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.

Security forces enter after school shooting
Security forces enter after school shooting

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 16[edit]


May 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Sunil Jain[edit]

Article: Sunil Jain (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 financial journalist. Just breaking. Article is a tad small and is a start-class biography, but, meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New Isotope - Uranium-214[edit]

Article: Isotopes of uranium (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Physicists in China create a new Isotope of uranium: Uranium-214. (Post)
News source(s): Phys. Rev. Lett., (Sci-News)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: First of all, I don't know for the blurb to use a colon (:) or semi-colon (;). There isn't enough information right now for it to be posted, but after some work, it probably could. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Need Help The "Article" syntax is broken. Not able to put in Isotopes of uranium#Uranium-214 into it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The template doesn't have the capability to point to a section, you just need to leave it to the article name, but you can id it in the blurb as you have done. --Masem (t) 20:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Good to note for the future. Thanks for that fix! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to create a redirect, however somebody beat me to it. Uranium-214 will redirect. As far as the nomination goes, it needs be expanded a lot more to be considered. KittenKlub (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The coverage of this currently consists of two lines in the linked article. It would preferably have its own dedicated article, but if not then at least some detailed history and methodology of the discovery, as well as why it's significant would be needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't rise to the notability of discovering new elements. Period 7 elements will naturally have more and more isotope possibilities, even if most of them will be highly unstable and of little utility. Albertaont (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • question: the first source appears to have been published last month. is there a reason why the more recent date of the second source is being treated as the date of publication? dying (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Đorđe Marjanović[edit]

Article: Đorđe Marjanović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Danas, RFE/RL
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: Serbian singer Vacant0 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Well sourced, long enough and interesting article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elserbio00 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • COmment - it's in pretty good shape, just one uncited claim about "Rokeri Đorđu Marjanoviću" in the legacy section.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I added a citation for that sentence, thank you for noticing that. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks for adding the cite.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Leicester win FA Cup[edit]

Article: 2021 FA Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In association football, Leicester City win the FA Cup, defeating Chelsea in the final. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

 2600:1702:38D0:E70:1C0D:F211:DBDF:5E0 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Conditional supportArticle seems decent, but the FA cup is not in ITNR and I fail to see a compelling reason to post it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that it looks like it is not going to SNOW like I feared, I am willing to support if there is prose added on the match itself.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support in principle but obviously the match itself needs a write-up. This is the oldest cup competition in world football and although not ITN/R, is significant enough in my view. (Also no team before Leicester has had to wait until their fifth attempt to win a final, which is an interesting angle.) P-K3 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support per P-K3 - prose needed for the match. Although not ITNR, I think it is significant as the oldest football competition in the world JW 1961 Talk 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose summary of match. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - ITN/R includes the Spanish, English and German leagues, but doesn't include the French or Italian, which are also generally considered amongst the top club competitions in the sport. As such, when we're not posting those two things, adding a second domestic competition for England seems a bit of a WP:WORLDWIDE issue. Then again, the FA Cup is the oldest and is the sort of tournament that brings in the magic moments - you can read all about two of those magic moments in Featured Articles, if you know where to look! And actually Leicester winning it is a little bit of an underdog victory in itself. So I don't know. Leaning slightly against, but I can see the case for inclusion. Either way, the prose needs a write-up as per TRM.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unwilling support: It's ITN/R but ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

May 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) Tianwen-1[edit]

Article: Tianwen-1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The China National Space Administration's Tianwen-1 craft successfully lands on Mars. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The China National Space Administration's Tianwen-1 lander-rover vehicle successfully lands on Mars.
News source(s): Verge, Endgadget, NASA, BBC, AP
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: First Chinese spacecraft on Mars. China becomes the third nation to do so.  Nixinova T  C   02:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as notable, and article seems to be of high quality. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Slight blurb change. This was the landing of a smaller craft that includes a rover, which will be deployed in a few weeks from now. The lander is not the named "Tiawen-1" craft that reached orbit a few months ago. --Masem (t) 03:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    The little guy is named Zhurong, has six wheels, used to be a fire god. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    And just to note, they have not offloaded Zhurong yet, which they consider another mission milestone, though that sounds less of a concern given the payload landed safely on Mars. --Masem (t) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support atlblurb but wait The article is in good shape, but still light on the landing details. We should wait until that gets fully updated, since thats the real ITN. Albertaont (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead of the article has been updated but not the body, which still says "planned on occur on 14 May 2021. P-K3 (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I have copy-edited the content. STSC (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, ITN/R event. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 13:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with added named Zhurong rover. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - The article should be ready. STSC (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - But maybe consider remvoing the link the mars landing article as it seems underdeveloped. –DMartin 14:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks alright to me, gj! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Edit the blurb to reflect a more nuanced, yet still factually accurate reading of the situation; that the CNSA's Tianwen-1 mission successfully lands its Zhurong rover on Mars. As alluded to by editors above me, "Tianwen-1" is the name of the mission, not the spacecraft, of which the orbiter and lander are unnamed except for the Zhurong rover. As far as I understand, we italicize the names of individual spacecraft and vehicles, and not the names of intangible concepts such as missions. — Molly Brown (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Though the rover itself has not yet been deployed, only the lander-rover payload. --Masem (t) 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farooq Qaiser[edit]

Article: Farooq Qaiser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dawn
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: Pakistani artist. Article is almost there. Some edits and should be ready for homepage / RD. Edits done. Article is a C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Well sourced and good enough for RD.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well-cited, RIP! --Vacant0 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jay Barbree[edit]

Article: Jay Barbree (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - Few cn tags and sentences unsourced, but it seems "easy" to fix.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Easy to overlook problems, too, blast off! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support GA status, well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenneth Mayhew[edit]

Article: Kenneth Mayhew (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ministry of Defence
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 has been updated and is well sourced (is under Good Article status) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good Article. More than enough for RD.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced, GA status, RIP! --Vacant0 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David McPhail[edit]

Article: David McPhail (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZ 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: Kiwi actor and comedian. Article needs some work, with expansion and reference improvements, but I'll hopefully work on that today.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support – all referenced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above --Vacant0 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abel Murrieta Gutiérrez[edit]

Article: Abel Murrieta Gutiérrez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Pais
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: Assassinated. Former member of the Chamber of Deputies, candidate for municipal presidency. Article is long enough and everything is sourced properly. Elserbio00 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support I was going to nominate him too. His article covers his career in depth and is well referenced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced, deserves a RD--Vacant0 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Penpa Tsering[edit]

Article: Penpa Tsering (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Penpa Tsering becomes president-elect of the Central Tibetan Administration (Tibetan Government-in-Exile). (Post)
Alternative blurb: Penpa Tsering becomes president-elect of the Central Tibetan Administration (Tibetan Government-in-Exile), having been confirmed as the winner of the general election.
Alternative blurb II: Penpa Tsering becomes president-elect of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile.
News source(s): The Washington Post (AP), The Times of India
Credits:

 DTM (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Role has no actual on-the-ground power, and we don't AFAIK generally post changes to pretenders to power. Indeed, we failed to post the new leader of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recently, an entity which actually is listed at List of sovereign states and controls real territory, so it would seem odd to post this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD:Indu Jain[edit]

Article: Indu Jain (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: Head of the Times Group Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Very little basic biographical information or context, and it reads like promotion. AleatoryPonderings (???) <(!!!) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Weak support per KittenKlub (with thanks to them and IF for their work on the article). Would be nice to have some more background detail, but sometimes such things just aren't available. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it has a little amount of text, it will have to get expanded for an RD in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to Support, it looks good now.--Vacant0 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support it is now long enough and referenced. Jain was clearly a private person, the story remains somewhat weak. KittenKlub (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The entry now a solid start and even illustrated. Indeed a private person, but KittenKlub was able to find materials documenting that—well done. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Amazon wins a legal dispute against a European Union order to pay back taxes of 250 million ($303 million). The setback renewed calls from EU lawmakers for a global corporate tax deal and for several to voice their support for the Biden administration's proposed 21% minimum tax rate on multinationals. (Reuters)
  • Tesla announces they will no longer accept Bitcoin as payment. (AP)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Seamus Deane[edit]

Article: Seamus Deane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; BBC News; Irish 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Well-referenced.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Appropriately referenced and comprehensive enough. I've labelled it ready. Uses x (talkcontribs) 02:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Spencer Silver[edit]

Article: Spencer Silver (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
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: Inventor of the post-it note. Announced this day. Article needs some work. Edits done. Article has been expanded to a Start / C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Good enough to RD.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Quality good. More Spencers needed on the Main Page. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 05:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Koester[edit]

Article: Bob Koester (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune; Chicago Sun-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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Neat, short but suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Bloom6132: just a query about this sentence in the lead: "He also operated the Jazz Record Mart in Chicago, once the world's largest jazz and blues record store, and later a record store specializing in blues and jazz in Irving Park, Chicago." The claim about it being the world's largest such store doesn't appear to be in the body, or indeed cited. I'm also having trouble parsing the last part of that sentence. Is the record store in Irving Park (specializing in blues and jazz) a separate institution from the Jazz Record Mart? If so, that is also not AFAIK mentioned in the body or cited. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I've now clarified and cited both statements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks, that looks good now.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment My father-in-law knew him. He showed old movies at his house on Friday nights. Funny to see a name you knew personally in RD; he was well-known in the Chicago music circle. A big thank-you to the folks who got the article up to scratch. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

May 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) RD: Lester L. Wolff[edit]

Article: Lester L. Wolff (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 politician. Looks decent at a quick glance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Serge Bouchard[edit]

Article: Serge Bouchard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Montreal Gazette
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: Quebec anthropologist, author and broadcaster. Article is currently a stub, but I'm hoping to expand it today.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment article has been expanded from stub-size. PotentPotables (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support – 10 entries in the "Works" are unsourced, but the rest of the article is well-referenced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Bloom6132: I actually finished the referencing of all those works 10 minutes after you posted this, but I've only just seen your comment now! Myself, AleatoryPonderings and PotentPotables have also worked on adding more detail to the Career section. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks all good now. Full support. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well cited and looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this article has been "ready" for over 24 hours now, while others finished after it have been put on RD. PotentPotables (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Lloyd[edit]

Article: Norman Lloyd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
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 actor, 106. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is very well-referenced.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Looks fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ballymurphy massacre[edit]

Article: Ballymurphy massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An inquest into the deaths of 10 people at Ballymurphy, Belfast, in 1971 finds they were killed without justification. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable event in history of the Troubles. Lead item on UK news. Blurb probably needs some work. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Historical note half a century after the fact; lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see much British news covering it (although I'm checking the BBC from over here in America). -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ultimately it's just a correction for the historical record. The result isn't particularly eventful or surprising, and no prosecutions, etc, are planned to come from it. Uses x (talkcontribs) 23:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - 10 innocent people were found unlawfully shot by the British Army. This is absolutely significant news, doesn't matter when it happened. STSC (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the Brereton Report can be posted, don't see a reason to oppose this - article looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hard to see how this is significant or important or, frankly, even interesting. Mlb96 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    It is interesting -- I imagine particularly interesting for those involved in the Troubles, but I don't think it's ITN worthy. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support So a first-world government admits that it murdered its own citizens, and the argument here is that it is insignificant specifically because of the length of time that government lied about it? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's the impact in the present day? An apology from BoJo isn't enough. Maybe if they put the soldiers on trial it'll be significant enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(ATTENTION NEEDED) Manchester City win the 2020–21 Premier League season[edit]

Article: 2020–21 Premier League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In association football, Manchester City win the 2020–21 Premier League. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: This just happened, so the article has not been updated yet. This is ITN/R. As noted in the Bayern Munich nomiation below, there's been some discussion about whether to nominate soccer champions at the end of the season or at the time when it is mathematically impossible for them to lose the title. The previous blurb on the Premier League champion went with the end of the season, but in line with the Bayern Munich nomination below, I'm nominating this now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Top sports news story at the moment on both BBC and NBC, and it seems reasonable to post when championship is achieved, not when season ends. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not internationally notable. --Heymid (contribs) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality is not there yet; barely any prose. My personal preference is to wait until the end of the season, but I can see the opposing view as City's win is "in the news" now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no prose summary of the season, and information in lead is not repeated in prose anywhere else in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the end of the season. ITNR explicitly says 'the conclusion of the ... tournament or series'. There are still several games to go; just because Man City cannot be overtaken doesn't mean the competition is over. Also, the article is not ready because the prose summary is extremely brief, giving no more information than the table. See 2018–19_Premier_League#Summary for an example of the sort of treatment required. Article maintainers have a few weeks to sort that out before the season actually concludes. Modest Genius talk 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    The now-expanded prose summary does look good. It just needs to be updated with the European places once those are settled - which is unlikely to be until the final round of matches has been played. I still think we should wait. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    The European places don't form part of the blurb, as far as I'm aware, so not sure why that should hold this up. We don't wait for the electoral college or the inauguration on US election stories, we post as soon as a result is known. I.e. when the story is in the actual news. The same should apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    You're right, they're not part of the blurb, but they are a necessary part of a complete encyclopaedic article on the entire season. This isn't a bold link to a single game (like 2021 UEFA Champions League final), or even a single club (2020–21 Manchester City F.C. season), it's an article about the entire season so should have reasonably complete for all clubs over the entire season. Modest Genius talk 17:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. Everything is about getting in the top four these days. (It's like a trophy...) The article isn't complete until we know those places. P-K3 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Generally post at end of season, when readers can also see final standings. See past blurb which mentions "concludes".—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I really don't care, but thought I was upholding a precendent, which it might not be (see below).—Bagumba (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - obviously the quality isn't there yet, but if and when that's resolved, it should absolutely be posted now. In English football, the winner is declared as soon as one team cannot be caught; that's what reliable sources report, and the trophy is usually presented either at that game or before the next game. Last year, Liverpool clinched the title on 26 June, and we posted it on that date, not one month later when the season finally drew to a close.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Then please update WP:ITNR so fans and non-fans alike don't need to quibble over this again.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Posting early was a novelty in 2020 and was controversial. That was a Covid-disrupted season played partly while the rest of the country was in a strict lockdown, so I don't think it sets a precedent. 2019 was posted at the end of the season, so were 2018, 2017 etc. (I got bored of checking them all). Modest Genius talk 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    It wasn't remotely controversial. Some opposed, but the vast majority supported posting an ITN item when it was actually in the news and not a month later. Even a 12 day delay is enough that the nom could be reasonably considered stale. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    I actually did try to update this previously and it had majority support. The opposition largely missed the point (what if an unassailable lead isn't really unassailable?) but others called it CREEP and said we can address the issue in ITNC, which we did last year. Some would prefer to quibble. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Updating !vote to Support - with thanks to Jayron32 for reopening the discussion. I've updated the article with an expanded prose summary of how the race for the title panned out, which hopefully meets the quality doubts above. If there's anything else that needs looking at quality-wise, then let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait for the end of season (and establish this as ITNR for sport events where such a winner can be determined early). While the event is around one team mathematically winning the season, the rest of the games will still be played out as there will be 2nd, 3rd, etc and other placements, and other things can happen - eg I would assume M.C. here would immediate drop into their 2nd and 3rd strings to risk injuring their lead players for next year. We should feature the completed season when all is said and done and while this will still end up with M.C. as the winners, the article will document all other placements and other things that happened afterwards. --Masem (t) 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Target article has very little useful prose. Needs a lot of expansion of prose. If and when that is fixed, consider this opposition to be a support. --Jayron32 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The 2020–21 Premier League season isn't over yet. STSC (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stat filled article, half of the available prose is about COVID-19. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I would concur that the prose is now sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm marking as attention needed. Please could an uninvolved admin assess the state of this nomination? Most of the opposes above are either on quality grounds, which I believe are now resolved, or based on the misconception that we usually wait until the end of the season to post Premier League winners - something which has been shown to be incorrect in the discussion at WT:ITN. Personally I think it's time to post this, but obviously I'm too involved at this stage.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to post it but the last person to assess a consensus got improperly accused of abusing the admin tools so I'm frankly not sure I want to go there with this nomination. Is there a second for posting this? 331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - When Man City are presented with the Premier League trophy officially (after their final game on 23 May). STSC (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Post on May 23rd after the official trophy presentation.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this isn't "in the old news from a couple of weeks ago". Deary me, the meaning of "NEWS" is that it's NEW and it's being currently reported and commented on. Waiting for trophy to be awarded renders this a report about items that are not in the news. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RD: Colt Brennan[edit]

Article: Colt Brennan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC Sports
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: Record-setting University of Hawaii quarterback, spent some time in the NFL. Article needs some work, I'll see what I can do today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support article seems well developed. –DMartin 21:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outstanding citation tags.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Kazan school shooting[edit]

Article: Kazan school shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 9 people are killed in a school shooting in Kazan, Russia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: School shootings in Russia are rare and mass shootings with two-digit death toll even rarer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC) --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Absolutely in the news. I expect those who supported two-digit death toll in USA shootings to also support this. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
What about those who spit bile and venom at two-digit death toll shootings in the USA? You know Russia is a different country, on a different continent right? Maybe you should try to stay focused --LaserLegs (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Gratuitously contentious. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Hello, I mentioned USA because mass shootings from USA are the most frequent here and I rarely see mass shootings nom from other countries. Thank you for your understanding. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Most definitely should be in the news. Although the sources I'm reading say that it's at least 8, not 11. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support posting when now the article's quality is good enough. It's currently too short, but is rapidly being expanded. Jim Michael (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality the article is a micro-stub, 602 characters long. Needs to be a minimum of 3-4 times longer than that before we should consider putting it on ITN. Also, cn tag needs to be addressed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support now that article is good enough. This is an uncommon event, and therefore ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality as above. A weak stub at the moment. Event is notable enough for ITN however. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality per above. The article is WAY too short. Try following the disaster stub template. It's a neat tool to get out of stub status. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Support the article has been developed to ITN standards. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is too short to be put on the main page. As always, if this is fixed, then consider my opposition to be ended. --Jayron32 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not ready yet for ITN. STSC (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Cited sources indicate this is another disgruntled former student, apparently acting alone on personal motives. Wider significance might be doubtful. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It makes it less notable than if it were carried out by a terrorist group, but I think it still notable enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As of now, the article is ready. And per nom, school shootings in Russia, particularly the deadly ones, are relatively rare. Brandmeistertalk 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we would not post this if it happened in the US. We should not post it just because it happened elsewhere. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that argument is deeply flawed and I suspect you know it. There are plenty of instances where mass shootings outside the US are much more notable (like almost all of them) because the frequency with which they occur in the United States is far higher than almost any other country in the universe. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    We don't get mass shootings of 9 people that often here, though. I just don't see anything that makes this notable beyond that it took place in a country where mass shootings aren't as common. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Mass shootings, as you know, happen in the US practically every day. This is not just about the numbers, this is about the infrequency and the numbers. But you knew that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Very few mass shootings in the US (or anywhere) kill 9 people. I'm just saying that if we wouldn't consider this shooting notable in the US, it shouldn't be notable elsewhere. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    That doesn't make any sense. We have plenty of examples of mass shootings in the US which go way beyond nine deaths, but very few indeed elsewhere. You know that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    The sad truth is that school shootings happen way more often in the United States than anywhere else in the world. A school shooting that kills 9 people in the context of the US isn't notable, but in the context of Russia, a country with relatively few school shootings, it is very notable. It made international news, so I would say it's notable. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    I wish things were different in the United States but there have been more mass shootings this year than in Russia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 18:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Good enough quality-wise now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • PP Comment – Not entirely convinced happening in Russia made it major. Oh well. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: please add more depressing events to ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:91B9:30F0:652:3D3B (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
If you would like to see more "positive" events posted, please develop articles about such an event in the news and nominate them. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We seem to get these amusing comments on a semi-regular basis. Are you saying we should ignore fatal events? The world is a messy place and ITN correctly reflects it. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Chernobyl disaster
    • Ukrainian scientists report that, for an unknown reason, the levels of nuclear radiation have increased in the remains of the Chernobyl power plant. Most areas of containment have shown decreasing radiation levels, however, in one particular room, radiation counts have doubled over the last four years. These radiation levels are high enough to preclude installing sensors. Additionally, fuel containing materials, which were initially the consistency of lava, are disintegrating into radioactive dust. (Popular Mechanics) (Nature)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

  • Sources in Russia's defense industry report that Russia will be carrying out three tests of the RS-28 Sarmat hypersonic ICBM during the third quarter of 2021 at the Kura Missile Test Range in Kamchatka Krai as part of flight design tests. Two of the tests are expected to test maximum capabilities for the ICBM with a specified range of 18,000 km and speeds of around Mach 20, prior to final deployment with the armed forces in 2022. (TASS)

Sports


(Posted) RD: Dennis Joseph[edit]

Article: Dennis Joseph (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
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 screen-writer. Needs some expansion and citations, which I will endeavour to update in the next day or so.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've had a go at whipping this into shape, so any comments or suggestions welcome please. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Nice job updating, well sourced (even has the filmography fully sourced) JW 1961 Talk 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. A. E. Nababan[edit]

Article: S. A. E. Nababan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UCA 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: Leader of the largest church in Indonesia and Southeast Asia for more than a decade (his last five years were disputed) — 10 May refers to his burial day. I visited his funeral home for about fifteen minutes. The photo that was used in the article was the last photo I took before I left the funeral home. (you could see from the stare) Article is still in development, please kindly wait. Article is done, please voice your opinion or input for the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Good depth of coverage, AGF on the sources, referenced. SpencerT•C 17:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support definitely good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose One-sentence lead too short. Even missing the country per MOS:CONTEXTBIO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Hi Bagumba, thank you for your input, I have expanded the lead. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Striking my "oppose"—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks alright and notable enough for a RD.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Dean (footballer)[edit]

Article: James Dean (footballer) (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.

 The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've added some more on circumstances surrounding his death. There doesn't look to be much more that can be added, it looks just about long enough for RD now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's short, but per above there's probably not much more to say.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Information on the page seems to be well-cited even though its short, seems good.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) Colonial pipeline[edit]

Proposed image
A junction in Dorsey, Maryland being inspected by the chairman of the NTSB
Article: Colonial Pipeline cyberattack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The largest U.S. refined products pipeline system is shut down by a cyberattack. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The largest U.S. refined products pipeline system is shut down by a cyberattack, resulting in gasoline shortages in several states.
Alternative blurb II: ​The largest U.S. refined products pipeline system is shut down after a cyberattack, resulting in gasoline shortages in several southeastern states.
News source(s): BBC; Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's a new article which needs more work such as a picture but it's a reasonable start Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose I was ready to support this based on the blurb, but that's not what happened at all. Their IT systems were hit by malware and as a precaution they shut down their industrial control systems. In that regard, it's not really notable it's the internet equivalent of checking for unlocked doors. Targeted attacks on industrial control systems I would support. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    The gas shortage that since transpired is the bigger news now.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose + per LaserLegs, single entities being hit by a cyberattack (regardless of means) is far too narrow for ITN. We'd be focused on something on a far more massive scale like the 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine (which also hit numerous orgs outside Ukraine). --Masem (t) 13:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Overblown.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor stub, story is not of particular note. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Update I was just listening to the latest BBC report. They said that the main pipeline is still shut, that there is no date yet for resumption and that President Biden has declared a state of emergency. This seems to be a bigger deal than the current top blurbs -- the bombing of a school and the collapse of a bridge. The latter was a week ago now so, as usual, ITN is not keeping up with what's actually in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, at least part of the problem is that it's a crap stub. And I don't recall standards for inclusion being on a sliding scale depending on the age of the material in the ITN template, but perhaps I missed that discussion and community consensus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is a big deal given the circumstances. It has the potential to economically impact the US -- -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 17:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Gas prices will go up by $0.20 a gallon. That's about it. Any further speculation on potential economic impact is WP:CRYSTALBALL and contingent on a continued shutdown after the end of the week. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      And an increase by $0.21/gallon would set a record for most expensive petrol in the United States. osunpokeh (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
      Prices go up. So what? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • To note - it's affecting airports as well - it's a primary source (because it's basically brand new information, but it's the airline saying itself that it's due to the pipeline) but one AA flights from CLT-Europe and a long-haul flight CLT-Hawaii have diversions planned en-route to pick up more fuel (or possibly to pick up fuel to tank it back to CLT). This twitter thread has the screenshot of the flight data that AA put in directly for the reason for the stop, and this (unreliable source afaik) has more information. Just saying, this should be left open for another few days at least as it certainly has the potential to impact more industries than just auto fuel. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      Now covered by multiple reliable sources (including reuters, cnbc) and officially confirmed by the company that the stops are because of fuel supply issues at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. I'm going to work on adding this to the article on it, and I don't think at all that this should be part of the blurb, but it's not just "gas prices will go up by 20 cents a gallon" - it is having impacts on multiple sectors other than just the automotive gasoline industry. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
      Breathless reliable source coverage does not equate to actual newsworthiness. WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for having significant coverage in the news. Einsof (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This has resulted in a formal state of emergency, so I think WP:N is well satisfied here. The article is okay.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this has already dropped out of the top eleven news stories on BBC News' world homepage. If this happened in any other country on planet Earth it'd just be an inconvenience, but in the US it's a "state of emergency". Give us strength. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    There are now four other US-related stories ahead of this one on the BBC News world homepage. Then you have "Americans panic-buying gas". Wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    On the other hand, it's currently (see my timestamp) the top story at BBC's US & Canada News page. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Rambling Man's comment. Just a minor disturbance, gas price hike is common. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this wasn't in the US, this nom would have been snow closed by now. No evidence that it is important enough for ITN, or that there will be any lasting impact (for more than a few days) of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know how you can say this. It would absolutely be posted if this happened in another developed country. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nobody can prove anything, this is all people manifesting the biases that exist in their head into something tangible. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Joseph2302. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant news, and it's having a domino effect on many states. STSC (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with an updated blurb - now there are gasoline shortages in several states. The article is good enough, though I expect it will be better tomorrow. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Now there are significant gasoline shortages affecting several states[1], with two of them, North Carolina and South Carolina, having declared the state of emergency, and Florida having activated National Guard. Even before that happened the CBS News characterized the event as "the worst cyberattack to date on critical U.S. infrastructure"[2]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am also still seeing this in the news. Willing to post, however, please suggest a blurb that reflects the recent developments. --Tone 09:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Posting. I'll make it today's item. --Tone 09:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Tone, not to be rude or something but when the majority of !votes here are opposing the blurb to be posted I expect the posting admin to make a concise explanation as to why the admin posted it. Thank you... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull Tone there is absolutely no consensus to post this story here at all. Indeed, opposers outnumber the support. What are you doing? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
        • My reasonins at this point is that the topic has shifted from a cyberattack to a disruption of supply. Several of the initial opposes did not consider this new development while the recent supports do. I did not just count the votes. But no hard feelings from my side if another admin decides to pull. --Tone 10:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull This should not have been posted without any consensus whatsoever, especially with a numerical majority against it. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull and leave discussion open, there's still quite a few days left. No need to rush this one, if consensus develops then it does – but absolutely never post before that point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I endorse the posting, per the reason given. This is not a vote count. I too, however, won't feel bad if this is pulled. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    The reasoning that an admin can read the minds of other editors? This has no consensus and the admin action was a supervote. This is procedurally negligent and an abuse of the admin tools. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    If you want us to count votes, you know where you may propose that. Calling their evaluation "abuse" is a gross misuse of the word. If you disagree with the rationale, okay, but it was in good faith. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, it was pure and simple abuse of position. There is absolutely no way Tone could have known the feelings of those who had commented previously about the developments since. To post an item with not just no consensus, but consensus against posting is not what admins should be doing. What happened is called a "supervote". I think we all know that, and this is now defending the indefensible. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull consensus was not reached. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull I don't think the blurb extracts the exact notability of the cyberattack. I see that oil prices in the US reached a historical high since 2014, which seems more important than the oil shortages in a few states. Anyway, this causes only a short-lived disruption with minor impact on the US economy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pulled. With due respect to Tone and 331dot for their rationales above, it seems crystal clear to me at this point that the posting of this item does not enjoy the consensus of the community. This may still find consensus to post, but probably it's best to actually ping in the earlier opposes to see if they've changed their minds based on later developments. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Seems the post could have been reasonable if it was discounting the "relating to a single country" opposes. However, that was not stated. Many of the new opposes are over the procedural reading of consensus, not specifically "not significant to be a blurb" opposes.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    There are three problems with this story. Firstly, notability is not well established. Secondly, proposed blurbs are not the best that we can get out of it. Thirdly, it took place five days ago with a couple of consequential events afterwards. Given that only the last blurb in the box documents earlier news, this could quickly become stale and nomination for ongoing would be a better fit.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    It seems the pulled blurb was more about the shortage, which is more in the news now than the date of the cyberattack. A similar example is the current Isreal–Hamas blurb using the later airstrike date, rather than the orginal clashes in Jerusalem.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is that we're talking a shortage of gasoline (raising prices) to a portion of a first world country. Oh no how ever will we get through this. Gas prices were already elevated from the driver shortage earlier last month. Unless we have something that is having world-pricing effects (eg the Suez Canal blockage), we really should be careful about stories related to "inconveniences" in first-world countries. --Masem (t) 12:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    No different than posting leisure entertainment "news" from first-world countries, or continuous doom and gloom from developing countries.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-pull endorse pull - while I support posting, there clearly wasn't consensus to post yet. I do still support posting, though. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-post - It's still very much in the news: Panic buying and hoarding add to long lines and outages at gas stations as Colonial Pipeline shutdown drags on - STSC (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is daft, there was no consensus to post in the first place and there's still no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Not daft at all. Consensus can change. STSC (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Um, but consensus hasn't changed!!!! You already supported and there's still no consensus to post. Duh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
To my knowledge, we didn't post the toilet paper shortage, did we? WaltCip-(talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, which commodity is more important to you? Like the toilet paper shortage, panic buying gas worsens impact of Colonial Pipeline hack - STSC (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Panic!! I can't drive my gas guzzling car!! Meanwhile tens of thousands of people a day are dying of Covid. Talk about "inconvenience"! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
If you have a covid related nomination to make, please do. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you're being deliberately challenging here, I mean defending supervoting from an admin is one thing, but of course the use of Covid here is to provide some context for the relative significance of this story. A few Americans can't make a 500-mile round trip to pick up a Wendys. Big deal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Just like the politicians used to say, "Crisis? What crisis?" - STSC (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-post w/ alt blurb II The gas shortage is the bigger news now, days later after the initial nomination from news of the shutdown. Alt II corrects early "opposes" that the cyberattack directly shutdown the pipeline, when the pipeline company proactively shut it down after to contain the attack. The gas impact is specifically to the Southeast. Par for the course, any U.S.-related nomination riles up "global impact" debates and "single country" opposes about a country of 300+M people. The pulls were mostly procedural and not outright opposes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It is a first world inconvenience, which we really do not post. No one's lives are at stack (as the case would be if it were a winter storm or wildfires). --Masem (t) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • But you also opposed a winter storm outage in the US, which consensus ended up to post. (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2021#(Posted)_February_13–17_winter_storm_(Winter_Storm_Uri)). Perhaps you meant "United States inconvenience", not "first world".—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I would in fact be even more careful about posting stories about "inconveniences" in the U.S., because the US media tends to have a way of blowing these stories up beyond unnecessary coverage, when there are people that live in condition far worse year-round. In contrast, this story is also comparable to the Suez Canal blockage, and while that was an "inconvenience" it has far more direct financial and international impact to make it appropriate to post. --Masem (t) 13:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
          • All the deaths we post are an "inconvenience". Life goes on, right? But use the term at your convenience.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Nominator seem to ask several people to vote here, anyway I am also with Rambling Man's comment. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • oppose. from what i can tell, this story has three parts: the hack, the shutdown, and the panic. my nonexpert opinion leads me to believe that the hack itself does not seem notable enough, being apparently a routine cybersecurity attack that had neither the sophistication of stuxnet, nor the widespread nature of the bear attack, nor the informational repercussions of equifax. the shutdown does not appear to be notable enough, with the pipeline being restarted in under a week, and the supply chain likely to be fully restored within a few days. the panic may be unusual, but, like the toilet paper panic, it has caused no deaths, injuries, or major incidents that i am currently aware of. however, if the shortage caused by the panic continues long after the supply chain has been fully restored, i think this might be worth a blurb. in addition, i fear that poor storage of hoarded gasoline may lead to a future tragedy that may be notable enough to post on itn, in which case, this hack could be referenced in the subsequent disaster blurb. dying (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    i fear that poor storage of hoarded gasoline may lead to a future tragedy that may be notable enough to post: Sigh. ITN always circles back to deaths.—Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that seems to be the problem here – that there's no bodycount. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    it's not just the lack of a body count. it's just that it seems that no major incidents have actually happened yet as a result of the shortage. in addition, consumption of gasoline is presumably lower than normal due to the pandemic, and it has become more socially acceptable to replace many things that would have previously required the consumption of gasoline with something virtual instead. as a result, even if such a shortage would have usually had a big impact, i suspect that the pandemic has mitigated the shortage's effect. gasoline shortages can be notable, and panics can be notable without being associated with deaths. however, i don't personally think this is currently notable enough to post on itn, but have previously noted that if the shortage does become prolonged, it may become notable enough.
    sure, there's a lot of people that are worried, but a lot of people were also worried about where the uncontrolled chinese rocket would crash, even though that incident did not seem worthy of nomination. dying (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Update There are more developments as a trend is established: Ransomware attack disrupts Irish health services; How the Colonial Pipeline hack is part of a growing ransomware trend in the US. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    The attack on Irish health services is honestly more notable, because that directly impacts a country's healthcare system. WaltCip-(talk) 12:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    i agree that the irish health service hack is more notable due to its direct effect on a national health system, especially during a pandemic. i also felt that the dc police hack is more notable due to the massive amount of sensitive data exfiltrated. in fact, the latter has been described as "possibly the most significant ransomware incident to date". dying (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Disclaimer: I pulled this above, with my neutral uninvolved admin hat on, because it was clear to me that a consensus to post didn't exist. And still doesn't exist now really. But looking at it again, this time from an editor point of view and on the merits of the case, I will put my hat in the ring as saying we should (re-)post this. It's a major enough and interesting enough story to post, with high impact depite the lack of deaths, and even notwithstanding that Western news outlets routinely tend to give more importance to US topics than others. And actually, if an event of a similar magnitude happened in some other country we'd probably have far fewer qualms about posting it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment if there's some kind of ongoing issue/trend, then the best thing would be to make an Ongoing nomination. I personally fail to see why this is really any more significant than most other hacking outings, and those linked by Andrew aren't directly related to this. Interestingly, there's a far more impactful story going on in Lebanon now relating to a quarter of the country's electricity supply being withdrawn for unpaid bills. That would seem to be much more relevant than this humdrum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That's the significance: Colonial Pipeline Paid Hackers Nearly $5 Million in Ransom - STSC (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted; ongoing updates) Jerusalem clashes[edit]

Article: 2021 Jerusalem clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Clashes in Jerusalem at the Al-Aqsa Mosque leave hundreds of Palestinians and more that 20 Israeli police injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Israel Police storm the Al-Aqsa Mosque ahead of Jerusalem Day marches, amid clashes that have left hundreds injured.
Alternative blurb II: Clashes in Jerusalem at the Al-Aqsa Mosque leave hundreds of Palestinians injured and more than 20 Palestinians dead, as well as more than 20 Israeli police injured.
News source(s): AP BBC Guardian, Reuters, dpa
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Worldwide front page news. Shaping up to be a major escalation in a long saga of conflict. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Tentative support but the article is a bit short. The intro could be expanded as well. --Tone 08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Tone, I have expanded the lead beyond a sentence. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support because the article is too short for read. I think if i strongly support, i would prefer Altblurb instead. 36.77.95.215 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub. There are no details about the storming of the mosque (number of officers, time of day, what was going on inside, what prompted them to take that building in the first place, what damage was done to it, did they occupy it or just leave afterwards, was there a specific target in mind and was that target achieved), the rest of the article has nonspecific comments about clashes but no basic where, when, who types of details. 136 people across all of Jerusalem? Was there city wide rioting or were the police picking up random Palestinians? "Further clashes followed at the Al-Aqsa mosque" clashes with who? Were random Israelis just loitering at an important Islamic holy site looking for a fight? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
As the person who has added most of what you're referring to, very little information of the sort you're asking for currently exists. If you can find sourced information that would benefit the reader, please, add it to the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
If very little of that information exists, then maybe there ought not be an article for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
And this is not AllegedlyHuman's fault but is a common problem with breaking event articles like this: international reaction sections should not be including simple quotes from countries that express sympathy or similar types of language. Every reasonable country is going to issue a statement about these disasters, and they stick out (particularly when MOS:FLAGS are used) like sore thumbs. If countries are actually helping (for example, in the KRI Nanggala (402) search and recovery, several countries outside Indonesia are stated to helped, this should clearly be documented. Or if a country does simply give a statement and that prompts some significant reaction, that can be documented as well. But it can be expected that generally, no country is going to be an ass and is going to offer sympathy for losses of human live and tradegy and these sections do not really help our articles. --Masem (t) 13:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – Widely covered but complicated and difficult to comprehend. Wider significance may be doubted. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced, and while short does hit all of the important parts. Some expansion of the narrative is welcome, but it's good enough for posting. Would prefer the original blurb. --Jayron32 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, neutral on quality this is a major story that is garnering significant reactions from world leaders. The article quality is fine in terms of citing sources, but I find the article's explanation of why the clashes are happening lacking. If it's not fixed before I'm off of work, I'll see if I can do something about that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Too much flag salad for my taste. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - major escalation of this conflict.BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A significant event and the article is about what 2021 Baghdad hospital fire was at when it was put into ITN. --Aknell4 (talkcontribs) 16:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Significant development, article quality is decent. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This is an extremely significant escalation drawing international attention. The article does need a lot more background on the events though. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 19:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Events in the last 12 hours clearly are pushing this to importance. (Still have my reservations on the international reactions section but there's enough in the rest of the article to support). --Masem (t) 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality The background and reaction sections are both individually longer, more detailed, better written, than the part which should be the substance: what is happening. And a lot is happening, but the article doesn't reflect that. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, its true that this has happened before. But the ITN is because there has been a significant increase in clashes after a period of relative stability. Albertaont (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentAP and BBC on Monday quote Gaza "health officials" saying at least 20 people, including nine children, were killed in Israeli airstrikes. – Sca (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment update to alt blurb 2 212.74.201.233 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • * Post-posting comment The current blurb is misleading. It seems to suggest that 20 people were killed at Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, but the deaths happened in subsequent clashes in Gaza. The blurb should be clarified. 142.117.9.52 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment Change the blurb, it is absurdly misleading. Something like "20 Palestinians are killed in Israeli air strikes after clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque" would be fine. Mlb96 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment The blurb as currently phrased is offensively misleading fake news - it implies that the Palestinians who were killed were killed in the clashes in Jerusalem (there are various reputable sources that can attest to the local police's - both Jewish and Arab - restraint regarding the protests, and the efforts to avoid casualties). The Palestinians who were killed were killed in Israeli air strikes in Gaza after Hamas fired rockets on Israel, including on Jerusalem. 87.68.252.89 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nom comment Yes, the blurb on MP is incorrect – 20 were not killed at the mosque. I do not know who added altblurb 2 or why that one was selected but it is inaccurate. Given the nature of the topic a fix ASAP is advised. Pinging WP:ERRORS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is FAKE news. FAKE, WRONG, news. Rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza, people in Israel were injured. Israel responded with airstrikes in Gaza. People in Gaza were killed. Nobody was killed in Jerusalem.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Two comments - (1) notwithstanding the embarrassing error that we posted to the main page as highlighted above, I think the blurb should still be amended to make mention of the subsequent development of Hamas firing at Israel and Israel firing at Gaza with loss of life;[3] and (2) the blurb is still misleading, because it implies that all the clashes were at the Al-Aqsa mosque, when in fact the injuries happened "across Jerusalem" (in the words of the article).  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Update: I've now added "and elsewhere in" before Jerusalem, to correct the second point.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: The problem with adding "elsewhere" is that the existing "more than 20 Israeli police officers" part was specifically from sources for the mosque. Sure, it's still "more than", but I doubt we'll ever get an accurate cumulative count for "elsewhere". This blurb is fast becoming unwieldy without identifying the scope of what news we are blurbing about for this wide-ranging article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Well, the "at the mosque and elsewhere" clause does also include the state of affairs where one facet of the incident was exclusively at the mosque. I certainly see it as an improvement on the outright erroneous text that I amended. To be honest, it's almost getting to the point where we might consider pulling this and rethinking what it should say from scratch, because it's fast becoming a comedy of errors. (And to some extent this was the worry that LaserLegs was trying to convey above - the article itself doesn't seem to entirely make clear what the scope was and what the most noteworthy aspects were).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    The blurb started "​Clashes in Jerusalem at the Al-Aqsa Mosque leave ..." It's OK if the blurb limits mention to a fact that occured at Al-Aqsa Mosque. That's an editorial decision on what is blurb-worthy. The blurb did notsay that clashes were exclusively at the mosque. We could widen the blurb's scope, as the actual article covers more than just the mosque (no comment on what the actual article should cover). However, that really should be driven by consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reworded I have boldly changed the wording on this to reflect the aftermath of the Israeli airstrikes as a result of the clashes. That's clearly what the media has focused on. I will profess my wording is likely not best but felt it needed to be changed as clearly the import of the story has drastically shifted from what was originally posted. --Masem (t) 13:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Masem: Israeli air-strikes following clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque ... omits Hamas firing rockets into Israel. Looking rather unbalanced.[4]Bagumba (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Added to account for that (+2 deaths from NYTimes), also dealt with a wording order from errors. --Masem (t) 13:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • information Clashes on the Israel-Gaza border: Two women were killed in Ashkelon and several people were injured after Hamas opened heavy rocket fire on southern Israel. Hundreds of rockets have been fired at Israel since May 10, including a barrage of 7 rockets into the Jerusalem area, in parallel with the riots in Jerusalem. In response to the shooting, the IAF attacked a number of targets in the Gaza Strip, as part of a military operation called the "Wall Guard" (The Times of Israel) ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As it's posted on the main page, please, add links there to Operation Guardian of the Walls and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, like this:
Israeli air-strikes and Hamas militant missile launches kill at least 26 people and injure hundreds more following clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque (pictured) and elsewhere in Jerusalem.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Elsewhere is the Damascus Gate. Euro know (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone already added (though it seems like an overlinked blurb to me).—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we put this in the ongoing section? BBC states that it may escalate to a full-scale war Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Probably, although dropping into "ongoing" usually occurs after the initial blurb drops off the bottom of ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • update Clashes with terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip: Six killed in Israel after the terrorist organization Hamas opened heavy rocket fire on southern Israel and the Dan Bloc. Hundreds of rockets have been fired at Israel since May 10, in parallel with the riots in Israel during Ramadan, including the riots in Jerusalem. In response to the shooting, the IAF attacked many targets in the Gaza Strip, as part of a military operation called "The Guardian of the Walls" (Haaretz) (The Times of Israel) ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    update Seven people have been killed in Israel. Also, riots broke out in Lod, Acre and other cities in Israel. (The times of Israel) ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    update Operation Guardian of the Walls: Ten Israeli civilians have so far been killed by rockets fired by the Hamas terrorist organization at the State of Israel. ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull and put in Ongoing per updates above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but blurbs are usually for one-time events, and there have been multiple attacks. There is no sign of the attacks stopping so it's worth putting in ongoing. Jbvann05 18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • No need to stuff it in ongoing while it's still an item; if the article is still being updated when it's time for the item to roll off, then ongoing can be considered. SpencerT•C 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Please, change the link for "missile launches" on the Main Page from Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2021. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    Why? That's a paltry list in its current state.—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • POV issues First, this is just a POV failure. Why are we doing bold edits to ITN? Second, and most subtly, why is Israeli air strikes listed first? Chronologically, Hamas fired air weaponry first. And alphabetically, H appears before I. So could someone explain the criteria used for the ordering here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @ProcrastinatingReader: You'd have to notify those editors directly about their edits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think it's Masem who added both skimming the history of Template:In the news, but I haven't looked more closely. In any case, could Masem either swap the order or justify the current one? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    In RSes reporting on this, the Israeli strikes are given more weight because they're the most deadly (when I updated, it was 24 dead from those, vs 2 from Hamas rocket strikes). Since they have continued, it is still the Israeli strikes that are causing the largest loss of life and this seems to be the way it is presented in RSes. Its the "POV" as media reports which, for as brief as we can do in a blurb, we should follow. --Masem (t) 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Masem: Talking about weight here, you could swap the order chronologically but then make it like this "...kill more than a hundred people (mostly Palestinians)..." to indicate who suffered the greater loss of life. As tragic as it is, that creates a win-win scenario. --Depressed Desi (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Footnote: FYI, Israeli airstrike May 15 destroyed Gaza building housing the AP, other media offices. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 9[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Dhiru Parikh[edit]

Article: Dhiru Parikh (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: Article might need some copyedit. Nizil (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - this nomination seems to have been neglected a bit, but the article looks decent enough for a start-class article. Marking as ready, assuming nobody else spots anything wrong. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - please can someone look at this? As the sole support, I'm reluctant to post it myself, but I think it's probably ready to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl-Günther von Hase[edit]

Article: Karl-Günther von Hase (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ and others
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: Died age 103. Had, after military in World War II, a long career as spokesman for the German Federal Government under 3 chancellors, ambassador to the UK, and a short career as head of the ZDF tv, but that's what he is known for. Had a sad stub of an article. There could be more (especially life after ZDF, from 1982 that is) but I need a break. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good and well-cited. Good job Gerda.--Vacant0 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article definitely good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support Would like to see more info about his 7-year role as ambassador to the UK and a little more depth as mentioned by the nominator, but what's there meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 World Women's Curling Championship[edit]

Article: 2021 World Women's Curling Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Switzerland's Silvana Tirinzoni wins the World Women's Curling Championship, becoming only the fifth skip to win back-to-back Women's Championships. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Switzerland's Silvana Tirinzoni wins the World Women's Curling Championship, defeating Russia's Alina Kovaleva in the final.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Swiss team lead by Silvana Tirinzoni wins the World Women's Curling Championship, only the fifth time a team has won back-to-back Women's Championships.
News source(s): TSN, Sportsnet
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Highest level curling tournament besides the Olympics. Winning back-to-back championships is rare. A202985 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support article is quality (in terms of citations), and this is a top-level championship for an international sport. Prefer original blurb, then alt blurb I if we're not going with the original. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, undecided how much to factor the subject's significance. Very liitle write-up on the final, aside from a couple of sentences in the lead. Be good to have some background on Russia's path to the final. Zero prose on bronze medal.Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Article has since been expanded. It'd be better to move the final and bronze medal game details to their respective sections, leaving only brief mention in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Oppose While there have been improvements on quality I think the subject's significance is not enough for an IAR given that ITN posts are currently not stagnant.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • None of the blurbs seems good. The championship is won by the team, not by the skip, so blurb and Alt are not good. Alt2 is better, but "only the fifthe time something happens" is not really that remarkable after 42 or so editions. In fact, a "team" (meaning Switzerland or Canada" has won back-to-back titles more often than 5 times (Canada even won 4 in a row), I suppose it is only the fifth time with the same skip? I would use a variation of Alt1: "The Swiss team lead by Silvana Tirinzoni wins the World Women's Curling Championship, defeating Russia in the final" (with a link to the Russian team added probably). Fram (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    i also agree with not mentioning the back-to-back victories, as doing so could be considered sensationalism. the russian team should probably be mentioned, but please note that, in this tournament, the russian athletes were representing the russian curling federation, and not russia, in accordance with a ruling associated with the russian doping scandal. as a result, the phrase "defeating Russia" may be technically incorrect, while i am assuming that "defeating the Russian team" may avoid the issue. dying (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose don't see why World Curling Championships are important enough to be on ITN. We didn't post the men's championships last month- where article quality is similar- so not sure why people think the women's ones are more important and ITN-worthy? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
....or maybe it just wasn't nominated and there is nothing nefarious going on here. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I still don't see why a World Curling Championship regardless of gender) is important enough for ITN. And nobody has yet demonstrated why that would be the case. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
nominator A202985 has mentioned that it is the "[h]ighest level curling tournament beside the Olympics", while NorthernFalcon notes that it is "a top-level championship for an international sport". dying (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
There are tons of sports with World Cups/World Championships which are the highest level of their sport- see Template:World championships in 2021. My concern is that if we start posting some sports World Championships, we may get overrun with nominations for other sports World Championships that are as equally important to their sports. I don't think the level of coverage of Curling World Championships makes it important enough for ITN, which is a view I'd hold for most sports World Championships on the template I listed. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Not to argue against your viewpoint on this nomination, but one of the most common criticisms of ITN I see is that we don't post enough, not that we post too much. Being flooded with nominations and postings is a problem I would want to have. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, i think your concern is valid, and was also something i was considering when trying to determine my support for this nomination. i have watched curling before, but do not know enough about whether the sport is considered important enough to merit posting on itn.
i've since perused the discussions on the talk page and noticed that: (1) in order to increase the variety of competitions featured on itn, there is interest to add an esport tournament to itn/r if a worthy one can be identified; (b) all the blurbs currently featured are disaster blurbs; and (iii) itn/c could possibly benefit from more feminine input. seeing that this nomination adds more variety to what i understand has been posted before, is not considered a disaster (except maybe for the russian team), and deals with a women's championship, i think the topic is currently worthy of posting.
for now, i would hesitate to add the championship (or its male counterpart) to itn/r, echoing the concern that you mentioned. however, i think posting this year's championship can address some concerns currently being voiced on the talk page. dying (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • support, as noted in my lengthy time-wasting comment above, and because the quality exceeds minimum requirements. dying (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • question: what is the standard for mentioning runners-up in blurbs? is there one? dying (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    In general, where the post is about a championship game, where one team or player defeats another in head-to-head competition, we often describe the event "In Super Bowl LXXXVIII the Cleveland Browns defeated the Carolina Panthers by a score of 53 to 32" or something like that. In the case of things like races, season champions determined by round robins, judged events like gymnastics, etc. etc. where there is not a clear 'head to head' game that determines the champion, we don't usually list the "also rans" who came in lower places. I'm not sure how curling is contested, I know that there are head-to-head matches, but I don't know if the champion is awarded to the team that wins the most matches in a round robin, or to the winner of a single championship match. It would matter which as to what typical convention we use. --Jayron32 16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    thanks for the thorough explanation, Jayron32. i had noticed that the boat race seemed to violate this standard, but i wasn't sure if this was because there were only two schools participating. in this curling tournament, i believe the championship has a final match that determines both first and second places, so i am assuming that mentioning the runner-up here is appropriate. dying (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support article quality is not bad for a sports article. While it is very table heavy, the prose in the article does cover the event sufficiently, with a large paragraph adequately describing the championship, refs look good. --Jayron32 12:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article needs lede cleaned up with the prose about the championship moved to the section further down the page and other info moved to appropriate sections. At present, article is top heavy with all the prose at the top and dozens of tables following. If fixed, willing to Weak support. SpencerT•C 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment fixed lede length concerns. Opted against making the round-robin table section collapsible, but if people think that's a good idea it can be pursued. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. A good example of a story that is not "in the news." Personally, I like curling and I watched the gold medal match live on TV. But curling is still very much a niche sport, especially geographically. At the 2021 World Women's Curling Championship the total number of teams represented was pretty small, and outside of Europe and North America only three countries were represented, China, Japan and South Korea. It's very hard to find anything in GoogleNews covering the event's final, and none of the major news sites have covered it, even in their back sections. Even Swissinfo doesn't appear to have covered it[6], although Switzerland won. It's fine to want to post more sports stories and especially women's sports stories but they have to be more widely covered than this one. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Nsk92, you made some really good points that i was previously unaware of, so i did some digging around to try to get some idea of what, roughly, the viewership numbers actually were. apparently, sportcal, a sports market intelligence company, published a global sports impact event study on the 2018 world men's curling championship here. page 68 of their report states that the total cumulative audience was about 83.54 million television viewers. it also notes that 18.4% of the audience watched it live, so that means it had a live audience of about 15.37 million people. in comparison, the last sporting event featured on itn, the kentucky derby, had an live u.s. audience of about 14.4 million, according to deadline. i don't know if the women's and men's championships have similar viewership numbers, but i think this is at least a decent argument that the world men's curling championship is notable enough for itn, and possibly also for itn/r. dying (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC) [added "live u.s." qualification. dying (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)]
The Deadline story you quote re Kentucky Derby concerns the Nielsen ratings, which measure the live TV viewership in the U.S. only. Even in the U.S. the actual numbers of people who saw the Derby live were certainly much higher since many people watch horse racing in sports bars and racing halls, etc. If you factor in the global viewership (at some point those numbers would become available), the numbers would look much different. Your 15.37 million extrapolated live viewership figure for the 2018 mens world championship shows the dangers of trying to perform the kind of WP:OR that you tried to do here. The bulk of the total viewership shown on p. 68 there, 58.23 million, were from China where I doubt very much that live broadcasting of NBC Sports or of the Olympic Channel is available. Much more likely all of those 58.23 million people watched some reruns later on. In fact, pages 65-66 in the same document list the TV broadcast hours for the event by 10 top markets and China is not even listed there. In any case this is Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia the main and deciding factor for considering notability is the coverage of a given event by WP:RS. The Derby received massive news coverage worldwide. The curling world championship final game received rather little. Nsk92 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
you're right, this is original research, and i had no intention of adding these sorts of statistics to the article space without asking around for further input since i know i'm missing a deeper understanding of these numbers. this original research was presented only to get a rough idea for a sanity check, since my current knowledge of the area is pretty much nonexistent.
i recognize the deadline statistic was based on live u.s. viewership, which is why i did not think the 83.54 million and 14.4 million numbers were comparable. i don't know if calculating the 15.37 million number using the 18.4% statistic is valid, but i think it's a reasonable assumption to make, and at least gives a better number to use for comparison. i couldn't find any global viewership numbers for the kentucky derby for any year, but reasoned that, since it was a u.s. event, the 14.4 million value would likely make up the plurality, if not the majority, of the global audience. (i realize now that i should have explicitly qualified my statement about the deadline statistic and note that it was based on live u.s. viewership in order to avoid people misintepreting it as cumulative global viewership. for some reason, when i wrote it, i had thought it was implied. thank you for making it explicit for the benefit of anyone else reading this.)
admittedly, i don't think total broadcast hours is a reliable indicator of viewership. page 65 notes that russia is the market with the most broadcast hours, and that the russian channel match arena is the channel with the most broadcast hours, even though page 68 notes that the cumulative television audience in russia is roughly 0.80 million. also, page 65 lists the chinese channels cctv5 and cctv5+ amongst the top ten channels with respect to broadcast hours, even if china itself is not amongst the top ten markets with respect to broadcast hours.
i don't know how to quantify the viewership in sports bars and racing halls, or the viewership in the equivalent venues for curling events, but i had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the methods used in determining viewership as reported by sportcal is roughly equivalent to those used in determining viewership as reported by deadline, largely because i couldn't figure out how to make any meaningful comparisons otherwise.
i agree that it's very likely that the chinese audience did not watch nbc sports or the olympic channel. however, i also doubt that those are the only two channels through which the chinese audience can watch the event broadcasted live. page 62 lists a number of different broadcasters that appear to have rights to broadcast the event live, including cctv5 and cctv5+, and pages 63 and 64 appear to list the total number of live broadcast hours for each territory, including a value of 15:51:00 for china. also, this 2019 source states that there are plans to launch a cctv olympic channel, which makes sense considering the location of the 2022 winter olympics, but i don't know if it has been launched yet, and even if it has, i doubt it would be noted in a report from 2018. in any case, even if no one in china watched it live, i had assumed that inclusion on itn was not based on live viewership, and had only compared live viewership numbers because it was the only meaningful comparison i could make from the data i could find.
also, is the deciding factor based on the coverage of an event, as noted by reliable sources, or the coverage, by reliable sources, of an event? if it's the former, that's what i'm trying to determine. if it's the latter, i'm wondering if there may be an inadvertent bias by relying on anglophone or european sources, but i don't have a working knowledge of enough languages to determine if that is true.
in any case, i'm not trying to state that the 2018 world men's curling championship had a higher viewership than the 2021 kentucky derby. i'm only attempting to determine if the viewership was significant enough that posting the 2021 world women's curling championship would not be considered unreasonable. after all, it's likely that many sporting events with a higher viewership than the kentucky derby are already on itn/r, so requiring a competition to have more viewers than those of the kentucky derby before the competition is posted may not help with the goal of adding variety to the competitions posted to itn. furthermore, i doubt that the kentucky derby is the least watched sporting event on itn/r. i only used it for comparison because it was the last one posted to itn. dying (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
i was still trying to figure out why you had difficulty finding information about the final in swiss news sources, so i decided to try it myself, and i think you're right about the final not being reported on swissinfo. however, they have covered the swiss team before, and it turns out that their coverage of sports appears rather minimal, since it does not appear to be one of the topics they focus on (or at least the wikipedia article on swissinfo is telling me so). that being said, it took me perhaps a few seconds to find this article, as it's the top result (for me, at least) for the search "curling site:.ch", and i would probably consider radio télévision suisse a reliable major news site. also, i noticed that your query for swissinfo was in english, which further reinforces my worry that we may be inadvertently biased if we are relying on anglophone sources. dying (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Chadian victory over FACT[edit]

Article: Front for Change and Concord in Chad (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Chad National Army announces its victory over rebellious Front for Change and Concord in Chad. (Post)
News source(s): VOA, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to our article, FACT has been active since 2016 and involved in the death of President Idriss Déby which we posted. Brandmeistertalk 21:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment If this hasn't been independently confirmed yet, we run the risk of it being a Mission Accomplished moment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose article for a rebel organization with zero history and a few short paragraphs isn't at all adequate. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • comment: source appears to mention that the military has had a mission accomplished moment regarding the rebels before. dying (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not in it's sparse yet WP:PROSELINE state.—Bagumba (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bold links an org which has been active since 2016, whose article was created less than a month ago. I question how impactful they really were/are. Sources for this event are: a state-controlled source previously and openly engaged in propaganda (VoA), and a state-controlled source that one could say is INVOLVED (AJ - not cited in the article). This has to be a wait at the very least.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
fact has been associated with the death of president déby, and the article on fact was created in 2016, so personally, i think they have been impactful enough. (i'm not sure if you're conflating the article on fact with the article on the northern chad offensive, which was created less than a month ago.) also, although i generally appreciate a healthy skepticism of sources, in this case, both sources provide virtually the same text, taken from reuters. (finding the differences between them is interesting, though.) reuters has since updated their article to report the fact that fact "said it was not aware of an end to the fighting", implying that this may be another mission accomplished moment. dying (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Medina Spirit drug positive[edit]

Article: Medina Spirit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit faces potential disqualification after failing post-race drug testing. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit fails post-race drug testing.
News source(s): ESPN, Washington Post, BBC, BloodHorse, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The Kentucky Derby is one of America's most significant thoroughbred races and the first leg of the Triple CrownJRHorse (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait until the definitive outcome, but otherwise this is a rather curious story. We did post high-level doping incidents so I'd support it. --Tone 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This may be just an update to the current blurb if it is still up there if this is confirmed. --Masem (t) 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Altblurb added. JRHorse (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Would the win go to the second-placed horse? In which case that might need to go on the ITNR listing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
        • That's what I assume we're waiting on for the officiating body to decide if they will nullify the win, and reaward it to #2, or simply not award it, or call for a new race. --Masem (t) 16:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
          • From the racetrack: "To be clear, if the findings are upheld, Medina Spirit's results in the Kentucky Derby will be invalidated and Mandaloun will be declared the winner."[7]Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until test results are upheld.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the horse is disqualified. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait per all.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until horse is DQ'ed, then add to current blurb (with new winner) and bump. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    If it comes to be, a new blurb would need to be posted as the old one is off the MP now.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 London mayoral election[edit]

Reclosing Sca's SNOW close. Very clear this will not be posted. --Masem (t) 15:57, 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.

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)
  • Comment I'm re-opening this. London is an Alpha++ Global city and while I'm not convinced on the "significance" here there is absolutely no criteria at all anywhere that says mayoral elections are "inadmissible". Let this discussion play out, and if someone wants to ban local elections, head over to WT:ITN and kick off an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:57, 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.

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: