Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Aleksander Barkov in 2016
Aleksander Barkov

Glossary[edit]

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps[edit]

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers[edit]

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

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...[edit]

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

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 not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  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. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

June 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Bakhyt Kenjeev[edit]

Article: Bakhyt Kenjeev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Meduza
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.

A renowned Kazakh-born Russian poet, a founding member of the "Moscow Time" group of Soviet underground poets. Recipient of several notable Russian literary prizes, said to have been nominated for the Nobel prize.

(Closed) ICC issues arrest warrants for Russia's Shoigu and Gerasimov[edit]

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: War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The ICC has issued arrest warrants for the Russian army chief and former defense minister for war crimes in Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, VOA, NY Times
Credits:
Ainty Painty (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - total of one sentence in the entire bolded article referencing the news item. Not to get WP:CRYSTALBALL, but this is a symbolic move that likely will not have many consequences, similar to Putin's arrest warrant (other than restricting travel). In particular, the NYT article states, "That makes it highly unlikely that Mr. Shoigu and General Gerasimov will be taken into custody in the foreseeable future". Also covered by the Ongoing section; could be considered part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Finally, another article for the arrest warrants does not yet exist (as exists at International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova), and including that article in the blurb, or at least mentioning the subjects of the warrants, would be more appropriate. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The last time ITN was fooled into posting something like this, the most significant consequence was Main Page readers having to look at Putin smiling at them for an unreasonably (and perhaps uncomfortably) long time; I don't know what these guys look like, but I'm pretty anyone smiling in an official portrait is the entirely wrong look for this harmless-yet-ill-intended sort of news. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Putin was one thing as a sitting head of state, this is comparatively far less important. The Kip (contribs) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Putin story was notable as it was the head of the state but Army chief is not that notable. PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As PrinceOfPunjab says, Putin was worth posting as head of state, but this is a subsidiary matter and not suitable for ITN. It very much falls under Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2024 NEET controversy[edit]

Article: 2024 NEET controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Outrage and protests erupt in India regarding irregularities surrounding the results of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Needs better blurb. Rushtheeditor(talk) 00:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose nothing in the article explains why it should be feature on the main page. LiamKorda 04:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure if this really reaches the notability standard for ITN. The Kip (contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not something significant enough to be featured in the ITN. Close it under WP:SNOW. PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At this time of year, the lives of millions of students and their families around the world are dominated by such high-stakes examinations. This is clearly more significant than local sporting events, say, and so it's good to run a relevant item. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning Support, but the blurb could be clearer, and should target the correct article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh what a mess. I think the main difficulty here is that there's no specific date tied to when this controversy began. Moreover, the article doesn't currently mention any real protests. I think mass protests would be a reasonable date to blurb this, but otherwise the current system of ITN is not really designed for slowly-increasing controversies. Article looks good tho, so I am open for improved blurb ideas. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Paper leaks and student protests are routine and recurring events in India. These have no large significance outside the country. — hako9 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fraudulent issues in the Indian education system are regular. This one has a more coverage than usual but it's still not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


Chang'e 6 return[edit]

Proposed image
The lunar landing site imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Article: Chang'e 6 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The China National Space Administration mission Chang'e 6 successfully returns to Earth with rock samples from the far side of the Moon (lunar landing site pictured). (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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.

We did post when it arrived at the moon, and per ITNR, its successful return is also there. Unfortunately, I don't know how much more than a sentence update (both lede and body) can be made here, given that it is China and news from there tends to be iffy. There definitely needs to be a better update before posting. --Masem (t) 04:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per nom, can't see how the realization of what was always supposed to happen on this moonrock-collecting mission gets any bigger or better than this. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nom, as well as the fact we previously blurbed it anyways. The Kip (contribs) 06:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose inasmuch as it was already posted when it landed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The composition of the far side is different and so return of these samples is significant. As this is the main point of the mission and it's ITN/R , we should note its success. Note also that the Starliner is not going so well and so such success cannot be taken for granted. And adding more sentences to the article will be easy – just give me a moment. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is not everyday that satellites that reached moon's surface also return back to earth. PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support They literally got a moon rock that’s pretty important Personisinsterest (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's good news, but we already ran with the moon landing as the major event of this mission, and I don't think we need this as well. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it had been optimal if we had only blurbed this article upon Chang'e's return, and not on landing. Then we would've had the best of both worlds. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have been a gamble, though, since there's no guarantee a mission will ever complete all its objectives. Moonreach (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, new frontier in science and a nice break from bad news. I don't think it's newsworthy enough to give it the picture slot too, though. - Moonreach (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Return of a spacecraft is not big news and we already blurbed the landing on the far side of the moon. Natg 19 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Already covered ITN, and this subsequent event appears to not meet the criteria outlined at ITNR. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sika Anoa‘i[edit]

Article: Sika Anoa‘i (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, WWE
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.

American Samoan professional wrestler. WWE Hall of Fame. Needs some more citations (I have added some tags and the banner), but it seems people are updating the article. If you know who should be considered an updater, please add to nom. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose need for more citations as some sections are still unsourced. PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya protests[edit]

Article: Kenya Finance Bill protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nineteen people are killed and dozens are injured as protesters storm the Parliament Buildings in Kenya (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Nineteen people are killed and at least 160 are injured as protesters attack the Parliament Buildings in Kenya.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs a significant rewrite. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support altblurb 1 - Focus on the main article. Highly significant event, article might need some rewriting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, highly significant, although article needs a bit of expansion if possible. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an embarrassment that the article on the attack is longer than the one on the buildings. And that the article on the buildings is longer than the one on the parliament itself. Fine set of priorities we're encouraging here. —Cryptic 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very significant Personisinsterest (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality and possible POV issues. The details of the bill should be sourced to third parties, particularly claims that are not clearly part of the bill's language. Masem (t) 17:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb on basis of notability, but some expansion would be needed. A national parliament of a major African nation being set on fire is certainly noteworthy. International newspapers seem to be increasing their coverage of the event, so hopefully there will soon be more info to beef up the article.Khuft (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability: there's some things that still need citations though.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support attack article looks good now and protest was also quite significant. PrinceofPunjabTALK 09:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is huge news. The death toll is now being reported as 13 by the BBC. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been updated, should be sufficient for posting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 12:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mohamed Arif[edit]

Article: Mohamed Arif (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Edition
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.

Maldivian footballer. Death announced 25 Jun 2024. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is in much better shape. Sharrdx (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) Julian Assange Released[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Julian Assange (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Julian Assange agrees to a US plea bargain that would allow for his immediate release. (Post)
Alternative blurb: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is released from prison as part of a U.S. plea bargain.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
Article updated

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Significant event. — hako9 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judge needs to approve of this. That's probably the better time to consider. He may be going right back into jail if the judge denies. --Masem (t) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The appropriate time to post this story would be if/when he actually gets out. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically he has already gotten out. He was released from the British prison on Monday afternoon and he's now going to the Northern Mariana Islands to plead guilty and get sentenced to time served. That hearing is at 7 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, less than 24 hours from now, which could be a good time to post a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable plan. Would temporarily atopping this section until that time be unusual, or would just removing it for now be preferred? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably unnecessary, as the discussion would likely go on for that long in any case. BD2412 T 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an alt blurb which is accurate even today as he was already released from the British prison, but the best time to post it would be when the U.S. judge actually approves the deal. And since that's supposed to happen within 24 hours, it should work out well. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my bad. The blurb wording had be thinking otherwise. Probably should have taken a look for myself then. Thanks for the correction, I will strike my oppose and make it a support. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the chains of government have been broken Lukt64 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither a credible representation of how this happened, nor a meaningful reason to promote this story to the front page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While his article is well sourced, it is overly detailed and has a lot of proseline. It would be nice if that could be cleaned up before tomorrow. --Masem (t) 02:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb which I just added, and post it when the U.S. judge formally approves the deal, which should happen around 7 p.m. ET on Tuesday. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the blurb should use a photo of Assange, not protesters. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting after the judge in Saipan approves the deal. Noteworthy, he's already out of prison on his way to Saipan and will appear in about 23 hours. Can someone with more memory of ITN archives comment on whether it's normal to use plea bargain as the "outcome" in this sort of blurb, or perhaps should something like "after pleading guilty (to [charge/s])" be used instead? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the judge approves, then Support, but with an up-to-date photo of Assange. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda agree. However nobody has uploaded a portrait photo of him newer than 2014 though. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, that's not great either. We can have a temporary picture (either the old photo or the protesters) and hope someone takes a good photo after his release and freely licenses it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked flickr. The best images I found are:
Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true, Aaron Liu. There's a 2018 portrait photo on Commons, but it's not in focus. Schwede66 10:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66 Could you link it? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu, sorry, I had been looking at another main page item before and then got confused; this wasn't about Assange. Schwede66 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait till judge approves it. PrinceofPunjabTALK 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a few CN tags in the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. It's a bit more than a formality for this sort of thing. Wait at least until sentencing before putting this on the main page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb as it more accurately describes what is happening. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb per above, definitely a major development and an internationally recognized headline. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There seem to be at least 3 countries involved in this – Australia, UK and US. His article says that there are significant "legal issues in Australia" so what's their status now? There seems to have been some change in the Australian government position as "The Australian government has been pushing hard for a couple of years now for this case to end". Is this part of the AUKUS deal? And the outcome still seems ongoing as it's conceivable that Assange might skip bail now as he's done it before. I don't think we should focus on the plea bargain as many or most US cases end in some such deal. As there seems to have been some sort of unusual multinational agreement, we should highlight that. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I may agree with the rest of your opinion, he won't be skipping bail because there is no bail. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerous sources report that he was released from Belmarsh because the High Court in London granted him bail. See the BBC, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While it's a long-running and occasionally high-focus case, this ending to it is something of a damp squib, and I'm far from convinced it's ITN material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Criminal gets released from prison - so what. If he got exchanged through a major swap for a russian spy in our custody i'd maybe reconsider my vote, but this is just a minor thing in the grand scheme of things Kasperquickly (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...how the hell would Assange even factor into the US "swapping" him for a Russian spy. The US wanted him in prison, not out of prison and was trying to get him from the UK, not Russia. --110.141.157.50 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kasperquickly does seem to be having some difficulty telling countries apart - see below for where he seems to be confused between the USA, Iraq, and Russia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that make event more notable? BilboBeggins (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as a very significant event. However I have no opinions on the timing of posting given what Andrew & Red-tailed hawk said. Too complicated for me to decide on that. S5A-0043Talk 10:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (lean support) This is a positive development overall, but let's wait until he's actually released and makes a public statement since it's possible that there is the possibility of the deal falling apart or another State indicting him. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pleads guilty and has agreed to some dubious terms as part of his release isn't that notable or historic. In addition that the linked article is a dumpster fire, the chilling effect of his conviction (and aforementioned plea deal terms) should have its own article and subsequently blurbed more than anything else.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should the aftermath have its own article? That's like splitting out Collapse of Smile again. I also don't see how that makes the article a dumpster fire, nor why you claim both that the terms aren't notable or historic and that the repercussions are apparently big enough to have their own article at the same time. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on the contradiction. I'm forecasting, but I still believe the main article is too broad for ITN and if we were to blurb this event it should only be because it's significance is such that it would stand alone on it's own (which it might, and is partially what I'm arguing for here). My apologies if that is confusing.
    This is also a moot argument, consensus appears to have been reached and it'll likely be posted shortly. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that notable. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that doesn't make it true. I'd be impressed to see even one reliable source that's independent of Assange's fan-club that claims such a thing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Namely, which sources would you want to claim that? Would you also want these sources to say that they're sorry they ignored his situation for the past decade and decided to side with state power or do you also want them to say that Wikileaks did more for their jobs than they did themselves? Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think one can fairly say the press has ignored Assange's situation for a decade. It's been covered with reasonable regularity here in the UK. But I also don't think much of "this is a major event in western history - but all possible sources are in the pocket of the state and won't say so". It's definitely in the news - it's a pretty big story - but I don't feel it's of the towering importance people are making it out to be. It's a relatively quiet end to the whole business. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A major event in the worldwide history of the freedom of the press? How so? He's taken a plea bargain and is being released. No new precedent is established, no great publication is made. This just doesn't have the effect that you're claiming it does. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, eminently significant. QuestFour (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support altblurb, more clearly outlines the event but we should wait until there is a definite confirmation from the judge Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's getting a bunch of news coverage, but the actual significance of this seems limited at best. He's pleading guilty and basically being sentenced to time served. Many events get a short term burst of coverage and we don't post them, mainly for want of significance. This isn't an election, a war, or a natural disaster with a high death toll. It's an interesting case that had the potential to clarify some important aspects of the legal relationship between the press and the state. But it is effectively ending in a tactical draw. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything here that warrants a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's conclusion of a decade-long saga that was in the news. It has to be posted. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a news ticker. Just because something gets news coverage doesn't mean it gets posted. What is the practical significance of this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a news ticker One could make that argument about every ITN item. — hako9 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we weigh each item based on its significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely noteworthy. Alexysun (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It has been going on for almost 15 years, and from time to time it reoccured in the news. So this is very appropriate to include this In the news section. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb, a major headline all over the world, and a continuing story, since the news will certainly continue to cover his coming and going from the CNMI, touchdown in Australia, and any comments he may have after that. This also raises the stakes for some kind of deal with Snowden, and other possible ramifications. BD2412 T 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and oppose — This can now be properly discussed. Per Ad Orientem, I do not see how this is a major conclusion to the Assange saga. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support never thought i’d see this day happen. Good luck Assange Ion.want.uu (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's official - The judge sentenced him to time served and said he'll leave the court as a "free man" (Source 1, Source 2) Johndavies837 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WaPo may be a better source. He'll also have Wikileaks destroy the Manning information. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT argues that this could set a precedent for prosecuting journalists.

    The agreement means that for the first time in American history, gathering and publishing information the government considers secret has been successfully treated as a crime. This new precedent will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.

    But its reach is also limited, dodging a bigger threat. Because Mr. Assange agreed to a deal, he will not challenge the legitimacy of applying the Espionage Act to his actions. The outcome, then, averts the risk that the case might lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling blessing prosecutors’ narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.

    Will try and add to article soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as this has probably been the longest running case about a cornerstone of democracy in my lifetime. Wikipedia was able to move a step closer to its goal of making the sum of human knowledge accessible due to Assange's efforts. All readers should be invited to ponder how they feel about his plea and release. Connor Behan (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Article has some serious(?) citation overkill issues. That's not a Hard Wait, mind you. But it is something for at least one of you fixers to think about fixing, before or after it's posted (and possibly pictured). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would be interested in knowing if it has been widely reported in the US, but it is front page news in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT per above. The Kip (contribs) 06:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle inasmuch as there are outstanding issues with the article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no lasting significance to this. I can see that it's fodder for the press, who like a good story, and this one's unusual given his lengthy stay in the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequent incarceration. We've been treated to such breaking headlines as "His feet have hit Australian soil". But ultimately it's just one man, he was neither exonerated nor treated unduly harshly by the US government and this isn't the kind of thing that would usually be covered in ITN, any more than the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination was, or other things that generate a lot of heat on the news tickers.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of findings that he has endured torture are enough for some people. Connor Behan (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to showcase quality articles and writing on current, analyzed events. We are not here to decide whether people have endured our own arbitrary standard of torture that we have not experienced. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: half a million views on 25 June, before his release. Biggest spike of interest in a decade, except for early 2019. Definitely of huge interest. Boud (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's own readership levels are not a reliable news source. Please stop citing them in these sorts of discussions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, alt-blurb. It's a pretty significant event, with Assange being able to come out and meet friends/family etc after serving over five years in prison. This isn't some event where there is lots of news on a day then nothing the next.[1][2] — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb - I think the nominator here, Aaron Liu, lays out a good case that this latest development in the Julian Assange/Wikileaks story is deserving of ITN/blurb level status. The relevant article continues to be (for the most part) reliability updated. - 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trauma Novitiate (talkcontribs)
  • Marking as Ready Full disclosure: I am opposed to this nomination. However being objective, the discussion has been open long enough and there is a solid consensus in favor of posting. I found two CN tags on an otherwise solidly sourced article, neither of which are enough IMO to stop posting. This is good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb - Agree with AO, it’s ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Susana Ruiz Cerutti[edit]

Article: Susana Ruiz Cerutti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Nacion, Perfil
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.

Argentine former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, ambassador to Switzerland and Canada --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shifty Shellshock[edit]

Article: Shifty Shellshock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, Billboard, Deadline Hollywood
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.

American singer and frontman of Crazy Town. 240F:7A:6253:1:4CD4:EE72:33C0:82D7 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article is CN and OR tagged. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Frederick Crews[edit]

Article: Frederick Crews (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
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.

American essayist and literary critic. Death announced 24 June. Thriley (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, once the honors and awards section is fully cited. Otherwise looks to be in good shape. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 13:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article is well-sourced and the citations are reliable. There does seem to be a lot of focus on Crews’s disavowal of Freud and psychoanalysis. I’m unsure whether it does or does not deserve a prominent place in the article. Also, as Classicwiki points out, the short section on “Honors and awards” lacks citations, but that should not necessarily keep this RD from being posted. The other citations in the article back up many of these already. If I have time, I’ll try to get to these. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Stanley Cup[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2024 Stanley Cup Finals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Connor McDavid pictured). (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
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.

Article looks good to me. PrinceofPunjabTALK 03:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As an editor on this article, we've been hard at work making sure it's up to par for ITN, and I believe it now is. However, having Florida captain Aleksander Barkov as the photo may be a better choice, given McDavid isn't on the Panthers. The Kip (contribs) 04:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent has been set which the championship MVP is pictured and mentioned (check the archive from June 17). Connor McDavid just happens to be an outlier, being the 6th overall player and 2nd skater to win the trophy without winning the cup. Additionally, the previous player, Jean-Sébastien Giguère did it when there was only 100,000 articles in the English Wikipedia. LosAnaheimFan 5 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with The Kip. The pictured player should be from the winning team, that's the story here, we're not blirbing the fact that someone won the MVP award specifically. And the captain is as good a choice as any.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The head coach, goalie or game-winning goal scorer are all better choices, if we must ignore tradition. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality seems sufficient for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—And speaking as an Edmontonian who roots for the Oilers: congrats, Panthers! You really earned it. (As an aside, I'm neutral re. the image used, and open to being persuaded either way.) Kurtis (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's an American team winning a Canadian trophy, what else is new? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any actual reason to oppose, or can we safely disregard this comment? The Kip (contribs) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean... why run a story about sports championships if each and single year they happen without fault? It would be better if there was a story about it NOT happening. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to argue this, you could open a discussion on the talk page to remove sports from ITNR, but ITNR lists many different sporting events, so that may be a difficult proposal. The entire purpose of ITNR is for "recurring" events that are in the news. ITN is not only for "special events/disasters". Natg 19 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article's quality is more than enough for ITN, and, of course, the victor of the Stanley Cup has been featured in ITN many, many times. IncompA 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is good and the Stanley Cup Finals are posted every year. Hungry403 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (oppose image) McDavid didn't even accept the award, and the article is about the Stanley cup championship not the opposing teams captain. Historically, the MVP has typically gone to a member of the winning team but given the incredibly competitive nature of this series I suppose it makes sense why the league would decide to deviate from the norm. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (oppose image) Article is good, topic is noteworthy enough to warrant being highlighted on the front page. McDavid winning the Conn Smythe is worth being mentioned, but the image used should be of a Flames player instead. RPH (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDavid or the Panthers logo It's always been standard to picture the MVP. We skipped the NBA one this year, but that's only because a beautiful lynx appeared. Unlike that cat, there's no good reason to arbitrarily highlight any Panther who didn't win an individual award (or a Calgary Flames player). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a Support Vote, in case that wasn't clear; the article looks typically fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, ideally with Aleksander Barkov as the photo, or perhaps Sergei Bobrovski. Barkov being the captain of the champion club should be the easiest to swing though. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above Ion.want.uu (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. There is clear consensus to post the blurb text. I've posted without the photograph, since there still seems to be unresolved discussion on which photograph should be used (if any); additional conversation could be useful in attaining consensus specifically on that point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must insist (vainly or not), since the main or only reason for picturing the guy who didn't hold the Oilers to one or score a point at all that night is his general association with the Panthers, we use the free picture of him wearing a Panthers uniform, not whatever getup he has on there. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late Oppose Like too many sport events, this is filled with jargon that make it unnaproachable to the average reader. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably biased but there is so much more jargon that could be added. Instead of what we have, we could have "In ice hockey, the Florida Panthers (captain Aleksander Barkov pictured) defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the Stanley Cup Finals, after winning Game 7 at home, in regulation. Edmonton forward Connor McDavid won the Conn Smythe Trophy." Maybe we could omit the Oilers part but that is important information. LosAnaheimFan 5 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia - if we wrote all of our articles solely in wording known to an average English-speaker, our articles would be nearly bare of content. Most sports articles inherently presume at least a degree of familiarity with the sport in question, and if there's no familiarity, there's plenty of Wikilinks to help establish it. Jargon is fine so long as it's not excessive, and this article certainly isn't. The Kip (contribs) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's moot, but phrases like "scored backhand on a breakaway chance" (which is not wikilinked) are contrary to WP:MOS for Jargon. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine. I have no real knowledge of ice hockey at all, and I can understand the article without any problems. Usually issues arise when editors use sporting slang rather than jargon, and this one doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aricell battery factory fire[edit]

Article: Aricell battery factory fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A fire at a lithium battery factory in the South Korean city of Hwaseong kills at least 22 migrant workers, most of them Chinese nationals. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, NY Times, CNN, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ainty Painty: I just changed the tense per WP:ITNBLURB. Would you like to include "at a lithium battery factory" in the blurb as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think? Do you want to change it too? If yes, do or you can suggest an alt blurb. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Significant death toll. 2607:F2C0:EA85:FCE0:3CC9:CD90:4853:1B66 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – large number of deaths. However though, at least 22 migrant workers is wrong, as the article states 2 South Koreans were among the casualties. Thus I suggest, "A fire at a lithium battery factory in the South Korean city of Hwaseong kills at least 22 workers, including 19 migrants, most of them Chinese nationals.". — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if updates are made. Very tragic accident. 17 Chineses, 6 Koreans dead (1 from Laos but changed nationality to Korea). Didgogns (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Dennis Deer[edit]

Article: Dennis Deer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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.

– Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sergeant Cecil[edit]

Article: Sergeant Cecil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Racing Post, At the Races
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.

British racehorse. Needs some inline citations. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support sure it needs some inline citations, otherwise article good enough to be posted. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Dagestan attack[edit]

Article: 2024 Dagestan attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Dagestan, Russia, 27 people die in a coordinated attack. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Islamic terrorists stage a number of attacks across Dagestan, Russia, killing 21 people and injuring dozens of others
Alternative blurb II: ​ Islamic terrorists attack a number of locations, including a church, and a synagogue, across Dagestan, Russia, killing 21 people and injuring dozens of others
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
  • Wait Article is barely more than a stub at this point, and situation is still quite vague. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt As more details have emerged this has been headline news for nearly 24h and the story is still developing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No indication of significance. This should be a bullet point in a list of terrorist incidents in Russia, not an article featured on the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've posted terrorist incidents in the us where like 4 people died even thought hundreds die every day in Chiraq
    An islamist attack with 10 deaths and a burned synagogue and a church is clearly significant, even if you think otherwise Kasperquickly (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Casually throwing around the term "Chiraq" isn't exactly something indicative of an editor fit for Wikipedia. The Kip (contribs) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the equivalent of saying hundreds die everyday in Ukraine, so an attack where 10 people died isn't significant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in the context of the war. The ISIS insurgency in the North Caucasus doesn't usually have attacks like this Personisinsterest (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care how many people died, and I don't care what we've posted in the past. Neither of those are relevant to whether this has any encyclopedic significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 15 police officers died, around 30 people overall. Of course it's a significant attack. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very short article, and seems comparatively minor in the grand scheme of terrorist attacks. The Kip (contribs) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Support, the article’s been expanded and since my initial comment the death toll’s increased from seven to 27. The Kip (contribs) 17:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Wait Article needs expansion, but otherwise significant enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Significant event. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 28 deaths are enough Braganza (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability but it is wise to wait until the article is of higher quality and more information is known. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for more information on the perpetrators and aftermath. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major attack. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deadly terrorist attacks targeting religious buildings (churches and a synagogue) are a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a tragic attack targeted against specific people and a large death toll. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given events Russia is involved with the blurb needs more clarity as to who dud the attacks or their intent. Eg this appears to not be tied to the Ukraine conflict directly. Masem (t) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Gave it a go with 2 altblurbs. Note that I've purposefully foregone the mention of 6 dead terrorists because I don't think it's fair to count them among the people that they've murdered Kasperquickly (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I oppose the proposed Alts at this time. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2 Article meets the minimum requirement. — hako9 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2 article is ready to be posted. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt1 which seems more concise and I don't think the church part is that important. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it kind of is since most people apparently died there, plus they've cut the head of a priest off. More to the point i've actually only added that part because wikipedia has already had individual articles for bot hthe church and the synagogue attacked and i wanted them included in the blurb. Kasperquickly (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Ready) RD: Howard Bernstein[edit]

Article: Howard Bernstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Manchester Evening News
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.

British politician. Manchester City Council chief executive. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems to be of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks alright now. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Midori No Sora or @PrinceofPunjab, would you mind marking ready? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 08:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of the subject's life could use some elaboration in the main prose (with references) on his earlier career before becoming chief executive. --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kamala Hampana[edit]

Article: Kamala Hampana (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald, The Hindu
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.

Indian writer. Still needs citations. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Jamie Kellner[edit]

Article: Jamie Kellner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, Hollywood Reporter
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.

American TV executive. Founded Fox and the WB. Article still needs some details and would be nice to have infobox with photo. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks okay to me. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro mentions ACME and running TBS till 2003, but these were not discussed in the main prose. What did he do from 2003 onwards? THere are also a couple of {cn} tags in the main prose. Please expand the coverage to the latter stages of his career and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Spiridon Vangheli[edit]

Article: Spiridon Vangheli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Președinte.md, TVR Moldova
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.

Moldovan/Bessarabian/Romanian writer and prose writer. Known worldwide for his book Guguță. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.55.27.113 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have updated this nomination to direct to the correct article. Unfortunately, I do not think this article will make it to RD in its current state. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Classicwiki said, article needs a lot of work. PrinceofPunjabTALK 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James K. Irving[edit]

Article: James K. Irving (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Globe and Mail, CBC
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.

Canadian businessman and member of the Irving family in New Brunswick; last living son of K. C. Irving, his younger brother died a month prior.B3251(talk) 00:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Darren Lewis (American football)[edit]

Article: Darren Lewis (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
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.

American footballer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - lacking inline citations. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose College section have no source at all. PrinceofPunjabTALK 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Keith Locke[edit]

Article: Keith Locke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stuff, Radio NZ
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.

New Zealand politician ecologist. Died June 21, 2024. Kiwichris (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've beaten me to it by 12 minutes, Kiwichris. Schwede66 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ready article is in a very good shape. PrinceofPunjabTALK 12:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cn tags have been sorted now. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Haviland Smith[edit]

Article: Haviland Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
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.

Lots of issues with article, needs significant improvements before posting. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eberhard Hertel[edit]

Article: Eberhard Hertel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk
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.

German Volkstümliche Musik singer. Jmanlucas (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu alcohol poisoning[edit]

Article: 2024 Tamil Nadu alcohol poisoning (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Tamil Nadu, India, at least 54 people have died in an alcohol poisoning incident. (Post)
News source(s): BBC TIME
Credits:

Article updated

High number of fatalities warrant an ITN posting. | Mfarazbaig (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per List of alcohol poisonings in India, these are regular events, and I can't see that we've previously posted any of these (some of which had much higher fatality counts). Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We did post a similar incident in Russia in 2016. —Cryptic 20:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-posting of alcohol incidents with mass deaths, which happen in India at an average frequency of 2 years, as I will term it, is not evidence of its non-notability, rather the lack of an ultra efficient reporting by ITN. Using the predecessor as an argument may be a good way to judge if the current case, doesn't matter if more or less severe, should be added or not. However that may not be the case with this particular case, prior incidents related to which were severely neglected in the past few years. Rather discussion surrounding this case may serve as a landmark decision for future incidents related to it, maybe for those from India and abroad. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Black Kite. Unfortunately a routine event in India. --Masem (t) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No indication of significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support inasmuch as building fires are also common but we posted the one in Kuwait This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While sadly "common", the whopping death count is substantial and rare. In fact, given that these happen every few years, it seems to be an endemic problem in India, ie it's a specific example of a significant consistent problem in Indian society. That means it's significant. Also, building fires are common but ones that kill over 50 are rare events. It's more notable than "American celeb dies" stories. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not compare one nomination to another like that per WP:ITNATA — Masem (t) 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support More than 50 deaths. Besides, alcohol deaths are not that routine in India, especially when you take into account that 50+ people died at one go. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: Clear indication of notability, and not a regular routine in India in a way that 1) the high Fatality Count, 2) the overall media attention it is getting, 3) reported by international media highlighting its newsworthiness and broader public interest, 4) the further political and technical and legal implication it has caused and will likely cause in near future, 5) societal inequalities and public health disparities that get highlighted with this case. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the cases with higher death counts, previously unreported, read my response above to Black Kite. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As an Indian myself, it is unfortunate for me to say that alcohol poisoning is common in India. While 50+ deaths may seem like a rare occurrence, it is unlikely to have any significant long-term impact. Case in point, it is not even the biggest news topic in India right now. In fact, it ranks behind the 2024 NEET controversy, Speaker election, Euros and the T20 World Cup in term of converge by the Indian media. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Large number of casualties (250+) and by all indications there appears to be significant political and community reactions from this incident (as opposed to other incidents). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PrinceofPunjab and Masem, it does not appear to have any sort of long term impact. LiamKorda 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dylon Powley[edit]

Article: Dylon Powley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV News, Northern Tribune
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.

Former Canadian soccer player. Died in a motorcycle accident. --Classicwiki (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Joshua Wade[edit]

Article: Joshua Wade (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Anchorage Daily News, AP
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.

American serial killer. Article published 20 June, but appears to have died 14 June. Disclaimer: Nominating this article does not imply that I endorse or support this individual. It is just a recent death I read about.--Classicwiki (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Johnson (cricketer, born 1971)[edit]

Article: David Johnson (cricketer, born 1971) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.

Former Indian cricketer. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief career" Oppose Iadmctalk  16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Brief career" mean? All that was accomplished in his career has been included. Unless you are referring to his career being brief and hence not important to post? If so -- I would request you have a look at the note above i.e. Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough here to warrant his inclusion — Iadmctalk  06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Obviously notable, but too stubby and vague ("owing to different issues, he couldn’t prolong even his coaching career), and a lot of the text is identical to this article, that needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the plagiarism (which has left it even more stubby, of course). Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Taylor Wily[edit]

Article: Taylor Wily (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Associated Press The New York Times
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.

Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - But the article needs a lot of work. I've expanded it with the various obituaries that have been written about him. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced selected filmography list. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good now. PrinceofPunjabTALK 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved the last two tags. Also for those who don't know, he was more than an actor, as he was part of the first UFC fight broadcast, the first knock out, as well as an American who competed in sumo competitions in Japan. Also, he got local coverage in Hawaii during his high school football days as an up and coming player, and was the third heaviest high school football player in the country at the time. So he got fairly consistent news coverage throughout his life. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Russell Morash[edit]

Article: Russell Morash (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WGBH
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.

American television producer and director. Created/produced/directed The French Chef, The Victory Garden, This Old House, and The New Yankee Workshop. Thriley (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait there are two cn tags. PrinceofPunjabTALK 12:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have sources for Date and Place of Birth, please? --PFHLai (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sourced those to the Deadline obit. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new REF. --PFHLai (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed; posted RD) Blurb/RD: Donald Sutherland[edit]

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: Donald Sutherland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Canadian actor Donald Sutherland (pictured) dies at the age of 88 (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
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.
Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Article needs major ref work done as there are unsourced statements in career section, award section and a bit in the early life section. Might support blurb if article reflects his impact/how influential he was. Support blurb once article is up to shape. Defitnely notable and influential based on legacy section and per other arguments. Real shame. RIP President Snow. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Top of his field, the best actor that we had. His body of work tells you lot, his films are jewels of world cinema. And he was active to last years of his life, so it is decades-spanning career. Him dying is a very big news. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not much point in talking about a blurb until the sourcing is improved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support RD sufficient quality now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as RD proposer. A good/famous actor but does not rise to the level of a blurb. Will try to do more sourcing work later today. Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb simply having numerous films under their belt, nothing in the article indicates he was a great figure in the acting world (eg no legacy or impact) Masem (t) 19:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But he was a great figure in acting world, we know it. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nowhere stated in the article. Simply being an actor with a lot of roles and even a few Oscar's isn't enough, that's handwaving. We need an indepth coverage to explain why he has a legacy or impact from his career. — Masem (t) 20:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a brand, it's as simple as that.
    The point of blurbing deaths of famous people is to inform that person known worldwide died, like in case of Sydney Poitier, Henry Kissinger, Jiang Zemin, the Queen.
    We blurbed former Greece King, surely we can blurb Sutherland? BilboBeggins (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RD line serves that purpose. Blurbs are reserved for cases where the death has draw attention or in the case or great figures that represent transformative ppl on their field — Masem (t) 21:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, Sutherland did not win an Oscar, and actually won few traditional awards. He is noted as one of the "best without an Oscar", though he got an honorary one in 2017. Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready for the usual reason. Oppose blurb on merits. Sutherland was a good and well-known actor, but not in the top tier of the profession. Not that long ago the community turned down Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland, two giants from the golden age of Hollywood. I'm interpreting that as setting a very high bar for blurbs for actors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two giants were turned down wrongly, it's bad to refer to wrong decisions.
    He passes Sidney Poitier threshold and is bigger than Betty White whom we blurbed. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Betty White was a bad post because it was based on popularity. Poitier has a significant impact on Hollywood due to his acting skills and race, which he extended after his career, creating a clear legacy. There is not really anything to say the same for D. Sutherland here, which is needed to post a blurb — Masem (t) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Poitier was famous for lead roles in films that were nominated for Oscar in important categories or won. Poitier had activism, Sutherland was active in anti-Vietnam war movement.
    They both won honorary Oscars.
    But unlike Poitier, who in his last thirty or thirty five years only had one prominent role in Jackal, Sutherland had dozens of them. Pride and Prejudice, Six degrees of separation, Cold mountain, and I am listing only Oscar nommed films. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Hollywood actors are known figures, but they're still just actors, and we shouldn't overstate their world impact. Sutherland is worthy of being listed on the front page as RD but not with a blurb as a top story. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per above and as a matter of principle This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The irony here, of course, is that we almost certainly not going to blurb Sutherland, a very famous and widely loved actor, but we have just blurbed Mays, someone about which the vast majority of the planet would say "who?". (That's not a comment on Americentrism by the way, we have blurbed two non-American sportspeople this year as well). We really do need to think about how illogical this process is. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agreement although I don't accept it as a foregone conclusion based on several votes. If several days are needed to improve the article's citations and make his legacy clearer, we should allow that, but his death is major news and that's the entire point of ITN. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought about this. Why we blurbed Mays, who has 30 wikipages, Shane Warne, who had 30 wiki pages at the moment of his death, but we didn't blurb Vangelis, we didn't blurb Christopher Plummer (in my opinion we should jave blurbed him).
    Donald Sutherland has 80 wiki pages, he is household name worldwide. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely feel that this process is odd and unintuitive, so either we should get rid of death blurbs altogether, or codify the process to which one gets a death blurb. Currently, it is seems arbitrary and based on "transcendence" and "significant impact", whatever that actually means. I personally am biased in favor of sportspeople, but there needs to be a way to eliminate personal biases from ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is not about fame or popularity. Blurbs should be for great figures with articles that are some of our best content, even if the person is obscure or not well know outside their field. Otherwise when we use fame or name recognition, ITN blurbs favor western people and those in highly public area like politics or entertainment. We have to fight that bias by not considered fame or obscurity as long as the death is reported by multiple sources and the article respects our best work to be featured on the main page. — Masem (t) 00:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is my biggest issue though, what makes someone a "great figure"? Some here would argue that Sutherland is. Not sure how you define "best content" either. Does the article have be a GA or FA? Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two main factors specified on WP:ITN are a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments. The article has already been significantly improved and it continues to improve. Two days ago, it had an ORES predicted quality of C (3.74), but it's now B (3.88). There are 80 language links on the article. It's front page news on Le Monde (French), The Times of India (Indian English), and The Asahi Shimbun (Japanese). That is not indicative of Western bias. It shouldn't be up to anyone here to overrule the news to decide he's not a "great figure". It's major news and replacing an old news item such as the NBA finals with a blurb about Donald Sutherland's death would significantly improve the main page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNRDBLURB is the criteria for RD blurbs, which are in addition to the main ITN criteria we don't have to use fame, popularity, role count, or other factors, we consider what their impact was in their field, and honestly, there is nothing in our article that demonstrates that. That type of content and sourcing from secondary RSes is how we determine a "great figure", and not simply by how much coverage an RD gets. — Masem (t) 03:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My points about the international significance and coverage remain valid. I'm not arguing based on fame, popularity, or role count, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning those. The selective approach often taken here towards recent deaths reads as elitist and disregards the impact of films and television on culture. Discounting his role in M*A*S*H which had a major impact on views of war and authority, his performance in Ordinary People, and his other contributions seems shortsighted. As to his impact on the field, he was honored with an honorary Academy Award for lifetime achievement in 2017. The Academy doesn't award those to any old schlub that's famous. His recent death is newsworthy and would serve as a more compelling current use of the ITN blurbs than several entries currently featured. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    we consider what their impact was in their field, and honestly, there is nothing in our article that demonstrates that Sutherland had a massive impact in the field of cinema, as is indicated by news publications worldwide prominently reporting on his death. The fact that our article wrongly doesn't reflect that point doesn't mean anything (cf. WP:ARTN). voorts (talk/contributions) 08:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For purpose of what ITN is and that blurb RDs are meant to be exceptions from the rule, and that blurbed items are supposed to reflect the best of WP's work, the failure of the article to be properly sourced as a BLP and the lack of content from secondary sources on how he impacted the industry or left a legacy in clear format is a major roadblock in considering this as an a blurb. International coverage US inly a indicator if a famous name, unkess all that coverage speaks to his legacy and not simply talking about his death or reprintimg wire stories. — Masem (t) 09:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that since this ITN was started a Legacy section has been added which starts bring this more in line with demonstrating"great figure". But it is still miles away in terms of sourcing to be even included as an RD. — Masem (t) 11:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Mays certainly did not deserve a blurb as I’ve repeatedly said This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. The New York Times has not one, not two, but three features about him on their front page right now. The Canadian The Globe and Mail has him featured at the top of their front page. The BBC has him featured top left. The man is a giant, one of the most famous Canadian actors of any age. I don't know if it's a bias disfavoring entertainment figures, Canadians, or both, but not doing a blurb would be doubling down on previous bad decisions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Not remotely of the level of significance for a blurb. I was pleasantly surprised earlier, when I saw that he was nominated for RD only, but clearly I raised my hopes too soon. Just to be clear, being a famous person that people have heard of does not mean you're automatically blurbed. Blurbs are for the exceptional few who transcend all others.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Receiving broad coverage at most news sources, and these stories about his career and death are the most-read stories at those sources. Sutherland was a household name, widely respected and richly honored. While the current ITN selection process is biased, public interest is an inherent factor is newsworthiness. To be useful, ITN must grasp that. Other-language ITNs do a much better job of this. Dr Fell (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb Big hunger games fan but unfortunately not notable for blurb (I would argue he's more notable then the locked baseball player, though.....) Sharrdx (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb a popular actor but he was not on the top of his field. LiamKorda 03:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was top of his field. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His field was acting. Meryl Streep and Daniel Day Lewis are the toppers in this field but he isn't. LiamKorda 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That of course is an entirely subjective opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-subjective opinion held by editors who you want to silence. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we need the coverage of why reliable, secondary sources consider a person to be top of their field, which must be present in the article, as to avoid the handwaving either way that a person does or doesn't deserve a blurb. We want to take editors' personal options and IHATEIT/ILIKEIT type arguments (which are occurring even in this blurb discuss) out of the picture and focus on if we are providing the reader the right justification for a blurb. — Masem (t) 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo RD Only He was certainly one of Canada's oldest best actors, but far enough from the top of any easily Googlable list. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know we don't do photo RDs. He was top Canadian actor. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know what Keanu Reeves, Rachel McAdams, Jim Carrey, Sarah Polley, the Trailer Park Boys, Evangeline Lily and Bret Hart say about making our dreams a reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is tagged as needing more sources. Not what we need for ITN— Iadmctalk  05:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK the More Sources tag has gone as more have been added. Weak Support now — Iadmctalk  07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Bilbo Beggins, Daniel Quinlan and Dr Fell, who all make excellent points. Jusdafax (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for those people whose deaths and/or funerals could support a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the only reason for the blurbs. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too still stand by this argument. I have voted to support death blurbs on an WP:ILIKEIT basis before, but I really think these articles are only suitable for blurbing if we have at least an extensive section on the individual's death. That is the work we are featuring in these situations. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean we blurb barely notable people who die in really odd ways and get a long death section in their article, and I don't think that's what you all really want, but please correct me if I'm wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 08:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't happen. "Death" does not mean "cause of death", instead it is about our response to the event of a famous person dying. Abductive (reasoning) 09:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does actually include the cause of death. An unfortunate accident or high-profile murder makes something much more likely to blurb. It's not like barely-notable people frequently die by rube-goldberg machine that needs two paragraphs to explain. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me a time when that caused a user to nominate someone for a blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not anywhere in ITN guidelines at all. That would lead to editors gaming the system to fill a death article with reaction kudzu just to justify that article and a blurb. Further, simply having a legit standalone evdeath article would not necessarily be sufficient if the person simply dies of old age. For example, we know Jimmy Carter is close. As a former US president he will likely have a state funeral and all that for a standalone, but whether he would be blurbed just for that is unckearm — Masem (t) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying that it would motivate ITN editors to actually update and expand upon the articles they nominate? I'm not seeing the problem there. If the additions are low-quality, the blurb gets rejected for that reason. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding a proper article with proper encyclopedic content would be reasonable. What I fear are editors, being told a requirement for an RD urn is a separate article about their death (which is not in our guidelines) will create an article with dozens of reaction statements from any possible reliable source to demonstrare the death was significant, with actually writing towards why the person should be taken as one of the greats — Masem (t) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strawman argument. Abductive (reasoning) 19:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We know you think Jimmy Carter is close. How many blurb arguments has this page seen since you started saying so? 30? 50? Give it a rest, please. He's a biographically living person. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that having a separate death article is not any guaranty of having a death blurb, nor a requirement for a blurb — Masem (t) 12:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that was all you're saying, I wouldn't be here. Anyway, after checking to see when you started, I see it's not really a "you problem"; others began earlier and have followed since. Sorry for that. Still, a bit morbid a practice, generally. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb Certainly RD worthy but I don't think he quite made the blurb -worthy level. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability per BilboBeggins and Dr Fell. Renewal6 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb He is evidently and significantly more famous than Willy Mays and the rest. Citing his appearances in well-known movies from M*A*S*H to the Hunger Games is superfluous busywork. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You will notice that no admin has even posted him to the RD ticker. And the rapid posting and lack of opposition to Willy Mays speaks for itself. Abductive (reasoning) 19:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Always with the negative waves..." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Accolades section should probably be orange tagged, several missing references to his nominations and awards. Oppose blurb An actor whose had a successful career doesn't rise to the level of ITN mention. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb He was certainly not the most prominent person on his field. Also, I opposed Willie Mays's blurb because I knew that the next non-american death blurb will have people cite his blurb as a reason to push their candidate articles. PrinceofPunjabTALK 12:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb A legendary actor, but not quite to the extent of one that we would blurb. The “but Willie Mays!!!” naysayers are silly. The Kip (contribs) 18:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support RD, weak support blurb when ready per Daniel Quinlan. Article still has way too many citation needed tags. Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Natg 19, @TDKR Chicago 101, @Pawnkingthree, @Ad Orientem, @Iadmc, @Kcmastrpc, @Staraction, @Trauma Novitiate, I believe you all opposed RD on the grounds of sourcing. I just added a bunch of citations. I am marking ready for RD at least. Feel free to remove if you still think there are quality issues with the article. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is better, for sure. Changed my vote to Support but this RD has already been posted. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated my vote since the article quality has improved substantially. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD Stephen 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-Posted comment - But now, whether you support or oppose a blurb, I think most of us can agree that this RD/Blurb process does not work. That’s why I posted this on our Talk Page recently: Please join the discussion ~~>Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it seems completely random and seemingly depends on time RD item is proposed. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is all this relevent to the already-posted item under discussion? Shouldn't this now be closed as done? — Iadmctalk  14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, blurb discussion continues and discussing arguments about choosing whom to blurb is important. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. For an actor largely known for his work in movies, I find the lack of Oscar nominations let alone wins to be a pretty convincing reason why he should not be posted. Michael Douglas and Olivia de Havilland actually won competitive and yet we apparently didn't post them. Blurbs aren't meant to be a popularity contest. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael is alive and is turning 80 this summer. He was also one of those who pour tributes to Donald.
    He was lead actor in 70s and 80s, it was pretty cramped then. He lost his best chance for Golden Globe win for film to Robert DeNiro.
    Having no Oscar nominations while being top actor in his prime is also what makes him encyclopedically relevant — the best actor not to receive an Oscar nomination.
    And he got honorary Oscar, it's more important and indicative than the ones given to Cuba Gooding Jr., Tatum O'Neal, Mo'Nique and others who haven't achieved that much on film BilboBeggins (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, you've responded to quite a few oppose votes. The Kip (contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding photo While I remain opposed to a blurb, I think adding Sutherland's photo until something more interesting comes along or he drops off the RD list, is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's have a photo, I am in! BilboBeggins (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there should be a photo. Please weigh in on the Talk page ~~> Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? so we can have consensus and get this option put in place! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, do not WP:CANVASS individual people to weigh on open discussions elsewhere. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please close this? It's already in ITN under RD — Iadmctalk  06:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is ongoing about whether or not to have a blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Got it — Iadmctalk  06:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb and photo it's ok just to have an honourable mention as now. Blurb and photo not necessary — Iadmctalk  06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but it softens the blow to see a photo for the many who wanted a blurb and it didn’t reach consensus to blurb… Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Post-posting comment) I weakly support a stronger mention than the RD list, mainly because there already is a RD blurb, but that blurb by itself illustrates why "most prominent person in the field" is a poor criterion. Baseball has practically no following outside US, Canada and Japan. Hence, I would reckon a similar amount of people is familiar with both Donald Sutherland and Willie Mays. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Eric Roberts has been seen by far more people than Willie Mays has, even though you very likely don't know who this is. Daß Wölf 16:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Far more amount of people are familiar with Donald Sutherland than Willie Mays. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never heard of Mays. Sutherland is internationally known and acclaimed — Iadmctalk  06:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, this piece by Guardian shows that he was transformative, revered and top of the field [4]. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Iberian lynx[edit]

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: Iberian lynx (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The iberian lynx is reclassified from endangered to vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Reuters CBS The Guardian
Credits:
This isn't usually what I see in ITNC, but I think it could be interesting. Inserted more links to news sources to demonstrate that the topic is relevant in the news. Article may need to be updated more with news-relevant information. Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose while it is a good and positive news, I do not think it a something that is blurbworthy. I would have supported it if it was a news about the cat's extinction (fortunately it isn't). PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support after thinking bout it a bit and reading other users' comments, I have changed my mind. PrinceofPunjabTALK 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above, but sounds like a good dyk! Sharrdx (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For DYK, the article would have to be expanded fivefold in one week (not possible due to its size) or promoted to GA, so that isn't likely to happen right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for this specific case which just doesn't rise to the level of blurbworthiness, but I would be more than happy to see more positive news like this one! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Support on principle, to support having more positive conservation news on the encyclopedia's main page. Not everything has to be politics and disasters to be blurbworthy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per PrinceofPunjab and Chaotic Enby. Even though it is a positive news and make me happy to read it, I am of the opinion that it is not main page worthy. Also because it is not a popular animal or Species. LiamKorda 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think years ago the Great Panda's reclassification was posted but I think it was coupled with Guerillas becoming critically endangered. But this one doesn't seem to be as notable. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is type of news that an encyclopaedia should feature more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very appropriate for encyclopedia to include this on front page. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important and major conservation news. The species was almost extinct not long ago. It's not often that nature topics are on the main page. --Mika1h (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mika1h. Finally. Bremps... 00:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is just the kind of good news story INT needs and the article is well written and sourced— Iadmctalk  06:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a reclassification "on paper" with no lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This “paper” does not aim to have an impact, but the importance is that this reclassification is the confirmation of a reality, which is what is being debated if it is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly does, the humans who wrote the report were probably happy, maybe they took their spouses out to dinner. But this is just minor news of no lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Good news, and a decent article for us to feature. I would wonder if a move into "Near-Threatened" would be more appropriate for a feature than a move from "Endangered" to "Vulnerable." I hope to see more stories like this nominated, as it's a great way for us to feature our animal articles in ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been very big news in Spain and Portugal, where the lynx is basically the de facto symbol of environmental conservation. Lynx numbers aren't just growing, they're also spreading out to different areas than the ones they were reintroduced to. It's raised conversations about other areas of conservation, including rabbits, the main source of food for the lynx, which are currently suffering from a disease outbreak. It even has political relevance, as the destruction of the lynx was started in the Francoist period; debates on the legacy of Francoism are a huge issue in Spanish politics right now. I just can't understand the argument that this has "no lasting impact". --Grnrchst (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this information re. hunting, and Franco's influence, to the article. Thanks for pointing it out! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally the "positive news" arguments are unproductive, and, IMO, irrelevant. To this end, I was somewhat of the belief of opposing this as an administrative change (there are several endangered tiers, this is only between two adjacent ones, but Grnrchst's argument on the impact is convincing, so I'm also going to go support, even if the story is somewhat not just about the relisting itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Posted – robertsky (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support something to dilute the constant deaths spam. me likey Kasperquickly (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Article looks good and I personally find any species on the brink of extinction blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "vulnerable" species is three IUCN levels away from the brink of extinction. That's not a post-posting oppose or anything, as a good-looking animal article (especially with fur) is a sight for sore eyes. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kiril Simeonovski and BilboBeggins. This is what encyclopedic news looks like. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear! Yakikaki (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose — Many species have their classification changed each year. The iberian lynx is nothing special. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As none of those species were even nominated, much less supported and posted, I'd say it's fairly clear how this cat is all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

June 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Ashin Munindabhivamsa[edit]

Article: Ashin Munindabhivamsa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Burmese
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.

Htanaungg (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Appropriate depth of coverage, AGF on references. SpencerT•C 06:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: George M. Woodwell[edit]

Article: George M. Woodwell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
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.

American ecologist. Founder of the Woodwell Climate Research Center. Death announced 19 June. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Whole uncited paragraphs. Needs some work before getting posted. More independent references needed. Bremps... 00:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whole article is weirdly written, there are some primary sources and needs a lot of work. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have fixed up the article. It appears ready. Thriley (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Vandalism of Stonehenge[edit]

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.


ArionStar (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose besides not posting the other vandalism this group has tried to do in the past, they did not permanently damage Stonehenge compared to Clark Griswold. Publicity stunt which doesn't really make it appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 00:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Thank You, per above. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - one of many such acts by that group. This is not notable among them unless the damage was permanent. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entirety of this event should be one sentence in the main Stonehenge article, if even that. A paragraph if it permanently alters the structure. Beyond this it is not historically significant in any way and I don't know what would possess someone to create an entire article about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Arvind[edit]

Article: Arvind (computer scientist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MIT News
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.

MIT computer science faculty for over 50 years. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Other than general notability concerns, a lot of the sources cited on their page are primary sources and need to be reviewed. Scu ba (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Passes WP:NPROF as an IEEE fellow and distinguished chair, so no notability concerns here. Curbon7 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are multiple cn tags and also some sources are primary in nature. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Hajj disaster[edit]

Article: 2024 Hajj disaster (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 922 pilgrims died due to extreme heat in Mecca, Saudi Arabia during the Hajj (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Saudi Arabia, at least 900 people die due to extreme heat during the Hajj
Alternative blurb II: ​ Over one thousand pilgrims die due to extreme heat in Mecca, Saudi Arabia during the Hajj
News source(s): France24 AP
Credits:

Afif Brika1 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment article quality is not up to par; article is very stubby. Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as it's a stub. The Kip (contribs) 20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Yikes! We don't have MINDEATHS but if we did this would certainly exceed it This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality It's not even worthy of being called a stub, it's effectively just a list in prose and then table form of numbers of deaths by national origin. Support in principle, but it's going to take significant work at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability but oppose on quality This is certainly notable enough for ITN, but the article needs to be developed before it will be suitable to post. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, still needs improvement on quality. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality article needs a lot of expansion but it is blurbworthy event since death toll is extremely high. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admin if this ever reaches posting stage, the death toll number has changed and the blurb should updated (could just say, "over thousand people die to extreme heat" if you want to be non-specific). --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    added alt2 — hako9 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, Oppose on quality. The high death toll makes it worthy enough for the ITN but the article needs to be expanded more. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 21:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed blurbs focus only on the heat when there's more to it than that. See the BBC report which explains that "One reason there are may be many deaths every year at the Hajj is that many pilgrims go towards the end of their life, after saving for a lifetime. Many Muslims also go in the hopes that if they die, it is during the Hajj - as it is considered to be a blessing to die and be buried in the holy city." The article says something of this but it's buried in footnotes such "It is reported that the majority died of chronic conditions." But its lead doesn't mention this and just gives the facile explanation of the heat. A more thorough analysis is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, but the quality is still some way away, but attainable. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notabilityAinty Painty (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks to be good at the moment. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment I've had a look as to whether article quality has improved sufficiently (based on today's comments) but it doesn't look to be quite there yet, and neither has much prose been added to it in the last day. Hence, it needs some work. Schwede66 10:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66 Maybe there isn't much more to say? Like I hate to be the one to say it but the reality is that it was extremely hot and people died from heat stroke and dehydration. And plus maybe if it goes on the In the News section then more people will see it and edit it. Alexysun (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's stuff to say about it. Reactions, for example. What's there is skinny as. Schwede66 04:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia depends on sources. You cannot write any reactions if there are no reactions in the sources. Alexysun (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale If posted, it would be older than the oldest remaining posted story. Is that a problem? I'm not sure! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not stale. This went on until 19 June. There are two items dated 18 June. Schwede66 04:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the bill that's still becoming a law and the "recent" death this would (in theory) remove. Then we're at the 20th, with the photogenic cat. Seems pretty stale to me, especially considering how few of these deaths are statistically likely to have come on Day Six (a sixth, I reckon) and what little followup might reasonably follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: