Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

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

Meng Wanzhou
Meng Wanzhou

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Archives[edit]

September 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


Anthony Joshua vs. Oleksandr Usyk[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Anthony Joshua vs. Oleksandr Usyk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In boxing, Oleksandr Usyk (pictured) beats Anthony Joshua to win four world heavyweight championship belts. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In boxing, Oleksandr Usyk (pictured) defeats Anthony Joshua.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, NYT
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: The coverage indicates that there was a record crowd for this and Usyk's readership is now even greater than Lewis Hamilton's. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose just one weight category, nothing remarkable about the fight that makes it rise above the normal regular boxing matches which are essentially a massive money-making exercise for a couple of people. And this isn't WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per TRM, this isn't ITN/R and if we posted every weight category title fight we'd be inundated with stories. And what on earth has it got to do with Lewis Hamilton? Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Not ITNR" is not a reason to not post an ITNC nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Of course I know that (I've been here long enough), I was simply pointing out that there was no special treatment for the heavyweight category. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Lewis Hamilton thing is the persistent objective to translate ITN into WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd not heard of Usyk before so that was just some context. Usyk was actually just the #3 article yesterday – the top two were Squid Game and UFC 266. The latter seems to be the fight of most interest to our readers but it didn't get much love from mainstream media whereas Joshua vs Usyk was covered by the likes of the NYT, as noted above. And, of course, all of these stories are utterly crushing our bottom blurbs which are stale stuff from over a week ago and which just about nobody is reading. That's the real issue here – that ITN wants to be the BOTTOM25. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Viewing figures are not a factor, have not been a factor, will not be a factor, &c &c 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, the pursuit of pageviews is not one of ITN's goals. That is left for WP:TOP25, which operates just like a tabloid newspaper, instead of an encyclopedia. And it's a little pot/kettle when there is opposition to the Ryder Cup article (which logged nearly 1/4 million pageviews over the weekend) because the article doesn't cover Brexit. Clearly disruptive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose. We have posted high profile boxing matches before, and heavyweight is the class that most people pay attention to, but I don't think this fight rises to the profile level needed. As part of the role of ITN is to draw attention to articles, and motivate their improvement, readership should not be a main factor in determining what gets posted. If any user feels that ITN should just be an automated ticker of the most read articles, they may propose that- though I'm not sure why we would want more people to read articles that people are already reading without our help. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment FWIW, Anthony Joshua's fights seem to rarely have any promotion here in the United States despite the fact he's a unified heavyweight champ. It seems as if British media (such as Talksport, which can be heard in the U.S. through various streaming options) will talk up the fight before it happens, with U.S. media (such as ESPN) only issuing an news alert after the fight has concluded. I don't know why the heavyweight bouts have lost luster here, but it is evident they have (irrespective of how heavyweight boxing is still perceived in the rest of the world). rawmustard (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. If there was some manner of record here—an unheard-of title unification or the like—I'd consider it but as nothing out of the ordinary has happened here this is really no different to any other title fight, and I say this as a combat sports fan. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Joshua held titles of the three (of the four) major sanctioning bodies and lost it to Usyk. (Yes, I know, if there's a unification fight between Usyk and Fury (the holder of the other major title, and the lineal champion) mainstays here will still oppose lol.) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Which would mean that Usyk has not won anything that has not already been won before—when I say "unheard of", I meant along the lines of Conor McGregor's first champ-champ accomplishment, or even Amanda Nunes being the first to defend two concurrent titles, not merely the changing of hands of a collection of belts that have already been nominally unified long before. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        • That's true, hence mainstays here, and even some who are not, will oppose no matter what unless some white British guy is involved. It was very hard to get in Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao to be posted here, and indeed, it wasn't. Good thing Pacman's next fight was against a white British dude, while was not as big in the news as the De La Hoya fight, was still posted (LOL). No worries, ITN is diverse since we have Gaelic football! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
          • I'm not entirely sure what race or nationality has to do with my position here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
            • Indeed, race or nationality plays no part in my consideration of nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Given the structure of boxing without any regular championship/playoff structure, such that these title fights can happen at any time, there has to be something significant beyond just title-winning to be an ITN item, and from discussion above, this present fight just seems to be shuffling of the current titles among the top fighters out there. --Masem (t) 14:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as above, boxing has many championship fights, often multiple per year. If/when someone fights the belt unification fight with Fury, that match may be ITN-worthy (especially if all the belts are unified). But the importance of this particular match is not significant enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I would only consider a reunification of all the belts to be noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Bucking the trend here, but surely the heavyweight title is the "big one" when it comes to boxing, the category where anyone can enter and the best person wins irrespective of weight. And, although it's not something I watch myself, this is clearly an event and a sport which attract large interest - Sky Sports charged viewers a one-off £25 to watch it, which gives an indication how much the public wanted to see it. Plus I've been at pubs before when a boxing event is on and they are rammed. As such, I don't think this has less importance than the FA Cup / Superbowl / AFL Grand Final / Wimbledon / take your pick - it's the blue riband event of this sport. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not sure the "heavyweight" category is the blue riband for boxing, not any more. It's certainly one of the biggest money-making events in the sport at the moment, but as noted above, it's barely made a scratch in the US (and I think it's obvious why that is right now!), it's not like the golden era with Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman etc. This is very much about the money and I suspect most of the organisers were disappointed they couldn't contrive a draw so they could do another multi-million dollar show. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Just earlier you were arguing that ITN would suffer from stagnation if we did not have a diverse selection of topics, regardless of viewership and regardless of hits. I don't understand why you are singling out boxing for reasons that could easily be applied to a variety of other sports that are ITN/R. WaltCip-(talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There's no doubt that heavyweight boxing has lost a great deal of its popularity and viewership since the Tyson v Holyfield days (at least in the US, its prime market). To suggest it's still on a par with Wimbledon in terms of prestige is misleading in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The problem with that comparison is that those things take place once a year - ad only once. With five separate belts for each weight there theoretically could be a dozen title fights a year in that weight (for example, there are currently at least three weights that have four different title holders). Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hakuho to retire[edit]

Article: Hakuhō Shō (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hakuhō Shō, retires as most successful yokozuna in the 250 years of recorded history of sumo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hakuhō Shō, the most successful yokozuna in the history of sumo, announces his retirement.
News source(s): Reuters LeFigaro France24JapanTimesBBC, DenverPost NPR NHK (official sumo outlet) SeattleTimes TheAustralian

Nominator's comments: Sumo has a recorded history since 1750s and Hakuho is regarded GOAT in these 250 years. Unlike in other sports, this retirement is not "reversible". Since Reuters has picked it up it is pretty much certain. Not sure when it's best to post this: now, when there is an official announcement, or when he gets his official retirement ceremony (yes sumo has this). 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:996D:12AD:F617:108E (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment The promotion of wrestlers to yokozuna rank is an ITN/R item, and Hakuhō Shō's promotion was listed in 2015. I would be opposed to a blanket addition of yokozuna retirement to this practice, I think the merits of this item depend on whether Hakuhō Shō is a sufficiently exceptional sportsperson. --LukeSurl t c 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Correction, he became yokozuna in 2007. The ITN item in 2015 was Sumo wrestler Hakuhō Shō wins a record-breaking 33rd makuuchi championship. --LukeSurl t c 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. It should be rare for us to post sports retirements, but I think this rises to that level, given this man's career and status. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support. I don't know what the precedence is for posting retirements, and if this would be the first or at least one of the first then I'm not sure we should start, but Hakuhō is as accomplished in his field as any sporting name is ever likely to be. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 11:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - I think this would set a precedent for retirement of GOATs that wouldn't be desirable. Like an old person dying, retirements are inevitable and pivotal figures such as Roger Federer, Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, Serena Willams, Lewis Hamilton etc are all likely to retire some time fairly soon, but I wouldn't advocate posting any of them, however notable their achievements.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Neither of those sports have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment We posted the retirements of Sachin Tendulkar(here) and Alex Ferguson(here). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on merit but the article still need some updating. He's not just record holders on success, the others aren't even close. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support, I agree with the other supporters, he seems like an important person in his sport. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The subject hasn't actually retired; there is just a report that he's planning to, due to injury. This might change if his condition or mood improves or it could just be a manoeuvre as he tries to establish a stable. High profile stars routinely go through this sort of will-he / won't-he and comebacks are quite common too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Typically with this sort of thing it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal handing in of paperwork or a retirement ceremony. The reports don't indicate that he's just thinking about it, but that he decided to. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Reuters' report cites NTV which just attributes anonymous "sources". Neither the subject nor the Sumo Association seems to have made a formal statement. This is just gossip and rumour. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The JT article says "Yokozuna Hakuho, the most decorated wrestler in sumo history, has decided to call time on his storied career, according to multiple media outlets.". That's pretty definitive, and as with elections, we report what the media reports. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As an ozeki with the record he holds, there will be the traditional retirement ceremony, this isn't something that's taken lightly or from which there is a comeback. If we want to wait then the ceremony would be a definitive "he has retired" point but also even just the announcement that one will happen should be definitive. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • And in most cases like this, it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal ceremony or handing in of paperwork. If we waited for that, the argument would then be "not in the news" 331dot (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The retirement ceremony will not happen for about another year, no sense in waiting that long. The Japanese press has reported that his retirement paperwork has been handed in [1] so no going back on it now. I agree that should be posted at the time of the announcement anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That source doesn't seem to say anything about handing in paperwork and it's not a statement by the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's the first sentence. It will formally be announced on Wednesday.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (edit conflict) I have no issue with posting now; my point is more that the formal nature of sumo means that isn't likely be backpedalled upon like, say, Michael Jordan or George Foreman retiring. Once it's announced it's a fait accompli as far as we're concerned given the ceremonies involved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - Just because he is the GOAT in sumo does not mean we should post his retirement, given that his article does not show how he is relevant beyond the rather niche boundaries of sumo. Chaosquo (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Chaosquo What should he be relevant in other than his field to merit posting? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Because sumo is a niche sport in my opinion, he has to have something other just being a GOAT in sumo for me to justify posting him to the front page. Chaosquo (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fair enough, but every sport is a "niche sport". Very little would be posted if it had to be broadly relevant to global society. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Is it any more niche than American football or the All-Ireland championship (neither of which I would want to see ignored)? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think you're both deliberately misunderstanding me. Niche is mostly defined by viewership. For me, posting a retirement of a athlete should be held to the same standard as a death of a person, and Hakuhō does not meet that bar. Also, all four currently posted items are broadly relevant to global society, either by their own merits or because it was agreed to on ITN/R.
Chaosquo I didn't misunderstand anything. Every sport is only relevant to those that watch it or follow it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sumo is the sport with the longest recorded history where complete lists of champions exists since the 1700s. And cricket is a fairly similarly niche sport yet it gets regularly featured on ITN and got a GOAT nod recently, and doesn't have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose even with the stance that the retirement is irreversible, we simply just don't post sports retirements. We don't post things like CEO retirements or other influential outside of world leaders (which do involve changing of leadership by necessity). --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    we simply just don't post sports retirements—As pointed out above, we have posted sports retirements before, at least twice. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And I agree posting retirements should be rare; Peyton Manning's retirement was nominated but not posted(correctly) but I think Tom Brady's would merit it(though according to him that won't be for awhile yet). It's usually sports retirements that get the most attention, but others might. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (ec)Support A comparison to a CEO retirement is a little odd, they don't have the iconic status that the greatest sportspeople achieve. His status in sumo is similar to Sachin Tendulkar in cricket which we did post. No question that he is the greatest sumo wrestler of all time and this is being widely reported.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Disagree CEO's can lack "iconic" status, with people like Bill Gates, Lee Iacocca, John D. Rockefeller etc. but as with anyone in sports, those who are "iconic" will be few and far between. --Masem (t) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Also, the Tendulkar and Ferguson postings were a long time ago. Things have changed since then, and I find it unlikely we'd post those now.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      FWIW, everything else ignored, cricket is the second most popular sport worldwide. Sumo? Not quite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I'm not sure covering only popular topics as we see them is a road we want to go down. Sumo is popular in Japan. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Subjective editor opinion about significance is something, but what is even more telling is that this does not appear to be so significant of a major sportsman retiring that it actually made world-wide front page news (no mention on Guardian; BBC; NYT, so on so forth). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    BBC covered it as a news item rather than sports item, for some reason, I don't know if that speaks to greater prominence in their view or lesser however. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Must be pretty awkward to be missing a BBC article from 6 hours ago yet still reason an oppose with that. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support I cannot remember when sumo news ever made it to the front headlines in anglophone news. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality would we post the retirement of Messi? Jordan or Gretzky had we been around then? Sumo's a big enough sport that some sumo things are ITN/R, and this guy is regarded as the greatest sumo of all time. And as mentioned above, this is actually a global headline on the BBC right now. However, his article needs some improvement before it makes it to the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Absolutely we would have posted Jordan's retirements - both his first and second one. Jordan was an example of an athlete that had incredible international recognition. The first was especially notable because he was retiring in his prime and he went from there to another major league sport. I'm not so sure about Gretzsky. I'm positive that a Messi nom will make it to ITN without being SNOWed out of the room when he retires. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

*Oppose I don't think that announcements of retirement made by famous sportspeople should be posted because there are many cases in which people have come out of retirement. Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry are all household names in their respective sports who have returned to competition after announcing retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Kiril Simeonovski It's been noted above that there is no coming back from retiring from sumo. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I missed that so I revoke my vote. However, I won't support this announcement of retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


74th Tony Awards[edit]

Article: 74th Tony Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At the Tony Awards, The Inheritance wins Best Play and Moulin Rouge! wins Best Musical. (Post)
News source(s): AP
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: Many ITN/R awards noms fail because they're little more than just a table of nominees and winners. This one seems to be more than that (though it may be because its convoluted journey to actually happening at all requires some explanation). Seems like there are no major unsourced sections, but more review is always good. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment there should be something about the ceremony itself - the articles covers the planning of it, but specifics of the ceremony should be included. --Masem (t) 05:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I am working on a list of performances and presenters, but can't finish it now—and the source I'm working from seems to have tapped out around the halfway mark of the CBS show. Hopefully it will be updated soon or I'll look elsewhere later.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This is a relatively routine event. If something special happened during the awards I might change my mind but I didn't notice anything especially notable. Elithanathile (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's ITN/R. It doesn't matter if you think it was routine or notable or not. It'll be posted pending an article update. WaltCip-(talk) 12:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Elithanathile ITNR is specifically for the posting of routine events where notability does not need to be debated every time. If you feel that the Tony Awards should not be on the ITNR list, please propose their removal at WT:ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Tony Awards, as routine as they are, are ITN/R. The article needs a little more prose and what Masem points out. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support article quality about good enough, event is ITNR (which should be challenged on talkpage not here). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Still missing ceremony information. --Masem (t) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Nominator update I think I have something approaching a complete list of performances in the newly created "ceremony information" section and I've found two reviews for a "reception" section. Ultimately I'd like to see more (I thought I saw another review in a major trade paper, but like the first third of it was just the reviewer complaining that his Paramount+ app didn't work). Perhaps there will be more reviews and obviously when the viewership figures come out this afternoon that can be added.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on relative significance of this compared with other ITN/R items which are also about to be included (such as the German elections). ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's a rubber stamp in terms of notability. It will be posted as long as the article is adequately updated. Usually we are criticized for not enough turnover in postings, so a lot of them potentially ready to go is not a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp Um yes, that's exactly the point of ITNR. And ITN rules specifically say we shouldn't just compare with other things, and the comparison makes no sense, because if you wanted to compare, you should compare with what's on ITN (and so old it's not to any other news platform). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ryder Cup[edit]

Article: 2021 Ryder Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In golf, the Ryder Cup concludes with the United States defeating Europe. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This event is listed at ITNR but (at the moment) the article hasn't been updated enough. It could also be noted that the United States won by the largest margin of victory in the history of the event. -- Calidum 03:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose The article has some flag-waving but does not address or explain the issue of Brexit. See Team without a country and Golf Today for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    What a load of bunkum: seven of Europe’s 12 players aren’t technically part of that continent anymore - we didn't leave the continent of Europe. And the Ryder Cup was never about the European Union. What a pointless conjecture. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Eh? Has the UK actually left Europe? Where has it gone? Actually, even your link points it out ("As the Ryder Cup has always been a geographical representation of the countries within the physical boundaries of Europe, not political ones..."). Also, Viktor Hovland isn't an EU citizen either... Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As far as I can tell, the team has no affiliation with the European Union. See Team Europe and Flag of Europe. cityuser (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think Andrew knows that. The article has precisely zero references to either the "European Union" or the "EU", nor should it. This kind of tangential disruption is completely unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There are many articles that make reference to Brexit e.g. this news article (which has been published on a few sites), which seems to go on about not-EU players. But it's not directly/at all relevant to the tournament itself, so no need to be in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support In the hoooollllleeeee!!!!! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support some round summaries have now been added, so article looks good enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak support summaries are weak but at least are present. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: there should be at least some prose under the "Course" section, no? I don't think a {{Main}} link to the separate article is enough.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Sammarinese abortion referendum[edit]

Article: 2021 Sammarinese abortion referendum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​San Marino becomes one of the last European countries to legalise abortion after a referendum on the issue. (Post)
News source(s): in article
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant as one amongst the last European states to legalise this; widely covered in international news.UKFranceUSCanadaSwitzerland RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment - "Sammarinese"? While that may be in some sense the "correct" demonym, I can honestly say I've never heard of it, and it would be much better to simply title this "2021 San Marino abortion referendum".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not the creator of the article, and conveniently the link can be piped in the blurb, completely side-stepping the issue. If you wish to move the article nothing prevents you doing so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Alright then, I've done that. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Boldblazer: Please see WP:COMMONNAME. RfC started on Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election#Mass_move_request regarding this particular issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Being one of the last to adapt such regulation is certainly far from being significant.--Masem (t) 03:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as per above comment, being one of the lasts countries to do something doesn't make it ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose I don't think we would post the last country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage (though we might, though it'll probably take centuries), but the last in merely Europe does not count IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It wasn't even the last in Europe: according to source in the article, Malta, Andorra and the Vatican City still don't permit abortion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Lewis Hamilton[edit]

No consensus to post an arbitrary number. Stephen 21:29, 26 September 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: Lewis Hamilton (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the Russian Grand Prix to become the first driver with 100 Formula One victories. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: An exceptionally exciting race establishing a historic record. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose we already posted him breaking the overall wins record. A 100th victory is a purely arbitrary number. He recently became the first driver with 99 F1 victories, and will almost certainly become the first driver with 101 F1 victories. We're not going to become a Hamilton ticker, are we? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per TRM. Unless "100 F1 Victories" has been a similar long-standing theorhetical goal like the four-minute mile, this is just an expected result of just prior record breaking. --Masem (t) 19:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per TRM and Mase. I'm no fortune teller, but that this was nominated doesn't catch me by surprise. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment October_2020#(Posted)_Lewis_Hamilton
    Keep up LL, that was my opening comment! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You linked the template diff (thank you) I just added the discussion. Always a pleasure working together TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And don't forget to sign your posts bud! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as stated by others. I didn't even know there was a Russian Grand Prix. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • He's won five out of the ten there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Indeed. F1 is global (unlike that curiosity IndyCar) but given Lewis wins 50% of the Russian Grands Prix, there's even less reason to post this. Like "business as usual". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Not significant enough; borderline routine "Hamilton wins another grand prix" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 26 September 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) 2021 Swiss same-sex marriage referendum[edit]

Consensus has long been against posting same-sex marriage legalization in the first world, and this is no exception.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 September 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 Swiss same-sex marriage referendum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​64% of Swiss voters vote to legalize same-sex marriage, adoption and reproductive rights in a national referendum in Switzerland. (Post)
News source(s): Swissinfo, Official results by the Federal Chancellery
Credits:
Nominator's comments: By now a somewhat routine topic, but noteworthy in my view because it happened by popular referendum in a traditionally conservative country (the country which introduced women's suffrage as late as 1971).  Sandstein 11:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Updated with official results. Sandstein 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The source supplied is a projection as there's no official result yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Andrew Davidson If the news does not wait for official results, neither do we. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We are an encyclopedia, not a forecaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Andrew Davidson We posted Joe Biden winning when the media said he won based on unofficial vote totals(not exit polling), not when it was officially certified by Congress(Jan 6). If you don't want the media to call elections, you will need to take that up with them. Our business is to update articles based on news coverage. No one is forecasting. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Even if was an official result, oppose as being rather late to the party in regards to same-sex rights. --Masem (t) 15:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. We posted two equivalent Irish referenda which covered these issues in recent years so there's precedence for this, and there's more Swiss than there are of us. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'd like to add that this is arguably of more public interest than routine changes of government, the results of routine sporting events or routine aircraft accidents which we regularly post about. Sandstein 15:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • To go back to when the Irish referendum was passed in 2015 [2] (under Irish_marriage_referendum) it was due (by consensus) to being the first such same-sex rights by referendum, so this one would not be a first related to same-sex. (The 36th was related to abortion, so I would not consider that here). --Masem (t) 15:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm realising now that this story uses "reproductive rights" in a different manner than I had read into it, disregard that second amendment then. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Nothing new. Nothing ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. This is common now in Europe. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose apart from the first country, this being applied in other countries isn't ITN-worthy. We've rejected nominations for other countries for similar bills relating to same-sex marriage for the same reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 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.

German elections[edit]

Article: 2021 German federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the 2021 German federal election, Social Democrats (SPD) come out ahead of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the 2021 German federal election, Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) of former Chancellor Angela Merkel slump to historic lows as Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats (SPD) finish ahead.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the 2021 German federal election, the Social Democrats (SPD) top results with nearly 26% of the vote, and were poised to form a coalition with two or three smaller parties.
Alternative blurb III: ​In the 2021 German federal election, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) wins the most seats.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, dpa
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.

 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose and close shouldn't be nominated as a blank blurb before the results happen, this is an obvious attempt to WP:GAME the system for a nomination credit. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Please assume good faith. I didn't specify a blurb yet, because I indeed wanted to wait for results or more concrete things to report on. In the future, where would be best place to mention/suggest topics, without knowing yet what the blurb/text should be? This is my first Wikipedia:In the news nomination. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're not the first person recently to post an election blurb many hours before the results are announced (and there's been similar issues with people nomming sports events before there's a result). It was nothing personal, just seems stupid to allow people to pre-emptively nominate, as the only benefit as I see it is so that someone gets the nomination credit. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • CommentEarly exit-poll results have SPD, CDU virtually tied. [3] [4] [5]Sca (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • They are exit polls, not an official result, which could take hours or even days. This should be re-nominated when the results are actually confirmed. Rather than encouraging people to nominate articles 7 hours before the polls even shut in the country.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We shouldn't post exit polling, but we don't need to wait for final, official results if the German media calls it. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Elections are not appropriate for ongoing as they are routine events. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    This is not an ongoing nomination. How odd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I was working from the nomination's source which has "ongoing = yes". The default for this parameter is "no" so the nominator presumably supposed that "yes" was acceptable but the template only seems to accept "add/rem/no" which is certainly odd. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's not tagged visibly as ongoing. Suggest you strike your comment and allow regular discussion to continue. One imagines, in fact, that this would be WP:ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support regular ITN blurb when ready i.e. in other words wait as with other national elections; this is ITN/R material, just needs for the article to be updated, and for some form of official results. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • CommentLate evening coverage puts Scholz and the SPD ahead. [6] [7] [8] [9]Sca (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There's now about 293 out of 299 constituencies reporting. That solves the first of the issues ("some form of results"); now it's on article quality; which I have not taken the time to check again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Preliminary results to be confirmed in half-hour's time, [10]. Added provisional blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comments Clearly a work-in-progress yet. Some issues requiring address before posting:
  1. Tense needs to be checked throughout
  2. Orange tag under Campaign, Major issues section
  3. Tables are unsourced in this article: In Parties and candidates, Competing parties and Opinion polls. Some of these are pulled from other articles, where they are referenced, but the standard here should be in-article referencing. The one in Competing parties appears to be wholly WP:OR. The only reference that could cover it conveys only incomplete information. This effectively renders the whole Opinion polls section an {{unreferenced section}}, and if the non-sequitur external links were (deservedly) removed, it would become a section containing no prose at all.
  4. Prose results should be added when they become available.

130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support Results are out. I'd edit appropriately. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Comment I think adding information on the SPD's intended coalition partners would be useful for the item. A. C. Santacruz Talk 09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • It's not even sure the SPD will actually be in the coalition, we don't necessarily need to add speculation at this early a stage. +altblurb; if a bit verbose RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – Far and away the No. 1 story in the news today. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support alt blurb III - Biggest story in the news as of right now. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Alt Blurb III as imo it is most neutral and accurate. If you are following the news reporting, you know it's not yet clear which major party will lead a coalition, which is why I oppose Alt 2. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There may be a slight issue with alt blurb III though. It may suggest that Scholz is the party leader, which is not the case. He is just their main candidate and the party is led by two other people. So, the 'led by' bit seems a little off to me. Probably best to just cut that out and simply state that the social democrats won the most seats. The most clear and simple in the end. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Would he be their choice for chancellor? 331dot (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, most certainly he would be. And i am not saying alt 3 is totally wrong or misleading. It just is an unusual circumstance that the frontrunner of a major party is not actually the party leader of said party, i would assume. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I see. I think't it's right to remove him from the blurb, though. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Well, if one were to replace 'led by' with something a bit different that does not suggest he is the leader(which in a way is he despite not being so) then it would be fine to mention Scholz of course. As is it can be nitpicked, is all i am saying. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Slightly altered blurb 2, for grammatical tense and proper verb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb III as this is the normal way that we post elections, and isn't making any guesses/assumptions about who will actually take control. Article looks much better now- there is one section tagged for expansion, but I don't believe that is strictly necessary for this page to be ITN-worthy, as it's not a key part of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support alt III. We can update this down the line with any potential coalition but this is cleanest way to post the actual election results for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support alt III now that it's been updated; added main updaters to nomination RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment as Blurb I is incorrect: Angela Merkel is still cancellor. Besides that, it is not really encyclopedic to say that the SPD is the party of olaf scholz and the CDU the party of Angela Merkel, because both dont own the parties. --LennBr (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support alt III I do see one cite tag but that shouldn't hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment as this article is effected by an edit-war/by vandalism. See here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported and on the elections-talk page for more information about it. --LennBr (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Disruptive editing is WP:NOTVAND. Also, not an issue for ITN, but for AN/3RR or ANI RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - May somebody close this please? There is a consensus around posting alt blurb III. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not yet. It's still possible that a so-called 'traffic light' (red, yellow, green) coalition could be announced in this cycle. Warte, bitte.
    Sca (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Question: There is an orange {expand} tag for the Campaign section. Is more prose coming to that section? --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Global Citizen Live[edit]

Article: Global Citizen Live (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Global Citizen Live music festival is held around the world, to pressure action on issues including global poverty, climate change, and COVID-19 vaccines. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Global Citizen Live music festival is held around the world.
News source(s): ITV
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: If I remember right, we posted Venezuela Aid Live and that was much smaller. Global Citizen holds at least one music festival a year, but this is also by the far the biggest and, perhaps more relevantly, broadest in scope. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I can't find anything in the searchable archives where we posted the Venezuela Aid Live (or where it was even proposed as an ITNC. I have doubts that unless the event broke records in fundraising, we would not post something like this. --Masem (t) 00:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I couldn’t find anything either, but I swear I remember some drama about putting the logo on the main page and didn’t think DYK would have bothered. The other possible comparison for precedent would be One Love Manchester, also comparatively small. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, that it seems like the only other concert of even close to comparable size in the ITN era. It didn’t get posted, but Live Aid was like 40 years ago so we can’t compare that. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Soft Support The idea of spreading awareness of a concert that only raises awareness of things that are already front and center (as opposed to money) feels sketchy, but it is an abnormally big show. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose merely spreading awareness. If there is some additional hook(i.e. a fundraising record, policy change tied to this event), I would reconsider. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – Not much in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports


(Closed) Montana train derailment[edit]

Consensus to post unlikely to develop. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 26 September 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 Montana train derailment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An Amtrak passenger train derails near Joplin, Montana, United States killing 3 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Passenger derailments in the U.S. are uncommon (only a handful in the past five years) and this one is leading several national news sites. SounderBruce 06:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - article is in reasonable shape, no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Can it be indicated on the blurb that this occurs in the United States? There is a strange tendency that when one of the states is named it is taken for granted that the readers (not all of them Americans) locate it to US. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Alsoriano97: - Done. Feel free to improve blurbs if necessary. The posting admin will decide on the final look of a blurb in any case. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Uncommon. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Routine traffic accident. Derailments are quite common – here's some recent examples: [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Andrew Davidson: - we are discussing passenger train derailments in the US with fatalities here. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Note also "50 others were injured, with 15 being hospitalized." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. I concur with Andrew, absent additional information. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Although fairly widely covered (for reasons not readily apparent), this train wreck lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose because the death toll is low & there's no evidence that a crime was committed. Had this happened in Latin America, Africa or Asia, it's highly unlikely that it would be nominated. It's likely it wouldn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, these kinds of fatal accidents are unusual in the USA. But you're saying a "crime has to be committed" to make a rail accident postable? Where's the logic for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm saying we should only post transport incidents if they involve some sort of crime (such as a deliberate crash, drink-driving etc.) or there's at least a double-digit death toll or someone notable is directly involved. Otherwise it's just one of many transport accidents. Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see. Well I think the crime question may be a bit of a red herring. It might take some time to establish that any crime had been committed, by which time we'd nominating something like "so-and-so found guilty of such-and-such rail accident"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on expansion. Transport accidents involving public transport systems like trains or planes that include deaths and injuries are nearly always notable. But the article is currently a bit too short for posting. --Masem (t) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No-one's disputing that it's notable enough for an article, but why is it notable enough for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If it was maybe a couple people injured in a derailment, it would not be appropriate for ITN, but with dozens injures and several dead, it is a major public transit accident. It is a major news item. We would cover this type of event from anywhere in the world as long as the article was up to speed and the event nominated. --Masem (t) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
3 dead, not several. It's only a major news item in Montana. If it happened in Latin America, Africa or Asia, it would have no article or a stub article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The lack of article creation is not what ITN itself worries about, but nearly any public transit accident with deaths is going to meet GNG-notability guidelines, the article just has to be written. Same with the articles being nominated -that just has to be done once the article is created. We have definitely posted rail accidents like this in Africa and Asia in the past (can't recall any recent L. American ones but we'd post those too). --Masem (t) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's relevant, because having an article that's better than a stub is a requirement for posting to ITN. Yes, we've posted train crashes in Africa & Asia, but they had significantly higher death tolls than this one. Jim Michael (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Article looks good and as explained above the difference between this and other derailments are the fatalities and injuries. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Not significant enough for ITN. Milavče train crash was not posted last month with equivalent article quality and casualties. cityuser 16:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed - the death toll of both is too low for ITN. The Stonehaven derailment also killed 3, was nominated, but not posted. Jim Michael (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
So 10 dead or a dead sleb? Does that apply only to US rail accident? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
None of what I said is specific to the US or trains. A very well-known car crash in Paris in 97 had a death toll of 3. Were it an ordinary accident with no-one famous involved, it certainly wouldn't have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Private transit accidents (such as car accidents) are far too common to have articles on, unless they lead to rather large significant tolls or other major investigations (eg Schoharie limousine crash). Public transit accidents, which nearly always have government-lead investigations to understand what happened, etc. on the other hand are nearly always notable, particularly if there were some deaths involved. --Masem (t) 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And of course there will be outliers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Cityuser and Jim Michael. For congruence in view of the fact that we did not include the one at Milavče. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose it is far too starkly anomalous for us to promote this to the main page when a direct equivalent that didn't happen in America was rejected. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 September 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.

2021 AFL Grand Final[edit]

Article: 2021 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Australian rules football, Melbourne defeat the Western Bulldogs to win the 2021 AFL Grand Final for the first time since 1964. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

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

 Steelkamp (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose the match description has a lot of slang and sports report hyperbole. Needs a ironing out Bumbubookworm (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Agree ("Cough up a mark", "slotted a snap"). This simply needs rewriting in normal prose. Also, the continual switching between "Melbourne" and "Demons" needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Note: the match summary has been improved now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Kamla Bhasin[edit]

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

Nominator's comments: Indian women feminist Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose Written like an essay, lots of apparent mindreading into her motives and editorial expansion on the themes ("she lamented...she adjudged...really important to her...however her revulsion of capitalism emerges..."). There are footnotes, but that's not all a decent bio needs. And no, I'm not against India, women or feminism, just against flowery rhetoric for any cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) Release of Michael Spavor and Kovrig / Meng Wanzhou[edit]

Article: Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are released from detention in China, shortly after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's release from house arrest in Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, who were detained in China since 2018, are released shortly after Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's release from house arrest in Canada.
Alternative blurb II: Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou is released from house arrest in Canada following a deal with the US Department of Justice, prompting the release of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, who were detained in China shortly after Meng's arrest in 2018.
News source(s): CBC News, CTV News, BBC, New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major news in Canada with international implications, due to the descriptions of the Michaels' detentions as hostage diplomacy and the deterioration of Canada-China relations and US-China relations after the initial arrests. Main article still needs some work though. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 04:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose This saga doesn't appear to have made a massive splash outside of Canada, and it met probably the calmest end possible. I also think the impact on international relations will be fairly unremarkable (in other words, China will stay China). Nohomersryan (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per reasoned above. Additionally, undue. Meng's arrest is the spark of this fiasco, and should be the focus even if passed through. – robertsky (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've added alt blurb focusing on Meng, feel free to change if it is too long. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Per previous. Lacks broad significance. Although fairly widely covered, this deal made headlines mainly in Canada. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Sca: The release of Meng and the Michaels made the front page of the New York Times, with the article emphasizing its implications on US-China relations. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support In the news here in Australia. [15][16] Steelkamp (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak Support Meng was charged with fraud in the USA, Canada detained her per an extradition treaty and China retaliated with sham charges against two moderately relevant Canadians. Kidnapping and extortion all around and a rare thing for Canada to get mixed up in. Weak only because we should also bold Meng Wanzhou and that article is meh quality. Opposes "because the event is only relating to a single country" are "unproductive" and should be ignored when evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support – Support a blurb only mentioning the release of Meng Wanzhou which is a significant event concerning the China-US relations (Canada was only a pawn). STSC (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support First Two, but oppose overAmericanizing it. This was always Canada's game to lose. And we won! End of an era, or news chapter, at least. If around half the audience only knows a small part of this international intrigue info, now is the time to learn more. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Already out of news cycle, and probably more suitable for ITN during initial arrests. HaudenosauneeC (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    When arrests are nominated, ITN usually invokes BLPCRIME and moves to "Wait for conviction". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support also news in Europe. And that the two were for all intents and purposes hostages makes it a quite unusual and notable story. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:B49E:7D7A:B3FE:B093 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Notable geopolitical impact noted in Australia an uninvolved country, hostage diplomacy over a telco company that is the subject of state-spying allegations Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Major implications around global players. Chinese citizen, Meng, was arrested in Canada on the orders of US for violating US sanctions against Iran, immediately followed by Chinese government arresting 2 Canadians. Now that Meng was released after striking a deal with the US, these two Canadians are also released "just so happened" right afterwards? That's clearly state-sanctioned hostage taking. Front page of New York Times and coverage in uninvolved countries demonstrate the geopolitical implications. I also don't buy the "out of news cycle" bit. Our most recent entry was the death of President of Algeria, which happened a week ago. Now that is definitely "out of the news cycle". OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support blurb one. It is the resolution of a major, year-long diplomatic row between Canada, China, and the US. The users who oppose on the basis that this didn't create a major splash outside of Canada forget that ITN does not have a ban on news items which effect a single country. This was likely the biggest ongoing news item in Canada since she were detained. --PlasmaTwa2 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Aside from COVID, anyway. And maybe reconciliation. But yeah, "it's up there"! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support, Major event in foreign relations between Canada, China, and the United States.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Hostage diplomacy involving 3+ countries? Certainly worthy. I'll never understand any substantive rationale for including snooker championships, but not stuff like this. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. A notable political chess game involving multiple countries and a major tech company. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Important case making news headlines. It will likely also set a precedent where China may end up acting more like the US when it comes to imposing its laws it feels strongly about on foreigners. The Chinese have already passed laws allowing foreigners who never set foot in China to be prosecuted in China for violating its domestic laws on sedition. Count Iblis (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I support this, but perhaps we shouldn’t state unequivocally that the two events are directly related, even though they almost certainly are, as China explicitly denies there is a connection. 142.116.123.215 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ready pretty clear consensus to post this. No more CN tags in Meng Wanzhou. Admins can decide what blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Len Ashurst[edit]

Article: Len Ashurst (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://safc.com/news/club-news/2021/september/len-ashurst-obituary
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A footballer who managed several teams. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose the fair use image should be deleted, it's far too early to assume we can't get a free image. Also, the article lacks several citations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man:, I have now added more sources. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Is it good to go now? Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie[edit]

Article: Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/24/lord-gowrie-obituary
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A Thatcher-era arts minister who quit because he could not afford to live in London on a minister’s salary. This wikibio could use a few more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support, the article is long enough and is sourced properly. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Jitender Mann Gogi[edit]

Article: Jitender Mann Gogi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Hindustan Times, Times of India, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: India's most wanted gangster killed in most unique circumstances. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support. Sufficiently referenced. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Article has since been expanded, which also means it needs more copyediting before hitting the front page. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Correction The nominator has written "India's most wanted gangster". This should be "on Delhi police's most-wanted list". BBC DTM (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: 1412 characters? That's a bit stubby. Can this wikibio be expanded? --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Not a stub anymore. Now >2400 characters long. --PFHLai (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Posthumously created stub, not convinced of his notability beyond the one event of his killing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Then WP:AFD it. We have plenty of bios created post-death, that isn't a problem a lot of the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Is notable before, during, and after his death based on the sources. I've made a lot of posthumous article RDs in early 2021s and nobody seem to be bothered. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment article needs work, for references, grammar, spelling etc. No comment on notability, but certainly needs copyediting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) :-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFTs[edit]

Consensus to post this will not develop now or in any finite amount of time.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:01, 24 September 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: Emoticon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​:-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFT's (Post)
News source(s): Future zone
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oppose There is not sufficient in-depth coverage, in terms of type of sources or length/quality of articles, etc. on this topic to indicate that it is a significant enough story. --Jayron32 11:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
:-( as reasoned above. – robertsky (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment I feel I want to frown. (sad face) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Non-fungible tokens are people too, you know!![]
  • 👎🏼 Per Jayron. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Someone got scammed, there's no mainstream media interest, and no long-term encyclopaedic value either. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 24 September 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.

September 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Taito Phillip Field[edit]

Article: Taito Phillip Field (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/former-minister-taito-phillip-field-has-died-1news-understands
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: He was the first MP in New Zealand of Pacific Island descent. His wikibio is long enough but could use a few more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought[edit]

Article: Settlement of the Americas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At White Sands National Park in New Mexico, United States, scientists discover human footprints which are about 23,000 years old, revising the generally accepted timeline of the settlement of the Americas by about ten thousand years. (Post)
News source(s): AP, NYT,BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs a more substantial update. The NYT article quotes an archaeologist who says "this is probably the biggest discovery about the peopling of America in a hundred years". These footprints are more definitive than the 26,000-year-old stone tools discovered in Mexico reported last year which got some skepticism. Davey2116 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment We need a link to the journal where the paper documenting the discovery was published. AP article doesn't mention it and NYT has a paywall. Also, the one-sentence update citing the NYT article with restricted access at the end of the intro is insufficient. One such discovery requires a separate section or at least a paragraph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Looks like the NYT article gives a DOI, which links to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7586. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. I wasn't able to access the NYT article because of the paywall. Now that this was published in Science, we need a better update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment As stated in the article, there are several known sites that are pre-Clovis, thus "Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought" is not really accurate. The significance of these new findings is that they are ... better quality than the other ones. So, let's not make too much of a hype here. --Tone 08:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support The NYT account is good and there's a more accessible equivalent at the BBC. The footprints in time are more evocative than most such stories and they are excitingly evanescent as erosion is now destroying them so there's a race to glean this evidence before it's gone. Carpe diem. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. The finding implies that humans arrived in North America more than 30,000 years ago (consistent with the dating of the stone tools from Mexico), because the ice sheets would have made it impossible to cross over from Asia into North America later than 30,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now. Target article has a one-sentence update in the lead, and the body of the target article does not mention the topic at all. Insufficient update to qualify for a main page notice. If you fix this with a sufficiently in-depth update to the body of an article, consider this vote changed to full support. --Jayron32 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I thought the Clovis hypothesis was already disproved.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. This assertion has been published within the last 24 hours. The scientific community has not had time to respond to this. It is good that it is getting all this attention, because more research in this area needs to be done and actual bodies need to be found. However it also could be a flash in a pan. I do not feel this one instance of evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia to assert humans in New Mexico 23,000 years ago as fact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's why it's in the news. When new research results would start to corroborate this and gradually a pile of independent results is built up that's considered to be large enough that it's considered to be proven that humans settled North America much longer ago, then that won't make news headlines. The incremental scientific steps would likely also be considered too technical to merit big stories in the popular press. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    If it is the first paper to publish on a theory that is contrary to one that has otherwise been accepted by numerous other anthropologists, even as a peer reviewed paper in a high quality journal, giving it presumption of being "right" by giving it ITN weight would be improper (I'll point to the current ongoing discussion related to the COVID-19 lab leak theory as evidence of why we don't give weight to one-off peer reviewed theories that go against the grain of long-standing scientific agreement). --Masem (t) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's the job of the major media outlets, like the NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. to make these editorial decisions on how much coverage to give to certain science stories. We don't have to follow any single such news outlet, but we should use the criteria that a science news story must be published in a high quality peer reviewed journal and must also have significant coverage in the major news outlets. If we deviate from this too much, then we are censoring the news based on our biases. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    But reading the NYT and BBC, their writing emphasis this is a possible result and not firm proof yet. Even a lead researcher on the paper is not certain of the result yet, from the BBC article ""One of the reasons there is so much debate is that there is a real lack of very firm, unequivocal data points. That's what we think we probably have," Prof Matthew Bennett, first author on the paper from Bournemouth University, told BBC News.". We have to be careful here about presenting a paper - which I'm not doubting has grounded scientific method behind it - as the singular source to change a theory that is the subject of debate, based on these sources. This is not censoring news, but upholding SCIRS for all purposes that as an encyclopedia, we're looking to summarize dominate views of the scientific community and this doesn't have it, even if mainstream sources are reporting it. --Masem (t) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes, but it's then for the blurb to convey the correct message. E.g., one can say that "A new finding suggests that humans may have arrived in North America about 10,000 years earlier than previously thought.". Count Iblis (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle, haven't evaluated quality. It's a big enough deal that it's worth presenting as a piece of research, rather than established fact; "scientists find evidence", etc. Not going to dig through the archives at the moment, but IIRC we've posted other substantive findings when they occurred. FWIW, this paper isn't based on cutting edge techniques; the methods are pretty basic, it's the data that are interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Also, if consensus develops to post, I'd much prefer wording describing how long before the present the evidence is from, rather than trying to spell out the difference between this timeline and whatever was "previously thought", since that's often controversial. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    When we've posted scientific findings in the past, it is usually because those findings are not in challenge to an established theory or where controversy within the scientific community exists. I know we've posted anthropological findings in the past but as best I recall, when they were found they didn't radically present a change to current theories, only extending farther back when humans occupied a certain reason or had developed certain capabilities. Its clear from the sources that when humans were in the Americans is a subject of debate in the scientific community so we should be a bit more careful on giving weight to one paper. --Masem (t) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose as written As they say, a lot of people think a lot of things about where and when. I have a hunch about frost giants predating mammoths around Temagami. Regardless, a new paper, even by people who know what they're doing, seems unlikely to change any generally accepted timeline this quickly. In a scientific sense, I mean. Even frost giants from space could seem believable to folks who don't know how magnetic anomalies work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – FWIW, to a layman like me this all seems rather iffy and arcane. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Here, try this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per Sca, not that accessible or even interesting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support One small step for a man, one giant leap for Prof. Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Not even one of his selected works, nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Brilliant reunion you guys. Great, always a benefit to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "You betcha, Miss Piggy", (as they say in Hollywood) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And as seriously edumacated Wikipedians put it, GARCH! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: John Elliott[edit]

Article: John Elliott (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.afr.com/wealth/people/buccaneering-businessman-john-elliott-dies-at-79-20210923-p58ucg
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Controversial Australian businessman, former state and federal president of the Liberal Party, and former president of Carlton Football Club. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Oppose Quality issues. Giant orange tag, citation problems. Usual problems. --Jayron32 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) Tall el-Hammam and Jericho destruction by an impact event[edit]

Consensus is strongly against posting, and the research is deemed outside the mainstream.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:11, 23 September 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: Tall el-Hammam (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Results of the research, according to which an impact event destroyed Tall el-Hammam, as well as Jericho, about 3,600 years ago, possibly inspiring the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorra, have been published. (Post)
News source(s): The Conversation, SciTechDaily
Credits:

Article updated
 109.252.201.66 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose. The Conversation piece you linked to was written by one of the researchers involved, so not an independent source. There are almost no reports in mainstream media - just churnalism recycling of the press release in some less-than-reputable outlets and some reprintings of the Conversation piece. The only vaguely journalistic report I could find was in Forbes but almost all of that is an interview with another one of the researchers involved, no comments from independent experts. This appears to be a sensational over-interpretation of the archaeological evidence, ideologically motivated to match a story from the Bible. In addition, the article is an orange-tagged stub, doesn't mention the impact idea at all, and attempts to add it have been reverted by multiple page watchers. Modest Genius talk 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    PS. I've fixed the nomination formatting. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can find additional reliable sources written by reputable, main-stream publications, such as Smithsonian Magazine and Nature. The article itself, however, only has a single-sentence update, which seems to me to be insufficient given that we're supposed to be directing people to more information... --Jayron32 12:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Your second link is the original paper (in Scientific Reports, a much less prestigious journal published by the Nature Group, not Nature), that's not an independent source. Smithsonian Magazine should be a reliable source but the actual article just repeats claims from the paper and interviews with its authors, including the Conversation piece already mentioned. I'm sure it used to be standard practice to get a comment from one or two independent experts on the subject... I guess science journalists are busy these days. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I suspect the reason why there are no high-quality news reports with independent comment is that good science journalists approached independent experts, only to be told the research was rubbish and shouldn't be publicised. They don't run the story in that situation. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Under-sourced, not in the RS news, polemical, lacking general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose fringe froth, and Scientific Reports is not Nature (other end of the quality scale, in fact). Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 23 September 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.
  • Post-closing comment I seriously object to many of the comments above, rushing to denigrate the announced result. In fact, they are almost certainly BLP violations regarding the researchers involved. For the record, Scientific Reports is not the "other end of the quality scale", it is more of an open-access online spinoff from Nature, which simply doesn't have room for all the top quality science being done, let alone 64 page articles. There is nothing about the paper that suggests WP:FRINGE, and hitting on that, or even the closer's remark that it is outside the "mainstream", is unacceptable. For the record, a much earlier city in the same general area was identified in 2020 (same journal) as wiped out by a similar cosmic airburst (Abu Hureyra, Syria, c. 10800 BCE). This is mainstream science, not fringe. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Abdelkader Bensalah[edit]

Article: Abdelkader Bensalah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/algerian-crisis-interim-president-bensalah-dies-aged-80-2021-09-22/
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Head of state of Algeria after Abdelaziz Bouteflika resigned. I hope this goes on RD after the predecessor scrolls off ITN first. The Political career section looks a little thin -- please beef things up if you have the source materials. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Robert Fyfe[edit]

Article: Robert Fyfe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Sun
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Scottish actor known largely as Howard Sibshaw in Last of the Summer Wine, Cloud Atlas, many other credits. CoatCheck (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Suggestion: please expand the prose to at least double its current size of 766 characters. Stubs are not eligible for RD. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment also needs more sources in the filmography section- I've sourced about half of it, other half needs to be done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Closed) 2021 Mansfield earthquake[edit]

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop. However, a nomination for DYK is worth considering.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:46, 22 September 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 Mansfield earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An earthquake hits Australia – the strongest in the state of Victoria for 50 years. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake in Australia, not many dead. The article has a nice graphic showing the epicentre but that's done with a special infobox so I'm not sure how we'd do that here. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose no deaths, no injuries, minimal damage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Beaten to the nom Support - Rare for an earthquake this large to strike Australia. Widespread damage, lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "Widespread damage"? The article says "minor damage", no injuries and no deaths at all. No-one said "lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability" but "lack of anything = lack of notability". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose – Not much in the RS news, as its effects comparatively minor. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose "Tree falls in a forest, no one is around to hear it"-type news. But this could be a DYK type entry. --Masem (t) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Minor damage, no casualties. Unusual event for Australia, but that doesn't make it an ITN blurb. I suggest you nominate for DYK instead. Modest Genius talk 15:47, 22 September 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) RD: Gabby Petito[edit]

It is clear that there is no consensus to post this in any form. This is the third identical close by a third different uninvolved admin and I would suggest very strongly that it needs to be the last one. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 23 September 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 of Gabby Petito (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The remains of Gabby Petito (pictured) are found and her death is determined as homicide. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This was Wikipedia's top read article when it was just a disappearance and now the body has been found... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Original close

Consensus to post will not form. --Tone 11:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Second close

WP:SNOW. There is zero chance this will be posted to the main page in any format, regardless of the insistence of a very small number of commenters. Leaving it open any longer serves no useful purpose. --Jayron32 13:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)}}[]

  • Oppose The real news was at the time when she disappeared but that ship has sailed. We don't even have a stand-alone article about her, so this cannot be even properly considered for RD.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose people of no notability get murdered every day, e.g. four people in the UK yesterday. It doesn't mean they are of any encyclopedic value whatsoever, and this is not WP:TOP25 and this story is just another typical example of missing white woman syndrome, stuff of tabloids. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb or RD Per WP:ITNRD, RDs are generally for biographical articles—this is a page dedicated to her killing. As for the blurb, RIP and may justice be served, but let's avoid missing white woman syndrome.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose RD. Article is not a BLP. This could genuinely fit as a blurb, but I'm not sure that I support it even then. I find the above comments and their inclusion in the article to be examples of noxious racism attributed to normal human emotion. Why is there no Dead Black Man Syndrome article?130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're welcome to write it. Good luck. WaltCip-(talk) 13:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose per the above. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:655A:2E1F:3D76:8817 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD in principle - OK, so most likely this won't find consensus, but since it was closed very quickly, I am reopening it now because I would like to put a different point across regarding this. So it's clear that Ms Petito is notable only for the killing, and per the WP:NOPAGE guideline, it doesn't seem necessary to have separate pages for her and her death. But on the other hand, I think there's more than enough significant coverage of her life in the recent papers (and covering aspects like her boyfriend, travels and study) to satisfy WP:GNG. The coverage gives her notability in her own right, and the redirect Gabby Petito would never be deleted, only that her bio is covered on another page. As such, she probably ought to be eligible for RD. The same would apply to Malia Obama for example, or Paul Elliott of the Chuckle Brothers. So while the strict rules say only standalone bios are automatically posted, I would support it in this instance as on that basis (other than the obvious quality concerns currently in the article).  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • BLP1E, WP:VICTIM, and several other parts of BLP state that a flood of coverage about a person that was non-notable before their death does not give weight to their notability after death outside of extreme cases. --Masem (t) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Coatrack A page for a death/killing is not a WP:COATRACK for a full-fledged bio. A short summary is all that is relevant to understand the context—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - I was really hoping ITN would not give in to our latest bout of MWWS. I see that I am mistaken.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose. Subject would not have been notable prior to disappearance and death, unlikely to ever be the subject of a standalone biography per BLP1E. Perhaps a trial and conviction could lead to a mention but even this would be unlikely. I mean no offence by calling it a run-of-the-mill murder but unfortunately that's what it is, and we shouldn't really be adding those to the RD ticker. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't like to resort to comparisons with other stories but it seems that readership/pageviews are part of some peoples' reasoning here. Currently looking at BBC News (even as a non brit it's still a major outlet) Petito's name is not present on their front page at all; another murder victim, not white and blonde, who has no article here, occupies one of their top sidebars. Vice's first story on the case is a specific look at how first nations and black americans are not receiving media coverage in the same circumstances. It's the third murder story down on the Grauniad's front page, nowhere on the Irish News, a footnote for Le Monde ... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's why we constantly stress that ITN is not a news ticker, and we are not here to serve up the news that readers may be searching for, but articles that represent quality work on topics that happen to be in the news that thus may be what readers are searching for - that is, the reader angle is secondary over the quality and encylopedic nature that ITN's box serves on the front page. If readers are coming to the front page of WP to find news, they are absolutely in the wrong place, they should be going to BBC or CNN or whatever news outlet of their choice is for that. We're not a newspaper, and its stories like this that are difficult for us to deal with in the first place due to their gossip-y type nature, much less their presence at ITN. --Masem (t) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Masem: The WP:ITN page says nothing about a "ticker" and one of the WP:ITN#Purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support in principle per Amakuru. I don't get why if non-standalone articles like Ian Brady are eligible for RD, then a standalone article that happens to be titled "Death Of" is not. There is enough coverage here to justify posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    To me, it's not so much that it's not a standalone article; but that the examples given here--Brady, Paul Elliott, Malia Obama, etc--were at least notable enough to be the subjects, even if jointly, of articles independent of their deaths. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose This is one of those stupid "person disappears" gossip heavy stories that periodically flood the news media because it creates this sense of mystery about whether a person close to the deceased actually did it. None of the people involved were notable before and only because of the situation around the death created a news whirlwind around the event, but this is very much still in gossip-heavy territory. The persons involved still aren't notable (WP:BLP1E absolutely applies, its why this has to stay an event article, not a bio article), so this can't be an RD. And if it was suggested to be a blurb, I'd strongly oppose that because it is the fact this is the type of bad reporting that seeps into the news media once in a while (this happens in the UK too) that gives undue weight on the plight of one person while everyday people go missing or are killed and don't get any coverage at all. --Masem (t) 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Indeed. I'm staggered that we even consider it appropriate to have an article on this. It's a complete joke. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong oppose and delete titillating tabloid ephemera per Masem and TRM Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You're welcome to take it to AfD. I suspect it will be swiftly kept.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
AfD – Alternative für Deutschland? Why would those rightwingers be interested? – Sca (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Indeed, it's befuddling. Tabloid missing white women syndrome garbage really belongs in an encyclopedia, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Tabloids are old media but this case is more of an Internet phenomenon – see How It Went Viral. And Wikipedia is part of this new media. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD - hey ITN regulars, stop quick-closing this. Just cuz the first few votes are oppose doesn't mean it's a snow close. Sheesh. Anyway, it is MWWS, and despite my personal feelings about this, it meets ITN's criteria and purpose. It's in the news, readers are looking for it (page views), and the quality is sufficient. My personal feelings about the news story shouldn't come into play at all. Levivich 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Have you even looked at it? It's orange-tagged!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The single section undue weight tag? Meh. Btw I'd support this as RD or blurb but leaning RD. Levivich 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Addendum: In thinking about this more, I support RD but not blurb. 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD in principle, oppose on quality. Per what others have said, no reason why a "Death of X" article isn't RD-eligible when other non-BLP articles are, they're just not "automatically eligible", and so need a conversation to be had (rather than continuously being snow closed...). And her death most definitely is in the news, and we post based on reported date (so it is a "recent death" by our definition). That being said, the orange tag would need to be resolved before it could even be considered from an article quality perspective.
  • Strong oppose blurb Another mundane USA news that someone pretends to have an encyclopedic impact and value. Just another (possible) crime among so many that are committed in that country and in the world. There are more important things to discuss. RIP. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment - sorry if I've caused a shit-storm, but to be clear I'm not in any way advocating for a blurb. The story is not ITN material in that sense. I'm simply saying that she's notable. For one event maybe, but she's notable. As such, she should appear in the RD section. It's not our fault that the media has created significant coverage of her, and a lot of the opinions above seem to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't our mission here. If you think she's really not notable, then take the Gabby Petito redirect to RFD. Or take the whole article to AFD or something. But don't blame the messenger.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There is a difference between trying to "right great wrongs" and simply not wishing to further contribute to them. When the dust settles I'm sure we will have an article in line with others on deaths or, potentially, murders and which will satisfy GNG. I don't necessarily believe AFD is the right venue. But, that is not to say that this article should be given an exception to our usual RD processes—the supposed "great wrong" would be undue coverage of a non notable individual; going out of our way to make an exception and posting a non notable individual on the RD ticker would be incorrect; not posting it would not be an overcorrection but simply business as usual. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (edit conflict) Comment - RD doesn't apply here. The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death. Being kidnapped is not inherent notability. See WP:BLP1E.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Where does WP:ITNRD say that? Levivich 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article" (bolded mine). WaltCip-(talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      We already had an RD for "Barry Chuckle" at [17] so there's precedence that the bit you highlight there isn't always followed. BLP1E concerns the subject of whether someone "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". It doesn't address notability in itself, which would be covered by WP:GNG, noting that not all notable individuals get pages, per WP:NOPAGE.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Nope, you're wrong there too. Note 2 of that same page specifies "individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group)" are eligible for RD on a case-by-case basis. There was no error committed in posting Mr. Chuckle. But there are no notes nor exceptions granted for people who are notable only for being kidnapped. WaltCip-(talk) 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Well, it says it's case-by-case, and here we are discussing it so that sounds valid to me. You're welcome to oppose, of course, but I don't think your line "The subject needs to have been independently notable prior to their death" is found in the guidelines.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      The full quote is "...if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is: 1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion. 2. Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death. 3. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." Death of Gabby Petito meets those three criteria. Per commenters above, I see no reason to think that this article is not a "biographical article" because it's called "Murder of". A person who is notable for how they died is notable. Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      In fairness, like Ian Brady, that means that Barry Chuckle would be notable in his own right for a joint article, which still counts as a biographical article.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I think this is the first time I've ever seen one of the Chuckle Brothers compared to Ian Brady. So I thank you for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      It's not a biographical article. It just isn't. A biographic article has to not be focused on the event and has to be focused on that person, which is why the article on this is focused around the killing and not the person herself. That's why if you created a "Gabby Petito" article, it would be nominated for deletion. WaltCip-(talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "It just isn't" isn't really convincing me somehow :-P I don't see a difference between an article about a person and an article about a person's death. Saying the latter is about an event and not a person doesn't sway me because the event is the death of the person. A death article is about a person. In the same way, an article about the sinking of a ship is an article about a ship, and an article about a building fire is an article about the building. Levivich 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I can't help you if you are choosing to interpret something with an incorrect definition, but The Rambling Man literally wrote the book on WP:ITNRD. If you doubt whether my interpretation of the wording is incorrect, you could ask him. WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      The WP:ITNRD page was created by MSGJ and The Rambling Man has never edited it. This is presumably the contradictory usage of literally. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Obviously still a god, though? [18] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      "When someone asks you if you're a god..." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Gosh, I didn't realise that ITN was quite so high in the clouds. But you wouldn't get far with a catchphrase like "This chick is toast". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ...."Who you gonna call? Blurb-busters!!"[]
      TRM is a top bloke and knowledgeable on a wide range of topics, but I don't recall him being appointed as the overall God of ITN. My interpretation, and I suspect that of Levivich is that Chuckle Brothers, Family of Barack Obama and Killing of Gabby Petito are all in part biographical articles, because they contain the master record and are redirected to from various subjects who meet GNG but don't have their own page. Certainly I'd expect the BLP rules to apply to those parts of the article pertaining to the individuals concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I'm definitely not a god, but for 100% certain, RD was never intended for this kind of thing. It's literally circumventing the regular ITN process because this is either a blurb (it's the event that's notable, for whatever reason, not the individual in any sense). The target article is not a biographical article (unlike the Chuckle bro, unlike Brady etc, articles) and as such is not a valid RD target. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose both RD and blurb – Purient police-blotter chaff. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Police blotter chaff usually doesn't get three stories on it in the BBC [19] [20] [21], plus BBC stories in Spanish [22], Portuguese [23], Indonesian [24], and Kinyarwanda [25]. Levivich 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb, neutral on RD. Human interest story, mainly national rather than international interest, missing white woman syndrome. Sandstein 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. The article looks to be in good shape and this story is in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb as gossip crap and that we are not WP:TOP25. And while we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we also don't post minor-celebrity gossip like the Branson/Bezos spaceflights. I'm also leaning towards opposing RD as well due to her not having a Wikipedia article before the incident and my never having heard of her YouTube channel unlike stuff like ScottTheWoz, PewDiePie (or even, ughhh, Gabbie Hanna), etc. We should wait a couple of hours, though, before closing this for the third and final time. In any event RIP Petito.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb on lack of significance. A tragic case, but one strongly affected by missing white woman syndrome. Also oppose RD as she would not have qualified for an article prior to the disappearance - there's no biographical article per WP:BLP1E. Modest Genius talk 15:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RD comment For comparison, the death of a black man was rejected for RD, citing that it wasn't a bio.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Good research. The bottom line is that RDs is for notable people and blurbs are for notable events. This is neither. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb the article is good quality and the death is certainly in the news in the US (it has crossed over from tabloid news to mainstream news). I'm not sure what the rule is regarding posting "Killing of X" articles to RD, but the rule should be that they can be posted with consensus but not automatically. Obviously not important enough for a blurb. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose. I suspect more traction might apply if it does get moved to Killing of Gabby Petito. But at least I now know what vandwelling is. Had assumed it was either something to do with V-Dubs, or else Wanda in Austria. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Where does it say that deaths of people who only have a redirect are eligible for ITN? Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There is no hard rule, it is the kind of thing that is taken on a case by case basis. It is not forbidden, and has happened multiple times in the past, for example this posting received universal support and no objections. --Jayron32 17:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Though there, that target article is a bio article of two individual known only as a duo and not individually, and thus still technically a biographical article about a notable duo, while here, we're still talking about an event on a non-notable individual. --Masem (t) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was not the question that was asked. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings. If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    A member of a duo or group can be eligible per WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That was not the question the OP asked about. They asked if subjects whose name was a redirect were eligible for RD postings. If they had wanted to ask a different question, they would have. --Jayron32 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Your response positioned Siegfried and Roy as an example of IAR, and I responded to you that it was codified in ITNRD as a possible exemption.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    WP:ITNRD refers to biographies: An individual human ... that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article that is .... The nominated page is regarding an event, and is not a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose - A blurb for a murder victim, no. I was about to support RD but started to think that she is notable per her murder and all media attention, that does not make her RD worthy. SorryBabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose The people who have flooded my social media feeds lately complaining about MWWS could have solved their own problem by simply not talking about this episode in the first place. The thing is, they're fearful they won't have as large a following if they don't obediently latch on to every topic the news media is pushing today. The reason I mention this? Wikipedia is evidently content to follow suit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Do we have a third closer volunteer? Consensus to post is even further afield than it was the first and second times. Time to put this horse out of its misery. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:3C32:7D8B:2AD5:60CC (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD but Oppose Blurb -- I think RD is fair. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD There's a consensus at Deaths in 20xx that an article with a person's death in the title is as good as a bio for not getting deleted after 30 days. This same level of established notability should be recognized here, too, since the two systems are linked. In my opinion, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Throw it on the Main page now, knowing it can always get binned in 30 days' time? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It can't be binned. Not from the real RD list, per the title rule. From the front page, it'll be trashed in a day or two, maybe fewer. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    To me, that shows a failing in the Deaths in <year> system, since per BLP policy identified above, such people are not considered notable and that that page deems to give them that sense of notability is a bad approach. There are reasonable exceptions, obviously. --Masem (t) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support RD. She's notable and she's dead, and that is enough. BD2412 T 23:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, she is not notable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose and I'll take this to AFD in a few months per WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM but I don't feel like dealing with the rain of "keep"s right now. There is nothing notable about this individual nor her death. Nothing. Agree with both re-openings though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • ITNRD excerpts Per WP:ITNRD (color added for emphasis): In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Gabby was not notable. Her killing arguably is, though. It is therefore not appropriate for RD, which requires the subjects to be notable individuals. Events like these where a white woman is murdered and it causes a media sensation happen semi-frequently, and are not blurb worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Strong Oppose RD General lacking notability of the subject, questionable significance of even having the article, and while it is allowed, I think the fact that the article in question isnt specifically on her somewhat hinders the case for RD posting. EDIT: Forgot to also mention that the general scope of this article is lacking. I recognize The Guardian is being sourced here, but are we still sure that the international implications/regognization of the situation is sufficient as well? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose blurb and RD per Masem. The need for the 24 hour news cycle to fill airtime with gossip neither does not make this unfortunate woman an encyclopedia subject. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Move to close I closed it earlier, but won't again. As of this writing, the consensus stands at 9 in support of posting, 21 opposed. If someone uninvolved can interpret that according to their best ability and decide what to do here, that would be great. It doesn't need to be any more of a time sink than it already has. --Jayron32 12:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment – User comments running 21 to 5 9 against posting. That's a clear consensus in the negative. Support close. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm somewhat hoping an admin will swoop in and post this so we can double the kilobyte size of this discussion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Some men just want to watch the world burn--Jayron32 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I would but I am in no mood to be reverted for no reason today. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Apropos swooping, my Halloween costume this year will depict a masked Wiki admin., purely imaginary of course.
Sca (talk) 13:11, 23 September 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.

September 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Marcia Freedman[edit]

Article: Marcia Freedman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/former-knesset-mk-marcia-freedman-died-at-83-680099
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: the only openly lesbian woman to have served as a Member of the Knesset --PFHLai (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Melvin Van Peebles[edit]

Article: Melvin Van Peebles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Looks pretty good at a quick glance, except for the filmography. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Suggestion: There is a blue {under construction} tag. Perhaps we should not review this nom while the construction is still underway. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It needs work beyond that section.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose for now, as needs quite a lot more sourcing, particularly Filmography section. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Article looks well sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) RD: Willie Garson[edit]

Article: Willie Garson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58647331
Credits:

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

 KTC (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Please add references to the Filmography section. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @PFHLai: filmography and rest of article all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thanks for all the new footnotes, Bloom6132. This wikibio looks READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Court ruling on Litvinenko's poisoning[edit]

Article: Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The European Court of Human Rights rules that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is GA but more update is welcome. Per court's ruling, "there was a strong prima facie case that, in poisoning Mr Litvinenko, Mr Lugovoi and Mr Kovtun had been acting as agents of the Russian state" and that it's "beyond reasonable doubt". Brandmeistertalk 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment The mere outcome of the ruling has no long-lasting impact, unless it results in something that will affect the guilty party, so let's wait to see if the international community follows up by imposing sanctions against Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Agree. By itself, this ruling is more a footnote to the larger story. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support we all knew this was the case, but a supranational court declaring it to be the case and even suggesting that it was sanctioned by Putin is noteworthy. If we had a story suggesting that Trump had sanctioned the assassination of Greta Thunberg using nerve agents in Stockholm (for example) then this place would be utterly mad for it. Serious news and high encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose This court has no enforcement capabilities, and Russia is not a voluntary member. If it pays the fine, I'll switch. But it won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Glad you're here for the lulz, just one thing, as per the ECHR article, "International law scholars consider the ECtHR to be the most effective international human rights court in the world". But hey, why let that get in the way of a genuinely encyclopedic news article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I wish you would learn what a joke looks like. I seriously doubt this verdict will be effective. But if I'm wrong, I'll admit you were wiser than me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I can help but associate "joke" with everything you and Statler post. There's very little consideration of the encyclopedia in most of it. Whether the "fine is paid" or not, is not really the point, is it? It would be like suggesting that UN sanctions against Israel are of no encyclopedic value. This is an supranational body declaring that Putin sanctioned a nerve agent attack on foreign soil. Meh, perhaps that's just so de rigeur these days, like school shootings in the US, that we can shrug it off. Never mind. The blurb should also indicate the court's decision on Putin's complicity. That would wake up some of the world. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes. If a court has no authority to impose its sentence, it's basically a think tank. And this one didn't symbolically fine Putin. It fined Russia. You can't help telling those apart, either, both habits annoy me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not sure how old you are, but it is abundantly obvious that the "fine" is not the point here in any sense. We have an international court now saying that the President of Russia sanctioned the use of a weapon of mass destruction on foreign soil. And yet you think it's just about the fines? It's clear we're talking about different things. Probably best for you to get back with Statler in the peanut gallery. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Can you link a source mentioning this court finding Putin guilty of anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, I can't. But I guess it's 2 plus 2, sky is blue etc. Fair enough, but suggesting that the only way this becomes notable is if Russia pays a fine is patently absurd, regardless. Let's get back to new Tube stations and Gaelic football then. Well done everyone! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It's libel. And no, I'm not threatening to report you for it, I'm just unilaterally finding you guilty and ordering you to perform 60 hours of community service. I don't care where, when or what. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    "It's libel"? Ok...! See you in another universe where you start taking this place seriously. Of course, you don't. Your contributions rotate around trying to be funny and make no tangible improvements anywhere really. But you've found a Muppet bromance and that's great for the people who tolerate your "input". You do you, I'll keep writing articles and improving Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'll have you know Bailiff Evans is just a guy from work, and I remain steadfastly loyal to my lovely civil partner of 35 years, Mokey Fraggle. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I guess this is an attempt at humour, from one of our regular muppets. Just highlighting it for those who aren't aware we have a couple of characters who do this kind of thing at ITNC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Bingo. Small text is attempted humour. Regular text is normally just a plain statement of fact that you can't understand, agree with or appreciate as such and insist on heckling obnoxiously instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support posting this determination of an international body. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose on update quality; would be full support if more information had been added to the target article. The total added text involves one sentence in the lead and about 3-4 sentences to the body. If this is a major, newsworthy event, surely our article we're going to post to the main page can tell more about it, no? If this is all that can be said on the subject, it isn't newsworthy. If there is more that should be said, but the Wikipedia article isn't including it, then the article is not properly updated. IF this is fixed, consider this a full support. --Jayron32 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose As per Kiril Simeonovski. Sheesh, "who knew", alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose on coverage. While coverage is demonstrated, the sources themselves don't appear to be highlighting this. This event appears nowhere on BBCs frontpage, News nor World sections. This is not featured on the frontpages of: Izvitsia, Pravda nor The Moscow Times, and I would have expected coverage there considering Russia is the major party to this decision. In the US, the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post have unanimously decided this is not important enough feature. While the article is suitable for the Front Page, I and apparently most RSs, believe it's not something to feature at this juncture.130.233.213.141 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose unless something significant actually comes out of this. Right now, all they've done is blame Russia for something everyone already blamed Russia for- not exactly breaking news. If something e.g. sanctions happens, then it would be ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Somehow, it's never the right time to post an ITN story that shines the light on the authoritarian abuses of Putin's regime. Not even when a supranational court makes a major ruling holding Russia responsible. Regarding the IP's comment above: There has been plenty of coverage of this story in Russia, e.g. Pravda [26], TASS[27], RT[28], Moscow Times[29]. And of course NY Times did cover it too[30], as did WSJ [31], NPR[32], CNN[33], etc. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2021 Russian legislative election[edit]

Article: 2021 Russian legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Russian legislative election, the ruling United Russia retains its majority in the State Duma. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, dpa
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: I know it's a totally expected and uninteresting outcome, but it's still an election in the largest country in the world. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment The article is in great condition. But the results section needs prose, there is some cn tag out there, the summary should include the results and maybe the "Reactions" section could be expanded. I guess in no time it will be completely ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weak oppose Tonight at 11, gravity continues to function This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    And it still rains more or less vertically in Canada, despite our legislature staying mostly the same, so what's the difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Exactly - article quality issues notwithstanding, this qualifies as ITNR even if the expected status quo remained, and so we would post it regardless. --Masem (t) 16:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment Only two cn tags and one failed verification tag. Once those are fixed, this is good to go. Please note that "water is wet" is a valid reason to oppose most ITN nominations, but not if it's ITN/R. Mlb96 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The "Pension reform" section has zero footnotes. The Results table has a couple of empty columns. Can these be fixed, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on quality, as per above comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose on two grounds: insufficient quality and failure of the blurb (and the current version of the lead section of the article) to make clear that this election was not a free and fair election. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's not ITN's job to dispute election results. It's Wikipedia's role to post the facts i.e. who won, and the article itself can deal with the questionable legitimacy of the result. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This subject comes up with every election of dubious validity(some still dispute the last US presidential election). I think there are ways to get the point that the election was not fair across, but there is no consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That the election was not free and fair is "the facts." I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's not "the facts i.e. who won", though. I also think that's the main takeaway. No objection to adding the runner-up party, if that seems fairer. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There's never been a consensus way to assess the validity of an election, as Joseph2302 states, and it's ultimately not Wikipedia's job to do so in a blurb that is in WikiVoice. People generally already know how Russia works, and those who don't can read the article for more.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's easy to make clear in a blurb that an election is not free and fair (when, as is the case here, the sources support it). It is our job to have a blurb that does not mislead the reader or rely on the reader having background knowledge that he or she may not have. Neutralitytalk 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment could we just remove the 'pension reform' section? That would leave a handful of {{cn}} and {{fv}} tags which should be much easier to address. Some prose in the results section would help too. Modest Genius talk 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Off-topic, but just an FYI to the nom, "largest" in terms of human geography usually means "most populous", not "largest in area".  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't disagree with you and it's probably the case in almost every Indo-European language, but my preference is to always use "most populous" rather than "largest" in that context. If you google "largest country in the world", what you get is obviously Russia and not China. All in all, it's a matter of personal preference.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support once dubious information is properly cited or removed, per comments above. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose No prose about actual results, only about background, procedures and campaign launches. Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Volkswagen submits an offer of €2.5 billion for French car rental firm Europcar. The deal, which would give Volkswagen 66% of Europcar's shares, has been accepted by the board but still needs to be accepted by regulators in France. Volkswagen previously owned Europcar and sold it to French investment firm Eurazeo for €3.3 billion in 2006. (RTE)
  • Twitter agrees to pay $809.5 million to settle a shareholder class action lawsuit that accused the social media company of painting an overly rosy picture of its future. (Bloomberg)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


[READY] RD: Helmut Oberlander[edit]

Article: Helmut Oberlander (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-helmut-oberlander-canadas-last-nazi-era-suspect-dies-at-97/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: An accused Nazi who got away and died peacefully in Canada. --PFHLai (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support Unusual story, fine article, not supporting Nazism. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Well written and referenced. Another time when we must post based on how good the article is, not how good the subject's actions were. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Too bad his wikibio is of better quality than what his life was. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

RD: Sarah Dash[edit]

Article: Sarah Dash (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR, USA Today, NBC News, AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Female artist. Article isn't acceptable at this writing. SusanLesch (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Oppose per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Let's wait. No need to rush in an assessment, which can begin upon notification here that the article has improved sufficiently. --PFHLai (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Hey, we said "at this writing". If dashing in turns out foolish later, any vote can be dashed out. I might even regret that pun when I'm sober, who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Sure. There are merely 5 footnotes for almost 2000 words of prose. I hope someone can dash in and add more refs soon. --PFHLai (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thank you, PFHLai, for making room for this nomination. Turns out, that someone won't be me. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    This is all standard practice for RDs. They don't get closed until they're archived, seven days after the death/announcement, and "opposes" on quality are always taken to be void once the article is brought up to scratch.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    YMMV. I nominated a recent death above and it was peremptorily closed in less than two hours. If Amakuru thinks that the process is to keep them open to allow full time for discussion and improvement then please could they oblige by re-opening the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That wasn't an RD nomination, it was a blurb nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As noted, Gabby Petito doesn't have her own article, so it's not automatic that she's eligible for RD. That said, I think this may be a bit of an anomaly in the rules. It probably still won't be posted, but I have boldly reopened the above nom to put a slightly different point of view across. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    More refs are still needed for the many footnote-free paragraphs, but time is running out. It looks like my hopes of seeing Dash on RD have been dashed. Oh, well... Let her rest in peace. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

(Posted) 2021 Canadian federal election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Canadian federal election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Canadian federal election, the ruling Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), is re-elected to a minority government. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, CTV, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters
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: They might still be counting the ballots but every major news organization in Canada has already called the election; the Liberals will win, and they will not win a majority government. Article is currently undergoing heavy updates. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[