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.

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.

Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.

Mark Selby in 2015
Mark Selby

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]

May 9[edit]

Health and environment

Science and technology


(Closed) 2021 London mayoral election[edit]

WP:SNOW. No chance. Inadmissible.
Sca (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Election for mayor of the capital of the United Kingdom  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe we never post mayoral election, regardless of the city. --Tone 06:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • oppose. even if we did, and this election was to be judged on its own merits, the mayor remains unchanged, and khan's reëlection does not appear to have been under serious question. article is of decent quality, though. dying (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local politics for the 37th-largest city in the world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That list stopped making sense when China juked their stats by folding the whole metropolitan area into the "city". Chongqing has a larger population than London, but with an "area" of 22,000 sqkm it's bigger than the entire South East Region of the UK. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We never post local elections. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of local elections. 110.137.161.129 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the OP has not marked this as ITN/R, and "we never post local elections" is not codified anywhere at WP:ITN. Lets just judge it on it's own merits, such as Dying did above. I'd say "we never post local elections" opposes should be discounted for the purposes of evaluating consensus or closure. If that camp would like to codify such a clause, head over to WT:ITN --LaserLegs (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
No one has claimed it is codified anywhere(and I would oppose doing so) but it is fair to say as a general practice we don't usually post such a local election. I can't recall when we have, at least. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The nominator will have to point out the significance of this election before we consider it. STSC (talk) 11:02, 9 May 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.

May 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Bo[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support – seems to well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose citations missing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support while some citations may be missing, it is well sourced. 110.137.161.129 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Added refs to tagged paragraphs and Section on kidnap plot so concerns all look to be addressed now JW 1961 Talk 20:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've been working my way up the ITN/C page, and it seems the dog is the first RD entry that's been improved enough to post. Man's best friend indeed...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - well done on the improvements. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Bo-wow. ZZZzzzz. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 7[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

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

Sports

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

RD: Shamim Hanafi[edit]

Article: Shamim Hanafi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Jang, Urdu
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated. Subject was a known figure in the Urdu literature. Will be updating further at the availability of new sources. So far, everything in the article is sourced. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support looks good. --Gazal world (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It might need some copyediting. -Nizil (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - there's a long gap in the biography section, between 1976 and 2010... personally I did a huge number of things between those two years, and most likely Mr Hanafi did too!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru, addressed. ─ The Aafī (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Tawny Kitaen[edit]

Article: Tawny Kitaen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American actress known for "Bachelor Party". Article looks OK, but might need some work. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Yitzhak Arad[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support. I was actually about to nominate this myself. The article seems in fairly good form. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1 CN to address then this is good to go. SpencerT•C 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. CN addressed. SpencerT•C 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support Short but sufficient, well referenced. --Jayron32 12:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Rio de Janeiro shootout[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • A question I would have if the 25 people killed (excluding the officers) were all part of the drug ring or if this included bystanders. As while 25 deaths is rather "big", if they were all members of that drug ring would make this less of a "tragedy", while if those 25 included civilians, that makes it something far more significant. I read there were two civilian injuries on the metro, but that's not as major yet. Perhaps more detail is needed. --Masem (t) 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. If there are reliable sources on how many of them were drug traffickers and civilians, we should adjust blurb accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Going off the Reuters source, "The victims included one police officer, and the remainder were suspected members of the drug-trafficking gang that dominated life in the slum, including some of its leaders, police said." (eg no innocent lives were taken, thankfully). However I think the emphasis on the wreckless nature of this shootout needs to be better reflected in the article and the blurb for this to be posted as this is what is being called out. If the same event happened, but it was all confined to a drug warehouse, likely it would not be as significant a story. It is a story because the police actively chased down and shot at these drug people through favelas and put innocents at risk, which is the story, not so much that 25 drug dealers + connected people were killed. --Masem (t) 04:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose in reality at least until it's expanded beyond a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment you can expand the article without any new information and get it posted by following the User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub template. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I added quite a bit of filler to bulk it up. The AP wire story has a few more details if someone has time to fill in the shooting section else I'll try to get to it later. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
There I think that'll do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:POINT  Nixinova T  C   02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. These are great news that don't happen every moment. But I will only support 100% until the article is no longer a stub. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality For a borderline stub, it looks WP:ORish when the "Background" section is backed exclusively by sources not directly tied to the current event. For breaking news, I expect the current sources to be the initial framers of that perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dog bites man. Police shoot criminals. Mlb96 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Major police operation which resulted in a large death toll. It's historically notable. If this had happened in NYC, London, Paris, Sydney etc. rather than Rio, this discussion & the article would have quickly become much longer. It would be one of the world's biggest news stories. It would have been posted within a couple of hours & it's unlikely that anyone would have opposed it being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on quality. The "Background" section is not background for this article, it's a random collection of outdated (14+year old) statistics about crime in Brazil that has little relevance to the incident in question. If we take that out (as we should) then we have a stub with little more information than the blurb would contain. We need some cleanup and expansion before this is main-page ready. --Jayron32 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Some of it is relevant. It needs to be improved, not removed. I added the 2010 Rio de Janeiro security crisis to that section. What sort of info do you think should be added to the shootout article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Of EXTREMELY marginal relevance, especially given that the text you added says "There was a crisis in 2010". Really? What was the crisis? What were the details? Most importantly: How did it lead to the events in question? The section is still a bunch of outdated, random, national crime statistics. That's not background information. Here's what IS relevant background information:
What is the name of the gang or gangs involved. What is some of their history? How were they organized? How did they come to work in this part of Rio de Janeiro? What were some of their prior interactions with law enforcement? What about the police force in question? What prior interactions have they had with this gang? What have they done in the past to deal with this gang? Other similar gangs? What has led to the growth of drug use in this neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro? What caused it to escalate? This is not an exhaustive list of things I'd expect to see, but a good sampling of some possible avenues to go with expanding the background section. Not "There was a crisis 11 years ago. Here's some random national crime stats from 14 years ago". That's not useful information. --Jayron32 14:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
A lot of that info - which would be useful - hasn't been reported by RS. The crisis is relevant because it was about violence in Rio between drug-dealing gangs and the authorities. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, then, maybe we don't have an article worth posting on the main page. --Jayron32 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
How can a controversial shootout, with a death toll of 25, which has been responded to with a protest & criticism by orgs & notable people, not be worthy of ITN? Many readers will be interested, but not yet aware that it happened. The info that you suggest will be added to the article as RS release it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You're not responding to the thing I said. You're inventing, in your mind, something I didn't say, and then responding to the thing you invented. What I said was, we don't have an article worth posting on the main page. Let me say it again, in case you missed the important word. A R T I C L E. I didn't say the event wasn't important, or worth informing people about. I said the article was not good enough to post to the main page. Make the article good enough and the article will be posted on the main page. If the article cannot be made better than the article will not be put up in ITN. I have said nothing about the event. I have said the article is not good enough. Comprendez? --Jayron32 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
See my comments above: the reason this is getting attention is not that this was another drug raid, but that the police allowed the gun fight to run rampant through civilian homes, and they are being called out by many humanitarian groups for this. That should be a focus, more than two lines in reaction. --Masem (t) 13:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You're saying that the Reactions section should be the longest part of the article? Jim Michael (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be the longest, but it should be far more than two lines presently. Obviously the details of the shootout are still required, but as I said, if this was the same scale of event but isolated to a warehouse and no innocents were at risk, this would be a yawner of a headline. --Masem (t) 13:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It would then have received significantly less media coverage, but it'd still easily be notable enough for an article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Right and it wouldn't have been notable for ITN. It's being considered at ITN as widespread media coverage is focused on the fact there was a rampant gunfight through civilian homes that the police seemed to have no regard for in conducting this raid, not that the police killed 25 drug dealers. --Masem (t) 14:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment the background section may be dated, but it's sourced and relevant and I explained why in the talk page in response to Jayron32. Either way, I've done as much as I'm going to do to the article. Post it or not. Have a good weekend! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    You've said the words "it's relevant". Saying those words does not make it so. It's just not. I want this article to be posted to, but I'm not willing to compromise on quality standards to do so. We're not just putting any shit article on the main page just to make sure the topic makes ITN because some people find it important. You even called your own additions "filler" which were just added to "bulk" up the article. If it's just there to increase the word count, it's not relevant. I've explained in some detail why the inclusion of outdated, random national crime statistics is not relevant to an article about a specific police shootout in 2021. I've even told you how to add actual good information to the article. I don't know why you refuse to do so. --Jayron32 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • comment:
about six years ago, a shootout in the u.s., in which nine died and police were involved, was not posted.
about a week later, a shootout in mexico, in which forty-three died and police were involved, was posted.
also, i agree that the background information currently presented does not seem very pertinent. perhaps it would be appropriate to mention the police killing of a 14-year-old boy last may, which led to public condemnation during the george floyd protests in brazil and a subsequent ruling by the supreme federal court curtailing such raids in favelas during the pandemic, a ruling that apparently has been flouted since october. dying (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
That depends? Was the 14 year old being recruited to sell drugs? I added two sentences one about the rise in drug crime and one about the recruitment of children by gangs. The raid was conducted because police believed such recruiting was taking place. Waste our time with more off topic irrelevant garbage if you feel the need; I've done no such thing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
i had suggested adding the information above to the article because i had seen reliable sources providing these facts as relevant background information, and had thought they would be appropriate for the article. if you do not feel the same, then i apologize for having wasted your time.
in the interest of full disclosure, i feel that i should mention that i have had personal experience with such raids in brazil when military police boarded a bus i was on with guns drawn in order to apprehend a suspected drug runner. i apologize for not having mentioned this earlier, as it had not occurred to me to mention it until i was trying to understand why i had felt that the background information currently provided in the article was not very pertinent, while you did. i do not know if the experience has given me a viewpoint that is not as neutral as i would have hoped to adopt.
however, regardless of whether the currently provided statistics are relevant to the article, i currently echo Bagumba's concern regarding the possible wp:or violation as a result of providing such statistics. many of the reliable sources appear to be skeptical of the claims made by the police and the government, and the reason for the raid that the police had provided, that children were being recruited by a drug trafficking gang, is suspected to be a pretext. perhaps this source and this source are more forthcoming about this skepticism.
i believe the 14-year-old boy that was killed last may had nothing to do with drugs, and that was one of the reasons why there was such an outcry over the killing. similarly, it is suspected that not all of those killed in this raid were suspects, and the circumstances of this incident have led the un's human rights office to call for an independent investigation.
ultimately, i think there's a story here, but i'm worried that the article is currently not telling it properly. dying (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, oppose on quality at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on significance and on quality. While shootouts are common in Brazil, what is uncommon is the death toll and the nature of this shootout. I support on quality because I think the orange tag is not valid. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality As of writing, page still has an orange tag. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Jersey fishing dispute[edit]

Consensus not to post. --Tone 06:27, 9 May 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 Jersey dispute (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): (AP News) (Reuters)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Still on-going, so a blurb wouldn’t be right and would just change multiple times. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose ongoing, would support blurb. According to the infobox, and the lead, it has been going on for 1 day, since 5 May. The article was created on 21:03, May 5, 2021‎. Given the relatively short lifespan of the article, and the short duration of the dispute, it does not qualify as an "ongoing" story in either sense (a long-term story and an article that receives frequent, quality updates). The article on its own is in good enough shape, and the story is being covered by the news, so I don't see why we couldn't put this into blurb form, but this is not what ongoing is for. --Jayron32 14:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and oppose ongoing for now per Jayron. This is a notable dispute and the article is in good shape. Once a blurb is posted, we can move it to ongoing when it rolls off if it's still ongoing or update the blurb if the involved parties reach an agreement to solve the dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose while this Monty Python sketch is well documented, we should probably wait for...well, something to happen before we consider posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. Not enough of an event for ITN. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, will support a blurb if the story develops further, but so far this is very minor news and nothing of note has happened. --Jbvann05 (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seriously small-time sabre rattling given the onus of other problems in the world. Could develop into something more but far too soon for ITN. --Masem (t) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait if the French blockade or cut the power then sure. It's certainly in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- not notable right now. If this were playing out elsewhere, like India and Pakistan, would we post it? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - for a few reasons. First, it's an international protest. Second, it doesn't look like it will be resolved soon. Finally, ships have been deployed by both governments, escalating the incident even further (as an international protest it's already unusual). If this had happened between India & Pakistan, I'd hope we would post it because there'd be a fourth reason: both countries are nuclear-armed with a history of strong mutual distrust. The question is whether this should be a blurb or ongoing. It seems difficult to construct a blurb, especially since the situation is fluid, hence ongoing seems more appropriate. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I understand this is probably a joke, but if you legitimately think this is worth posting, you are not helping your case with such absurd hyperbole. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and oppose ongoing for now more the unexpected nature of this dispute. If it becomes a protracted conflict, re-nom for ongoing. Albertaont (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Comparatively minor, and predictable, squabble. Lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - far too minor. Jim Michael (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The dispute could last for some time. STSC (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, especially if the residents of nearby Guernsey get involved. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are certainly potentially notable fishing disputes. However, this is far less notable than the 2018 blockades of Calais and Boulogne and a dozen similar instances in the last 20 years. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted in the article this got a lot more attention in Britain than it did in France (perhaps because the French weren't having local elections). That should tell us something about whether we should put in on ITN. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Flash in the pan, was over very quickly. The French surrendered the protest when they saw the Royal Navy. This was never going to be another Trafalgar. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:23, 9 May 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: Ajit Singh (politician)[edit]

Article: Ajit Singh (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Indian minister Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose A good part of the article is unreferenced. Please ping me if this is fixed, I'll surely change my mind then. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) COVID-19 vaccination[edit]

Withdrawn by nom. --Jayron32 12:45, 6 May 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 vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The proposal is to add a link to COVID-19 vaccination in parentheses immediately after COVID-19 pandemic. Many, if not most, of the news related to the COVID-19 pandemic are about vaccines or the ongoing process of vaccination so it needs to be somehow separated from the main article to highlight its significance at this stage of development. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I opposed the removal of the special Covid box a few months back, but the decision was made and that's where we are. Vaccination isn't the only aspect of the pandemic that's currently newsworthy, there's the wave in India and Brazil, the variants, changes to lockdown arrangements in different countries too. The pandemic article covers all those topics so it's IMHO sufficient to have that as the primary link into the topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    The primary article is not going to be replaced with this one; it's just a proposal to add a link to a secondary article in parentheses (I was also against removing the box with all links to relevant articles a few months ago.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I do understand what you're proposing. I just don't think it's correct to single out out the vaccination programmes for an extra line, as they are far from the only aspect of COVID currently in the news. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It already appeared in ongoing section as part of the COVID-19 pandemic article. I don't see any reasons to nominated it as ongoing. 110.137.163.125 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose No reason to link the same article from two different parts of the Front Page, let alone two different parts of just Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. No need further to complicate the MP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Thanks for the comments so far. It seems like consensus in support of my proposal is not going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 5[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Del Crandall[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support Good depth, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 17:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucinda Franks[edit]

Article: Lucinda Franks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American journalist. Article needs some beefing up, but shouldn't take too long. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. In good shape now I think! Entirely referenced with good depth. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashraf Sehrai[edit]

Article: Ashraf Sehrai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Economic Times
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent figure in the ongoing Kashmir conflict, passed away supposedly due to COVID. Article seems to be in decent enough shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

May 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Ray Miller (baseball manager)[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Comment: Playing career should list the position he played (pitcher I assume?), and if available, some basic playing statistics would be useful. Otherwise looks good to go, and Conditional support once that info is added. SpencerT•C 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ref 1 is a bare URL. Looks good otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: done. Removed it since the info it verifies (i.e. date of death) is sourced in the main part of the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Looks like all objections are dealt with.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Paulo Gustavo[edit]

Article: Paulo Gustavo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Folha de S. Paulo, G1
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian actor and comedian. Yet another victim of COVID-19. The article was created recently, but it's in decent shape. --SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: A couple of the awards need refs but after then, should be ready to go. SpencerT•C 17:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Traffic Ramaswamy[edit]

Article: Traffic Ramaswamy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian social activist. Article is not ready for homepage / RD yet. But, not too far away. Will get to it shortly. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Simon Achidi Achu[edit]

Article: Simon Achidi Achu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Journal du Cameroun
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 5th Prime Minister of Cameroon. Start-class biography, well-sourced. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Looks fine to me, apart from the single CN tag @Jmanlucas:? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPpose - citations still needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Manas Bihari Verma[edit]

Article: Manas Bihari Verma (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian aeronautical scientist. Padma Sri awardee. Article is a start class biography. Can expand based on available obituaries. Ktin (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

RD: Alan McLoughlin[edit]

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

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

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

  • Oppose – most of the article is unreferenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Skippy2520: Quantity of refs does not matter. Every paragraph needs to be verified with at least one ref. Only three paragraphs are fully cited right now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

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

  • Support GreatCaesarsGhost 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article has an orange tag ("article needs to be updated") and I'm not clear from the talk page what, if anything, needs updating. Can anyone clarify? (Or remove the tag if not needed?) SpencerT•C 16:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Koridas: it appears that it was yourself who added an "update tag" to the article on Frazier Glenn Miller, on 4 May. Is there anything in particular that you think needs updating, or can that tag be removed? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru, You may remove the tag. Koridas 📣 21:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks for the quick reply Koridas. All looks good now.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Mexico City Metro overpass collapse[edit]

Getting off-track again... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:23, 4 May 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: Mexico City Metro overpass collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A Mexico City Metro train derails on an overpass as it collapses, killing at least 20 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​An elevated section of the Mexico City Metro collapses leaving 23 people dead and more than 70 injured.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is undergoing expansion, but a train accident of this scale is bound to be covered. SounderBruce 05:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Easily important enough & the article is being rapidly improved. Jim Michael (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - first item on BBC site this morning. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Article is not in a fit state to post at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Switching to Support now that the article has been expanded. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OPpose on quality. Currently barely more than a stub. Seems notable enough when ready though.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'll continue updating it in a few hours, it's 3 am here and it misses a lot of information about how corruption was involved since Day 0. It's sad, but these are the consequences. (CC) Tbhotch 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - With 12 sources I think the quality is high enough to post. Ljgua124 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    It has sources, but it's still too short. Hopefully with Tbhotch's work or some other updates, it will be ready before too long.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment bridge collapse nomination in 2018 --LaserLegs (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Though there's no fixed minimum number of deaths for an article to be important enough for ITN, a higher death toll makes an event significantly more notable. Do you think this one should be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Hmm, on tilt again. Only you bring up "minimum deaths". I was simply offering a comparison that five times more casualties have occurred in this event than the one you helpfully linked. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you want this posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Meh, it's your standard boiler plate disaster stub with barely a paragraph of relevant information and will never improve so of course it will be posted. I'm just trying to understand the bridge collapse posting criteria since it's not documented at WP:ITN. In the example I cited above there was a consensus that "if it had happened anywhere else we wouldn't post it" and here we are ready to post a bridge collapse from anywhere else. I'm kind of new here, just trying to understand the ins and outs is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
As you know, there's no "bridge collapse criteria". Nominations are judged on their merits. Some have little or no merit, some have some or much merit. It depends. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This has far more casualties than the one you mentioned. That's the main reason that this one has been posted & that one wasn't. This article has been improving rapidly all day. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that is not quite correct. The only reason why this one has been posted, while the other one wasn't, is that this nomination got enough support from people who happened to stop by the ITNC page while the nomination was up, while the other one did not. There are no other reasons why anything gets posted. There is no other rule, there are no precedents, there is nothing except "people who cared said something". --Jayron32 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is why this was posted & previous one wasn't, but this one's higher death toll is clearly a major reason for at least some of us here to say that it should be posted. Jim Michael (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but people keep looking for ways to circumvent discussion and disqualify the opinions of others by (falsely) claiming that the reason why things are posted is because we have some sort of minimum limits, or because previous articles that were (or were not) posted in the past established a precedent, and that precedent or rule somehow invalidates the opinions of people who think differently. That is just not how we work. You may have your own private criteria as to why something will be posted, but that criteria is not based on any rule or precedent we have here at Wikipedia, and the fact that someone else uses a different criteria is NOT a reason to invalidate their opinion, despite the repeated efforts of some long-time contributors here to get their way. --Jayron32 14:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagreeing with someone, and giving reasons why you disagree - which could include citing informal standards and precedents - is not "invalidating their opinion". Discussion and debate are a healthy part of the consensus-building process. And if it happens that I disagree with someone *and* several of what you call the "long-time contributors", or indeed anyone else, happen to agree with me, then that might be enough to form a consensus contrary to the one I disagreed with. Or perhaps it isn't. That's up to the assessing admin to determine. I'm quite sure everyone who contributes to this page is used to sometimes getting the result they favour and sometimes not.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
We should be disagreeing with people. We should not be doing it in a way that makes it seem like we're saying their comments are invalid because they violate some rule or that precedent has already been established. --Jayron32 15:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support articles in good shape, long enough and sufficiently sourced. I wonder if certain discussions would be taking place if the same event had taken place on the NYS or London Underground... no, I thought not. ——Serial 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
In that event, the article & this discussion would have become much longer, much quicker. It would have been posted sooner. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you mean SNOW closed as "Consensus will not develop to post" in less than 3 hours? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 12:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support As per consensus. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Deadliest inccident for the city's metro system, says the BBC article -Gouleg🛋️ (StalkHound) 17:06, 4 May 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: Pierce Fulton[edit]

Article: Pierce Fulton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American DJ and record producer; surprised no one had nominated him. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Helen Murray Free[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Donald Cameron (Nova Scotia premier)[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support: Article seems to be very well sourced. As the former Premier of Nova Scotia, it would be hard to see any other reason besides poor sourcing to not see him on ITN. – Jmanlucas (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
All people with a Wikipedia article are eligible to be on RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I understand that. Was merely adding to the point that this article would be good for RD. – Jmanlucas (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Unser[edit]

Article: Bobby Unser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 3 time Indy 500 winner rogerd (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose practically all of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    And it's been tagged that way since February 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The 1981 Indianapolis controversy section is entirely unsourced, and several other citation needed tags are in place. There is still plenty of work to be done before this is eligible to be on In The News.Jmanlucas (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough references, mainly in the Indianapolis 500 controversy section.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    I added a ref for the 2nd paragraph in that section, the 3rd will be a little harder to find, but I will keep looking as time permits. I haven't edited this article before. If you want to reject the ITN, that's fine by me. I will try to improve the article anyways. --rogerd (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    rogerd, no immediate time pressure, you have 7 days before it is archived. Stephen 06:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Bill and melinda gates divorcing[edit]

Good faith nom with WP:SNOW chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 3 May 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.

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Bill and Melinda Gates announce their divorce --Daikido (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose They are nowhere close to British royalty, the only possible case I could see for an ITN divorce posting. --Masem (t) 21:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, an event of subpar notability. BD2412 T 21:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • SNOW chance Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I did appreciate the fact this was originally tagged as a "Recent Death" nomination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because the likelihood of me marrying into Melinda's extreme wealth is tragically slim. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A divorce? Please.BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 3 May 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.

(Posted) RD: Noor Alam Khalil Amini[edit]

Article: Noor Alam Khalil Amini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Millat Times Urdu
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Announced early morning IST. Known Indian scholar and author. Article updated and is more than a stub. I don't have access to further resources right now and there's not much biographical information available online/offline. The PhD thesis about his book is in Arabic and I don't know Arabic that much. Merits a mention on the ITN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Was he a religious figure, or an academic? I'm a bit concerned about the weight being given to his personal faith if his focus was more on Arabic literature. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
AllegedlyHuman – He was both. A religious figure and an academic. He taught at the famous Indian seminary Darul Uloom Deoband and wrote extensively. I do not see where we have given weight to his personal faith? AFAICS, Article speaks about his early life, education and his writings, with specific mentions towards his focus on Arabic literature like his book being taught in dars-e-nizami or his articles etc. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a note. I've updated the article, and tried to address other related concerns. This should be enough now. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
It was not initially clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject that he had studied Islam. Still, he was labeled as a "religious figure" in the infobox and described in the first sentence as "an Indian Sunni Muslim scholar", which I do not believe would be appropriate if he studied something other than religion. The article appears to be clearer now, thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Your comment was really helpful. Thank you. This should be now ready for the ITN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose There's a bit too much of substance cited only to a primary source ("About the author" from Pas-e-Marg-e-Zindah). Otherwise, it looks good. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    @GreatCaesarsGhost:. Changed citation at two places. There are just two things now that are cited from here - and those aren't discussed anywhere else. Primary sources are fine to be relied for such primary facts imo. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Support Agreed. The usage now is acceptable. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Spencer Just seeing some newer nominations of RD being posted on ITN/RD. This nomination is 4 days old.. Should be posted imo now.. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) ITNR: 2021 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 World Snooker Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Mark Selby wins the World Snooker Championship defeating Shaun Murphy in the final. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2021/may/03/snooker-world-championship-final-crucible-mark-selby-shaun-murphy-live
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Listed at ITN/R. Almost up to date, just need to update the final slightly in the prose. See previous ITNs such as for 2019 World Snooker Championship etc.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am working on it, but I got a bit behind earlier this week, so I'm not as up to date as usual. I've added a placeholder to confirm he won, and the score and such, just there is some missing detail I'll add ASAP. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, and it's ITNR so notability doesn't matter.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Stunningly in-depth, update on the final looks to now be at sufficient length. Another FA in the making. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. No need to hang around on this one I think. The article is ITN/R, so need to wait for consensus on notability, two supports, final has been updated (and will no doubt be expanded even more very soon), and the quality looks excellent otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) RD: Ernest E. West[edit]

Article: Ernest E. West (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Courier-Journal; The Daily Independent
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (May 2). —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Brief, but has adequate coverage of what he was notable for (Medal of Honor). SpencerT•C 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Spencers comments, looks ready JW 1961 Talk 10:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacques d'Amboise (dancer)[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Support. Nice work. Article seems to meet hygiene expectations for homepage / RD on a quick glance. Ktin (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. G. Neginhal[edit]

Article: S. G. Neginhal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian wildlife and nature conservationist. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 18:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Dee Holeman[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

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

(Posted) 2021 Colombian protests[edit]

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

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

  • Support Significant coverage and arguably the most notable protests in Latin America at the moment. Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As the creator of the article (that was originally a stub) and as a colombian; I can confirm this is a series of protests that wasn't seen since 2019 (sorry for my rough english). Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 23:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality I don't see this as being at the top of the global news, but can balance it with higher page quality per WP:ITNCRIT. One such area is expanding the lead for a better overview per MOS:INTRO.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of coverage, well-referenced, nice article. Could be expanded a little, but it's no big problem. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The protests are important enough to be posted & the article's quality is easily good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article could use a little expansion, especially in the lead, but on the whole is not bad. I think it's good enough for the main page, the sourcing is good and it is relatively comprehensive in the body. The story is being covered by major news sources. Meets all requirements for ITN. --Jayron32 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support nice little artcle.——Serial 12:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Unsee much coverage in RS-land. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The article mainly focuses on the "Ingreso Solidario" part of the reform. Other important aspects of the reform and causes of the protest should be mentioned. -pasunjacques 15:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - has an orange level maintenance tag. The lead should be expanded before this is posted. Anarchyte (talkwork) 14:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Jayron32 15:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't care if it's posted or not, but the proposed change was withdrawn and the blurb should reflect the same. Alt2 added --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: The wording "opposition riots" is not suitable or NPOV, though we should mention that the plan was cancelled.--WMrapids (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
When protests kill 6 people, they're called riots. Papering over riots is a WP:RGW but I don't care that much --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The protests didn't kill the people, the crackdown did. Unless you want to say "Police riot and kill 6 protestors". --Jayron32 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, the police cracked down on rioters, and a few were killed resisting law enforcement. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It depends on one's perception of "law and order".—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't care about the blurb. Article is in good shape. Y'all figure out the wording amongst yourselves. --Jayron32 17:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have understood that this protests began due to a tax plan proposed by the government, what seems is happening is that the sense of the protests, now that the government withdraw the proposal for the tax plan, has changed to show general disconformation with the Iván Duque's government. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 23:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
My bad for the delayed comment; I was out eating with my family. Anyways, to answer your question, Alt III looks good to me. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Alt IV Dedicated new article on topical subject with sufficient quality. As for the blurb, the president withdrew the proposal, not the country itself, per se.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Comment Should also add that the withdrawl represents the latest news, and its omission would make the blurb seem dated.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Mark ready Posting admin might be able to make an editorial decision on the blurb, or it might be obvious with more comments.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Alt IV Clearest, least biased, and most complete of the various options. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Alt-blurb IV, mostly due to the fact of withdrawal being included. --qedk (t c) 06:18, 4 May 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: