "in the news" and posting links, but I'm not seeing any real encyclopedic content being added. Sure, the date formats have been tweaked and I think one sentence was added today by Mike Peel, but neither the "number of edits" nor the size of the diff table give any indication as to the quality of the updates being made. This is so boring to explain ITNR each and every time, and this one in particular. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I'll just reply by saying "Don't let anyone bully you away from contributing whatever you like, however you want. Stay strong and don't be dissuaded." Will do my best to do that, despite how all the ITNR discussions seem to be surprisingly stressful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • That completely misses the point, and fair play, you added a sentence, and that was literally the highlight. Anyone can edit anything in any constructive fashion, yes, but unless it's maintaining a series of high quality, ongoing edits to an item listed in Ongoing, that item isn't meeting the requirements for Ongoing any longer. Don't make it about you, it's not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • A sentence today (so far), two sentences yesterday, a sentence the day before .... Mike Peel (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • Like I said, your contributions are the highlight. As Laserlegs enquires though, are we keeping an article on the main page because of five stranded dogs? Is that really the mission of the encyclopedia? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
            • See my reply to them, just above, giving three key developments that have either happened since the last discussion, or are pending. Note that none of them were about dogs. Mike Peel (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              • "key" developments? Ok. My !vote stands. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
              • Those additions/stories are part of this being a very "slow-moving" (in both literal and theoretical sense) news story. There is a slow-rising but small uptick in continued damage to the island but unless a sudden eruption/quake happens, no one's lives are at danger at this point, and everyone is just waiting either for it to peter off or for the cautioned "big" event, which if that happened, would certainly create a flurry of news. Keeping something that is just having this trickle of news in ongoing is not helpful because it is meant for stories where we'd likely to have otherwise have blurbs on a near-daily basis. --Masem (t) 15:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove While there are some small updates being made from time to time, the article is no longer up to quality (all new additions are a WP:PROSELINE mess) and major news sources are no longer featuring this prominently. --Jayron32 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Quality can definitely been improved (it's been interesting to see the flurry of edits by other editors today). Whether major news sources cover it likely depends on which country you are in and what language they use, sadly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Question When was the last time something happened that is more significant than the non-posted List of currently erupting volcanoes? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've taken this one to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of currently erupting volcanoes due to serious structural problems. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove: Volcanoes can easily go on erupting for months, doing little bits of damage here and there. That doesn't make them front-page news. Perhaps editors have enjoyed seeing lava fall into swimming-pools or something entertainingly tweetworthy. That doesn't justify being on the front page either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That makes them ongoing events. Your sarcasm isn't appreciated. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The point of the ongoing line is to displace the need to have blurbs on the same event over and over again (eg like Olympic or World Cup results). That means there needs to be events that are blurb-worthy to be happening in the event, which the ongoing eruption is not generating. --Masem (t) 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This doesn't align with what Ongoing is all about. Otherwise we should 2021–22 Premier League on there, right? It's "in the news" around the world and is an ongoing event, albeit with relatively trivial events (watched nonetheless by millions across the globe), sounds like we need that here right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Fair enough, this is turning into a debate about what 'Ongoing' is fundamentally about - I think we should be doing much more there, but that's a topic for another venue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Mike Peel indeed. Ongoing is an oddball at the moment, oft-misunderstood from its initial instantiation. By all means, and I mean this, please make proposal(s) at WT:ITN on how to improve the way it "works"? And thanks for your efforts on this article, I feel I may not have been clear that your contributions really stood out amongst the hundreds of tweaks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Mike Peel's commendable effort. Others too... 108.46.31.187 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal -- trivial and no longer generating sufficiently noteworthy coverage to remain in Ongoing. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal. This isn't to say nothing is currently happening or that there isn't a steady flow of updates, but merely that the ongoing updates are not at the level where, in isolation, they might warrant their own blurb, and as I understand it that's what the ongoing ticker is meant to represent. It's not one blurb-worthy event strung along for as long as it's happening (or surely we'd still have the last US election up there for how long it's still being contested), but one listing for a series of what might otherwise be blurb-worthy posts (the covid pandemic is a good example of this--we could have a blurb for every new case/death milestone, or new vaccine, or new variant detected, etc, but we collapse them all down into one ongoing listing). And since the current state of this event is no longer at the point where a day's events would be independently worthy of listing, I can't support it remaining as an ongoing item. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 23:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose removal, as updates are ongoing to the article, and Mike Peel is doing good work on it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Andrew has been showing persistent signs of WP:OWN about including this on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.114.34 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal Should have never been added. Lots of things that get blurbs have "ongoing" impacts, doesn't mean we keep them posted forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support removal per Jayron and Grapple X. The is the fundamental problem with the ongoing section; this should have been posted as an item and allowed to age off, rather than being directly posted to Ongoing.. SpencerT•C 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove. Not much is happening, media interest has passed. Yes the eruption hasn't stopped, but ongoing impact is low. Modest Genius talk 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove – From what we've see it appears this eruption could go on for a very long time without great change. If something really significant happened we could consider it then. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove - The article was never really at an acceptable level and hasn't gotten better since it was put in ongoing. Key problems are that it is almost all a proseline and that it lacks an effective explanation of either the geographic or geologic setting of the eruption. I keep meaning to fix these deficits, but I have been saying "I'll fix it tonight" for 2 weeks and haven't done anything. Rockphed (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Removed from ongoing. --Tone 19:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted to RD) RD: Colin Powell[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Colin Powell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (pictured) dies at age 84. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, AP, AP, BBC, LA Times, DW, NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former US secretary of state Vacant0 (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support, possibly blurbworthy as he was the first African-American to be Secretary of State. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose till the missing citations show up, no blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Good to go, RD with official state portraiture. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose quite a bit uncited. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I've got rid of one of the "Citation needed" tags; at most that section was synth, but I don't believe even that section applies. The other I've been able to find nothing and suspect it might be OR. I also note that there are other lines that should probably be tagged with "Citation needed", though most of those are for relatively minor matters with no major impact on the article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment His wikibio can be improved. In any case, if he has to have a blurb it’s for his career, especially for leading international policy and global diplomacy during the Iraq invasion, not for being "the first...". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now: Article needs some small improvements. Otherwise it looks OK overall. However I do not believe this article is blurb quality, but it does look suitable for RD once the issues are fixed. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD on necessary improvements but oppose blurb He's a household name in the US associated with the events of the Middle East but reading through, outside being the first African-American SoS, whether his role was that impactful. Visible, yes. --Masem (t) 12:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Dates of ranks and Awards and decorations need sourcing.130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb Although former POTUSes get autoblurbed, I don't know if the same is true of other cabinet members.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb. He was not a world transformative figure, even if he had a role in significant events. If this were USApedia, he would get a blurb, but it's not. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb – pending improvements to article. Arguably 'transformative' as the first Afro-American secretary of State, i.e. the No. 1 U.S. diplomat, and a Cabinet member. His tenure is in recent memory. Held several other high positions in the U.S. government and military, and was widely known abroad. Very widely covered by RS sites, i.e. 'in the news.' A household name to many. Pics. avail. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    He was forced to resign after helping start a war he failed to prevent, hardly a top diplomat, despite the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This not about our opinions of his career, it's about significance of his role and news coverage of his death. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's not my opinion. Plenty of obits recall the facts behind his sacking. So does his article. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's not about the character or outcome of his decisions, it's about his influence and the notability of the positions he held – over an extended period. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Influence and position are all about outcome. He died a man "whose sterling reputation was forever stained when he went before the United Nations to justify an invasion of Iraq", per the AP lead. Forever includes the past 18 years and today. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Very prominently in the news. Influential person in recent history. Nuff said. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC).[]
    The invasion of Iraq is one of the most significant events of the 21st century so wouldn't his role make him more ITN-worthy? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It could (pending an altblurb about a general) be a point for blurbing. But it still disqualifies him from the top tiers of diplomacy, which is all I'm arguing here. My "no blurb" from above is based on "old man dies" and "not the president" points. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb. I find it hard to believe we'd post a blurb for a cabinet member of any other state. I'm not a fan of the supposed "Thatcher/Mandela" standard for blurbs but even relaxing the bar, Powell's highest office was, if I'm not mistaken, fifth from the "top" as far as seniority goes within his own nation. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb Not a head of state, not a head of government. Just one of many members of the government executive branch. Chrisclear (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose RD - Plenty of uncited text. 2601:143:8000:A7E0:F92E:2FB6:5A95:404D (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I'm a bit split on this one. He's definitely a highly influential figure in recent history and played a major role in forming Bush Jr's foreign policy, but personally I don't think he's at Kissinger's level. In Herring's book on the history of US foreign relations, Powell is mentioned twenty times. For comparison Kissinger is mentioned in over a hundred paragraphs and there's a separate chapter on him and Nixon. So it depends on how high the bar is Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Wait... Henry Kissenger is still alive? Wow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That feeling when you outlive 4 secretaries of state that came after you Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support only when missing citations are fixed. It's ridiculous to me that people don't believe the first black United States Secretary of State is notable enough. Trillfendi (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb Maybe I'm being a bit US-centric (not that there's anything wrong with that), but he's been a notable figure for over 30 years, and was closely involved with both Iraq Wars. His notability in the first Gulf War was in a league only otherwise occupied by George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Norman Schwarzkopf. If it weren't for his personal preferences, he likely could have run for--and won--the Presidency in 1996 or 2000. And it was partly due to his influence, clout and respectability that there even was a Second Gulf War. His notability is probably most comparable to Henry Kissinger, in terms of being blurb-worthy--if you would oppose Colin Powell, then you should oppose Henry Kissinger on the same grounds.Ryan Reeder (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, suggesting a higher level of world influence. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was basically window dressing to placate the U.S. for losing the Vietnam War. – Sca (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I definitely would support Kissinger, but I'm still on the fence with Powell. Starting to tilt towards support though. Right now,it might complicate things if we start comparing this nomination to a hypothetical future one Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support He was highly influential in American Politics for quite some time, first African-American Secretary of State, Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, held numerous other positions, and was a major leader for both of the invasions of Iraq. Wandavianempire (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Considered as presidential candidate in '92. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In other words they are a person who didn't do something that wouldn't have made them notable enough for a blurb had they done it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb. Old man dies is the story, that's what RD was made for. He wasn't a world leader, he wasn't transformative in his field, his death isn't going to change anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb Not quite up to the level. I don't know of many US political figures outside of Presidents who would have a blurb. Kissinger yes, but I think Powell then falls short. Rhino131 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb we've not posted head of states who die of old age, so why should we post someone who is less notable on the world stage? No evidence that his death is ITN-worthy importance. Also, oppose RD for now, as there's too much unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now Article needs some ref work before posting. I would support a blurb when article is up to scratch. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now due to some quality issues in the article (already noted above). When it is ready, I would support RD only because neither the manner of his death, nor the reactions to it, need any further explanation that a blurb would afford. --Jayron32 16:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose RD for now per aforementioned quality issues, neutral on blurb. We will certainly point to this discussion if Henry Kissinger ever dies for precedent. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb I find it fascinating how US-based editors in an effort to internationalize things oppose a nomination for clearly notable candidates. Same thing happened recently with Rumsfeld. Both are incredibly well known globally thanks to their involvement in the Iraq war, including some very strong opinions from older generations. Ironically Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the top blurb and picture after her death, and she is a lot more obscure outside of the US. Prominent Cabinet Members and CJCS should really get a blurb by default, these discussions are ridiculous. Meanwhile actors from the 40s and C-list athletes with borderline stubs constantly fill RD with no problems. Especially when some here cite "quality issues" even for RD, as if articles likeEnamul Haque (actor) were anything beyond average. jonas (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    First, the picture is not a thing - MP admins like to cycle the picture anytime they can to keep the page fresh. Second, US (and UK) editors should recognize the inherent bias in thinking stories/people from their homelands are more important, while the anti-bias forces should understand that they actually *are* more important in world culture due to western influence. It's a balancing act, but sacrificing mid-level political appointees seems a modest price to pay. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb - He is not in the same league of other politicians whom we have blurbed.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Such as David Amess? – Sca (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In fairness, Amess is only blurable because of how he died. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD upon citation issues being resolved Powell is not a former head of state nor is his manner of death exceptionally newsworthy, albeit there would be worldwide reaction given his roles both in the Persian Gulf War and his tenure as Secretary of State. A RD mention is more than adequate, however. rawmustard (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. According to a documentary I saw, "can you name the Secretary of State" was a question asked during Navy SEAL training around that time. Connor Behan (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD regardless of article issues since he was an influential military figure. Neutral on blurb for now. Interstellarity (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, Powell was one of the most influential American leaders of the 1990s/2000s; again, far more obscure people get RDs all the time without issue. Article issues shouldn't bear on this. Neutral on blurb, not quite sure if he merits it but I can see the case. The Kip (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb Article in reasonable shape. Well-known global figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: When there are 10+ {cn} tags in the article, it should not be on ITN -- Neither blurb nor RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I disagree. I think we should put importance and significance of a person above the quality of the article. For example, when Elizabeth II dies, she will most certainly get a blurb since she played an instrumental role in shaping the UK and the British monarchy. We can always fix the article while it is posted. I see nothing wrong with posting as a blurb or RD if an article needs more work. Interstellarity (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb Support RD once CN issues are resolved, of course, but it's hard to justify blurbing him. If we are to blurb a politician's passing, they should meet at least one of these criteria: that they were a head of state, or that their death itself was a notable event (as is the case with Sir David Amess), or that they were otherwise one of the most well-known figures of the time and notable for other reasons. I feel like there'd be a better case for blurbing Kissinger whenever he passes, and even that'd probably take a lot of discussion to reach a consensus.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD due to lack of recognition of Colin Powell outside being only senator and secretary, unlike the Queen of England, where her's death will be posted as blurb. 180.254.171.143 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment: Powell was not a member of the U.S. Senate. KConWiki (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb, Highly influential figure in american history during the early 21st century. KommanderChicken (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD pbp 01:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD (only) – Wasn't really a world statesman. STSC (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb ONCE sourcing is fixed. It's very funny how all these US editors are trying to internationalize ITN/RD. I mean, c'mon now. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 03:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb. Standing up in front of the United Nations and reciting a list of falsehoods makes him 'transformative'. He had a keey role in starting a major war. He more than anyoe else was the public face of the invasion of Iraq. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb. But now no longer news (in the 24-hour news cycle world). CoatCheck (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb I'm surprised this is even in contention. Do not post anything other than the death of a head of state or government. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Though I oppose a blurb as well, that is just plainly wrong and against current consensus. We are not limiting ourselves to head of state or government even in the political space when it comes to posting blurbs. See the posting of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. WaltCip-(talk) 11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      That should not have been posted either. Banedon (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      Then how about Sean Connery, Diego Maradona, Hank Aaron, or Prince Philip? Mlb96 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD - just a few sources that needs to be added before posting. The article is nowhere near ready for a Blurb however. BabbaQ (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose RD there is no difference in standard between RD and blurb-level BLPs, and this one clearly doesn't yet meet it. Also oppose a blurb in principle, for the reasons given above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb US Secretary of State is not the power-holder in the country, he served his term 16 years ago with nothing that really makes him more important than the other holders of that office, and the cause of his death is not an assassination or an accident that would make it notable. That being said, he doesn't qualify for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD not blurb this would be better off as an RD nomination then a ITN item. TootsieRollsAddict (talk to me pls I am lonely) 11:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Blurb Although he was notable, his death is not notable enough to warrant a blurb and can be simply described in his article. Perfecnot (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD Just a few citations added and it's good to go. Whether it's significant enough for a blurb is up to debate, but I'm leaning Support blurb. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Note that it's still a long way off even RD standard. 16 citation-needed tags currently.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Blurb He was a significant US figure, and was the first ever African-American Secretary of State. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – Although the blurb option was my post, it's evident at this pt. that RD is the consensus. Marked needs attn.Sca (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    There are 15 CN tags, and plenty of editors expressing concern about quality still. There is no consensus for blurb, but no consensus for RD either. As I've said previously, we need a way to more clearly state opposition of a blurb that is not read as support for RD. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RD is the consensus, but there are stil cn tags. Not posting until fixed. --Tone 19:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No more {{Citation needed}} tags. A great team effort. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD. In two minds about blurb, but the article is ready. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD Referencing issues resolved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb Article is now ready. Major involvement in starting and overseeing one of the deadliest wars this century so far. Highly visible, international role including that presentation of lies at the UN. Abundant RS coverage of his death. Also the first African-American secretary of state. I would alternatively support image RD since Amess has been up there awhile and Powell is widely recognizable. Davey2116 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You realize there's no war, lies or black history in the blurb, right? It says a former US secretary of state died (of apparently nothing), aged 84. If you expect people to click inside for SHOCKING details on a big name, they can learn for themselves the same way via an IMG-RD post. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD Article now looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Add to RD line. Quite a miss now. Don't see why a substandard article can prevent this name-listing. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. --Tone 08:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Bandula Warnapura[edit]

Article: Bandula Warnapura (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Papare
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: First captain of Sri Lanka's Test cricket team. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) The International 2021[edit]

The discussion is long enough to conclude that there is no consensus to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: The International 2021 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Dota 2 Esports, Team Spirit wins the 10th International taking home $18,208,300, the largest prize in esports history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Esports, Team Spirit wins the 10th International defeating PSG.LGD in the finals.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Esports, Team Spirit wins the 10th International defeating Paris Saint Germain LGD in the finals.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Esports, Russian Team Spirit wins the 10th International defeating Chinese PSG.LGD in the finals.
News source(s): MSN Yahoo GMA
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The article is in a great shape. It's high time we start posting major e-sports (at least the International) to ITN. Especially when half the sport postings right now consider sports such as Cricket and whatnot that have infinately smaller followings world wide than championships like the International with it's tens of millions of concurrent viewers --Daikido (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose WP:ROUTINE as yearly event in a niche area. We do not post winners of the National Lottery or Love Island either despite its huge participation and following.Abcmaxx (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose this event is not covered in many mainstream sources, and so is not important enough for ITN, as it's way too niche. And the nominator is wrong about half the sport postings right now consider sports such as Cricket and whatnot that have infinately smaller followings world wide than championships like the International, as the IPL, which is on front page now, had 380 million viewers this year [7]. Although WP:OSE applies anyway, we should focus on this article, which isn't ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    >this event is not covered in many mainstream sources ; Neither are cricket, or whatever pollo, or even less popular sports that get posted yearly. And way fewer people care about those than about the international Daikido (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Comment Truly terrible comparison. Cricket is a 200 year old sport and is definitely well covered in all mainstream news outlets in places that play this sport. Gaming, whilst popular, is still struggling to be even recognised as a sport. Lots of people care about Strictly Come Dancing and Great British Bake Off, we still do not post the winners of those "sporting" competitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    (ec) Cricket is in the mainstream news where it is popular. Cricket is popular in India and Pakistan, where over 1/7 of the population of this planet lives. No sources have been offered indicating this is in the mainstream news anywhere. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    "Cricket is not covered in mainstream sources": wrong. [8], [9], [10] from a 30 second check. The International in the other hand is a competition that most people have never heard of. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. (ec) No sources offered indicating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Had a look to try finding mainstream sources but nothing's showing up other than dedicated gaming sources, many of which would not meet WP:RS. Is that perhaps a journalistic problem, that they aren't covering something with "tens of millions of concurrent viewers"? Probably. But it's also indicative of this not being something we're able to post either at this point. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Hold up for a second. This is a new article of good quality, which is job #1. It is being covered extensively in a large number of reliable sources. Lots of editors seeking "mainstream coverage" which is not an agreed upon standard here - go find mainstream coverage for the Cape Verde election where sure to post soon. Also the pageview count is comparable with IPL - people are looking for this. Clearly the nominator triggered a bunch of you with a really bad argument, but the is not about them. Consider the nominated article. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Please offer some of these sources. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    My question as a reader is, the international what? – Sca (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    And why does a developer-sponsored tournament for one of their own games, clearly to promote the game, merit this attention? Why this game? 331dot (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC) []
    We are not here to decide what merits attention. We follow RS. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    If that were true, we would have posted Shatner, which was actually in mainstream news. This tournament is just one expensive advertisement for their game. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In addition to the three mainstream sources above, here are additional sources that have been evaluated positively at WP:RSN: [11] [12] [13] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Computer gaming is a major cultural pastime which ITN under-represents (mind you, so is television). However e-sports are a minority pursuit within gaming and this particular tournament has received coverage only in specialist gaming outlets (IGN, PCGamer etc.) and does not appear to have been broadcast on any mainstream television channels. That's not enough to merit an ITN blurb. Valve streaming people playing their own game is good marketing, not a genuine sport. In addition, the article is mostly results tables, with no prose on the actual play or outcome. The comparison with cricket is laughable - that sport has over a billion active fans and 300 million current players [14]. e-sports are nowhere near that level. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Are we really all on here seriously suggesting that all of e-sports in 2021 is a niche interest? That one of it's biggest events, following by millions around the world, is a sales promotion of the game's corporate owner? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes, I am suggesting both of those things. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Esports are far from niche, given it is a >$1B market within a $200B market of video games. Esports are more likely to use streaming media than broadcast, so that should not be the factor here. The International has been reported on by mainstream news in the past, but this year, being the first back as a live event after COVID (and even then, limited due to venue changes and a limited live audience due to COVID restrictions) it has not be noted yet by any major sources, and in fact I was waiting myself for some before nominating (the ones given aren't the ones I'd have used). So would tend to agree that right it fails the normal "in the news" test for this specific event, but calling esports "minor" greatly misrepresents their role relative to video games when it comes to what would be an ITN aspect. --Masem (t) 12:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The global market for cable cars is >$3 billion, soap is >$30 billion, and yoga is $90 billion. That doesn't mean we should be posting them in ITN. Your explanation for the lack of media interest is just special pleading. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not pleading about this being posting, I am opposing it still since there's no mainstream coverage of the event still as of today. But I do oppose calling it a niche sport considering some of the other athletic ITNRs we post. --Masem (t) 14:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think a discussion of an update to WP:ROUTINE is in order - though there will be the question of which ones are notable: Overwatch World Cup? League of Legends World Championship? Pokémon World Tournament? etc. Plus, most Esports by design of the games don’t last more than a decade or so - at least none of note yet. Regarding media coverage, I’d say the more famous events are more covered than the less covered ITNR ones like The Boat Race or America's Cup. Juxlos (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've been arguing for years that the Boat Race should be removed. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think I actually opened a discussion around a year or so ago about which possible video game esports would be potential ITN topics. The International would definitely be one of them, but there absolutely has to be non-specialized coverage. Mainstream sources have covered The International before, so that's my expectation here. --Masem (t) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - E-sports in its current form will never get posted to ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This event was actually posted in 2016 and 2017. Can't link the archives because of the [] issue, but they're in the August 2016 and August 2017 sections. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    We also blurbed the death of Carrie Fisher in that time, so the bar has certainly risen.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Largely absent from RS main sites. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Purely due to no prose Results. To answer above concerns: there's no less than 6 RSs covering this, including very widely-read ones like MSN and Yahoo. I would like a genuine answer as to why these are not considered RSs, or why they are considered "specialized". There's a double superlative here: largest prize ever for an E-sport tournament and largest prize pool ever. I think that's enough to justify notability ex-ITNR. Asking why the developer is hosting a tournament is just silly. Who organizes FIFA? A group of disinterested parties?130.233.213.141 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think the more apt comparison would be if the World Cup was organised by Adidas to advertise the Telstar 18; as for "not RS", I was referring to searching for broad coverage, which brings up Wikipedia, "Liquipedia", and Dota 2's homepage before any news sources. I have no issue with Yahoo but it was absent at the time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait untill we see coverage in more news outlets. BBC, CNN, Euronews, Al-Jazeera, South China Morning Post seem to be completely silent on the topic Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - Even as someone who plays video games, I cringe a bit when people try and put them up at the level of other sports, but the reality being Esports certainly can reach a level of notability that rivals other sports. The reason that nominations for ITN as far as Esports goes simply aren't up to snuff is kinda similar to some of the combat sports where you have to factor in the significance of every event. For example, if there was a single annual tournament recognizes as THE title event for a wide range of competitive games then that would certainly be worthy of ITN, but does Dota 2 Esports alone have enough significance? No, so that's my vote (and I would hope this sort of policy becomes precedent at some point) DarkSide830 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose E-Sports is nowhere near the level of most actual sports and hasn't been covered in widespread media nearly enough. As an aside, cricket is regarded by many as the second most popular sport in the world and the last World Cup had 2.6 billion viewers and 8 million watched the final just from the UK. Terrible comparison. Jbvann05 16:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose 15000 page views per day isn't enough to make the "page views" argument. A better topic for DYK. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Support I do agree with the idea that it's about time we start including some e-sports. E-sports are sports, and we have no problem posting sports to ITN. E-sports have large audiences, large revenues, and large purses. In some countries (Korea) e-sports attract a bigger audience than some sports on ITN/R. The only thing we're really lacking is an objective way to evaluate e-sports to determine which ones are ready to join the list of sports on ITN/R and which ones are not yet there. I don't have a solution for that, but hopefully someone else does. In terms of this specific blurb, however, the biggest purse in e-sports history pushes this into weak support territory for me, since purse size is one potential objective indicator of significance; but I'm open to hearing arguments either way. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not convinced esports are a sport, but whatever they are called, there is no objective event held to determine who is the best- these events are usually held by gamemakers as promotional events for their individual games. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Absent from main RS sites. Significance not apparent. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Earthshot Prize[edit]

No consensus to post. --Tone 16:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Earthshot Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The country of Costa Rica is among the winners of the first ever Earthshot Prizes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • My comment is only to question how major are these awards compared to the dozens of other environmental awards that are out there (it has news coverage, it has an updated article). I mean, each winner getting GBP 1 million is nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but given this is by a charity rather than, say, the UN, and doesn't have the test of time like the Nobels, I just have a bit of concern on how these are more significant than any other. --Masem (t) 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yeah, a new award in its first year is difficult to assess the significance of. They've got some celebrity involvement, certainly, but is that it? Do actual conservation scientists consider this the top award in their field? Modest Genius talk 12:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose More work is needed. For example, there's a simple grammatical error in the proposed blurb – are/is. And there's much more. In the case of the Nobel prizes, we expect to have articles about the winners and it's embarassing when we don't. But none of the winning schemes seem to have articles – there are no links in each category. Having links for the various celebrities and sponsors is not enough. For example, consider the case of Costa Rica. We have an article Deforestation in Costa Rica but there was no article about Reforestation in Costa Rica until I started one just now and that's still just a stub. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Not a notable project (with Shakira as one of the judges?) STSC (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    She's "offset" by David Attenborough, though, as far as eminence goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – Largely absent from RS main sites. – Sca (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Eh? Name one. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Whatever else anyone thinks about this, I think the BBC and NY Times are pretty mainstream. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Absent from main pages of AP, NYT. - Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        On a 2 minute search, I've found BBC, Guardian, The Times (paywalled)], Euronews, Independent, Sky News. All of which are mainstream coverage of the event, and not all just copies of each other's articles (as sometimes happens for events). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        Generally speaking, if you have to search for a topic to find it in the news, it's not major news. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        The "traditional" wire services (Reuters, AP, AFP) are also doing their thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Prince William donates money and issues a press release. This is a grant named as a prize. Nothing here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    According to the article, it's not his money, but funded by philanthropists and other charities. Modest Genius talk 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose less notable than the Esports prize which may or may not be newsworthy.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose -- this blurb really should explain *what* this prize is. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Sean Wainui[edit]

Article: Sean Wainui (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stuff
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: NZ rugby player. Start class, mostly referenced.  Nixinova T  C   02:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment added BBC Sport article and referenced some bits using it. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support I see no reason to oppose Abcmaxx (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Opoose A couple of tagged unsources sentences.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose too much unsourced, important content. Like source for how many appearances for NZ U20. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Brendan Kennelly[edit]

Article: Brendan Kennelly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Irish Times; Irish Independent
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - Fully sourced. Ready to go.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2020 Thomas & Uber Cup[edit]

Article: 2020 Thomas & Uber Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In badminton, Indonesia and China respectively win the Thomas & Uber Cup in Aarhus, Denmark. (Post)
News source(s): [15]
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.

 Juxlos (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment needs some sort of summary of the tournaments. Right now, for the tournament itself, we only have tables and knockout brackets, but this is insufficient article quality for an ITN posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Virtually the entire article is cited to primary sources (BWF and regional bodies) or something called "tournament software" which does not have any indication of being a reliable, independent source. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not ready. There is no prose at all on what happened at the tournament. There needs to be at least one fully-referenced paragraph describing the event, who won etc. We never post articles that are just results tables. Modest Genius talk 13:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Two days later, still no prose. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) 2021 Cape Verdean presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Cape Verdean presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: PAICV candidate José Maria Neves is elected President of Cape Verde. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
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: With 97% of the of votes counted, it's almost sure that Neves will be elected. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 22:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC) PS: Several Portuguese media outlets (see here, here) are reporting Neves as the winner.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support Change of head of state, ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support; changes to a countries head of state tend to be sufficiently notable for ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The article is short and needs at least some prose in the results section, as well as reactions. Then, it is ITNR, so it can be posted when meeting the standards. --Tone 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support pending improvements - Notability is a given and doesn't need to be discussed; the article isn't in a horrible state, but it is a little too slim to be ready. It could benefit from more text in the campaign subsection.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Article improvements are much appreciated; striking condition from !vote  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support per others. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - Tone and Vanilla Wizard I added some info on the results and aftermath section. I don't use to write many election articles, but I've tried my best.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posting. Still very short but the basics are there. --Tone 08:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Hey, could someone give me the "credits". Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Dennis Franks[edit]

Article: Dennis Franks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Detroit News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Long enough and has footnotes at the expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Betty Lynn[edit]

Article: Betty Lynn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; CNN; USA Today
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - fully sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted after removing an empty "See also" section. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Leo Boivin[edit]

Article: Leo Boivin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com; Ottawa Citizen; Sports Illustrated
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support Seems to be properly referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Striketober[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post this. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: Striketober (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, France24, New York, NPR, NBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: One of the largest labor strike waves in the United States in the nation's recent history. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the United States are participating or planning for strikes. This includes the 2021 John Deere strike, 2021 Kellogg's strike and 2021 IATSE strike.--WMrapids (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Unless the strikes are large enough to paralyze the US economy and bring the government to the negotiating table, I doubt it's going to have a lasting impact. Also the article could use some work, for example there's no mention of the Taft-Hartley Act in the background section (Although I'm not sure if a background section talking about the history of labor unions in the US is really that necessary) Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. This sounds like it might be better for Ongoing, although I'm not certain the article would be updated consistently. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose not enough coverage for ITN, which isn't intended to be a republishing of an American news website. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Joseph2302 As noted above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm opposing because it's not important enough. If this wasn't in the US, nobody would consider nominating it, it's just one of the way too many not important US-centric nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's it Joseph... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Joseph2302 My comment still stands. If you would like to see more non-US items posted, please nominate them. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Joseph and Scaramouch. Come on…strikes happens everywhere! Also the general ones. Unnotable (per now). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Not important enough. Tradediatalk 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – So far largely absent from main RS news sites. – Sca (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Clarification@Sca:, @Tradedia:, @Alsoriano97:, @Joseph2302:, @331dot:, my intention was to make this an ongoing nomination (that's why I didn't include a blurb). The ITN template has been updated, my mistake. Just wanted to ping you all in case you had a different opinion on including this as an ongoing news event.--WMrapids (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I appreciate your good faith, but I still oppose this nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Still oppose ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose It feels like even the major news sources consider the connection between these strikes as somewhat coincidental (but there are reasons for common timing), and as such, so far not a major news story in of itself. --Masem (t) 15:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - with thanks to the good faith nom, but Ongoing nominations still need to satisfy the same newsworthiness criteria as blurb items; and under most circumstances they would start life as a blurb anyway, rolling onto Ongoing when they reach the bottom of the list if they're still receiving regular updattes.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Good faith no, but only the individual strikes should count if they do at all This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Alan Hawkshaw[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Composer of the Countdown theme. Needs quite a bit of work. Blythwood (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


Shenzhou 13[edit]

Article: Shenzhou 13 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​China successfully launches Shenzhou 13, carrying the second crew for the Tiangong space station. (Post)
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: Crewed orbital launches are ITNR. And for a non-Western launch, this article is in good shape to go on the main page. 2A02:2F0E:DB04:D300:8C40:6AAF:4CDF:C428 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Note: Fixed malformed nomination. Originally nominated by IP noted above. --Jayron32 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Gerd Ruge[edit]

Article: Gerd Ruge (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Zeit; Der Spiegel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German journalist, author and filmmaker. He was considered a reporter legend. Grimes2 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Suggestion: With under 1600 characters of prose, this wikibio looks rather stubby. Perhaps the "important reports" can be incorporated into the prose to make it less stubby? --PFHLai (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks PFHLai, Expanded the article and has now shaped into a C-class biography. Can expand further, but, the article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD in its current form. Ktin (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    6000+ characters now! That's an impressive growth just overnight! --PFHLai (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) Tropical Storm Kompasu[edit]

Article: Tropical Storm Kompasu (2021) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Severe Tropical Storm Kompasu kills 40 people in the Philippines and Hong Kong. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Severe Tropical Storm Kompasu causes severe agricultural damage and flooding in the Philippines, killing 39 people.
News source(s): AlJazeera, DW
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Caused nearly php3 billion in agricultural damage in the Philippines. Will likely be retired. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose $20 million USD isn't that much damage, and the death toll is routine for this part of the season. Damage is missing for Hainan and the rest of Southeast Asia. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Nova Crystallis: php 2.97 Billion ($58 million USD) is a lot of damage to a developing country that is heavily reliant on agriculture. More than a billion php in losses in the agricultural sector. Will update the article. Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support though with updates that Destroyeraa stated they will add and of course pending additions. --Masem (t) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support We've posted stuff like this before. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – A significant storm badly affecting the region. STSC (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose storm season is storm season and this one isn’t bad enough to even make the Asia page of BBC news. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Note @Nova Crystallis and Masem: Updates have been made, Hainan impact added. Destroyer (Alternate account) 22:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support death toll is clearly notable, and this is the fourth-deadliest tropical cyclone of the year so far. Article quality is more than sufficient for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – After a period of consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this storm is notable enough for an ITN posting. Sure, this storm may be seem like a lot to some people, but it has a significant death toll, and it did a substantial amount of agricultural damage in the Philippines, in addition to having notable impacts elsewhere. Also, NorthernFalcon is right in pointing out that Kompasu is currently the 4th-deadliest tropical cyclone in 2021. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment this storm dissipated on 14 October, I don't see how it's still a current event for ITN? If nominated a week ago, I would have supported, but it seems stale to me (unless anyone can convince me otherwise?) Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I can stick this in as the 4th item on ITN, I suppose. Any more SUPPORT votes? --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Joseph2302 and PFHLai: It takes time for recovery services to fully assess the level of damage and provide an accurate death toll. For example, Hurricane Ida was posted a week after landfall. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • @Destroyeraa and Destroyeraa-alt: I understand and I don't mind waiting a bit. I am hoping for more support votes to come in soon and raise the Support/Oppose higher, before this items becomes too old to displace the oldest item on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Per support comments above. SodaSoummelier (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Tropical Storm Choi-wan (2021) killed 11, this one killed 40. We don't have a minimum deaths for notability and nothing in the article says this is anything other than a routine storm tragically killing 40 people in a developing country with lax building codes and enforcement where sadly higher death tolls are to be expected. Can someone tell me what makes Choi-wan unusual other than some arbitrary death toll? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Regardless of reasons, 40 is still a high and noteworthy death toll. Not sure what Choi-wan has to do with this here. I'm not following. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Why is 40 a high and noteworthy death toll? Would 38 have been? Why is 40 the magic number? What circumstances around this particular storm make 40 high and noteworthy? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Even 37 works for me. There is no magic threshold number. If you want to know why this is noteworthy, click and read. It's news. And the wikiarticle is updated to reflect what happened. Good enough for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • @LaserLegs: Kompasu is the deadliest and most damaging storm this year so far in the Philippines. Having caused nearly php4 billion in damage, it will certainly get retired. Choi-wan was not posted because it was a run-of-the-mill storm. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) 2021 Indian Premier League Final[edit]

Article: 2021 Indian Premier League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In cricket, Chennai Super Kings win the Indian Premier League. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, the Indian Premier League concludes with Chennai Super Kings defeating Kolkata Knight Riders in the final.
News source(s): ESPNCricinfo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: ITNR. Article requires some prose updates and should be ready soon. Prose added. Article looks good for homepage. Ktin (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose almost no prose in there at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @The Rambling Man:, thanks. Prose updates for the match have been completed. If there is anything else that is required, please do let know. Ktin (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Article has been expanded, and its inclusion would be in line with precedent set by the inclusion of events such as Super Bowl LV. Unrelated to my support, and on the topic of the article - it might be worth explaining why it was played in Dubai rather than India. I assume that this is due to COVID, but it would be good if the article clarified. BilledMammal (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Article looks great! Sherenk1 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Article in good shape. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support article looks fine as it has a match summary. ALT1 follows our normal postings for sports matches with finals, ALT0 is an WP:EASTEREGG link to the article on the final. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) Killing of David Amess[edit]

It's been posted, other such similar events can be discussed at a more appropriate venue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed image
Article: Killing of David Amess (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​British Member of Parliament Sir David Amess (pictured) dies after being stabbed during a constituency meeting. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC (2), Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The story is developing so the target article isn't quite up to date. I believe this is newsworthy regardless of the severity of his injuries. We did post the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017 for reference. -- Calidum 13:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait We don't yet know the extent of his injuries, and the article is still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment We also posted the murder of MP Cox in 2016. Attacks on legislators are rare in most western democracies. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait to see the outcome/extent of his injuries. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – One person injured killed wouldn't make the grade, no matter how extraordinary the circumstances, unless it could be shown that organized terrorism was involved. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't think it has to be terrorism, but any deliberate attack. Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    For what it's worth, if the attack was because he was an MP or because of his political views, that qualifies as terrorism under UK law. Though the murderer of Jo Cox wasn't actually charged under terrorism, he was dealt with throughout the trial as a terrorism case. -- KTC (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well, Wiki/ITN isn't governed by UK law. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Surely anywhere in the world the assassination of a member of a legislature is considered to be an attack on the state and hence terrorism? This isn’t a question of law it is a question of notability. -- keirstitt (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on article quality of bolded article. Article is barely longer than a stub, and contains next to no useful information beyond what would be included in a blurb. Would support if there were a more detailed article to highlight on the main page. --Jayron32 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Change to support Article has developed to a point where it is acceptable to the main page. It should probably still keep being expanded as more information becomes available, but it is already in a better state than it was when I first assessed it. --Jayron32 16:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • He's dead. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    And someone's been arrested. [16] [17] [18]Sca (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle as we posted MP Jo Cox. But article will need more expansion once more information is known about the circumstances- I'm sure news sites like the BBC will do comprehensive articles about it in the next couple of hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. It would be odd for me to simultaneously oppose a bow and arrow attack that kills 5 while supporting a knife attack that kills 1. Each is a tragedy, nobody likes to see loss of life, but with all due respect to Amess I don't see his notability as rising to the level at which we'd automatically post (e.g. if he was a top government official or something).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support since he tragically died. Murders of sitting national legislators are rare. That said the article should not be titled "murder" yet.(update: it's not, didn't realize it was a redirect) 331dot (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Wait as quality of the article, particularly his political career, needs improvement - particularly the area currently tagged "one source". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle, per prior precedent, and it is currently receiving international coverage, with a red breaking news banner on both the NBC and CNN websites.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Spot news. – Sca (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle but the article quality is not there yet. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Full support now it's been expanded.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RD only as he does not rise to the significance level required for a blurb, even given the unusual circumstances of this death.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    You are kidding right? A Member of Parliament has been assassinated. This is a "death is the story" nomination. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle -- KTC (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – RD only – Per Walt. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support: High profile assassination. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 14:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb, highly uncommon event; circumstances of the death are the story. Connormah (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb This is definitely Jo Cox and 1/6 level.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb (edit conflict) As with all instances where the story in the news is about the death, rather than about the person once they have died, we should consider a blurb. Since this is the assassination of a sitting lawmaker in a peaceful nation, the news rises to notability for inclusion. I don’t think we need to consider the case of Jo Cox when making that decision, but her assassination (and I am surprised the articles aren’t titled that way) was posted. I think anyone saying RD only is deliberately ignoring the point of deaths being blurbed and are looking at the person’s individual notability rather than the actual news story. Amess didnt die of natural causes, it’s a political assassination. For another comparison, 1/6 could arguably be boiled down to an attempted assassination of politicians, and none died but the significance of its occurrence in a relatively peaceful nation was the news. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • You're conflating two separate concepts. A blurb nom for any story must be deemed sufficiently significant by consensus. If the are not blurbed, then we can post an RD as applicable. But it doesn't work the other way: we don't automatically post a blurb because an RD-eligible subject is murdered. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I wasn’t saying automatically blurb any death that has a story, I was saying we must consider blurbs for them, then said this one was notable because of the political angle. I very separately noted that the calls for only an RD were making the argument that Amess isn’t notable enough on his own for a blurb, which I agree with, if he had died of natural causes, but he isn’t the subject. I hope this is clear if my original comment somehow wasn’t; I agree with you, you misunderstood me. Kingsif (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I'm not sure it's appropriate in any case to list a murder as an RD. If an RD eligible person is murdered then the murder would always be a notable story in itself, if not then they wouldn't be RD eligible either. - keirstitt (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment This incident seems similar to the 2011 Tucson shooting, which was posted to ITN as a blurb (granted over 10 years ago). Stabbing of David Amess is a stub and not presently postable though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    And Giffords didn’t even die! On a less plain note, I thought an above comment said it was no longer a stub? Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Six people did though. It says 957 B (162 words) "readable prose size" as it doesn't count the bulleted "responses", and I wouldn't either. I support in principle but no rush. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb in principle but wait for details to be released and the article to develop. At present it has just three sentences on what actually happened. He only died an hour ago, we can wait a bit longer for information to be released. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on principle but Oppose on current article quality. The article is bloated with response and thin on the details that we need for this. --Masem (t) 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - a major event. GiantSnowman 15:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb in principle extremely rare for a politician in a western democracy to be assassinated. Steelkamp (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. People get stabbed all the time, sadly, and he was a relatively low-profile politician, certainly not somebody at the Thatcher or Mandela level whose death we'd note in a blurb if he had died in any other manner. Sandstein 15:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • That "Mandela/Thatcher line" is for when the death is of natural causes, not when the death itself is the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Do sitting legislators get stabbed all the time? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • No, but the story is a cross-section of common events: knife murder (common) and low-level politician dies (also common); combining the two, even if rare in combination, does not make for main-page material. Sandstein 16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Can you recall, specifically, the last murder of a sitting politician which was raised here and not posted? I'm just wondering if they're really that common. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 16:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          Well, there is the List of assassinated serving British MPs, so it seems to be not that uncommon even in the UK. And I don't think that I'm committing too much OR by assuming that in certain conflict-prone regions of the world (e.g. Afghanistan) MPs are murdered with rather more regularity, but I haven't seen loads of Wikipedians wanting to post those cases here. One might call this systemic bias. (And if we go by rarity, we should cover the murdering MPs, not the murdered MPs.) Sandstein 17:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          Nine in over two centuries (and that's just counting from the first instance, not from the beginning of parliament) feels like it is uncommon, if anything. And to your second point, if you want to nominate one of those instances then we can post it, but "no one asked for X, so we shouldn't do Y either" is a far cry from sound logic. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • (ec) I don't think a sitting member of a national legislature is "low level". He had also been an MP since 1997, and was well known and regarded from what I read; he had been knighted for his service. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – At 151 words of text, article is a stub, barely half a stub at that. At this pt. not eligible for a blurb, only RD. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Sca: We understand you don't think this should be posted as a blurb. You don't have to say it 3 times. -- KTC (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    It certainly is eligible for a blurb, as the nomination is for his death, a murder of a sitting member of a national legislature, as an event itself, not just him. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Now it's a tad over 400 words, ergo technically eligible for a blurb, although on the thin side for one. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb the assassination of a federal elected official is more significant than a run-of-the-mill murder, and merits a blurb. Article appears to have been expanded recently, and should now meet the quality requirements for a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support A knighted MP who has been in Parliament for over 38 years is not a low-profile politician and cannot be dismissed on the basis that "people get stabbed all the time". Leaky caldron (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The assassination of a Member of Parliament is a major story. Saying "people get stabbed all the time" is, quite frankly, offensive. GreebleNeeble (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Article retitled. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose I find it hard to believe that if he were a member of parliament in another country he wouldn't even have the coverage he has and wouldn't even be nominated. And my opinion would be the same. The assassination of a lawmaker does not seem so notorious to me, because, however important his office may be, Amess was "just another one", not a parliamentary leader or a party leader. Not all MPs have the same relevance, so not all should be given the same relevance. RIP._-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • It was the British equivalent of a US congressman being killed at a rally. Maybe in nations with more polemic politics such a thing is commonplace, but I can’t think of a one. Kingsif (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - the killing of a lawmaker in a country where it rarely happens is inherently notable enough for ITN. If this happened in the US or Canada, I'd also support posting it. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 16:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • In which country is the murder of lawmakers a national sport? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb - definitely notable enough for RD. A blurb? Not too sure. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Major story in the UK and a story internationally, but the killing of an individual representative who is not in their country's government cabinet does not rise to blurb level. Cox may have been a blurb but the discussion was hardly one of overwhelming consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb Political violence, much less outright assassination is extremely rare in the UK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Assassination of MPs is almost unheard of in the UK so when it occurs, it's a huge story. As seen on List_of_serving_British_MPs_who_were_assassinated there have been nine in our history and five of those were related to The_Troubles. This is a big deal and should be treated as such. GreebleNeeble (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb and/or RD This is a serious high profile issue, assassination of British MPs are rare and we have precidence for this as we posted Jo Cox's murder. I would support the blurb and the article is well sourced enough for an RD at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb - Murder of a politician is unusual in Europe. High profile.BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb as per The C of E. --LukeSurl t c 17:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb but don't forget to add the 'Sir' honorific before his name. ♦ jaguar 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Added it in. Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Per MOS:SIR, his knighthood is an honorary one (according to the Knight Bachelor page), so we should not include "Sir" in front of his name (at least, if I am reading that correctly, I may be wrong). --Masem (t) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Honorary knighthoods are given to those who are not British citizens. "Sir" in front of his name is correct usage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Is there any reason we cannot also make his bio article bolded? The only major issue right now on it is the "Current event" tag on the death section, which is not a critical quality issue. --Masem (t) 18:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – Discussion totals 2,500 words. Seems time for an uninvolved admin to do something with this nom. – Sca (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Last major English political figure stabbed in a church was 715 years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Beirut clashes[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Article: 2021 Beirut clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Beirut, a series of violent clashes leave 6 people killed and 32 injured. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera NYT CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Worst street violence in Lebanon since 2008. Notable enough. TootsieRollsAddict (talk to me pls I am lonely) 00:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle. However, the article should be expanded with more content on the actual clashes and consequences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose for now based on quality. The article has a "timeline" section that only has one event. That's... not right. If this is a series and not an event, it should, you know, actually cover the whole series. --Jayron32 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality way short of a substantial enough article for the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose still tagged as a stub, although it's probably just beyond that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose "The article has a timeline section that only has one event" because it is only one isolated event. No evidence of lasting significance. Notable enough for an article but not for an ITN. Tradediatalk 23:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Brazil's Central Bank sells US$1 billion to offset declines in the real, which has fallen ⅓ relative to the dollar in 2021 alone, with another US$1 billion in sales scheduled for later today. (Mercopress)
  • LinkedIn announces that it will shut down its social media services in China later this year, citing heavy-handed compliance requirements from the government, and will replace it with a traditional job-listing site. LinkedIn was the only major Western-based social media site to legally operate within the country prior to the announcement. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Joseph Kofi Adda[edit]

Article: Joseph Kofi Adda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.myjoyonline.com/former-aviation-minister-joseph-kofi-adda-has-died/
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: Ghanaian politician. Former MP and cabinet minister. The wikibio looks long enough and clean enough now, but it could use more info on what he did in his 3 stints as a cabinet minister. --PFHLai (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Lee Wan-koo[edit]

Article: Lee Wan-koo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yonhap News
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: Briefly PM of South Korea. PFHLai (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support' Looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose Despite a lengthy political career, limited to no depth of coverage about what he did in those positions. I understand his PM term was short so don't need much there, but for his earlier political career more is needed. SpencerT•C 00:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Diane Weyermann[edit]

Article: Diane Weyermann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times; Variety; Sundance Institute
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) 2021 Kaohsiung tower fire[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Kaohsiung tower fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In southern Taiwan, a tower fire in Kaohsiung leaves 46 dead and 41 injured. (Post)
News source(s): Taiwan News, Focus Taiwan, DW, Al Jazeera, New York Times. AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: deadliest building fire in taiwan since 1995. work in progress. dying (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support – in principle. The basics are there. Something on what materials fueled the fire would be appropriate, and of course its cause. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support beyond your basic disaster stub. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support article is better than a stub, and 46+ people dying is ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    At 450 words it's on the thin side yet for MP use, though. – Sca (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    3185 characters is longer than many similar articles are when they get posted. It's good enough, and can be expanded once more information is available. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Definitely a notable event. Start class article on the lower end should still be able to appear on the main page. --CactusTaron (Nopen't) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle. The article seems to be minimally sufficient and should be expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support. Unusual event, high death toll which seems likely to rise further, similar to Grenfell Tower fire which was posted. The article is not hugely informative but long enough and adequately referenced. Weak !vote as I'm getting a bit tired of disasters with mediocre articles, but this is postable and keeps the blurbs ticking over. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I think we have to recognize that such disasters in non-Western countries have language-barrier issues that make it hard for typical en.wiki editors to find sources to expand (not that foreign language sources aren't usable, just that knowing how to use those requires language familiarity). In addition to the difference of attention due to systematic bias that the media would give to a fire in downtown London versus somewhere in Taiwan. Just a point of consideration of expectations on length we should keep in mind. --Masem (t) 16:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Oh I wasn't expecting it to have as good an article as Grenfell did (that one developed amazingly over the first 24 hours). The current length is adequate. But I take your point. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Article is sufficient length and quality, well referenced, and the topic is being covered by major news outlets. Checks all of the requirements. --Jayron32 16:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support This is actual news, unlike the space flight of 10 minutes. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posting. --Tone 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Please remove tower from the blurb - the damaged building isn't a tower, which is why the article's title is under discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    More likely to get a response at WP:ERRORS.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References[edit]

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: