Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, 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.

Guillermo Lasso in 2017
Guillermo Lasso

view — page history — related changes — edit

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.
  • 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.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

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 WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

April 16[edit]

Current events of April 16, 2021 (2021-04-16) (Friday)
edithistorywatch

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Vartan Gregorian[edit]

Article: Vartan Gregorian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Carnegie Corporation of New York
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: Looks ready to go. Varavour (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Helen McCrory[edit]

Article: Helen McCrory (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Needs some updating. 109.249.185.34 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now Notable enough, but needs additional citations.
  • Oppose, not good enough. There is no wait, only do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added six refs, I'm still checking through them to see if there are roles/awards not mentioned, and will look for those. No other article issues that would prevent posting. Kingsif (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Andrew Peacock[edit]

Article: Andrew Peacock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former national leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (LP), Former Ambassador of Australia to America JMonkey2006 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Article's in a good state, for the most part. Some stuff is unsourced but I don't think it's enough to prevent posting. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are whole paragraphs unsourced, let alone single sentences. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reason as Black Kite (talk · contribs). Will change when the article is fully sourced.
  • Oppose for now needs more citations! Vacant0 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support only one [citation needed] which really could/should be gotten rid of or sourced immediately. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Apart from the cn tags, the source for the entire first paragraph in "Early political career" is a 404 for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as the above sourcing issues are resolved Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Current events of April 15, 2021 (2021-04-15) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Divers arrive at the scene of lift boat MV Seacor Power, which capsized and partially sank off the coast of the state of Louisiana in the United States. Rescuers suspect crew members may be trapped. Since the accident, six crew members have been rescued, one has died, and twelve remain missing. (KATC-TV)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Indianapolis FedEx shooting[edit]

Article: Indianapolis FedEx shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A mass shooting at an Indianapolis FedEx leaves nine dead and six injured. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN), (AP News), (NY Times), BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 9 dead and 6 injured is a fairly large mass shooting, even for the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait We currently don't have a motive and it's been 12 hours since the shooting took place. Kellis7 (User talk:Kellis7 14:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per previous. RS reports indicate suicidal shooter acted alone, and his motive was unknown. Although toll considerable, wider significance appeared absent as of 14:30 UTC. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait unless it's terrorism (racial, political, religious I don't care) we ought not post. Domestic and workplace disputes frequently turn deadly in the United States. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait per reasoning of LaserLegs. --Masem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose another day in the United States. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Bro. 15 casualties at a single shooting isn't "another day in the US". At max, 10 casualties in a single location would be typical, but more than that is big news. This is top news in 90% of major news sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"Bro", nearly 13,000 people have been killed in gun violence this year in the US (and it's only mid-April). This is nearly the 150th mass shooting of 2021. It's just not news. It's like reporting that bombs have gone off in a war. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Where are you getting the number 15 from? All recent sources (including the article) list the death count as 9. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Gex4pls, "casualties" include non-fatal injuries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu Oh, I assumed they meant deaths alone, thanks for the clarification. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly this is run of the mill. This isn't another day in the US, it's just another month. There have been 31 other deaths in unrelated mass shootings in the US this month alone, and that number is only set to grow. Gex4pls (talk) (lack of contributions) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM et al..  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Although this is being widely reported, and the number of casualties is above the routine, we don't yet know if this is just another workplace dispute or something more significant. P-K3 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait but unless this is something extremely out of the ordinary (148th mass shooting this year in the US) we don't need to post it. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nine deaths isn't enough for a blurb, and I've said before it's not reasonable to post every event on this list, the same way it's unreasonable to post every high-casualty event in regions of wars, protests, etc. The article would also need to be more comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose dog bites man, unfortunately. ——Serial 18:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another run-of-the-mill shooting in the United States that makes me feel that we're getting spammed. Putting RD nominations aside, 'shooting in the United States' is the most frequent type of nomination, even more frequent than elections. I simply can't see any extraordinariness.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

United States racial unrest[edit]

Article: 2020–2021 United States racial unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating after proposal at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Daunte Wright protests. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose all just run of the mill stuff at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (pending significant developments) in accordance with previous reasons in Daunte Wright protests below. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Osunpokeh Anything specific? I can't see anything that applies to this nomination considering this is a list of all protests (which undeniably are notable and have a high impact), rather than a single element of that list. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's ongoing, it's certainly in the news, the overall impact (both domestic and international) is high, and the article is high quality. The comment about the protests being routine (which I agree with) doesn't apply to a collection, so there's no issue with that in this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Uses X mostly. I'm unconvinced by the not a (insert country name) ticker - civil unrest is well established as notable enough for Ongoing. We should apply the same standards that we ought apply to others: pull it down when the story is stale or the article is trash. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support it's significant, the nature of these protests is not run-of-the-mill at all, and the article is in great shape. Events are likely to continue in this direction as today we see the release of a video of a 13 year old Hispanic male shot while his hands were up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support none of this is run-of-the-mill, despite the misinformed protestations to the contrary. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Wrong. That's why we have an article detailing literally dozens of protests after the literally hundreds of people who have been killed by the US police in the last few months. It's almost as common as mass shootings. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support There is no valid argument against this year-long event being significant. Rather the argument is that several hundred mass protests occurring in a short span are distinct unrelated events, such that a) they must qualify individually and b) the vast number of protests make the them commonplace. Cynical as hell, but typical anti-American bashing from the usual suspects. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    I guess we just run a "racial unrest" ticker and a "mass shootings" ticker then, as both are commonplace and completely unremarkable these days. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The problem is, given the nature of this article is being constructed, there's no proverbial end to this, and it would remain in ongoing indefinitely (In contrast, we know there will be a point we can eventually remove COVID once it no longer is seen as a worldwide threat). If we post this, we might as well post something along the lines of "gun violence in the United States" - a major news topic but one that has no clear "end". --Masem (t) 22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Guaido still thinks he's president of Venezuela, students in Hong Kong are still antagonizing the CPC, in fact there are still weekend protests in Belarus all those articles were in ongoing and are no longer. Prying stuff out of OG is a gigantic hassle around here but that isn't a reason not to put things into OG. Brexit popped in and out as it flared up. The Myanmar protests are in the box right now and that mess is a monument to WP:SYNTH. I empathize, but relax, we'll be fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. I do not believe that several riots that may coincide temporally and causally is something of such importance as to be "ongoing". Police brutality + protests is usual in the US. Catalonia has experienced something similar (bridging the gap) in recent years in the context of the territorial crisis with Spain, with riots for days and I would not even think of nominating it. Although honestly I am not going oppose if a consensus is reached to support it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Its a notable series of ongoing protests, and I would support Catalonia protests being ITN, tooJackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since at least 2011, there have been reliable protests/unrest/riots in American cities every Summer. Whether you're sympathetic to the professed motivations, yet another year is hardly unique, unusual or comment worthy outside of larger effects. Putting them in Ongoing is like putting Crime in the US in Ongoing; it's part and parcel of living there.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding, individual events are much better suited for blurbs, and I would (and have) support(ed) them previously. The linked article is narrative spinning from disparate events that are sometimes not even thematically related.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Uses x and Muboshgu, and per RS (e.g. those cited in the article), which write that the protests 2020-present are quite different from previous 21st-century protests. (How long did it take before Occupy Wall Street was added to ongoing?) Levivich harass/hound 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly because the article is blown up with every incident of larger scale that occurred in the country over the past year (What does the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol have to do with race without clear explanation in the text?). I also notice events that were posted either with a blurb or to ongoing on their own so the target article is definitely not something to support on the main page. In my opinion, 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests could be a better fit in place of Daunte Wright protests and the proposed one just waters down notability (Yet, the article on Daunte Wright protests is not updated with yesterday's events, implying descending significance as time goes by.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This is sorta what I was getting it in my oppose, while it is clear the concept of long-term racial instability is there, this feels like an OR-created topic that doesn't reflect how the news frames this. Connections are being made between the George Floyd protests and these events, sure, but they aren't seemingly calling it connected event. --Masem (t) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment/Musing -- Having thought on this some more, I think we should probably wait until after the verdict for Derek Chauvin. These protests may rapidly die, or they may become as big as the protests in 2020. We don't know yet. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Then that won't be an "ongoing" news story, it will be a story directly related to the most recent police killings so will be a blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose My first thought was a blanket oppose, since the other nom is still open and this feels like a classic way to skirt around opposition there, but I read through all the comments, particularly TRM and LL, and I still feel that the Minnesota riots article would be a more appropriate target (and that the new? article probably shouldn't exist at all) but have been convinced a blurb would be more appropriate given the often disparate nature of the protests/riots/whatever. Kingsif (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too broad a topic, impossible to manage in a way that treats incidents equitably, inevitably producing a mishmash. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Racism in the United States has been going on for a long time and this topic isn't current (this is my understanding, since I'm not from the US). If it's about a specific protest or unrest like the George Floyd protest, I'm okay with it. But not this. --Sitaphul (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Before anyone says I'm anti-American, I've supported the Daunte Wright protest nomination Sitaphul (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Albertaont: See here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Kerch Strait closure[edit]

Article: Kerch Strait (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russia announces its decision to close the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea to "warships and other state vessels" until October. (Post)
News source(s): NY Post, Plymouth Herald, Ukrinform
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Likely a notable development in the ongoing tensions with Russia, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has responded. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Announcement. Might be relevant when it actually happens. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just an announcement, and not in the news much. The update would also need to be longer, giving the impacts of it, etc, as right now there's only the background. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not significant - if we were to nominate every military activity then the list would be huge Sitaphul (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Russia announcing it's doing a thing is the same as Russia doing that thing. I rather doubt anyone is going to test them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This is related to the back-and-forth between Russia-Ukraine-US, and is a minor development about equal to the US sailing destroyers through the Dardanelles, or Zelensky's visit to troops. The article is actually pretty nice. I'd rather post good articles with a topical update than the usual "event" article, but some more information in the blurb is needed to give readers context. And we should wait at least until next week when this is no longer merely an annoucement.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Current events of April 14, 2021 (2021-04-14) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Michel Louvain[edit]

Article: Michel Louvain (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV News / Canadian Press; 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Article is well-sourced Vacant0 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Usman[edit]

Article: Ahmed Usman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Military Governor of Ondo and Oyo States in Nigeria. Article is referenced and has appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Article is in good shape. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is generally fine, though it's currently using worldstatesmen as a source, which should be replaced as it's on the depreciated sources list (as it's a self-published peerage website). The dates in lead are a bit unusual, maybe put them into text. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Joseph2302 Already posted, but thanks for the feedback--updated refs and shifted the dates into the text. SpencerT•C 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Bernie Madoff[edit]

Consensus does not seem likely to develop for a blurb, so I am closing/withdrawing it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 April 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: Bernie Madoff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American financier Bernie Madoff (pictured), who operated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, dies at the age of 82. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with their own Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Financier and fraudster
Both of you are going to have to provide a rationale...-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: To be fair the comments were posted before I added the template - it previously just read "Bernie Madoff" with no context. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad. I was just bewildered that it didn't have a template. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not seeing any lapses in sourcing. Lede's a bit awkward and overheavy on details of the trial but not a severe enough issue to block RD posting. (and confirm with BK that the first two !votes from Count Iblis + Fakescientist8000 had been made before a template was added) --Masem (t) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Adding my Oppose blurb - convicted fraud dies in prison does not represent a transformative person at the top of their field. --Masem (t) 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb given the magnitude of his fraud, and have proposed as much. I understand we don't want to push too much stuff off the ITN box; while I don't necessarily agree, at least that's better than promoting otherwise non-notable stories because "nothing's happening".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A well cited article, it at least deserves a RD Vacant0 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb There is one cn tag, to a list of assets that seem logical, three dead links, and a clarify tag that I don't understand, but otherwise in great shape. Prominence warrants blurb. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Significant criminal, yes, but not of lasting global importance. Sandstein 14:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Major news sites like CNBC and the New York Times have it as a top story and the article is well cited, if not a blurb it at least deserves an RD mention. PolarManne (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Article looks good. Infamous in the US, but doesn't meet the very high bar for international notoriety for blurbs for deaths from old age. It's a side article in UK and French news. --LukeSurl t c 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only article is good shape for RD. For someone involved in such a high profile scandal, surprised his name isn't more commonplace, but outside of the US he isn't well known at all. So doesn't meet the very high threshold for a deceased person to get a blurb. (And before anyone screams bias, I also opposed Prince Phillip last week for same reason). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting RD, there will be no consensus for a blurb, I believe. --Tone 14:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only doesn't meet significant criteria for a blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, international ramifications etc. ——Serial 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Now that the template has been added. Very significant person indeed, chief mastermind behind a massive fraud scheme. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb and weak oppose RD Just another nomination in the avalanche of nominations to blurb around here lately. Big criminal, but not a transformative figure in his field, neither in his country nor globally, as stated above. Also there's two cn tags in the article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb this guy is the Nelson Mandela of financial criminals. Household name: check. Feature films/documentaries: check. Blurb it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well was, anyway. And also "the Prince Philip of Ponzi fraudsters"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem. A lot of media coverage but RD is appropriate. SpencerT•C 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem. Blurbs are the exception, not just for anybody that people have heard of.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - what information does the blurb provide readers that an RD listing doesn't provide? "Madoff died" is what the RD listing says: beyond that, a blurb would say nothing useful. If Madoff is a global transformative figure, etc., then everyone knows who he is and we don't have to describe him in a blurb. So a blurb won't give any add'l useful info, which means the only reason to blurb rather than RD is to say his death is more important than other RDs. We shouldn't be doing that, as it's not our place to decide. Levivich harass/hound 17:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Old man dies in prison. No rationale for a blurb other than him being reasonably well-known. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Notoriety does not equate to global transformative importance.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support blurb I don't think that crime ought to be a significant enough field for ITN death blurbs, and I don't like the idea of giving further fame to a criminal, but there's no question that Bernie Madoff was a "transformative world leader in his field" given that he ran the largest ponzi scheme of all time, so by the current wording of "Blurbs for recent deaths" he probably should be a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb exactly as WaltCip puts it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:08, 14 April 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.

Daunte Wright protests[edit]

Article: Daunte Wright protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Nightly unrest is now in its third day. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:1D21:C59E:DB08:A777 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait but leaning oppose. Nowhere near the scale of the George Floyd protests at this point. --Masem (t) 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is not suitable for Front Page, currently at AFD.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The article is improved and the AFD has closed. On a second review the article could go up. The point made by TRM below is a very good one, though. Protests and riots in the Upper Midwest (and in many of the places listed in the Events elsewhere section) have become commonplace over the last few years.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yet another Ongoing nomination has been made for this event (above) which links to a much weaker and frankly poorly composed article. In the interest of getting something up on this topic, I'd suggest to make a blurb nomination along the lines of Protests and unrest stemming from the death of Daunte Wright enter their Nth day. The article here is good enough, and that blurb formulation we have used many times previously.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose On article quality. Anything red-tagged is not getting on the main page, however ITN the actual event. Kingsif (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I think we could even move it into ongoing as part of 'American protests' or 'United States protests', similar to the Mynamar protests ongoing ITN. Even though the Black Lives Matter movement has experienced a period of inactivity, it seems to be re-emerging and we could potentially list it in the ongoing should these protests continue to regain momentum. JMonkey2006 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until AFD ends. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests is a different potential target, that I'm neutral towards. Kingsif (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, also a Comment: this is a bit POINTy: considering the rather tame Northern Ireland Riots got in, this one should, by that same standard. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This receives front-page coverage on the BBC and many media in Europe and it appears that the protesters haven't calmed down even though the incident was followed by police resignations. I strongly suspect that some users are deliberately undermining the significance of these protests because they no longer take place during Trump's presidency. And we don't have a rule that an ITN nomination should be frozen while an AfD on an underlying article is open.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this has an AFD running for it, so shouldn't run unless that's resolved as keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. If something major happens I'd reconsider, but 53 arrests isn't front-page news to me. According to the article, these protests are only part of the more general 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial justice protests which I'd personally support for ongoing due to the wider scope. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Uses X. Domestic protests without the national (and international) impact of George Floyd protests. I would say that Northern Ireland riots are much important than this ones and everyone agreed in not to post it in ongoing. Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. The article is up for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's pretty clear that this isn't like the George Floyd matter. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Re-opened The AfD has been speedily closed with a result 'Keep' so the discussion here can continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    For the record, the AfD was closed as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes indeed but 'no consensus' to delete has the same effect as 'Keep', which is more spot on in relation to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've never seen a speedy close with no consensus before- seems like that is being used solely so people can re-open this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    The nominator themself withdrew the nomination, but a speedy keep was technically not possible because one editor chose "Delete" before the article was expanded to a reasonable length (see WP:WITHDRAWN). Other than that, it was between a keep and a merge, and a merge isn't reasonable considering the size of both articles. There's no conspiracy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It would be inconsistent of me to have supported posting the Northern Ireland protest but oppose this one. Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It should be considered that often when there is a "white cop shoots black person" incident which happen with rather troubling frequency, there are protests, some more significant and/or violent than others; the Floyd protests clearly surpassed a level of being "routine". These protests may be just tipping past "routine" with the events of last night but they still aren't at the same sense of scale as the Floyd ones. In contrast, the protests in N. Ireland aren't anywhere close to routine occurances, and the events that led to those unusual (beyond the ususual tension between N. Ireland and the rest of the British Isles). As such, it didn't have a baseline to compare to so was posted for that reason. Its why we do consider events relative to their scope and scale for similar events within the same region for posting, and how that would filter up to the international scale. --Masem (t) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose along the lines of Masem's explanation above. Like mass shootings, these protests are now commonplace, and realistically it needs to not be "routine" for it to be something we should consider at ITN. Those arguing about the N'Iron posting need to realise that riots there (in this day and age) just don't (didn't) happen. Trying to equate these regular riots with a rarity is not a reasonable comparison. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, so if riots in Northern Ireland started up again, would you be OK with not blurbing them/putting them in ongoing? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to assert that riots happening for the second time in decades equates to the run-of-the-mill riots we see in the US every time a cop kills someone? The US police kill more than 1,000 people a year, it's routine. The ensuing riots are, thus, routine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They are not routine. Most deaths by police do not result in rioting, or even protest. And these are not run-of-the-mill. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 08:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Police killing people in the US is obviously not something worthy of ITN. These protests however, are new and not routine. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Already having an effect on the world outside Minneapolis, and article is well updated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Effects? Which ones? Where? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
City under a state of emergency, professional sports teams cancelling games, protests around the country. These things rarely accelerate as quickly as this one has. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Jim Michael, TRM – The shooter and the police chief have resigned, and the shooter has been charged, hopefully defusing this incredibly bizarre event.
PS: This user grew up in Minneapolis, and can hardly believe the stuff going on there – but I left a long time ago. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe the thing to do is to put Black Lives Matter into ongoing since both the road side summary execution of unarmed black men by sworn police and mass demonstrations afterwards both seem to be .... ongoing. We've let poorer quality articles fester in the box for ages and the pattern of "but the sub-articles" was well established as a justification for keeping the Hong Kong Bother in the box for a while. Consider it anyway, especially with the Chauvin acquittal looming there is certain to be more unrest. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you really think that these protests, more intense and severe that we've had since May, are going to occur in perpetuity? Serious question. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. US cops murder at least 1,000 people a year. That hasn't and won't change. People now get annoyed by it rather than just accept it as part of the US lifestyle. Protests, as evidenced by the "ongoing nomination" article, are now commonplace. They will happen for the foreseeable future while nothing changes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In the context of U.S. mass shootings, this singular one seems less than significant, though it has a bizarre aspect. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
That's true, but that's not a qualification for not posting. Correct me if I'm wrong Sitaphul (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

Current events of April 13, 2021 (2021-04-13) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Conn Findlay[edit]

Article: Conn Findlay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (April 13). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Tidy article, well referenced suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Fully cited and comprehensive enough for RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Leonard[edit]

Article: Bobby Leonard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indianapolis Star; Associated Press
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Sufficient coverage and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support definitely good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Fully referenced, and the citations check out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted My initial vote aside, consensus is clear.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Warner[edit]

Article: Peter Warner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning 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: Australian captain. Article covers key aspects of the subject's life in appropriate detail; referenced. SpencerT•C 15:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Suggest Well-referenced, although we should clean up the article. It's not ready for RD *truly* until then. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support well cited Vacant0 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Japan's cabinet approved dumping of radioactive water[edit]

Duplicate nom; see closed nom below. SpencerT•C 15:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Cabinet of Japan approved the Fukushima nuclear Plant to dump treated radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean over a course of 30 years. (Post)
News source(s): "Fukushima: Japan approves releasing wastewater into ocean". BBC. 2021-04-13.
Credits:

Article updated
  • Nominator comments: This is the first time since 2011 the Japanese government makes it clear to the world on how Japan would deal with the radioactive water. Reading the comments on the ITN nomination of #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup (which was a different article), my responses are as follows.
  • (1) Part of the "consensus" on rejecting #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup was based on the poor focus and the poor quality of that article, not on the importance of the news per se. This is a different, new article, entirely focus on the water.
  • (2) Some users voted "opposed" by claiming this is "old news". In fact, news on this before 13 April 2021 was just speculation by tabloids. The cabinet approval was handed down on 13 April 2021.
  • (3) While some users rightly pointed out "the cabinet approved the dumping to happen two years later, not to happen now", being the "first ever cabinet decision on the matter" grants this news importance.
  • -- love.wh 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Part of the "consensus" was based on the poor quality of a separate article, not on the importance of the news per se. -- love.wh 15:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Almost everyone there opposed on notability too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just had a discussion on this that closed as a clear consensus not to post. The fact that a new separate article has been created doesn't change the consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Especially as this article just seems like a WP:CONTENTFORK so you can say there's a new article, and therefore start a new nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    The original article is large enough (> 70,000 bytes) this would need to be split from it anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    The new article was entirely focus on water, different from the all-encompassing Fukushima disaster cleanup. How can this be WP:CONTENTFORK? Rather, this is a necessary main article. -- love.wh 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant global news, must read. STSC (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose New article is a hopeless mess of WP:SYN about various dumping events. I'm not even sure why this is a distinct article from the Fukushima clean-up article. It takes a scatter-shot approach to reporting on the events, and there's little in the way of narrative flow that makes the article very hard to follow, and not up to the standards I would expect for the main page. --Jayron32 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Fukushima disaster cleanup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Japanese Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide announces that more than 1 million tonnes of radioactive water will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Japanese Government announces that treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will be dumped into the ocean
Alternative blurb II: ​Japan announces that radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will be dumped into the ocean
News source(s): NHK News, KBS News, CGTN, Reuters, Global Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC News, The Jakarta Post, The New York Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Huge announcement in the aftermath of one of the largest nuclear disasters - Backlash from many Asian countries as well as environmental organisations JMonkey2006 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Announcements".130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The target article has multiple (flagged) problems, and it hasn't been updated to mention the announcement and the implications of it. I don't see any point in evaluating the notability of the announcement until that's done. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was announced days ago. Is this a "confirmation" of the "announcement"? When they do dump billions of tons of vicious nuclear waste into the sea, that may become a news story (with related protests etc no doubt). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality that article is nowhere near the standard of article we should be putting on front page- it was marked as outdated in 2017, and nothing has changed since then. Also, not sure this would be notable enough for ITN anyway, but that's irrelevant until the article is massively improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose they're not dumping raw water, it's going to be diluted with seawater and released with minimal radioactivity. Calm down. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Radioactive waste sounds scary, but this isn't barrels of glowing ooze like you see in the Simpsons. In reality it's sea- and rain-water that has gained a tiny amount of tritium (which also occurs naturally, albeit at lower levels). From the Guardian article linked above, expert consensus is "the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk". It's a public relations problem, not a health risk or environmental disaster. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Per [1], the International Atomic Energy Agency says "There is no scandal here" and an independent scientist says it "does not pose a health risk at all". Even the local fishermen don't object to the release itself, just the poor communication with the public that the water is safe. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not quite as bad as allowing an entire population to become irradiated and having them believe nothing is wrong. WaltCip-(talk) 11:28, 13 April 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.

April 12[edit]

Current events of April 12, 2021 (2021-04-12) (Monday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Galen Weston[edit]

Article: Galen Weston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Globe and Mail
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: Canadian business magnate, head of the Loblaws family of retail chains. Article needs some citations but is in pretty good shape overall. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Expansion" and "Holt Renfrew" sections have almost 0 sources. Would also be able to get sources for the couple of other cn tags too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ady Steg[edit]

Article: Ady Steg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel
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: French urologist and Holocaust survivor; updated and referenced. SpencerT•C 01:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - came to nominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Fully referenced and a decent length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks fine for RD. Have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Williams[edit]

Article: Shirley Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
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: British politician, former minister who was one of the original four founders of the SDP. Article needs a significant number of citations. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks good to me. The citations are significantly better than some other articles on RD. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I can't think of a single RD article that we've posted with multiple paragraphs lacking citations. SpencerT•C 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see someone removed the very relevant orange tag for more citations needed. Multiple paragraphs unsourced, nowhere near good enough sourcing to be on the front page. I suggest people find sources rather than just removing the orange tag. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose orange tag. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support when citations resolved. It's been vastly improved over the course of the day, but there are still some gaps (uninvolved editor's eyes needed?). Moscow Mule (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Farewell to a member of "Gang of Four". STSC (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourcing issues now sorted. Article is fully sourced. 213.205.194.86 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks well sourced to me. Polyamorph (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go now, marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Can't see what's stopping it. One of Leeds' finest, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I posted the one above, but I can't post this one as I nominated it, and Spencer has commented on it as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I might have guessed. It's like the old boys club round here! Maybe mark as Attention needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Northern Ireland riots[edit]

Consensus to post will not develop. Closing without prejudice to open at later date if appropriate. (nominator close) Kingsif (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2021 Northern Ireland riots (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Looks like it's about to roll off with the Masters. Kingsif (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this actually still ongoing? I'm not seeing anything in the article taking place past 9 April, and didn't see anything new on the front pages of Guardian or BBC. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They are still happening (worsening it seems), but 1. Philip is now all the British news, all the time, 2. if the article isn't getting frequent updates it shouldn't be posted. Kingsif (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    It's not Philip pushing it out, literally nothing has happened for days. CTRL + F, and search for "riot": Irish Times RTÉ Irish Independent The Journal, Northern Ireland news sites: Irish News (Nationalist bias), Belfast Telegraph (Unionist bias). Believe me, I'm Irish, I live in Ireland, and nothing has happened since Friday. Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting. It was on all the TV news in NI yesterday, though (last, behind a half hour of Philip), so I won't take your word for it. Kingsif (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    That was commentary, not reporting. If something actually happened yesterday please share and I'll alert the press. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Aside from a bit of commentary, it's out of all the Irish newspapers and news sites. The last update to the article was from three days ago. If something major happens (and it's obvious the protests will continue even longer) I'd support it going onto ongoing then. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - It's definitely an ongoing event and getting more serious. STSC (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing and updating. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am myself quite interested in NI history and politics, so I understand the implications here. But by any of the ordinary objective standards we use to judge protests (the size of gatherings, number of injuries/deaths, damage to property, prevention of ordinary activity), this is small potatoes. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm totally agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Don't see much going on here. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per everyone else. Nothing is happening. It shouldn't have even been blurbed. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 15:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the ongoing impact is not significant enough for Ongoing section. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's literally not a thing atm. There's some sporadic (read: a few lads pissing it up on the Row or Lanark), but most of it's been suspended to show—you'll love this!—respect during the mourning period. Oy vey, old man dies; Catholics don't get firebombed. ——Serial 16:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the point is things are still happening, so judge by article updates. The repeated comments that there's nothing in X newspaper aren't helpful (though yours was quite funny) Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Largely absent from main RS sites Monday. – Sca (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There's actual rioting elsewhere in the world, but that won't get posted... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You're free to nominate that... Kingsif (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    Somebody already nominated the Myanmar protests. Well, not exactly rioting, but 100 died in a day a few weeks(?) ago but people rejected since it's already at ongoing. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ah, I thought you were talking about the rioting in Minnesota. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I also thought you meant Minnesota. Saw Myanmar and was sure that it was, indeed, in ongoing. Because I also thought the objection was to the fact someone had considered nominating riots for ongoing. Howard, you've got me all confused, what is annoying you and is it relevant? Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. I didn't know about the new Minnesota riots. Now that's why the Timberwolves game was postponed and left many fantasy NBA pissed pissed. Either way, the Myanmar civil disturbances are putting every rioter in shame, but not enough for it to be posted here. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't seem to understand your objections. It is currently posted on the main page. It says "Myanmar protests" right there! Right now! This isn't new; it has been on the main page for weeks. --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A few weeks ago, there was a day where Myanmar killed 100 of its people during the protests. This was rejected at ITN/C because it's already ongoing. That was a poor decision as that would've "unpinned" the article from ongoing and we would not be needing another discussion to remove it if it becomes stale. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So you're upset that the Myanmar protests are still on Ongoing? If that is the case, you should start a direct discussion to remove it. I see you haven't done that yet. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm upset that the Myanmar protests weren't promoted to a standard blurb when the state supposedly killed 100 of its own people, because it is "ongoing" (and some downplayed or doubted the event). I suppose there's no !rule preventing an article in ongoing being promoted back to a blurb (and being removed from ongoing) but people have used that non-rule to prevent articles in ongoing promoted back to blurbs. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You've set the klaxons off, now. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Let it roll off. This was pretty borderline to add in the first place, and I agree with GCG above. Modest Genius talk 10:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the article itself, the last significant, widespread, rioting occurred on and around April 7-8, with isolated incidents of vandalism and hooliganry occurring sporadically since then. Not as widespread as it was 5-6 days ago, and with little worth reporting since then, it seems like this is not really "ongoing" anymore. If it becomes sustained and widespread again in the future, with clear evidence of such in the article writing, I'd be perfectly willing to reconsider at that point. But as of now, it's not there. --Jayron32 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
You don't have to wait until the whole Northern Ireland is burning. The article has been "regularly updated with new, pertinent information", that's the real criteria for "ongoing". STSC (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the criteria for ongoing. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Given that consensus will not develop to place in ongoing, can someone please close this section? -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Guillermo Lasso elected President of Ecuador[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Ecuadorian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Guillermo Lasso (pictured) is elected the 47th President of Ecuador. (Post)
News source(s): The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Lasso's article has been updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Target article should be the elections article (changed the nom to reflect such). 2021 Ecuadorian general election is almost there: results section needs to be updated with prose about the second round results. SpencerT•C 04:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Aren't election results ITN/R? Mlb96 (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    Mlb96, Yes, but they still have to be proposed and the articles discussed/assessed for quality JW 1961 Talk 08:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm aware. When I made that comment, this was nominated as a regular ITN nomination with a blue background, not as ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2021_Ecuadorian_general_election#Second_round_by_province is empty and missing summary prose on final round.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Bagumba Joseywales1961 Spencer I've just added the results by province in the 2nd round from the CNE's info. Now I'm working to make the table more visual, but the article now may be ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Alsoriano97: the results section needs a prose summary of the second round voting results, and once that is done, I'm willing to support. SpencerT•C 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Spencer I have made some progress. If you think it's not enough, I'll get to it after dinner. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article updated. SpencerT•C 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work improving the article Alsoriano97 JW 1961 Talk 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Joseywales1961! Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This fits the definition of a notable event, especially considering how this has signaled a political shift away from the traditionally left-leaning and leftist candidates who have been President in the past. Articles look good too JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll omit the number. Feel free to update the photo at some point. --Tone 07:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Severe Tropical Cyclone Seroja[edit]

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 00:27, 13 April 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: Cyclone Seroja (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Severe Tropical Cyclone Seroja makes landfall on the Western Australian coast (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, SBS News, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major weather event; same cyclone that impacted Timor-Leste and Indonesia (also listed on News) JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This storm isn't particularly strong and it's impacts in Australia are minimal. We already posted the hundreds of deaths in indonesia/timor leste, so I see no reason to post the one death in Australia. 2600:8807:5681:2400:D8C8:2F91:321D:C5A2 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait but leaning oppose If the extent of damage is limited to deaths in the single digits, this is not really the type of storm we'd post to ITN. --Masem (t) 02:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP User HurricaneEdgar 02:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP. We don't post strong storm systems that cause no damage, either. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose weather making landfall is not newsworthy. Substantial impacts of weather on people, infrastructure etc might be newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment It is rare for a cyclone to make landfall so far south in Western Australia. Even rarer for a category three to make landfall where it did. This is not just a regular cyclone. Steelkamp (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Landfalls aren't notable no matter where they occur. Impact is what's important and this had minimal in Australia. NoahTalk 11:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – BBC reports "a trail of damage." – Sca (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't they all leave "a trail of damage"? So far the impacts in Australia aren't really noteworthy enough to post, and this is especially reflected by the article. So what if it's the "strongest to hit X town in X many years", these records are set and broken every single year. Gex4pls (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. If the loss of life isn't there, then the damage would have to be pretty significant for us to post, like if this had completely demolished the Syndey Opera House (I know, wrong coast, but trying to come up with local example). --Masem (t) 20:19, 12 April 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.

April 11[edit]

Current events of April 11, 2021 (2021-04-11) (Sunday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Massimo Cuttitta[edit]

Article: Massimo Cuttitta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Italian international rugby player and coach. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose – "Early life" and "Club rugby" sections, as well as the stats in the infobox, are unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 74th British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At the 74th British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland wins four awards, including Best Film and Best Director for Chloé Zhao (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At the 74th British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland wins four awards, including Best Film and Best Actress for Frances McDormand (pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​At the British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland (writer and director Chloé Zhao pictured) wins Best Film along with three other awards.
Alternative blurb III: ​BAFTA conducts the 74th British Academy Film Awards ceremony.
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Updated with ceremony details. If using a McDormand blurb, there is an image of her at the article, too. Both Zhao and McDormand are mentioned in the Best Film citation so neither blurb as currently phrased would be inaccurate/open to misinterpretation. Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Currrent blurbs could be misread as if Best Film also went to Zhao/McDormand.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • See nom comment... Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, I read the nom differently the first time. I think you mean "WINNER - NOMADLAND Mollye Asher, Dan Janvey, Frances McDormand, Peter Spears, Chloé Zhao"[2]—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, they both get two! If it is a concern, the awards in the blurb could simply be switched, i.e. "... Best Director/Actress for X and Best Film." Kingsif (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ITNR only mentions including Best Film. In 2019 with winner Roma, we only posted a picture of the director, with no mention that he also won Best Director.[3] I've add ALT II (including other copyedits).—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ALT II Suffient coverage and sourcing. Leave focus on Best Film per WP:ITNR and past years' blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment added alt3 with no meaningful context at all --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, ALT3 looks really useful and not like you're trying to prove some kind of point by adding meaningless blurbs to multiple nominations..... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enzo Sciotti[edit]

Article: Enzo Sciotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sciotti's Instagram, Movieplayer.it, Kotaku
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: Italian artist that did thousands of iconic movie poster art in the 1980s and beyond. Article probably could be longer Masem (t) 03:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Technically a stub, but well-referenced and would support on principle. If you can double the prose size it would be good to go. Kingsif (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: "but well-referenced" - ??? Uses x (talk • contribs)
@Uses x: Your ping didn't work, but I looked to the ref list when I saw missing inline cites and the Guardian article there is good (the way it's been added as a source but not inline is an old ref format that just needs sorting). If information from it can be taken and added to the article, it should be mostly fine. Filmography might be on BFI but that's the real issue. If I had an hour I wasn't dedicating to something else, I'd do it. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with update. Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current readble prose size of 1074B is too short. Filmography needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose A stub which is very poorly sourced. Not only is most of the text uncited, the citations that are there are mostly from blogs and user-generated wikis. Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Support With the update it's more comprehensive and fully cited. @Bagumba: ping in case you don't see it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I found that hour (20 minutes) and have updated the article a little, now no longer a stub and refs should be satis. Kingsif (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Masters Tournament[edit]

Article: 2021 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In golf, Hideki Matsuyama wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In golf, Hideki Matsuyama wins the Masters Tournament to become the first Japanese male to claim a major golf championship.
News source(s): CNN–B/R, USA Today
Credits:

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks good. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support satis Kingsif (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Field and Final round sections both have unreferenced paragraphs. Stephen 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Stephen: done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • question: the headlines of reliable news sources appear to either mention that matsuyama is the first japanese male to win a golf major or that he is the first asian-born winner of the masters. should the blurb include one of these descriptions as well? dying (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    Dying, normally ITN blurbs don't include trivia like that, but that could certainly go in the article itself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
If "new records" don't often happen, they won't often appear in blurbs, but look at the current Grand National one. Kingsif (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:ITN: Blurbs should avoid sensationalism ... Every listed event can practically be described as a first for a specific location and/or situation. Perhaps the Grand National was an WP:IAR for one of the two gender assignments, while there are many more nationalities. That said, the headlines consistently allude to his nationality: "Hideki Matsuyama victorious at Masters, becomes first Japanese man to win major" ESPN, "The Masters 2021: Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga leads celebrations after Hideki Matsuyama’s historic win" The Independent, "Hideki Matsuyama Wins the Masters With a Groundbreaking Performance" The New York Times—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose mention of ethnicity/nationality as the event is ITN/R – plenty notable result without the need for qualifiers. Also, the way in which we would have to frame it to be a record (e.g. "first Japanese man" "first Asian-born champion") reeks of sensationalism. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. I fixed the error in the lead before doing so. Incidentally, how anti-intuitive is a scorecard system that has red for birdie and green for bogey? Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-post blurb expand Support ALT blurb, expanding that he's the first Japanese male to win a major title. It's pretty much in the lead of every news story.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose expanded blurb - he wasn't playing for Japan, he was playing for him so his nationality is trivial. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment replace it with "In golf, the 2021 Masters Tournament concludes". Not adding any meaningful context to blurbs is an asset to our readers, really, and it solves the question around the nationality of the winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    What a strange suggestion. Anyone would think you're trying to make yet another point? The name of the winner is fine, the "first male Japanese" clause is trivia. And P.S. we don't include the year in blurbs for ITN, thought you'd know that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment So we blurb the first female for the Grand National ITNR (just below) but the first Japanese for the Masters is "trivial".—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
≈50% of the world's population vs. ≈1.6%? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
But No. 3 in world GDP. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Uyghur genocide[edit]

Consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. Stephen 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Uyghur genocide (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Both "continuously updated" and "frequently in the news." Article is "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" – judging by the page's history, updates are added nearly every day to detail the evolving situation. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – It's ready. Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This has been ongoing for years. We can blurb important developments when they occur. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't change that it wasn't on ITN in the past. The fact of the matter is, as you said, that it's ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, ongoing like the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and Darfur genocide and Rohingya genocide and Somali Civil War and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Syrian Civil War...let's permalist all those too. Yes the world is a dark place. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – This has been a significant news item over the past week. Turkey summoned the Chinese Ambassador and issuing what at least one expert called the "most public rebuke of China in more than a decade." (For context, Erdogan accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs in 2009). China released a musical as a part of an intense propaganda campaign to deny its human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang (a quote used in the NYT article was declared to be the NYT Quotation of the Day.) China has been intensifying its attacks against Uyghurs and Uyghur allies overseas, China has sentenced Uyghur officials to death, France is seeing a court case filed against multinationals relating to labor rights abuses in Xinjiang, and there are public discussions among the United States and its allies regarding whether or not to boycott the Winter Olympics, earning a response from Beijing. The Uyghur genocide is indisputably in the news, and it is one of the biggest stories currently. I believe that the article would be certainly fitting for inclusion here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is high quality and fully cited, but I have to question the word "genocide", as it's not completely agreed on (the BBC article states it's an allegation, for example), and it's not comprehensive enough about what's happening; I think the term "persecution" should be used for the title instead. Is there any reason against this, or should I suggest a rename? The article is also one-sided, with mostly commentary from activists and NGOs, and little commentary from China or its allies; you don't need to believe it (I don't), but it has to be given in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Uses x, this title was very recently decided on in an extensive talk page discussion, which resulted in a one-year moratorium. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@AllegedlyHuman That was changing the name from "Uyghur cultural genocide" to "Uyghur genocide". None of the titles the article has had or have been suggested, giving five in total, have used the word "persecution", so my point hasn't been discussed yet. The moratorium isn't an endorsement of the current name, so "If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists" I can suggest it on the talk page, but that would take over seven days so I can't support the current nomination anyway, unless I'm convinced "genocide" is the widely-accepted term. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
See FAQ point two: "If I wish to rename the page, should I go ahead and open a move request?" "No." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Uses x: The title "Persecution of Uyghurs" was proposed in a February 2021 move request, which resulted in not moved, with nobody other than the nominator supporting it. The discussion was not as lengthy as the April 1 move discussion, but there was still a consensus present not to move the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10 "was not as lengthy" - that's an understatement if I've ever heard one. The singular oppose doesn't deal with what I said, as the IP user who suggested it didn't give any kind of rationale for the change, and the current name was based on other factors ("cultural genocide" vs. "genocide"), so I'm not convinced.
Take a look at the talk page for the recent rename, and tell me there isn't a huge amount of personal research and WP:ACTIVISM there. Remember, the editors who are even involved in article re-naming are usually those involved in the article itself (and look at the sheer number of now banned, recently registered, and IP users in that bunch), so talk page concensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN concensus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that there is some activism going on that has led to breaches of the WP:NPA policy (such as this edit). I also think that Go Phightins!, the administrator who closed the most recent move discussion (which once again found an affirmative consensus to keep the page at Uyghur genocide), correctly closed things in a way that reflects consensus achieved on the article talk. Obviously, there can be different local consensuses in different places when there is no global consensus, so talk page consensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN consensus. That being said, it seems that the proper place to challenge article neutrality is in the article talk itself, not a separate venue, as this would help to keep the discussions on the article in a consistent place that editors can more easily discover and engage with. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - for article subject and overall article quality. Any concerns raised though should probably be fixed before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Uses x. As long as this article is calling something a "genocide" despite reliable sources not yet referring to it as such, it's not suitable for inclusion on the main page. The closer of the recent RM acknowledged that the title was problematic, but appears to have closed it as "not moved" on the grounds that no better title has been proposed. That may be the case, but it doesn't make the current title suddenly OK. I also agree with TarkusAB's oppose - this tragedy did not begin recently, it's been going since 2014, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight - if we put it up, then we're basically saying it's going to be up for the next five years. There haven't been significant new developments in the past week and it's unclear why this is being proposed now rather than at any other time.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Disagree that "there haven't been significant new developments in the past week" per Mikehawk10. And as the nominator, I'll tell you frankly: I nominated it now because I thought of it now. Should it have been nominated in the past? Probably, but I can't go back and change that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
OK that's fair enough, you thought of it now, and my point is not to say that nothing has happened recently. This is an "ongoing" event in the sense that terrible things are happening to people on the ground on a daily basis. I'm not belittling it at all. But as tragic and concerning as that is, that isn't what the ITN "Ongoing" section is all about. There are several ongoing conflicts and tragedies in the world right now - the never-ending wars in the middle-east, the War in Donbass, unrest in Venezuela, the persecution of Rohingyas, wars in Africa etc. etc. But the question is whether anything going on those conflicts amounts to global breaking news that we might consider posting as an individual story. When I do a Google news search for "Uighur" I don't see anything that would ever be considered as an ITN story in its own right. And honestly, from personal experience as someone who reads the UK news, nothing on this has crossed my radar this week. That may be a fault in the way international outlets are reporting it, but it's also not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - but as per BabbaQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru. Allegations of Chinese genocidal activities have been shooting for quite a while, and should have been nominated earlier if it was proven true. Until there are boots on the ground to verify the allegations, I would rather this be held off. – robertsky (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose These alleged human rights abuses have been occuring for years now. Officially, the Chinese Government says that there are no currently operating internment camps in Xinjiang. There is no evidence that Uyghurs are still being arbitrarily detained, let alone at a mass level. If new evidence arises that this alleged "genocide" or "ethnocide" is still occurring, its status as an ongoing event should be reassessed. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Moral Support - clearer important but per TarkusAB this is not recent news and needs ITN context. Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: But if our goal is to turn Wikipedia into a US State Department mouthpiece, then let's go right ahead. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"Please do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm saying that we shouldn't push an obviously non-neutral article into ITN that parrots the US State Department's allegations. Those allegations are widely contested, not least by the US State Department's own legal advisors. See, for example, this article, which describes how the political appointees at the US State Department ignored the legal advisors and accused China of genocide. The article Uyghur genocide puts extreme claims into Wikivoice, despite the fact that reliable sources describe these claims as allegations. This is not the sort of content that we should be pushing onto the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You essentially called me and every support voter a fed for daring to think that a current genocide is in fact major world news. Now, I have a pretty thick skin, but you ought to strike that remark for those who don't. If you have concerns about neutrality, oppose on that principle and, if you're really so concerned about the article's current form, I would strongly encourage you to follow up on it by taking it to the article's talk page, making a better encyclopedia for all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Per reliable sources, these are allegations of genocide, made by the US State Department, contradicting its own legal advisors. There's a difference between allegations and facts, and it's important to note this distinction on Wikipedia. Putting an unproven (and heavily contested) allegation in Wikivoice is bad enough. We shouldn't then push this non-neutral material to the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Besides for the Chinese government nobody appears to be contesting the allegations of human rights abuses, WP:RS have confirmed the allegations as far as they have been able to. Also just FYI the page name predates that US State Department designation as you well know because you participated in the naming discussion, your personal attacks are inaccurate as well as hurtful. Just because you personally don’t agree with a community consensus does not mean you can disrespect it or lie about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
64 UN member states have signed a declaration rejecting the allegations - far more than have supported them. Even the US State Department's own legal advisors advised that the accusation was unsupported by the evidence, but they were overruled by the political appointees. RS specifically describe "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as has been shown over and over again at Talk:Uyghur_genocide. The fact that reliable sources report that allegations have been made does not mean that those allegations are true, as the Iraq WMD fiasco illustrates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, usually edits or discussions which aim to sway an article to pro-Chinese or anti-Western views are quite often met with "CCP trolls" or "wumao". I'm not saying that we should be allowing accusations of ethnocentrism, but we should be careful about applying double standards especially on a Euro and American centric website if we are to aim for a clear, balanced and worldwide take on topics. 58.167.153.79 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (1) per Uses x. The article name is contested, (2) Not particularly in the news (looked on the front and "world news" pages of several major news organisations and searched for "Uyghur" with no hits. AntiVan (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the CPC isn't going to stop because we stuck this article in ongoing. It will continue for generations until the Uyghur people are assimilated, exterminated, or driven out and the region repopulated with Han Chinese. Are we really going to leave this in the box that long? It's akin to putting Climate Change or Israeli–Palestinian_conflict into the box it is never ever ever going to stop. Nominate the occasional "blurb-worthy" event instead please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nominate the "blurb-worthy" event instead please. Otherwise we end up filling the infobox with ongoing events, like Rohingya genocide,Yemeni Genocide all of which are current. When US designated a genocide in January 2021, that was a good point for "blurb-worthy" nomination. Albertaont (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same old allegations do not qualify as "ongoing" for ITN. STSC (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I could see the only legitimate support is from the nominator itself and Mikehawk10. All other supports other than that doesn't clearly state the reasoning. The oppose section raised various concerns regarding the neutrality of the article title and the content, and the fact that putting in on ongoing is an act of WP:RGW as the event itself has been going on for several years and the recent coverage is just about the "expose" part. One IP user pointed out to balance the take of the topics.
Meanwhile, the only support for this ongoing based it on the fact that there has been continuous widespread coverage over the past week. Judging through the refutations of the nominator on oppose comments, the nominator nominates this item due to the continuous development of the event's article in Wikipedia and the recent widespread coverage. The nominator refutes the neutrality allegation put forward by the oppose, stating that the matter has been discussed for a while and there is a moratorium for that. The nominator recommends whoever questioned the support to bring it up on the talkpage.
Judging by the weight of both opinions, I oppose the notion of nominating this item for ongoing. The continuous coverage of the event is only for the various actions of nation in response to the event and not for the existence of the event itself. Other than that, I believe that this article is sufficiently neutral due to the continuous consensus. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I do believe this is a genocide, what I do not believe is that this is a recent event. This has been ongoing for YEARS, the Myanmar protests and the COVID-19 pandemic have not (albeit the latter has been occurring for c. 1 year, so touche. Also per Albertaont, the blurb? Maybe. Ongoing? No thanks. We needn't flood the Ongoing page, shall we? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest close with consensus to not post. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:49, 12 April 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.

April 10[edit]

Current events of April 10, 2021 (2021-04-10) (Saturday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Clark[edit]

Article: Ramsey Clark (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ramsey-clark-dead.html
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former U.S. Attorney General &c; significant figure and substantial article, some refs missing. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks quite thorough. A household name in the U.S. for those of a certain age. A champion of personal rights. – Sca (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - decent article, interesting. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Good sources. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Reasonable conditition for a longish article. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Per consensus above. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are too many tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Issues were addressed. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, major historical figure during the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Notability is not a factor for an RD; all people with articles are important enough to post. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
My personal iVotes on these issues takes notability into primary consideration. Just because someone nominates someone who played one professional game of football but has a cracker-jack polished page doesn't mean I'll be coming by to support an RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Ooooookay, but editors have raised legitimate concern about this page's current quality, the (agreed upon by consensus) sole issue for an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
What is an iVote? Is that the Spanish version of !vote? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Si. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If one is disgruntled with RD criteria, take it up at an appropriate venue, this is not it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Just read the novella-length RfC and discussions, and it seems that the close of the RfC is far from supportive of the criteria without criteria expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If what you're saying is that you think regular ITN users have misinterpreted the RFC linked to every RD proposal, then that's something to take up higher than this individual nom; I would suggest Wikipedia talk:In the news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The RfC close accepts the criteria as defined but seems to ask for further refinement. If someone can come up with a coherent sentence portion to add to it then your advice is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn ... that's the literal point of RD. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who has a Wikipedia page is eligible for RD, which you can read on the text of the nomination itself. You don't need to come by if you don't support that, the regular contributors here will manage. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read the close of the RfC which asks for further criteria refinement in addition to article quality. This has been done in the case of inclusion of animals, yet it seems that the need for additional language to address other good faith concerns hasn't as yet been fully addressed and resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn It has already been refined. Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, and the article doesn't meet that. And remember, if there are citation needed tags it means no one has put much effort into fact-checking the article, so the citations that are present likely haven't been verified. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until CN tags are addressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems a lot of people need reminding RD isn't based on notability, it's based on article quality. There are CN tags, so the article is not of the required quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Support I've sorted out most of the citation needed tags, the only two bits missing are two dates (both tagged) that are not particularly important, and that's fine according to the critera. Pinging everyone who was also opposed, in case you don't see the update: @Hanamanteo, AllegedlyHuman, The Rambling Man, Joseywales1961, and Pawnkingthree:
Changing to Support as issues were addressed throughout the day JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
PS: Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Sca Take a look at those pages, and you'll be able to say why those got posted yourself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Always amusing to see how poor the de. and fr.wiki standards are for BLPs. Something we should definitely not aspire to. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
We're here to please. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose until orange tagged section and cn tags are fixed. P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As tags are gone and article quality is improved. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support No idea what all the arguing above is about, but the article is flawless now. Mlb96 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Grand National[edit]

Article: 2021 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman to win the race in its 180-year history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman jockey winner in the races 180-year history.
Alternative blurb II: ​In horse racing, Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first female jockey to win in the race's 180-year history.
News source(s): BBC Sport
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: It's already ITNR, but the "first female winner" would justify it regardless. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why am I tagged in this? L1amw90 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You've made significant contributions to the article so people think it reasonable to credit you with doing so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Race card table is largely empty. Nothing said of horses that failed to finish. Why did they fail to finish, what happened to them? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Riders come off at a jump, it's the only reason and so common and expected to be unremarkable. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That is not the only reason a horse fails to finish, and you know it. We are covering an historic event, so the info should be there for those in the future to be able to read. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No, it is the only reason. I mean, if they have to shoot a horse, I hope the rider's come off it by then. Which is the disqualifying factor. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - issues raised above have been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - tables all completed and sourced JW 1961 Talk 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment That blurb seems odd since I recognized as horse racing, seems odd to identify Blackmore as the "first woman to win" it. I know what was meant but had to do a double-take, and so perhaps add "jockey" in there somewhere? To add/affirm the second part of the blurb, her "first" is definitely a factor collaborated by multiple news sources, so it is appropriate to note. (ESPN, AP, The Guardian, etc.) --Masem (t) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Masem, Alt added, might look better JW 1961 Talk 20:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's much better to me, doesn't require an odd double take. --Masem (t) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Don't we usually include the name of the sport in the blurb? -- Calidum 20:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Added alt2 to this effect, with other corrections. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Only one refimprove tag now. Did you look at 2019 Grand National? Same format and two sections there also no sources. But did it get posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I actually checked how 2019 Kentucky Derby looked like, and that's a lot better than this one, but I dunno if any of those two (KB and GN) were posted, nor should it matter. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think people look back at past year's events to guage the expected format and quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull. I have to agree with the above. The event is noteworthy enough, but the article is insufficient. The horse's article is also a redirect (to the race) and the jockey's article is a stub. -- Calidum 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Errm, Masem above said that no horse article was needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn't, but the event article needs to be of quality, and if that isn't there, the pull is appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with pull Most prose content is unsourced save the lead (which doesn't even need to be). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Sources added to the 3 orange tagged sections of concern and the block quote JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't Pull. I would have pulled it myself if I'd seen this 30 minutes ago, but the sourcing is there now. IMO this is good enough. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've made a Minella Times page so it can be linked to. Lankyant talk 00:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm still of the opinion that this should be pulled as there is zero prose about the race itself. Do I need to remind everyone here of Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality (Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page)? For comparison, look at 2019 Kentucky Derby, which is the last horse racing event posted here. That article contains a three-paragraph description of the race, not just background on qualifying and media coverage. -- Calidum 00:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Still pull. No actual prose of the race itself. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pull Too quick to post. The race isn't even in the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Anyone who knows how to add racing colours of the placed horses still very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 9[edit]

Current events of April 9, 2021 (2021-04-09) (Friday)
edithistorywatch

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Sandra J. Feuerstein[edit]

Article: Sandra J. Feuerstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newsday
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 lawyer who served as a federal judge (2003–15) is killed at age 75 in a hit-and-run incident. Article needs more cites. Davey2116 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I have added citations. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is satisfactory. Mlb96 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has limited information about the subject's judicial career; at this point, essentially a resume in prose format. SpencerT•C 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficient article quality IMHO. I think you would be hard pressed to find other District Court judges with more citations. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely she ruled on some important decisions since 1987, I would think? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barely past a stub, and not comprehensive enough. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nikki Grahame[edit]

Article: Nikki Grahame (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Removed and replaced.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Sudden death of someone with a 17 year career in mainstream British television. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is comprehensive enough and fully cited. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not had much of a career beyond reality TV and Big Brother, not had anything within the last 10 years. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That is not a reason to Oppose on ITN. Secondly, you obviously has not read the article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, the article had over 300.000 views yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Because admit it, she was popular back in the days and that was the last series of BB I've watched. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Great; not a valid reason to oppose. Read the notice at the bottom of the tan box. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ross Young (politician)[edit]

Article: Ross Young (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC 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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Not a great rapper or elder statesman, but a fine little article. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Late-middle-aged statesman, technically. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Fully referenced and a decent length. Honestly I'm impressed you could find this much info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Short but sweet, decent and appropriately balanced biography. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Aten (city)[edit]

Article: Aten (city) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The lost city of Aten is discovered in the Theban necropolis (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Archaeologists announce the discovery of the ancient Egyptian city of Aten.
News source(s): Nat Geo, CNN, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Described as the "second most important archeological discovery since the tomb of Tutankhamun" Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Provisionally oppose on quality, support on significance. Whoa, this is big news, but I'll withhold my support until after the article is improved to post-able quality. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As the stories point out, they started excavation around the area in Sept 2020 and only seem to now have a better idea that this is Aten. That said, these discoveries are usually accompanied by journal articles that affirm things like carbon dating, etc. I'm not saying they're being fraudulent here, just that we'd usually want the scientific backing of peer-review to confirm this. --Masem (t) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Zahi Hawass announced the discovery on 8 April ([5]), which I think is sufficient until some journal article emerges. Brandmeistertalk 16:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Was considering nominating myself. Quality is sufficient by now + maps and coordinates. Brandmeistertalk 16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support very significant discovery. Quality improved since nomination. Looks good to me Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Can the blurb start with something like "Egyptian archaeologists announce the discovery ..."? Otherwise, a great ITN story. --Tone 17:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: DMX[edit]

Proposed image
Article: DMX (rapper) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50 following a week of hospitalization.
News source(s): LA Times, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, XXL
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: Sadly, it has now been confirmed. 50. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Article is currently full-protected, so I literally can't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, bloody ridiculous to have it fully protected. Shambles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I pinged the protecting admin, who dropped it back to semiprotection. Edit away. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb notable death of an influential hip-hop figure, covered by reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC); Edited 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC).
    Nice4What, as the note in the template says, all recent deaths get posted, and comments should be about the article's quality, which as of now is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. I've removed all uncited claims from the article. Anyone can feel free to readd the information with a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when sourcing issues are fixed --LaserLegs (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD due to quality at present time, Oppose blurb, while probably one of the first well-known rappers, a read through the article (ignoring the sourcing) does not give me any good indication that he was a transformative figure to the scene. --Masem (t) 16:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The likes of TIME and USA Today called him a “legendary rapper” who “changed hip-hop forever”. On top of his number-one albums breaking Billboard records. So a transformative career is irrevocably the case. Trillfendi (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, oppose blurb. A few citation needed tags present, and not notable enough for a blurb. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Article looks good enough for RD. A cleanup is due for the 'Legal issues', but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Masem and Uses x: Nice4What has now removed claims that were missing citations from the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
AllegedlyHuman Done, the article is acceptable for RD. Thanks for the ping. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Two major things that are still a problem: All of the Apperances need to be sourced (standard for any actor), and I'd beg the question if we need to detail every arrest/time in jail in "Legal Issues"; that he was frequently arrested and in jail is summarized in the lede, and if there were any major notable ones, those can be mentioned but it is highly inappropriate to post a rap sheet for a BLP/BRDP. --Masem (t) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD posting, oppose blurb - article is in OK shape now. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. As someone who listened to DMX growing up, this news is tragic, but he has largely been out of the limelight for the past decade. I also don't think he rises to the level of say Dr. Dre or Eminem in terms of importance to the genre to make him noteworthy enough for a blurb. -- Calidum 17:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Calidum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem and Calidum. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb While his rap career is noteworthy, it's not transformative in the way the likes of Grandmaster Flash or Dr. Dre would be. rawmustard (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD per rawmustard. CoatCheck (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD not influential and transformative. just your daily rapper. on the other hand article is well-referenced and clean. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD when sourcing complete (Awards, Filmography need sourcing). Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD Never heard of him but article looks good for an RD inclusion. Certainly not as well known as Prince Philip so definately not deserving of a blurb. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Although I oppose posting this a blurb, frankly I find comparing DMX and his career to Prince Philip screams of all sorts of horrific systemic biases. Wikipedia has been endeavoring to drive out these biases for a reason. WaltCip-(talk) 19:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Five consecutive number 1 albums but I personally believe there's a huge gulf between that and, for example Eminem (biggest selling artist of 2000s and 2010s decades) or Jay-Z (most Grammy awards for a rapper, billionaire through extensive business interests) Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb because he is not significant enough within his own field. Would support for a person who can make a claim as one of the greatest rappers of all time (e.g. Eminem, JayZ, Tupac, etc.), which DMX falls short of. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well if JayZ makes it to 99 we can blurb him just for being married to Beyonce.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Great rapper but not transformative.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Consider this a pointy !vote if you will, but... If Phillip is transformative in whatever field merits his blurb (marrying into the monarchy? Serving as a stunt double for the Cryptkeeper?), DMX is subjectively as household a name as Eminem or JayZ when it comes to hip-hop/rap and arguably transformative in that field. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't recall this rapper chap setting up a worldwide youth programme or inventing a new sport. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Indeed, and I do not consider him a role model by any means (DMX). I do, however, consider him top of his field. I'm not sure what field Phillips is top of, nor what groundbreaking accomplishments he's made (although carriage driving seems like an entertaining variation of chuckwagon racing, so I'll have to check it out!). Again, I'm being pointy; there's a double standard between who is "notable, end of story," and who has to be considered "top of their field" before qualifying. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Well it's pretty clear that the entire world is reporting on Philip and will be doing so for a few days (in the UK a few weeks I expect) while DMX is a consigned to a below-the-fold treatment. Hardly comparable really. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are we using his real name, Earl Simmons, or his stage name, DMX? Osunpokeh (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Osunpokeh, DMX is his WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only His contribution in global music industry is unknown, but the article is in really good shape to be posted in RD. 182.3.100.65 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready Consensus support for RD seems to exist. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    The Awards section and Filmography will need to be sourced first.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, unmarked as ready, two sections pretty much without a single ref. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'll also again add that the "Legal issues" section, equating to a rap sheet for all purposes, seems highly inappropriate. One can sum up he had frequently arrests and fines, but we should not iterate each one. --Masem (t) 21:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Nice article (ready for RD), but not a major music industry star to be put as a blurb. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only - when the orange tags on awards and filmography are addressed JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Neutral on Blurb: Once the awards and filmography are taken care of, otherwise this looks good to go. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Simmons was noteworthy enough to mention in passing but doesn't rise to the level of a blurb given his relative lack of success compared to his contemporaries. Frevangelion (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD but I don't know if he's notable enough outside the US for a blurb. Connor Behan (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Where does the guidelines say the deceased must be "notable enough outside the US for a blurb"? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not speaking for Connor, but as I read it, that was a kind way of saying "he might have been blurbworthy at his peak based on US popularity, but not when you think of all rappers globally". Of course, Connor might be saying "people outside the US don't listen to good rap" or something... Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The chart peaks in DMX discography show hotness in Canada and not bad at all elsewhere after 2001. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs referencing. When ready, Support RD only: I thought I knew music, but I have never heard of him. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but in a rapper hierarchy of who might possibly get a blurb one day (currently opining none), he's not even on the list. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD Had he died a decade earlier, may have justified a blurb. Has been out of limelight. Albertaont (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - At no point in his life was he anywhere near important enough for a blurb. Claims that he was a household name are ridiculous. Try mentioning DMX to elderly relatives - they won't even know there was a person known as DMX, let alone that he was a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the elderly would have actively avoided any such kind of "that hip hop music", just as I'm sure many free-spirit young punk whippersnappers would have avoided any sign of fealty to those monarchists in England. Singling out one group or another to determine what's important to society overall is myopic. (I doubt most of those grannies would have even heard of Kanye.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Millions of young people don't care about Prince Philip's death, but they know who he was. (By the way, I'm opposed to him having a blurb as well, but realised long before he died that there'd be a strong consensus for a blurb.) Ask your octogenarian/nonagenarian (grand)mother/(grand)father/(great-)aunt/(great-)uncle what (s)he thinks about DMX & (s)he won't even know you're talking about a person, let alone a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, you said that before. And as I said before, it's a ludicrous argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It's relevant in refuting the claims that he was a household name. Most people haven't heard of him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's honestly straight up not true. DMX was certainly a household name when it came to American rap. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to American rap, something that most people have no interest in. Being a household name means being very well-known across all demographics. Someone merely being well-known in their field isn't sufficient for them to have a blurb - they need to be at the top of it. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The bar here is "transformative", not "top". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In what way(s) was DMX transformative? Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, doing a cursory glance through what Wikipedia has to say on rap music, it's about 90% one and the same as "American rap music", especially in the period DMX was most notable. (Sorry, UK drill.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please do not say "support RD" when you are merely opposing the blurb. Support RD means you think the quality is sufficient to post now. On that subject, I think we have enough oppose blurb votes - it will not happen. Lets just focus on getting the RD ready. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD Have finished referencing the filmography and awards. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 02:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted RD "Legal issues" could use work, but no consensus that NPOV concerns there preclude posting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, only. While it may be true that "By late Friday afternoon there was one death dominating the most-read stories on the BBC website: that of the rapper DMX", [6] even if mistakes have been made with other blurbs, no need to compound them, and the article is fine for RD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-RD posting support RD oppose blurb - Article is in good condition for RD. Tom Petty situation here - excellent music, premature death reports unfortunately bringing his actual death a bit more into the media spotlight, but just below the blurb line IMO. -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahyuddin N. S.[edit]

Article: Mahyuddin N. S. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kompas
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: Governor of South Sumatra for five months and member of parliament for five years. COVID-19. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Comprehensive, well-referenced, and very sad. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree the article is basically fine. Actually, better than many others. There were a couple of points I noticed that might need an Indonesian speaker to check against sources; perhaps waiting a few hours would allow more attention from the country. The page appears to have been moved and moved back fairly quickly, but I assume the nominator knows what's right. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I have trimmed and re-written the article, looks good now and is well-cited. Vacant0 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Whoa, five !votes in six hours. Usually it was just like 2 !votes in 48 hours. Thanks, DMX and Prince Philip. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) La Soufrière eruption[edit]

Proposed image
Article: La Soufrière (volcano) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​La Soufrière erupts in Saint Vincent, causing the evacuation of close to 20,000 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Associated Press
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Many people evacuated, volcano hasn't erupted in 42 years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now; information in the target article is exactly identical to the blurb. Unless we have something more to tell people in directing them to the article in question, there's no reason for an ITN posting. Please expand the article with sufficient information about the eruption, and then we can look at assessing those additions for their quality. Right now there's basically nothing there. --Jayron32 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Bueno. --Jayron32 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article has been updated / expanded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support' Looks good. Definitely worthy enough to be included ITN. Nice job! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article is of decent length, appears to give all the current information, and it both affects a lot of people and is "likely to continue for days and possibly weeks", so it's notable. There's also plenty of media attention. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good enough article and ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this is "in the news"; is a significant event, and the article is good enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support HurricaneEdgar 23:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've put the blurb in its correct place, at the top of the template. Although the Duke has died, the world moves on. There is no need to keep the story artificially at the top of the template. Let it cycle down in the normal order. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    The old photo's still showing, bit out of whack? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've added the volcano image to WP:CMP. Once it is protected the image can be added to the template and the stories swapped back to their correct order. Apparently a photo story goes above a non-photo story if both posted on same day, irrespective of order or posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Image protected, stories and images swapped in order. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This should be the bold article. --LukeSurl t c 10:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Updated bolded article. SpencerT•C 17:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[edit]

Closing discussion before it turns sour. This is unlikely going to be pulled, but fixing issues issues related to any timing or bias should be on talk page. --Masem (t) 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC) The arguments on both sides are rational but the comparison to Barbara Bush doesn’t stand up because the Prince held his position for a much longer time, thus increasing the possibility to have a transformative effect on his field (philanthropy, social service). His long service has virtually no equal. He is the Wayne Gretzky of royals. Jehochman Talk 23:10, 9 April 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: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Prince Philip (pictured), the Duke of Edinburgh and the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, dies at the age of 99. (Post)
News source(s): NBC
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: Member of the British royal family, husband to the Queen. 99 and was notably in declining health before now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blub per WP:BARBARABUSH --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For such a lengthy article, the referencing looks quite good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb RIP Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Beaten to the nom Support blurb - this will be worldwide news, and is inherently blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only the article is good enough for RD, albeit there are a couple of citations needed. He is not the head of state of a country, and so not blurb-worthy in my opinion. We wouldn't post to blurb the death of the head of country's spouse for any other country. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely very notable. Wretchskull (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb article is solidly B-class. Eurocentrism, arguably, but this'll be front-page news most places I wager. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD, blurb (edit conflict) Prince consort for 72 years is notable enough alone for blurb for me. That position is his, not just "spouse of head of state" (though that would be head of state of 54 nations, so, it wouldn't be "just" comparable anyway...), but he was also a very long-term figure in military and charity in his own right. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But if you really want "transformative in his field", he was a commander of the Royal Navy and literally helped invent a modern-day equestrian sport and the premier award for encouraging community spirit in young people internationally. In short, I'd expect the same treatment for any equivalent figure, though there are none (internationally impactful constitutional monarchy, military career, charitable career, dynastic longevity, etc). Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this isn't just the spouse of the queen, he's a well-known public figure in his own right. Major news worldwide and will likely be until the funeral. OMG just the Meghan/Harry aspect lol... —valereee (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on quality. Unsure between RD/blurb, but leaning towards RD. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, notable, blurb is fine. May he rest in piece. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only While he is very notable for having a longest Duke of Edinburgh per Wretchskull argument, he is not popular as the Queen. I believe if the queen dies, the blurb will be more significance than this. Having it has posted as a blurb is unknown for most ears as they assume the queen is death. 36.77.94.210 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Not sure that's a very convincing argument. I'm pretty sure most people will not assume the Queen is dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb after MANY edit conflicts - I think The Crown has helped more people become aware of Prince Philip's life and career, so he is internationally well known, and that's probably why the article is in pretty good shape, as people have probably used WP to fact check his early life and naval career. Shame he didn't quite make it to 100, but he had a good innings. (For the record, I am not a fan of his at all and this is probably the last word I will say on this) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Old man dies in same year as thousands of old men have died = meh. ——Serial 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've sent the image to WP:CMP should it be required. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support blurb might not be the norm, but few heads of state are as visible and long-lived as the British royal family and given the coverage this will receive I believe it warrants a blurb.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted RD with no current consensus for a blurb. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I'm no fan of the royal family, but there will be few if any deaths this year that garner the amount of news copy that this one will - and this, in the end, is ITN. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - incredibly well-known in the western world, which is where most of our readers are. People would expect ITN to have something on his passing. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD but Oppose blurb, not a transformative figure, not a major head of state. Yes, this will be news the world over, just like many other deaths. For example the death of Hans Küng is being reported worldwide, but he doesn't warrant a blurb either. The death of Paul Ritter is reported worldwide, doesn't make it blurb-worthy. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - one of the major events of the year, its not often they interupt normal scheduling.
    SSSB (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, notable in his own right. Will make front pages everywhere. 49 TL 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (a recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Founded The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, transformed youth development not just in the UK but around the world too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I usually don't strike my votes but there's reason to do it here given the pace at which the death article is being developed. After all, the encyclopedic content is what matters the most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Never heard of it. WaltCip-(talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb comparing Philip to Barbara Bush is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well you're right, as FLOTUS she was marries to someone with actual authority, Phillip wasn't. Cheers TRM and sorry (truly) for the national loss. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this is worldwide news. GoodCrossing (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb leading news item for most of the western world AntiVan (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support picture (ec) We have an excellent free picture to display (above). We don't need lots of words to go with this so an RD entry or short blurb to go with the picture and caption would work. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Very strongly. Not only The Queen's consort for so long, but also founder of the internationally recognised Duke of Edinburgh Award which was so inspirational for young people. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RD only -- don't think a blurb, here, is good practice, per several above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb As dumb as I may find royal family gawkery, few people will spend 75 years in the active conscience of millions. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh now exists. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Link added to blurb. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb If there is anyone that should be an exception to the Barbara Bush precedent, it is Prince Philip. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Worldwide news. P-K3 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Marking ready for blurb It seems that consensus for blurb has been achieved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Must avoid systemic bias tempatation for white, male spouse exception. And some continent out there is still sleeping as we !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • At this moment, almost the entire world is awake. It is 10 pm on the east coast of Australia, daytime in Europe, and early morning on America's east coast. The west coast coast of America is the only major english speaking area that is currently mostly asleep. Steelkamp (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      Because everyone gets up to !vote on Wikipedia right when they get up. See confirmation bias. —Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb -- tariqabjotu 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. It might be worth noting that the picture was taken in 1992. He didn't look much like that recently... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I noticed that when I put it as the alt text. It seems strange to provide a photo from nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to provide a decent newer photo (maybe the one in the infobox?), and I don't know if it's strange to note "in 1992" directly in the caption. -- tariqabjotu 12:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    If it wasn't standard already, it's best to show a deceased person in their prime, when possible. Picture is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is relevant: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That could be the only picture available, and as far as I know, we don't have a rule dictating the use of the most recent image of somebody. At least, I know we haven't tended to for other public figures. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    The image that I added to the blurb was this one from 2015. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe we need a rule that anyone whose funeral will likely be televised live in its entirety on multiple continents automatically gets a blurb? —valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the British have majority territory (disputed) on Antarctica, I would expect all continents. Kingsif (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd set that rule to anyone with a death article but that's yet a two-edged sword. People will fight to work up such articles in order to make the nominations qualify but, on the other hand, we'll probably end up with an increased number of RfDs on notability grounds as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pulled for now. As described to User:Tariqabjotu on his talk page: "a rapid posting in an hour on the front page should only be done with little to no opposition, but that is not the case here. Consensus may emerge to post, but there is valid policy- and precedent-based opposition at this time." -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Replaced already! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    And now User:Stephen has re-added with "clear consensus" when that is not the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Please don't wheel war. WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    WaltCip, it's not a wheel war. It's a BRD with "clear consensus" not being the case. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    WP:BRD-NOT explicitly says BRD does not apply to edits using advanced permissions. The blurb had barely been up for seven minutes before you chose to revert. The proper method in this case is to discuss with Tariq prior to reverting. We're not in the cowboy admin days anymore. Don't shoot first and ask questions later. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Doesn't appear to be pulled on my end. Maybe your edit was reverted? Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Didn't see the other two comments. Please stop wheel warring. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    It was reverted with a poor rationale of "clear consensus" -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Comment - there are only 3 "oppose blurbs" and 4 "support RD only"s. Consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of the blurb being posted. Now that it has been, can we please leave it there until it naturally drops off the template. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Mjroots, I don't think this meets the spirit of WP:WHEEL, Stephen reverted Fuzheado because he saw consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:WHEEL: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action: Fuzheado reverted. OK. Stephen reverted. Wheel. —Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Both Fuzheado's second action, and Stephen's action, were technically WHEEL. It might be a good idea to stop there for the time being unless there's a clear consensus to change it, I think. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Black Kite. Let it end there, rather than everyone heading on over to WP:DRAMAFEST. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Your action, as you've noticed, has already been reversed. There is plenty of participation, probably far more than most items added to ITN. And the suggestion that only one region is awake is particularly bizarre. Which region? Euraustrafricasia? -- tariqabjotu 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    The sleeping refrain is common when a U.S,-related blurb is posted while Europe is sleeping and was at prominent at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2020#(Posted,_Closed)_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, that was a sneaky one. This story is, however, global in its reach and we clearly have consensus, so there's no need to clutter up the nomination with further chatter about it. Such concerns should be addressed elsewhere. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per LaserLegs. Might reconsider in the future if the media coverage keeps up. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as a cultural/social figure. Widespread ambassadorial impact for 70 years and the UK still has links to many countries eg Australia, Canada etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as per Bumbubookworm. Also a leading force for environmental issues in his time. Martinevans123 (talk)
  • Support blurb, still an active figure, and plenty of media attention. The article is also of excellent quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb, I think the funeral will be more notable than their death. 108.41.156.233 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all. Philip had asked for a military (not state) funeral and in current lockdown conditions, the numbers allowed to attend will be highly limited. The news is his death. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, BBC1 and BBC2 (the main UK TV channels) are broadcasting news coverage solely on his death. Other UK TV channels also. Extraordinary level of worldwide coverage. Difficult to find a more notable RD. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Relevant news story re importance: ""World leaders pay tribute to Prince Philip following death at 99". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Why can't ITN be as crowded as this in other discussion of blurbs? This way we're gonna get better consensus in less time. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    I imagine most of the responses here are prompted by people looking at their phones and seeing a notification: "Oh my, the Prince Consort is dead. Better hurry to my computer and post support on WP:ITN!" WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's if they have a phone, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Which ironically provides more evidence for a blurb, there can't be many deaths that set mobile phones all over the globe off. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting blurb oppose per apparent precedent on spouses of leaders. When Winnie Madikizela-Mandela died who was far more a prominent figure in her own right, she only got a RD treatment. Same with Barbara Bush (mentioned above). Can someone point to other examples where a spouse whose notability was mainly derived from their partner got a blurb treatment? Regards SoWhy 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Need to add white, Euro male spouse ITNR.—Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Barbara Bush?! Eight years president wife for one country vs 72 years consort to the Queen of the Commonwealth? Funny! And no, his notability was completely independent, but not to worry! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:00, 9 April 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1018204371"