Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion 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.

Mostert's Mill
Mostert's Mill in 2012

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 the ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

April 19[edit]

Health and environment


RD: Sumitra Bhave[edit]

Article: Sumitra Bhave–Sunil Sukthankar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ref
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: Please note that the article is on the duo Bhave and Sukthankar. Care to be taken to only mention Bhave's name when displayed on main page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


European Super League[edit]

Article: European Super League Company, S.L. (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In association football, twelve clubs from England, Italy and Spain announce the formation of a breakaway European Super League. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Arsenal, Atlético Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Milan, Real Madrid and Tottenham Hotspur announce a breakaway European Super League.
News source(s): Guardian BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The clubs are threatened with disqualification from their national leagues and from the UEFA Champions League - if that happens, that should definitely be part of the blurb, but so far it's just a threat. Smurrayinchester 07:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I'd say let's wait a bit since this story is developing fast. --Tone 07:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait If this becomes official, then this would be a really obvious thing to post, but I don't think we've crossed that line yet, despite what the announcement said. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. It's a huge European-wide sporting prospect which is upsetting a vast number of people (even causing the UK PM to comment) so it's certainly newsworthy, but at this stage it needs to be paused until it's all in place and actually a reality. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Table Mountain Fire (2021) and Mostert's Mill[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Table Mountain Fire (2021) (talk · history · tag) and Mostert's Mill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A fire on Table Mountain, Cape Town, destroys historic monuments including Mostert's Mill (pictured) and the University of Cape Town's main library. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Mostert's Mill (pictured), the only working windmill in South Africa, is gutted by a wildfire that started on Table Mountain.
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant fire and impact on cultural properties Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. Count Iblis (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a dup nom on the Mosters Mill which I merged into here with the altblurb. --Masem (t) 17:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It was not a dup nom, it was a nom for a separate article, which is now not showing as a nom in the template. Can this be fixed so that both article are showing as noms, and I am credited as a nominator/updater please? Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It is effectively the same story, so it made no sense to have two seperate ITNC open for it. We can't have two different nominators but I have added you to updaters. --Masem (t) 17:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, yes, the mill article is sufficiently good for be featured, so I did adjust all blurbs to reflect that. I haven't reviewed the fire article, but in a case like this where there's more than just one building affected, the fire article is going to be the primary focus, not one structure affected. --Masem (t) 17:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I've raised the issue re co-nominators at template talk:ITN candidate#Allowing two nominators. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Per what Mike Peel said there, I've swapped out the nom (Mike is still credited for creation) --Masem (t) 18:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Actually, noms can both be credited separately from this old version of ITNC. I think that is the correct way around this particular situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I've sorted out the credit for Mike Peel from the above link, now if someone would be kind enough to do the same for me, it'd be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
                • If you want a job doing properly... Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (not altblurb, which says much the same, but less. Maximum bang per buck, please). ——Serial 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait but generally support. Article text is <3k and the fire is still going so there could be more damage before its contained. What's there is sourced but just needs a bit more expansion as the fire is contained. --Masem (t) 17:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that we also have 2021 Cape Town fire - which needs to be merged with Table Mountain Fire (2021). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • They were merged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Destruction of historical monuments is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the fire article has been expanded is now fit to post, mill article updated for tense. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, Oppose alt blurb - Both articles have been merged and there's a lot of content and sources now. The alt blurb focusses to much on the windmill rather than the fire. --Sitaphul (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready (original blurb has consensus). Image added to WP:CMP. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also support original blurb, per above Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This would be like losing Nelson's Column or the Washington Monument.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I am very supportive of this. I saw it happen and it was significant. Both in size and culturally here in Cape Town.--Discott (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted While I !voted, there's clearly SNOW support for this at this point. --Masem (t) 20:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment and @Masem: there appears to be a photo of the gutted mill at the article that may work better in the box. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Good call, using Mostert_Mill_burned_down_18_April_2021 would indeed be better. Or another picture in the Table_Mountain_Fire_(2021) category assuming any more pictures are added. --Discott (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've seeded the post-fire Mill picture to image protection. It can be updated once its protected. --Masem (t) 20:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
        • And now protected and updated. --Masem (t) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
          • As Mjroots has pointed out, that burned out image may have copyright issues, so until that can be resolved, we're back with the free image until we can have a free post-fire image that we're sure about its free nature. --Masem (t) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
            • It was deleted as a copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Black Rob[edit]

Article: Black Rob (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Complex
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 rapper, 51. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Geschke[edit]

Article: Charles Geschke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Adobe press release
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: Co-founder of Adobe Systems Inc. Just announced today. Joofjoof (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Wikipedia page looks good and is well-sourced. Sitaphul (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support RIP, well sourced Vacant0 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The article is well sourced and has good outlook. Abishe (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vivek[edit]

Article: Vivek (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: News just breaking. RIP Vivek. Article might require one pass at ensuring readiness including some citations for the awards. Referencing completed. Seems to meet hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Article seems good with a lot of references. Sitaphul (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good depth of coverage for an actor article; referenced. Could use some minor copy-editing here and there but overall good to go. SpencerT•C 04:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Spencer's comment Vacant0 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The subject is highly notable and well sourced. Abishe (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Anarchyte (talkwork) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Anarchyte, there are several RDs lower down the page with sufficient support to post (two with “Ready” tags on them). Is there a reason this has been posted, but not the others? Thanks. - 109.249.185.34 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I have gone through and posted 4 RDs below that were supported /marked ready and that had articles that appeared ready to go. --Masem (t) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kakarla Subba Rao[edit]

Article: Kakarla Subba Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian radiologist. Padma Shri awardee. A tad on the shorter side. Will work on some edits based on available obits and share an update. Edits done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Everything is referenced and the article is a decent length. Uses x (talkcontribs) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Just a citation needed needs to be fixed. Working on that now. Sitaphul (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed it, the article seems good to go now. Sitaphul (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support All referenced now. Article in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 22:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[edit]

There will be no consensus to post and the discussion is already getting off-topic. Closing. --Tone 17:13, 17 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: Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's funeral takes place in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A high-profile member of the British royal family, consort to the Queen. A funeral for a member of the royal family, something rarely seen now. Aknell4 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Given the issues post-blurb posting of his death, giving coverage of his funeral as a non-royal member is way out of line. --Masem (t) 16:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In what way was Philip a "non royal"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As from previous discussions, he was a consort, not born into blood into the Royal family, and had zero possible chance of assuming any position in the Commonwealth's governance. --Masem (t) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose we already posted his death, don't need to post his funeral too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest closing. We actually already posted this - the death and funeral article was in the blurb [3], it's just rolled off. P-K3 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death was posted as a blurb, that's sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 17 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 16[edit]

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: John Dawes[edit]

Article: John Dawes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport; The Guardian; 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) 07:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Liam Scarlett[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Former Choreographer for the Royal Ballet. Just announced today. META: Can someone please help with the formatting issue here? I’ve never done a nomination before, and I’m not sure how to fix this.  Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment I fixed the formatting for you. The article looks fairly well referenced but the "Works" section will need to be fully sourced so that orange tag can be removed. P-K3 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aside from the citation issue mentioned, I think this will need more prose about his work? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose works and awards need referencing. Everything else is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ranjit Sinha[edit]

Article: Ranjit Sinha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
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 chief of India's Central Bureau of Investigation. Article has an yellow box that will need to be fixed before it can be ready for homepage. I will take a pass at the article here in a bit. Ktin (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Conditional support Article could use some copyediting/cleanup and once done, has my support. Examples of issues for fixing include use of italics for quotations instead of quotation marks; talking about his children before his birth in "Early Life"; unclear abbreviations (IAS, IRS) that are not spelled out or linked (or others spelled out after usage); and some grammatical/wording fixes. Appropriate depth of coverage and referenced. SpencerT•C 01:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Rm "conditional"; thanks Ktin for improvements. SpencerT•C 05:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

RD: Roger Soloman[edit]

Article: Roger Soloman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; The Guardian (Charlottetown)
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 16). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Raúl Castro[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Raúl Castro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Raúl Castro resigns as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not ITN/R because the President of Cuba is the head of state, but the First Secretary is the de facto leader of the country, more powerful than either the President or the Prime Minister. Also the first time a Castro isn't the leader of Cuba since 1959. Davey2116 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible support -- the end of an era which stretches back from even before my parents were born. A Castro no longer controls the Government of Cuba. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Mr. Castro is 89, so it's not surprising that he would resign as head of the ruling Communist Party. Historical footnote. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait Changes to the leader of a country is blurb-worthy, but precedent is for the successor to also be or exclusively mentioned in the blurb. The problem I'm seeing is that Miguel Díaz-Canel is only "expected" to take over, and I'd like to wait until that is confirmed. Uses x (talkcontribs) 22:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    To add: the citation needed template needs to be resolved on the page First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba before I'd be able to support, on top of the above. Uses x (talkcontribs) 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my opinion, it cannot be posted until he is died. His resignation is not enough newsworthy to be posted as ITN. 180.245.109.70 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait According to List of current heads of state and government, this position is the position that holds the power of the executive in Cuba, which makes this ITN/R. However, the blurb should wait until a successor has been picked. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Undeniably of historical and current significance. However, Díaz-Canel should be mentioned in the blurb. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait for the replacement to be announced, which should be any day. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Raúl Castro has too much unreferenced content to post, so while we wait for a replacement to be announced, the supporters can get it post ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait for the resignation and turnover of power to happen. I agree on that this is a case not readily covered by the ITNR but nearly all sources I see reporting on it treat the resignation as if the US Pres. or UK Prime Minister had stepped down, particularly as related to past Communist rule in Cuba. But right now, he still is in this position, he appearently has to name a successor to do this. --Masem (t) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, what would be significant would be a change in the political system, but I haven't seen anything indicating that's in the offing. As it is, the titular occupant of the top political post is of only passing interest. 'Cuba without a Castro' is still the Cuba we've known for the last 60 years. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    That feels a little misleading; like stating that the hypothetical replacement of Xi Jinping with an ideologically aligned person wouldn’t be a major story because it’s the same system, or that the hypothetical succession of Kamala Harris to the presidency wouldn’t matter because she’s the same party as Joe Biden. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Nope. The key difference is that Cuba is a one-party state. Thus, it doesn't materially matter who succeeds Mr. Castro. It will remain a one-party state, and policies (by all appearances) won't change – at least not soon. (Besides, Raúl more or less inherited the top party post from his brother Fidel, founder of Communist Cuba.)Sca (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hence the China comparison. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, per Masem. We can cover this aspect when his successor is chosen. But support in principle. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vartan Gregorian[edit]

Article: Vartan Gregorian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times 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)

  • Support Thorough depth of coverage; fully referenced. SpencerT•C 23:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape. Sad news. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks good and meets homepage hygiene expectations. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Fully referenced and comprehensive. Uses x (talkcontribs) 02:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 18:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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)
  • Should be all sourced. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks well referenced now. P-K3 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 04:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 19:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 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 (talkwork) 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)
    • It seems to me that the above issues are now resolved. I've helped fill in wherever citation was needed. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 18:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

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


(Closed) Indianapolis FedEx shooting[edit]

Closed... no chance of a consensus developing for posting. NoahTalk 01:32, 17 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: 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 these numbers from? You're either making it up or wildly misciting somebody's statistics. Levivich harass/hound 00:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Gun Violence Archive has 12,422. Stephen 00:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If that's the source, that would be misciting statistics. GVA is reporting 12k deaths, not homicides. Similarly they report ~147 "mass shootings" this year but 11 "mass murders". And their definitions don't match other sources' definitions anyway. This hasn't happened 13k or 150 times before or anything even close to that. This is not a routine event, and I wish people would stop misciting statistics in their arguments. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics," I guess. Levivich harass/hound 01:16, 17 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 unless this is something extremely out of the ordinaryOppose run-of-the mill event. 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  • Support - First mass shooting at a FedEx in 30-some odd years.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    ... on a Thursday ... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    You have a link to a mass shooting at a FedEx on a different day in the last 30 years? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – All indications are that the shooter, a 19-year-old former FedEx employee, acted on his own, so broader significance seems unlikely. Under the circumstances and in context, nine fatalities (including the gunman) doesn't seem like ITN material. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose shootings in the US are so common, and nothing to suggest this is anything ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 01:21, 17 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) United States racial unrest[edit]

Consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. Stephen 00:43, 19 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: 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 protestsAllegedlyHuman (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  • Support per Uses x and Muboshgu. It's certainly getting a lot of coverage. Collectively they're notable enough and show no signs of fading, so it's suited for ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Anyone who claims that this is "run-of-the-mill" either categorically dislikes when United States affairs get put on the front page or doesn't know anything about the United States (or in TRM's case, both). The changes that have been sweeping the nation since last June are unprecedented. Monuments getting taken down, actors retiring their roles, the Redskins finally changing their name, etc. Mlb96 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, this article covers every protest since last June. Look at this list of race riots in the U.S. Prior to June 2020, there hadn't been a race-related protest in four years. And with the exception of 2014-2015, there was an average of one race-related protest per year. Since June 2020, we've had multiple race-related protests per month. To claim that these kinds of protests are common is absurd. If they seem common now, it's because the racial unrest is LITERALLY on-going. This frankly should have been put into on-going months ago, but better late than never. Mlb96 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      You mean there wasn't any protest in 2019 like this one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      Hah, by all means try to insult me Mlb96 but you just make yourself look silly really. Racial unrest has been ongoing for years and it's not newsworthy, it's just "a way of life" in the US, just like mass shootings. Nothing changes, nothing of true encyclopedic value comes from these protests or shootings. Once the balance tips and someone actually does something to prevent more than 1,000 people being murdered by the US police per year or reduce hundreds of mass shootings to nearly zero, then we can get genuinely interested in a news story. Until then, it's business as usual. I feel very sorry for the thousands of people killed every year in each of these circumstances in the US, but that doesn't mean we need to overwhelm this global encyclopedia with protest/mass shooting tickers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      TRM, I'm trying assume good faith, but I feel that your anti-American bias is shining through, and it's annoying. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      No, I'm just saying it as it is. The rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with "riot" and "mass shooting" stories from the US, in particular when literally nothing ever is done about it. I discovered 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens today, sums it up perfectly. This isn't about anti-American anything. If someone kept suggesting we post minor casualty events from a war zone then I'd continually oppose those as well. This is no different. But I appreciate your attempts to AGF. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      I'm in full agreement with TRM here and I'm American - this is unfortunately the situation in America for more than a decade or two. What's happened in the last year and calling it a special period is inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Further, this type of story belies the purpose of ongoing, where we know that there will be a reasonable endpoint that we expect to pull the event; there is no sign that this unrest will end in the US; if it ends (likely due to legislation that is passed) the means by which it ends would be a story. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. If '20-21 racial unrest in the US is synth, then AFD the article. But of course it's not synth; the RSes themselves, in their own voice, explicitly, state that the protests of the past year are unique. (Those RSes are cited in that article.) These protests are not business as usual; they are larger, more frequent, more widespread, longer lasting, and more violent (on both sides), than any protests in the US probably since the seventies. Even bigger than OWS. (Was OWS in ongoing?) Definitely the biggest in my lifetime, and probably the biggest in your lifetime, too. If not, name the last time we had sustained year-long nationwide protests. Even OWS didn't last a year. Levivich harass/hound 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It's just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change. This isn't news. That's the point. There is nothing to be gained for our readers on seeing low-level protest after low-level protest after low-level protest added to that article of low-level protests. The world is bored of this, nothing changes, nothing gets to a point of real noteworthiness. It may come to a shock to those people in the US who think this is of anything more than a passing interest, but these shootings and riots just roll off the news with regularity. There's no interest. This is a global encyclopedia, focusing ITN on mass shootings and protest after protest is not its mission. And since when was 2021 storming of the United States Capitol about racial unrest? Jesus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Referring to millions of American protesters as "just a low-level collection of angry people who are continually angry about things that don't change" is your anti-Americanism showing again. You really need to curtail this here. If "this isn't news" then why is it all over the news? Also, you do not speak for "the world". "The world" does not have a single opinion on anything. Your comments here are 100% just your opinion and no one else's. Levivich harass/hound 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh give it rest. Half the items in that article featured dozens, not millions, of people protesting and many of those had nothing to do with "racial unrest". Once you have a suitable argument other than the half-baked "anti-Americanism" bollocks, I'll listen. I'm actually anti-police-murder and anti-mass-shooting, I have no opinion on the United States, having been there several times it offers literally nothing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per Mlb96. Nothing "run of the mill" about the racial protests that have been taking place over the last year since the George Floyd death in the U.S. They absolutely are qualitatively different from the protests that have occurred before, and they have already resulted in significant changes in attitudes towards race and policing, comparable to the impact of the Me Too movement. Saying that the rest of the world is dog tired of being inundated with these stories is a perfectly good reason to put them into a single 'ongoing' item. Then each time an individual story of this kind gets nominated for a blurb, there will be an immediate counter-argument: we already have an ongoing item for this topic and let's keep it there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too broad and disparate. A lot of that article is just disparate protests in response to isolated events that might've had something to do with racism. TBH, it might actually be original research to group these all together as part of some cohesive movement, in the way that article is doing (distinct from some kind of list article), unless there's some RS doing the same (not immediately obvious). But, and WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, possibly in the future there may be a suitable nomination relating to the Chauvin trial. But not sure this is it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too broad, in line with what several others have pointed out above. Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as rather amorphous. I'm not completely ready to dismiss it because it is generating significant and ongoing coverage, though. pbp 22:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a cultural paradigm shift, and so in effect is actually too newsy for ITN. At the rate things are going, this would probably never come down off ongoing if posted.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 18 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) Kerch Strait closure[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:04, 18 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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
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 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) 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)
  • Support Good article, and everything is sourced. Uses x (talkcontribs) 02:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 18:57, 17 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 (talkwork) 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.

(Closed) Daunte Wright protests[edit]

No consensus to post to ongoing. Stephen 02:02, 18 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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
  • Support per above, but I think a broader racial unrest ongoing would be better, per the arguments in that thread, and tonight is the first Adam Toledo protest... these protests are only growing with no sign of dissipating. Levivich harass/hound 03:38, 17 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 13[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 PostedBagumba (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [4], 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]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 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)
  • CommentBBC 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.

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: