英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基

草榴社区 | 妖娆社区 | 激情小说 | 激情视频 | 色小鬼影视

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

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

Yair Lapid in 2022
Yair Lapid

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Please be encouraged to...[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. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

July 6[edit]


July 5[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Mona Hammond[edit]

Article: Mona Hammond (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; Sky News; The Guardian
Credits:

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

 Partina6 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article sees to have no issues. Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Fields medal[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Fields Medal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Fields Medal for accomplishments in mathematics is awarded to Hugo Duminil-Copin, June Huh, James Maynard and Maryna Viazovska (pictured). (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Highest award in mathematics. The four awardee articles appear OK (if short) and have been updated. Using Viazovska's image because she is only the second woman to receive the award.  Sandstein 08:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support OK, but Hugo Duminil-Copin is a stub and needs sources. Grimes2 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Which wikipage(s) is/are the ITN candidate(s) here? The nom template shows "| article = Fields Medal", but Fields Medal is not bolded in the blurb. This wikipage has a few unsourced statements in the Landmark section, including one about a 2022 winner. Please add REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to 2018, Fields Medal was the only bolded article. From the 2018 discussion, there were issues with the articles having quality differences among each other. Joofjoof (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the four winners are the nominated pages, but the template only allows for one or two, which is why I chose Fields Medal for that purpose. Sandstein 12:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Hugo is a stub and should be expanded. The Fields Medal was mentioned in the intro of the other three wikibios, but not in the main body. Please elaborate in the main prose what they have done to earn the medal. Just adding 8 words to the intro does not seem like an adequate update for ITN purposes. June is a borderline-stub/start class article. His various positions are mentioned in the intro but not in the main prose. If these can be elaborated upon in the main prose, say in the Career section, this wikibio won't be a stub anymore. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I have tried to expand June Huh and started on Viazovska Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to issues noted with Duminil-Copin, Maynard is not ready. Given the length, the issues with WP:PRIMARY and WP:PROSELINE are prohibitive marks against quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Hank Goldberg[edit]

Article: Hank Goldberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports; Las Vegas Review-Journal; ESPN; Miami Herald
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Patrick Watson (producer)[edit]

Article: Patrick Watson (producer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.

Nominator's comments: Notable television journalist and producer. The article needs work, and is in the process of being overhauled and cleaned up. Flibirigit (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with footnotes deployed where they are expected, no concerns regarding formatting, and with no problems identified by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Cláudio Hummes[edit]

Article: Cláudio Hummes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican News, Associated Press, Agência Brasil
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian prelate of the Catholic Church and Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Clergy. The article is, saddly, far from ready and needs a lot of sourcing. --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Highland Park parade shooting[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: 2022 Highland Park parade shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, United States, kills six and leaves dozens injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A rooftop shooter kills 6 and injures dozens at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, United States.
News source(s): ABC News, CNN
Credits:
 EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose !vote does nothing but raise the temperature of discussion at ITN/C.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong oppose gun crime in US is routine. I expect all the US people who voted against the Copenhagen shooting (which was in a country that doesn't encourage gun violence) to vote oppose to this too, lest they all be biased hypocrites. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A rooftop shooter at a 4th of July parade is not (yet) routine. Guess I'm a biased hypocrite. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people "biased hypocrites" has to violate WP:AGF and WP:Aspersions, no? Anyway, I guess I'm a biased hypocrite too, because I think this should be posted. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the type of comment that we just discussed at WT:ITN that is on the road to incivility. Wholly inappropriate. Masem (t) 18:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling out bias is acceptable if it exists. Currently nobody has voted no to Copenhagen and yes to this, but if they do, then they need to think about whether they have a US bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so you're making up something that hasn't even happened yet and then getting outraged over it? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Article obviously requires expansion Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph. Just another routine shooting in United States. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was just drafting the nomination for this nomination. No, not just another routine shooting. People don't get shot at parades everyday. This shooting is receiving a lot of news coverage and our article is of good quality thus far, though it still needs some expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • People get shot every day in America. Supporting or posting this and not the Copenhagen shooting is a clear US bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Joseph. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope that people learn to comment better than this. Your lack of understanding of gun violence in the United States is not helpful for these the. Only comment on the nomination at hand, not the nomination in another thread – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I really hope people can see why this support stinks of bias. Article is worse quality than Copenhagen one too.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporting the nice start of an article on a shooting at a 4th of July. Parade is bias? While you oppose the posting of a shooting with six deaths and support one with three deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this is currently significant enough to be blurbed. Perhaps if the number of casualties increases and/or some strong motive emerges. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph. Status quo in the US. 2600:6C51:7C7F:8D66:6DCC:D50C:82DC:180F (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this is not just a routine shooting. People don't routinely get shot and killed in the US at parades, and most gun crime is related to gang violence, which this is not. This also seems like an act of terrorism. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I second YD407OTZ. It's too early after the incident, and information is lacking. AkiraRorschach (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Frequent, regularly occurring and predictable events are not significant.
  • Comment If I had to guess, both this and the Copenhagen proposed blurb are going to be closed without consensus developing to post. Maybe it's a good idea to prematurely close them both now, so we don't end up slinging mud at each other. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite the proclivity for gun violence in the US, believe it or not we do not often have sniper shootings. This is significant and receiving a lot of worldwide coverage and the article is well written. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Probably not a worthy thing to say but realistically... nobody outside of America would be interested (nor surprised) in seeing another shooting in the US. I'm personally kinda bored of seeing these kinds of news.
Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose excluding this event there were 55 shootings in Chicago this weekend alone with 7 deaths there is absolutely no reason to single this one out for notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not singling it out: the media is singling it out. Isn't our purpose here at In The News to showcase articles that are in the news? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The media is not singling this out. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One wire report in the Chicago Sun-Times for the Chicago shootings, with every other publication running the Highland Park shooting is the media singling out the Highland Park shooting. BTW, this makes for a good place to point out that Highland Park is not Chicago. Chicago has lots of shootings, while Highland Park is the site of John Hughes movies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NBC's counting, too. But fine, Highland Park is temporarily hotter, till the next hot local shooting. Did you know some shooters in North Highland Park use unregistered axes or that Detroit's latest Highland Park shooter is still at large? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's not a school shooting, there's no ideological motive, and the death toll isn't high enough to be particularly notable on its own. If this changes then I'll consider flipping my vote. GeicoHen (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a standard shooting either. Most shootings in the US and I'd say everywhere else are not carried out by snipers... PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the sniper aspect of the shooting is going to grab the public's attention the same way high death tolls, motives, or the victims being children do. GeicoHen (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Article appears to be in good standing and is front page news. [email protected] (he/him) 19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There are a lot basic question unanswered. If this turns out to be just another run of the mill mass shooting, I would oppose. But if it turns out to be a terrorist incident, I likely would support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Joseph, GeicoHen etc. And how about we stop censoring people's views just because we disagree with them. Much as its unfortunate and sad, and RIP to the victims, Six people is not a high number for a US shooting. We're also not posting the Copenhagen one as the death toll was low, so it's not anti US bias.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Censorship? Really? Hatting an inappropriate and uncivil vote is censorship? On what planet? WaltCip-(talk) 19:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's censorship, it's still there. --RockstoneSend me a message! 19:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really "still there", because it's been collapsed. Someone casually looking over the thread would think the first vote is a support.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone looking with Javascript off sees it highlighted in an attractive camel/tan/peach box. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Frequent, regularly occurring and predictable local events are not significant. A major shooting in a country every few years would be notable. Weekly events aren't I've got the news on now - they literally just said mass shooting occur DAILY in this particular country. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass shootings that kill 6 people do not occur daily in the US at all. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still far more than the once a century to once a decade that normal countries have; it's not even the first shooting of this size this year! That a page like List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 even exists, let alone is so large that it should probably be broken down per month. But hang on - looking at that list, it ONLY included mass shooting with 4 or more injuries. There's been 11 shootings (almost one every 2 weeks) with more than 5 deaths, and 290 shootings in about 185 days. The death toll this year alone is near 400 people. There's no way we should doing an ITN every couple of weeks, for such a common event. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The more accurate comparison would be the table on "No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens. Juxlos (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Juxlos just gave me a great idea. We should blurb every U.S. shooting that gets the "No Way to Prevent This" treatment from The Onion. If it doesn't get its own Onion send-up, we don't post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose. Sad but predictable. Not news. Ericoides (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A sniper at a 4th of July parade is not predictable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A sniper at an event where the gun situation is completely out-of-control is very predictable, not surprising, and not significant on anything other than a local scale. I'll predict that this isn't the last similar event this year - which is unfathomable. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you understand the difference between every day gun violence and a sniper shooting someone. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker said: "“While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become our weekly – yes, weekly – American tradition." Sniper shooting someone, everyday gun violence, it's all guns, it's all Americans. This is not news; it should be filed under "Ongoing events". Ericoides (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the "weekly American tradition" of mass shootings. Just because it's a sniper or a parade or a music festival or a school or whatever, it's just another traditional attack. Profoundly commonplace. >300 firearm deaths per day. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a story of a sniper shooting someone dead in Sioux Falls for shooting someone dead in Hartford yesterday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I (sadly) acknowledge that mass shootings are routine here in the U.S., but a sniper killing multiple people at a holiday parade is somewhat exceptional. Funcrunch (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed blurb doesn't state the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose an altblurb then. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better if the proposer would just include the country in the first place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do people not know what country Illinois is in or something? --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Chrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, generally the names of the US states are sufficient to identify that this happened in the US. --Masem (t) 23:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Knowledge of one particular country's subregions shouldn't be expected of our readers. Especially when (to use just one example), Tokyo, the planet's most populous metropolitan area, is written as Tokyo, JapanChrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, the state is blue-linked and one can just click it to get their answer... WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out such basic information. And again, if we provide the name of country in which a city of 37 million is found, it follows that we should do the same for a state with only 12 million people. Chrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you would apply the same criteria to Kano State, Sindh, Uttar Pradesh, and Metropolitan Manila, which are the most populous sub-national regions in four of the five-largest countries by English speaking populations. They all have larger populations than Illinois, with Uttar Pradesh having a population almost 6/10 the size of the entire US. However, you wouldn't expect a random guy from Chicago to know where any four of those are, just like how most of the world has no idea what or where Illinois is. We shouldn't be broadcasting our Americentrism on the Main Page for everyone to see. AryKun (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, except that Punjab is by far the most populous Pakistani province. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I’d be very surprised if this stays in the news cycle for 3 days. Comparable to a bombing in Kabul. Juxlos (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - New Info:I am supporting this now due to the suspect being caught by the police. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is catching the suspect notable? GeicoHen (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, usually they just kill them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rockstone, also this got featured in Current Events, not every Chicago shooting gets that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:32E8 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but keep in mind that the bar for Portal:Current events (usually a dozen or more items per day) is a lot lower than for the main page (usually one every couple days). Ionmars10 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We had three shootings between Uvalde and now that got the Onion article, and none of them got on the main page. GeicoHen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per dying (and think it's high time Illinois was recognized as the sovereign state it is). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think a lot of the opposes happened before the death toll rose from the intial report of 2 to 6 and before there was a person of interest in custody. This story is more fleshed out now and worth presenting to the general reader. P.S. I was at the Hyde Park, Chicago parade that J. B. Pritzker was going to march at and saw his motorcade take off and head north around 11 AM. This story was not a routine Chicago shooting and changed the daily itinerary for our governor. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When your inconvenienced governor Pritzker says, as he did yesterday, "While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become our weekly – yes, weekly – American tradition," I'm guessing that he might just come down on the "Oppose" side here. That is, unless he'd favour seeing a story like this on our front page every week just to, y'know, increase the coverage of a neglected part of the world. Ericoides (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I posted my oppose the death toll was already at 6. And a person of interest being in custody doesn’t make the shooting any more notable than it was beforehand. GeicoHen (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose routine mass shooting event in America. Nothing unusual at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: But this isn't just any mass shooting; it's the first ever mass shooting involving a rooftop sniper interrupting a gubernatorial motorcade. That doesn't count for something in your book? WaltCip-(talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, right? Every mass shooting in America has some kind of bizarre circumstantial intersection that suddenly makes it inherently suitable for ITN, second-worst school shooting on a Monday in the Southern States which didn't involve an AR-15, fifth-worst shooting at a music event in western Texas since 2019 when it was raining etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In a country where keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right, this is nothing but an easily predictable consequence. You're going to reap just what you sow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's clearly notable & the article is OK. But given the many opposes, maybe it's time to actually add the mass shootings article to Ongoing 😭 –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - In the news, I guess, but roughly comparable to a bombing in Afghanistan, a massacre in Tigray, or executions in Syria- tragic, but routine and thus not notable. You can argue all you want, but when a country has shootings with double digit death tolls twice a month, it is routine. AryKun (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about your statistic at the end: looking at the official Wikipedia page on mass shootings, double digit death tolls are more like 2-4 times per year. Still, I do agree that these kind of shootings (4-6 deaths), while tragic, are routine in the US, comparable with the examples you mentioned. YD407OTZ (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These shootings are routine in the U.S. now. Sandstein 08:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sadly these are relatively commonplace in the US. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Ericoides, TRM, Therapy. The well-regulated militia continues its usual work. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings of this death toll & higher are common. It being done by a sniper on a roof doesn't make it more notable. I'm consistent & stated my opposition to Oslo & Copenhagen being posted as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass shootings are common in the United States, less so in affluent suburban communities, less so on parades for national holidays. But ITN has basically become a place for Europeans to scold Americans on their innate violence and ignoring that nearly 40% of English Wikipedia's readers come from the United States (click on Breakdown by country for English Wikipedia) and have this be the top news story in nearly every news source in the country and oddly not be considered "in the news" on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this assessment (partially because it's true). Most of Wikipedia's readership is from the United States. If this were, say, Swahili Wikipedia, sure, this would be a much different conversation. But this incident is large enough that it should warrant a mention, regardless of death toll, and it's relevant to a lot of people. WP:WAX does absolutely apply here, as well. [email protected] (he/him) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means suggest an American Wikipedia which could cater for the never-ending stream of US mass shooting nominations without hesitation. This, English language Wikipedia, and its news section, really needs to remember it's part of an encyclopedia. I very much doubt that 99% of the mass shootings that take place in the US would make it into an encyclopedia of world events. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too late for an American Wiki. The Serene Court is happily dismantling much that made the U.S. the world's "last best hope," presaging its demise. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1% of them that lead the headlines across the country do. Much like my plan to enforce secession on the South (but keep Arizona for the Grand Canyon), I dont think Ill be able to get an American Wikipedia, but I do think this instinctive "shootings are routine in the US" from an overrepresented segment of the community is doing a disservice to our readers. Which I thought is what we were here for. nableezy - 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct about the tone of some Oppose votes, but that comes with the territory. It is not our purpose here to bloviate "thoughts and prayers" like politicians. We understand that all massacres are tragic, but the discussion at ITNC (not ITN) should center on significance per our standards. This necessarily requires an editor to diminish seemingly important events. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, "lead the headlines" is just another word for tabloidism when it comes to mass shootings I'm afraid. I suggest we're close to having a separate ticker for "mass shootings in the US" if we open the floodgates and allow this to become American Wikipedia. People just make up bizarre intersections to somehow "ennoble" these routine events, and its pitiful really, and harmful to an eneyclopedic endeavour. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant understand how of all places "In the news" does not "lead [with] the headlines". Yes, not every mass shooting in the US should be included. That doesnt mean that this one should not be included. There are a bunch of reasons this one is "in the news" more so than other shootings in Chicago, some of them racist, some of them classist, some of them just at the shock of it occurring at a Fourth of July parade. But regardless of why one of those stories carried the headlines across the country, it did. That, to me at least, means it should be "in the news" here as well. nableezy - 14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You nailed it "just the shock of it occurring at a Fourth of July parade" i.e. tabloidism. And to those of us looking in, this isn't in the slightest bit shocking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can feel that way, but the coverage of it indicates that it is indeed shocking. At least to the largest represented country, by a long shot, our readers hail from. But, again, that overrepresented group of editors here created an inherent hostility to coverage of anything American, especially this. nableezy - 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, your comments reflect a fundamental misunderstand of our purpose. While this section is called "In the news" it is not meant to reflect top news stories. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, CNN reports "no one can be sure they are safe, anywhere ... while Monday's shooting outside Chicago was unexpected, another mass shooting in the US was hardly a surprise". Even RS inside the US aren't surprised by this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an odd reading of while Monday's shooting outside Chicago was unexpected. Yes, another mass shooting anywhere in the US will likely occur sometime this week if not today. But that does not mean that this one, widely covered across the world (see BBC, Guardian, AFP, ...), is not significant. You know how many non-Europeans give a half a shit about Eurovision? About three. Still on here every year. nableezy - 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Never mind! You're comparing ITNR entry about the Eurovision Song Contest to these weekly mass shootings? (I'll admit it's got a bit crap since Israel and Australia joined but hey...) Honestly, that comparison officially losing the plot. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Im not complaining, Im saying that outside interest of a subject is not determinative of its noteworthiness or inclusion in ITN. nableezy - 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted, the ESC is INTR, feel free to nominate its removal. Mass shootings happen every week in the US, there's nothing remarkable about them until they rise to the grim level of Uvalde or similar. This one is run of the mill, tragic as it is, and I bet $100 we'll see another one in the next two weeks with a similar or worse death toll. It's not surprising ever, it is occasionally shocking, but not really to those of outside the US. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (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: Janusz Kupcewicz[edit]

Article: Janusz Kupcewicz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WP SF, RMF FM, Onet, Sport.pl, Polsat News, Super Express, O2.pl, Gazeta Wyborcza, Eurosport TVN24, ESKA
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Polish international footballer, champion with Lech, World Cup medalist and later manager and local politician. Arguably one of the best players of his era. Article needs major expansion, nominating to draw attention to it, please feel free to use sources in this nomination as not in article yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I've majorly expanded and sourced it. All the information needed is in the references, I know there's more placing of them to do to the prose. The club career needs to be expanded and the politician career needs to be added and sources found for that.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations are still needed. Expansion would be good too, but it is minimally long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Muboshgu: The actual sources are all there for the playing career I just need to put them in all the right places. I will expand too once I get the chance, please bear with.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Did so much to expand and reference this, every single thing is referenced with WP:RS, all aspects of his life and death have been noted, and I believe this should be more than enough to post now.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice expansion from 84 words to almost 800 words in about one day. This is obviously long enough to qualify now. No concerns regarding formatting and deployment of footnotes. (I gotta AGF all the non-English sources.) This is READY for RD to me. One small issue: The "Hairdresser" corruption scandal seems out of place in a section with "Legacy" in the header, and there isn't much info on this story. Can this be elaborated either in the article or in the linked article? Perhaps "Death and legacy" can be re-named "Personal life" and expanded to include info on birth (a good place to put a footnote for the DoB), upbringing and where he resided during his retirement before he died, etc.? Then this "scandal" would not look too out of place. --PFHLai (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: Polish Wikipedia is much better on this topic which has been widely studied and written about. In a nutshell; the 70s-80s "Poland's golden squad" went onto running Polish football and its FA. In 2004 a man nickname "Fryzjer" ("hairdresser") was prosecuted for corruption and buying matches; turns out that the golden generation started and facilitated essentially a massive fraudulent and corrupt match-fixing mafia where the FA, and nearly every club player and coach in Poland for the last 30 years was involved. This guy was in that group, close associate of Lato, Boniek and Forbrich (the "hairderesser", ring-leader), and was almost certainly a central figure. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Abcmaxx. Sounds like an interesting story that should be elaborated in Football in Poland#Corruption in Polish football, which is already linked from this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a standalone article ideally as on Polish wiki, which arguably could be split into more sub-articles, with the "hairdresser list" article" and an article on the man himself, all missing from English Wikipedia sadly. I shall do my best to try and rectify this one day, but as you can image, it took long enough just to get this RD up to scratch, never mind such a vast topic which could span easily a whole cluster of articles.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, if you plan to work on that. For this particular wikibio, something to explain what the "Hairdresser corruption scandal" refers to would be helpful. As a reader, I was a little lost and frustrated there after clicking the wikilink and not getting any relevant info. Some info for readers unfamiliar with the scandal would be nice. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Candidates Tournament 2022[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.

  • Comment - there's some doubt about whether he actually will face Carlsen. Carlsen has previously said that he won't defend his title unless it's against Alireza Firouzja.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well-referenced and comprehensive – however, because it is not certain that Carlsen will defend his title, maybe the last four words "to face Magnus Carlsen" should be removed. (If Carlsen refuses to defend his title, the regulations state that Nepomniachtchi will face whoever takes 2nd in the Candidates, so he will be playing regardless.) Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - do we normally post these in addition to the World Chess Championship? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 07:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. I just looked at ITN after the last three candidates and saw no sign we posted them. I'd suggest this doesn't rise to the level of significance for posting, (also not seeing much coverage in mainstream news outside of dedicated chess sites) and if we add anything then it should be the world rapid and blitz rather than this, which is just a ticket to a greater event...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose firstly, not convinced this is ITN-worthy, as it isn't covered highly in mainstream sources (in their main news article sections). Secondly, the article has a lot of information on how people qualified for the event, which is fine, but only a table of results for the actual matches themselves. As with many sports articles, needs more prose about the event itself to meet the article quality threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb amendment stroke to face Magnus Carlsen from the blurb as per above comments as not confirmed yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a big development is a widely covered sport/competition. I'm not convinced that the fact lots of news outlets bypassed this is a valid argument; lots of very significant events get missed all the time depending on where in the world you are. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't be considered as "in the news" if it's not actually in any news articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above and Joseph2302. I follow developments in the chess world quite closely, so I was aware of this happening, but I think it's wider significance is not huge - it's a stepping stone to a very big event, in the world championship, but only that. We don't post the AFC Championship Game in American football for example, which is the gateway to the Super Bowl, or the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. I also think the omission of the story from mainstream media as a "breaking news" item is significant (most will probably cover it next weekend in their weekly chess sections). If they don't cover it then that means the world at large has deemed it not so significant, and it is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR to say we should be covering it. Finally, per Joseph, there will need to be prose added for the event itself it it's to meet the quality bar.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn’t make a lot of sense to post the qualifying tournament when we will post the actual event when it occurs, subject to quality. Also, as the full template has not been used (who is the nominator?) there has been no evidence of news coverage provided, which is s requirement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not noticeably in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand why this was nominated, which is reasonable, and it has received media coverage (contrary to some of the comments above). But fundamentally it's the qualifying tournament for the world championship; we should post the latter instead, when it occurs. WP:ITNR has an average of 1.5 chess stories per year, plus we've posted additional blurbs when there has been a new world number one in the rankings. That seems about right for the level of public interest, so I don't see a need to post additional tournaments. Modest Genius talk 12:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I expect there will be more mainstream media reports once the tournament ends tomorrow. Currently Nepomniachtchi has an unassailable lead and has finished his matches, but there are a few others still to play their last games. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel like this is akin to posting the semi-finals of the FIFA World Cup. Sure, it's super notable in its own right, and in the news, but it's a part of a more newsworthy topic. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given that it's only a qualifying competition for a larger tournament Carter00000 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2022 (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.

July 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports


RD: Idelisa Bonnelly[edit]

Article: Idelisa Bonnelly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Listín Diario (Spanish)
Credits:

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

 Iñaki (Talk page) ★ 17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Russian Capture of the Luhansk Oblast[edit]

Article: Battle of Lysychansk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russia and the Luhansk People's Republic capture the entire Luhansk Oblast after seizing Lysychansk. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The capture of an entire Ukrainian Oblast is a significant event in the overall conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the war is at ongoing, and we don't need to post every single event that happens in the war. Because ITN is not a news ticker for the war. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that ITN should not be a ticker for the conflict (as it would likely be quickly overwhelmed), the capture of a whole Oblast is a major milestone in Russia's stated aims for the conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the major aims of Russia is reached. Hope they will stop the war now. Grimes2 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoping against hope?
    Like other recent Soviet, I mean Russian, captures of Ukrainian cities, this one doesn't seem pivotal or unexpected. -- Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they do stop the war, or at least halt is with a temporary ceasefire, that would be worth posting on ITN. But speculating it may happen is not a reason to post this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only time they'll stop is when they've grabbed all they can get. -- Sca (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The war is ongoing and this does not seem to be a turning point. Alex-h (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The capture of a whole Oblast is a major milestone in Russia's stated aims for the conflict. While this is not a turning point, it should be considered a notable point in the overall conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That argument would be more compelling if anything Putin says about his plans for the invasion was believable. The "aims" of the invasion have ranged from "denazifying" all of Ukraine to just "helping" separatists in Donbass and multiple contradictory goals were promoted simultaneously by Russian state actors and media. I would agree with you for example if one could reasonably (objectively) believe that this means the invasion is over. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lysychansk is not particularly more important than, say Severodonetsk or Mariupol. Juxlos (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lysychansk is significant, given that it is the last area to fall in a Oblast, prior to becoming fully under Russian control. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So is Kherson, and it has 3x the population. Mariupol has closer to 5x. “Last city in an administrative division” is an arbitrary line. Juxlos (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous opposition. – Sca (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support this is the kind of significant strategic update that is worth consideration beyond ongoing (as was Mariupol). The article is about the city of Lysychansk but it's clear from reliable sources that Russia now controls the entire oblast. Given that Russias main objective seems to be the Donbas this actually feels like a important albeit grim milestone. Weak because I'm not sure the proposed target article highlights the scope of the territory lost. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing, and not a particularly notable capture. I would be open to blurbing if/when Russia succeeds in capturing the full Donbas region (i.e. Donetsk + Luhansk oblasts), as that was one of their stated initial goals. YD407OTZ (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they started in 2014, its of no significant importance to the wider conflict and they only captured the last settlement as a result of a tactical retreat rather than any conquest, which means this is going to change so many times still. Also they have not "captured" anything; occupation is not the same as full control, at the moment even in Kherson which has been occupied since February they have not had full control yet. Furthermore the LPR isn't a real state, it's puppet quasi-state through Russian invention and we should be careful how we word these blurbs.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability and article quality, but rephrase blurb. With respect to notability, this is a major development in the Russo-Ukrainian war (it's a clear and stated goal of the Russian Federation) and the region itself is larger by landmass than fifty sovereign states. The argument above that "this does not seem to be a turning point" is something that we can only really evaluate by looking into a crystal ball, which of course we can't. We don't need to post every event in the war, but we should post the significant ones such as when an entire Oblast falls. The article also seems to be in good enough shape to post. That being said, it might be better to say

    Russia captures Lysychansk, the last Ukrainian-held city in the Luhansk Oblast.

    than the current blurb; most sources seem to be framing it this way rather than crediting the LPR with taking the city. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James M. Bardeen[edit]

Article: James M. Bardeen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Physicist. Died about two weeks ago but was reported today. --VersaceSpace 🌃 21:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just on a point of order re death announcement date, according to [1] his obituary was published in the NY Times on June 26. I can't find the original article online, but the obit was reproduced on legacy.com on that same day.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least the wikibio was readied and the nomination was posted here within 7 days of that publication. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah fair enough, I'm just quibbling for no reason really. Support  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, you have a fair point there. This is indeed a late nom. We can reject this nom for the lateness. Considering how few solid RD noms we get these days, let's be nice (and bend the rules a little bit) and put this on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could understand me or another regular cantankerous fart calling the recent death noms' fortitude into question, but you're the one who's been posting the most by far lately; if you don't mind me asking (nicely), what's up with that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno ... in summer holiday mood? -- PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a procedural issue, not as important as an issue with article quality. I guess... -- PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept both guesses, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! :-) -- PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Karakalpak protests[edit]

Article: 2022 Karakalpak protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Uzbekistan declares a state of emergency after deadly unrest occurs in the autonomous region of Karakalpakstan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A state of emergency is declared in Uzbekistan's autonomous region of Karakalpakstan following massive protests against President Shavkat Mirziyoyev's proposed constitutional amendments.
Alternative blurb II: Deadly civil unrest breaks out in Karakalpakstan in response to proposed constitutional amendments by Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, causing a state of emergency to be declared in the region.
News source(s): New York Post VOA Al Jazeera Reuters Anadolu Agency Newsweek
Credits:

 ShadZ01 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surprised this hasn't been commented on yet. Anyway Support for Original blurb Article seems to be in good shape. The "Protests" section could use some more expansion, but that should be taken care of as more info comes out. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support surprised not to see this nominated earlier. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support large protests in an authoritarian country are clearly important. Article looks good enough to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nataev talk 11:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given that the Government of Uzbekistan has already withdrawn the plans which caused the unrest after a few days of the unrest. Unlikely for the unrest to continue or increase in intensity. Carter00000 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that people managed to get an authoritarian leader to do what they want is significant. And this isn't stale unlike most of the current ITN items.... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original blurb, it is in the news and article seems fine, so really no complaints there. I find that the alt blurbs are too wordy though. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  13:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, A major event, and article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for quality typical disaster stub. The protests section itself is very short the infobox claims 18 killed and the article simply references non-specific "protesters had attempted to storm government buildings". Did the deaths occur while storming a government building or during the protests the day before? Which government building(s)? Needs a lot more detail to be MP ready. Assuming they were killed protesting and not while unlawfully storming a government building then support any blurb which excludes the word "deadly". Just do our standard "At least X people are killed during Y in Z place" that we use for all the disaster stubs. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. There is consensus that this can be promoted. I needed a replacement item for the 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths article as that is in a state of mess. This seemed the best one on offer. -- Schwede66 01:21, 2022 July 5 (UTC)
    • Wait what? You pulled an article that's fine except for needing some expansion on the "investigation" which is ongoing and replaced it with a piece of trash that doesn't even explain where these supposed 18 casualties took place? How does that make sense? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Copenhagen shooting[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: 2022 Copenhagen mall shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Three people are killed in a mass shooting in a shopping centre in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Three people are killed in a mass shooting in a shopping mall in Copenhagen, Denmark.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Very rare to see mass shootings outside war zones or the United States. Obviously "several" can be replaced with precise figures (and injured) once they're known. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not notable except as an example of the failure of Denmarks very strict gun control laws unless terrorism is determined to be a cause we shouldn't post crime blotter. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining exactly why it's notable! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    3 dead and 3 wounded critically is frankly a testament to those very strict gun control laws working. That barely makes the news in the USA. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The US has 25 times as many firearm homicides per capita as Denmark. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting fact! And in Denmark the shooter used a hunting rifle, instead of the standard AR15 here in the States. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Article is currently a stub. It doesn't even have the number of dead in it yet. Wait until reliable sources pick up on this, and we can expand it further and further. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. It's obvious that it's notorious in a country whose crime levels are very low in a continent where mass shootings are very rare. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until we know how many have died. Rest in Peace to all the victims. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree we need to get more detail but this, like the recent Oslo shootings, is inherently notable in a Denmark where mass shootings are in single digits in their country's entire history. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this assessment; mass shootings are never inherently notable merely because of where it took place. Nonetheless, it seems like this is an incident of terrorism. If that turns out to be the case, then it should be posted. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are. If mass shootings are as rare as rocking horse shit then they are immediately notable. Just as the opposite applies. Regardless of whether this is terrorism or not, multiple deaths in a mass shooting in a country (like many) where mass shootings practically never happen is notable enough. Plus being widely reported in RS around the world, so no doubt at all to the suitability for ITN. Just needs a quality update. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for quality improvements and precise figures, but support on notability. Denmark, not unlike Norway, has one of the lowest intentional homicide rates in the world.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to pile this one, but with some reported death in a country that rarely has violent attacks, this is definitely ITN material, but it really needs expansion. Wait. --Masem (t) 22:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- if only three people have died, and there's no overarching motive, then there's no reason to post this. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't deduced a motive yet. They're still treating it as a terrorism-related incident. Masem (t) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who you mean by "they", but "Police chief Soeren Thomassen said there was no indication that the shooting was an act of terror". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The earlier reports were, but I have seen they have stepped back away from that claim since I posted that comment above. Masem (t) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Denmark has only had three mass shootings in its history that in total have killed 7 people. This is hardly notable enough for ITN. [email protected] (he/him) 01:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's not important enough & the article is too short. It looks like it was a lone attacker & there's no indication of the shooting having an ideological motive. That makes it a lot less notable than attacks carried out by international terrorist groups. The death toll is three; we'd never post a mass shooting with a death toll that low if it happened in Africa, Asia or the Americas, unless at least one of the victims was very notable. We shouldn't post it just because it's rare in its country of occurrence. We wouldn't post a minor earthquake in a country which rarely has earthquakes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wait – Fairly widely covered because it's Europe, but per AP lacks significance as shooter acted alone, was mentally troubled. – Sca (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to see anyone who kills three people in a mass shooting in a shopping centre as "mentally troubled". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was only three. We all have bad days now & then. -- Sca (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're lucky. "In wikispace, no one can hear you scream" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Things are in the news because they are remarkable which is why "man bites dog" is news and "dog bites man" usually is not. A mass shooting in a country which has no real history of such crimes (three in total according to ElijahPepe above) is notable even if the crime were non-notable in a country where such events are commonplace. And we regularly post such events even in the US where they occur basically every day. Regards SoWhy 12:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post US shootings with death tolls this low. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an agreed global number, or does it vary by country? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, five. In the U.S. 50. -- Sca (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly my point. In the US, three people being shot in a mall is "just another Monday" (a dog biting a man, if you so wish). But it's not in Denmark. PS: Denmark has only 1.5% of the population that the US has, so three people dead there would equal ~200 dead in the US. That is, if one were measuring news by the amount of people dead alone. *shrug* Regards SoWhy 13:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of population density Denmark is ranked 92 (346 per sqmi), but US is ranked 185 (88 per sqmi). So theoretically it's much easier to kill more people, from a single shooting point, in Denmark than in the US? But I guess shopping malls may be equally crowded in both countries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in Ukraine. -- Sca (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the extreme rarity of such events in Denmark.Carter00000 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support In principle, once destubbed. The last time anything on this scale happened in Denmark was in 2015 and before that you would have go to the 1985 Copenhagen bombings, clearly a significant event, given it's wide-ranging media coverage. Comparing this to a random US shooting is a stupid comparison. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality this is in all the mainstream news media, it is unusual because this is a country where gun violence is uncommon. Denmark isn't the US where mass shootings are commonplace and barely newsworthy. That being said, the article needs more information to satisfy the article quality requirements of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the 21st century, no country is an island, entire of itself. That it's news in DK, home of hygge, doesn't make it generally significant, or for that matter even particularly interesting. -- Sca (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that, unlike Greenland, Denmark is not an island. Even Trump doesn't want to buy it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it was the top news stories on multiple non-Danish news website, such as the BBC (UK edition) for over 12 hours. That's significant international coverage of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Shooter charged with murder, despite his history. One of the six wounded in critical. This is possibly more serious. (Changed vote to wait.)Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the past decade there have been 529 fatal shootings in Denmark. In the past 2 days there have been 632 fatal shootings in the US. Yet some still think that a mass shooting in Denmark is not newsworthy?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's just that three isn't a "mass." But the discussion continues. -- Sca (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's wrong. Many definitions of a "mass shooting" consider three to be the minimum. But never mind. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three or more may not be the question because the "mass" can also refer to all the victims, not just those who died (cf. mass shooting). But then again, in the end, the question is not up to us but up to reliable sources and they seem to classify it as a mass shooting. Although even if they did not, it would not make it less newsworthy. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Denmark has very strict gun control laws that couldn't prevent a mass shooting so either their society is a cesspool of violent depravity and they want mass shootings or gun control doesn't work. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or would that be a cesspool of depraved violence? -- Sca (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gun control works: In the past decade there have been 529 fatal shootings in Denmark. In the past 2 days there have been 632 fatal shootings in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to adjust that seemingly nonsensical and inflammatory piece of non-logic? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't do that. Instead, 316 shootings per day in the US (no real gun control) vs 0.14 shootings per day in Denmark (real gun control). I know math can be tricky, but hopefully this helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Those stupid Danes have no constitutional rights!" (Is that inflammatory and non-logical enough?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the UK, where they have constitution at all. -- Sca (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to support this item, but almost 24 hours after its nomination, all I see is a bare bones stub article and the typical ITNC nonsense about how this one is notable and American shootings are not because of statistics and other unhelpful remarks. Say what you will about American shootings, our nominated ITNC articles are fleshed out by this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support per Praxidicae below. It's nearly beyond a stub now but really should be better than this by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support significant event that has worldwide coverage but I wish the article were significantly better quality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have added some more content, way better than a stub now, and I believe it has sufficient article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-to-modest Support on the basis that this is a major event in a local (and European) context. Quantitatively, this is not "major" by global standards, but that this was the "largest mass shooting in the country's history" is noteworthy. Not often news gets to say "most deadly". SoWhy's point about "man bites dog" is well-taken too. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tied with the 2015 one for deaths, but smaller in wounded, area, duration, guns and information. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two were murdered in 2015. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and three were shot to death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - rare event with significant international coverage. I can't find any mention of a similar death toll this century (or last century to be honest). Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is nowhere near good enough to be posted. Notability is questionable unless there are any new significant developments, which would need to be added to the article Belugsump (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a globally significant event. Can someone explain why the 2022 Oslo shooting was posted, but not this one? Thriley (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oslo shooting was an act of terrorism against a gay pride parade. What the hell is "globally significant" anyway and where do the guidelines stipulate it as a requirement? I keep hearing about it but on one can tell me what it means. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exotic demographics aside, that one also had over 20 victims. But this one might still be posted, too. For being Danish, if anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say any country that has the deadliest mass shooting since World War II is globally significant. We posted ITNs from other countries, that aren't even the biggest shooting of the month - let alone century. Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already told you three people were killed in the one 70 years after the war, so I doubt that will change your mind, but will still tell you again. If we start disqualifying legally excusable killings, that'll drastically lessen the impact of military showdown, protest crackdown and psychotic breakdown blurbs. You want that? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem rather poor form to be including the death of the shooter in the number of deaths in order to elevate the significance of a mass shooting. Particularly when the death toll isn't final yet. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about elevating significance, it's about reflecting reality. Death is the great equalizer, bullets don't care and sometimes those who live by the gun die by the gun. February 15, 2015, was one of those times and that article's infobox uses the standard inclusive form of basic human accounting to say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sorry to be callous and of course it's a tragedy, but the death toll is quite low so doesn't seem significant in the long run. And just because it's a country with few guns, doesn't mean we automatically post.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, crime with a relatively low death toll. Sandstein 08:35, 5 July 2022 (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.

July 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Dmitry Kolker[edit]

Article: Dmitry Kolker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The 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.

Nominator's comments: Russian physicist. He was gravely ill with cancer in the hospital when he was charged with espionage and thrown into prison. He died shortly after. Thriley (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Blackwood[edit]

Article: David Blackwood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; VOCM
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Peter Brook[edit]

Article: Peter Brook (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, The Guardian, BBC, NPR, Variety, Vanity Fair,
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English director who died aged 97. --VersaceSpace 🌃 21:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the nomination of one of greatest English directors ever. I would have done it later, I'm not done yet updating. Adding myself to the updaters. - Many helped, just the name Khardan is not in the recent history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sourced now. Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are an updater, thank you very much. I think the article could still be better - we miss Jeanne Moreau ... but I have a few other things waiting. Good enough from my pov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References required for the last paragraph of the Shakespeare section, and the lists of his works. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are summarily sourced at the top of Works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the two sources given (one is based on a book already sourced, the Kustow work, so could be better formmated to support that), but just needs better indication that those refs are meant to cover the works. The language used in the opening sentence of that H2 section isn't clear that those cover the works. Easily fixable and that seems to be the only quality issue for posting. --Masem (t) 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I understand the first bit. The second, I tried to reword now, but feel free to write yourself what you think would be clearer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andy Goram[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Scottish international goalkeeper, gone too soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously long enough to qualify (2000+ words), with no formatting issues or concerns regarding the deployment of footnotes (A few more footnotes in the Honours section would be nice, though.), and with no problems identified by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might have some concerns with "Honours" section (regarding citations) but this is easily fixable and this article is ready to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Zelenko[edit]

Article: Vladimir Zelenko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Beast, San Francisco Chronicle, NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: An American family physician who promoted misinformation about COVID, died after a long battle with cancer. --VersaceSpace 🌃 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a CN in the personal life section, as well as some concerns with WP:WEIGHT (with the most of article dedicating to COVID-19 claims), given the controversial topic being involved. This article could be ready to go but I want to see this being resolved first. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the unsourced sentence, as I couldn't find anything about Zelenko being a Haredi orthodox Jew, although many sources do mention he was an orthodox Jew. Second, I do not believe there are any issues with WP:WEIGHT, most coverage about this person relates to COVID. Do you have any ideas for dealing with this? --VersaceSpace 🌃 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the policy, actually it is fair because of what had been represented in most reliable coverage about the subject, my mistake. The idea is to keep it mostly what it is, but with some notes below. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Issues are mostly resolved though I recommend to keep an eye on undue weight or non-neutral viewpoints. I have checked this with Earwig and there is not much issues. Overall though, the article is good enough to qualify for RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 1[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Joe Turkel[edit]

Article: Joe Turkel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; Deadline Hollywood; People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (July 1); died on June 27. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Taruskin[edit]

Article: Richard Taruskin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: One of the most influential musicologists I know. Sadly, so far the NYT with its paywalled obit is the only serious paper to have noticed that he died. Wait? But why? - Many helped yesterday with small corrections, but basic improvements were made by Aza24 beginning of the year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is in good shape and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have now a Tim Page obit and what Brachmann wrote in FAZ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 08:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chief Executive of Hong Kong[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: Chief Executive of Hong Kong (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: John Lee succeeds Carrie Lam as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. (Post)
Alternative blurb: John Lee succeeds Carrie Lam as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong in the Chief Executive election.
Alternative blurb II: John Lee succeeds Carrie Lam as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.
News source(s): [2], [3]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: There is precedent for placing the HK CE in ITN, as this was done for the previous CE [[Posted_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election]]. There also seemed to be a degree of consensus in the nomination for the election results, given that an "attention needed" tag was placed on the nomination. [[4]Carter00000 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Glad to see the proposed blurb doesn't include that awkward word "elected". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But this transfer of power is the result of an election, just not a free one. Regardless I feel like the election itself would have been the bigger news story, and that got turned down from ITN because it was a sub-national one. (Even if WP:ITN/R guidelines allow for the posting of election results in dependant territories). 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The election itself might have been the bigger news story if it had involved more than one candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose a non-election with no candidate field is basically like promoting an actual business CEO or homeowners association President (though that has an election...) and hardly news worthy, much less main page newsworthy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Taiwan we've posted other not-a-country elections like Taiwan but we should call it what it was: an election. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's call it a selection -- that would be more accurate. -- Sca (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you're not being serious with that comparison. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a spade a spade. Cf. Martin 's comments above. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it anything else than an election - which objectively what happened regardless of the politics around it or the lack of candidates or how it was handled - is an NPOV violation. The issue with the "election" can be included in the article proper (with proper sourcing and attribution). Masem (t) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality shouldn't be ignored. Wiktionary:
    (1) A process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote.
    (2) The choice of a leader or representative by popular vote.
    -- Sca (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yeah, just like that 1989 incident of mindless tank damage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational and not particularly notable. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator. There is precedent for placing the HK CE in ITN, as this was done for the previous CE [[Posted_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election]]. There also seemed to be a degree of consensus in the nomination for the election results, given that an "attention needed" tag was placed on the nomination. [[5]] Carter00000 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the old proverb... "Nothing succeeds like (wholly undemocratic forced totalitarian) success"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Parochial. Lacks general significance. Little or nothing will change. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We cannot consider this as an election or notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He ran unopposed in the 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election (added an altblurb linking to it), but it was a transfer of power nonetheless, and there's precedent for posting about Hong Kong. I ask the oppose !voters to avoid arguments about the election being undemocratic in nature. Most countries that have elections aren't actually democracies, but we still post about their so-called elections. See also: Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election took place two months ago and too long ago to be considered current enough for posting on ITN (within 7 days or less). Please consider a focus on the change in leadership, which just happened days ago. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, we could instead bold John Lee instead of bolding the election. We could also mention his government or include a mention of him being the only China-approved candidate. I'd still want to include a link to the election article in the blurb as it's relevant to his succession of Carrie Lam.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, either would be more current. The rest of the blurb, well, my suggestion would be keeping it simple and concise on MainPage. Save the details in the article. Getting into a protracted debate about choice of vocabulary in the blurb may mean that a consensus can't be reached before eligibility runs out. Good luck. --PFHLai (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as nominator. Suggest that we could also bold the office/title as an alternative. This would preclude mentioning of the election, given that it has passed already.
  • Comment as nominator. @Alsoriano97, Fakescientist8000, Banedon, Muboshgu, Masem, Ornithoptera, InedibleHulk, Bumbubookworm, Mdu02, Joseph2302, Robertsky, WaltCip, and Cypp0847: Pinging users who may be interested in supporting. Carter00000 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... FYI, your pinging may be biased, bordering on votestacking/campaigning. Be mindful of WP:CANVAS. – robertsky (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted on the relevant policy, and will be mindful of WP:CANVAS in future.
    @The C of E, 4iamking, AusLondonder, Abcmaxx, GreatCaesarsGhost, BilledMammal, Bumbubookworm, Nfitz, and Unknown Temptation: Pinging other users who may be interested in expressing their views as per previous ITN nomination. Carter00000 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Randomly pinging people because you think they might vote for it is annoying. If I wanted to vote on this, I would have done so already, I don't appreciate being randomly pinged about tbis. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You need not ping me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN doesn't post subnational elections unless something truly unusual's happened, and ITN doesn't ever post post-election inaugurations. There's no reason for this to be an exception on either count. Oppose. —Cryptic 06:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's standard to post the election, not the succession. Banedon (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Sca points out, someone may need to "adjust" the definition wikt:election. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Regardless of the legitimacy of the "election", this is sub-national. I'm pretty sure, for example, that if Mark Drakeford resigned tomorrow and was replaced by another MS, we wouldn't post it. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A token handover (hate to use that word in relation to HK) to a hand picked politician who was not elected is not what we usually do. Not to mention that sub-national leaders don't normally get covered here either, same as we don't feature every time they change the Governor of Gibraltar for example. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Consensus against. Ain't gonna fly. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given the events of Hong Kong in recent years, unfortunately this leadership handover, unlike the Yair Lapid one, is not going to be that consequential. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not an election, not a sovereign country, only de jure self-rule but de facto a Chinese government official nominated to a province. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2022 (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) RD: Technoblade[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: Technoblade (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6], BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is up to date, but was very recently made. Mobius Gerig (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I mentioned here? VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, meets criteria for RD, but it could be improved a little bit (and this article got a lot of attention). Personally seeing this news is shocking. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are there no coverage of the subject before mid-2021? Juxlos (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been. See the article for examples of 2021 sources. VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well known personality with (now) plenty of reliable sources. Sad that so many of those sources only exist as a result of his death and as a result we have an article now but couldn't justify one while he was alive. WaggersTALK 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Waggers: It definitely is sad. That seems to be the way, sometimes. Face-sad.svg TheSandDoctor Talk 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support May be biased as a main contributor of the article, but he is a popular internet personality (his death was #1 trending on YT) and there are plenty of sources now (plus suggested sources from 2021). Also for the other reasons above. VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, notable personality. Surprised that the article has only just been created, Technoblade was listed on the Dream SMP article since 2021, and seems as notable on his own as a Minecraft player and youtuber. Very sad. Salpynx (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with his death being #1 on YouTube trending, I want to pay my respects all to him and his family, it has to be hard times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preston52110 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality the article is correctly orange-tagged as needing expansion. Article quality is the only consideration for posting on RD, and this article is too short and non comprehensive. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance, but is this about a real person? – Sca (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Yes, "Technoblade" was his online pseudonym. Anarchyte (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The page is very NSFW due to extensive vandalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the recent history, I'm only seeing one account adding nonsense, and someone has blocked that. While "stability" should be there, we discount vandalism as a quality issue since that's beyond normal editing control. (Obviously, vandalism needs to be removed before posting). --Masem (t) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Andrew Davidson: article is now ECP. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's my impression that the topic will tend to attract especially sophisticated and motivated vandals. And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turns out to be an attention-seeking hoax. We don't need this aggravation. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have RSes like the BBC reporting on this, and given the video statement from his father, it is very very very unlikely this is a hoax. We should not presume anything like that given the source quality. If it was only coming out of a source like dotesports.com, yes, I would be potentially suspicious as well, but that's not here in this case. --Masem (t) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Subpar sourcing and orange tagged. No opposition to it going onto the main page after this is resolved. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: It is no longer orange tagged and sources have improved to include The Washington Post among other RS. Could you please take another look? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one unsourced claim which could use either citation or removal pending such cite, but otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much of the article is cited to secondary sources, but those sources are only repeating the subject's claims with attribution to him. This is problematic given the subject has admitted to providing false information. Even his name "Alexander" is not cited. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His name is cited in the article and coverage has expanded to include CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, Kotaku, etc. TheSandDoctor Talk 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on notability. CR-1-AB (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a policy-based vote: 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Technoblade is notable on a higher degree. CR-1-AB (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Technoblade is notable on a higher or any degree is not relevant when it comes to !voting Support or Oppose for RD noms here on ITN/C. Focus on article quality and MainPage readiness, please. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I am satisfied with the progress that has been made on the article over the past day. Looks ready to go. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's quite a bit of chat about sourcing/WP:SYNTH on the talkpage. We shouldn't post this unless there's consensus that the article is fine for that, otherwise it violates article quality requirement for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: The only talk of synth on the talk page was me clarifying a policy misunderstanding another editor had and that section has been resolved. It appears that sourcing concerns raised on the talk page have been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Many problems persist on this article. Until the article reaches C-class, oppose. [email protected] (he/him) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unprecedented for start-class articles to be posted to ITN. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C-class is not considered a requirement for posting. WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C-class is not a requirement for ITN, but this article needs copyediting and checks for flow to be free from WP:RECENTISM. Once those issues are fixed, support. [email protected] (he/him) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article does not need a copyedit to go RD, and considering this article has received a massive amount of quality changes only recently I don't think it needs it. Not to mention, despite the entire creation of the article spawning from his death, recentism is not an issue here as there is enough cited information about his career to counterweight information about his death. CaptainGalaxy 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Captain Galaxy here. The pushback that this has been getting is just bizarre and largely, at least for the latter comments, unfounded. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those who still oppose based on quality, can you provide some issues the article still has? I'm more than willing to work on the article more if that is what is necessary. The discussions regarding synth and unreliable sources have been resolved already and there are no maintenance tags. Link20XX (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No significant tags and over-the-top attention among the MC community (including me).
interstatefive  16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is well sourced, no major problems. Yeeno (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not seeing any underlying or obvious quality issues that should discredit this article. With all issues seemingly resolved, I see no problem in posting this now. CaptainGalaxy 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not see a problem with this article being posted now as its issues seem to be resolved. Good work to all those who have edited to address them. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. The main issues surrounding the article and being debated seem to have been resolved. Johnson524 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for my usual reason in these cases (with due deference to any friends or relatives); if they weren't notable enough to have an article while they were alive (and therefore would fail the RD rules), dying doesn't push them over the line. And, er, oh yeah - I don't like to mention this, but he's faked his death before (please let this not be the case this time, if you know what I mean). Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faked his death before? Can you tell me more about this, say by linking to something reliable? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 18:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of an article before does not imply notability only related to death. A subject's death, however, may encourage the creation of an article. In this case in specific, there was a "Technoblade" draft already present when the target article was created, it simply lacked enough information to be published. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The sudden ease of source availability (read: front page stuff) and the widespread coverage that this has received would also presumably incentivize participation and work on improving the article, as happens elsewhere on the 'pedia. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also an admittedly bizarre accusation to make (that this is faked) without any proof as Masem noted further up. That's like an WP:OR version of WP:CRYSTAL, if that's even possible. It isn't one or two RSes that would be being duped right now, but dozens. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this sentiment regarding Kevin Samuels which didn't have an article in Wikipedia prior to his death - sans faking his death. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment very disturbing to read those curious users who are claiming (using their own original research I assume) that this is a hoax when RS like BBC, CNN, Varsity, Sky News, ABC, Yahoo etc are all reporting this death. Also curious to see some users suggesting we don't post items on the main page in case they attract unwanted attention. This place.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's almost certainly not a hoax, you are right; but let's face it, this is a guy whose full name we dont even know... Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard of this guy before, but I looked through the r/technoblade subreddit yesterday, and a few eagle-eyed fans spotted an obituary with his full name that appeared in a local newspaper before his death was officially announced. While obviously not WP:RS, that's enough to make the chances of this being a hoax 0%. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news is being reported in multiple RS across the world. That his article is new isn't relevant. Plus perhaps those surprised we don't know his real name are from a "certain generation" who aren't used to the idea of people on YouTube operating their entire careers under a pseudonym.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, seems to be of ok quality, rest in peace Alex. Diverging Diamond (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People, respectable people, are claiming this might be a hoax? Seriously? Gosh, why even post any death at all on ITN then, if we are going to apply the same logic that we use for sports retirements. Unbelievable. WaltCip-(talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very clearly legitimate:
Some of Tech's closest friends such as Dream have acknowledged the death on Twitter and the hashtag #technobladeneverdies is currently trending on that platform.
On Reddit, multiple threads have been made about his death, such as on r/MinecraftMemes, r/DreamWasTaken, r/HypixelSkyblock, and many other subreddits.
On the server Hypixel, there is a tribute where players can add their signatures, as stated by the server owner himself.[1]
Besides all of this, the article has solid sources, no obviously glaring problems (as far as I'm concerned), and I can definitely see this on the front page considering how much of a ripple this event has caused over the Internet.

References

172.112.210.32 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm shocked this hasn't been posted yet. Sure, article is new, but the guy was part of the most popular Minecraft series on Twitch and he had 10 million subscribers at the time of his death. + #technobladeneverdies and other Technoblade related phrases have been trending on Twitter all day and the BBC, CNN and the NYT all are reporting this. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality has definitely improved, can't see any major issues XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is good, long enough, well cited, and respectful as regards to the subject's family. RIP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not much to add, I think it's great how quickly the article has improved from nothing to something, and I'm proud of all the editors who've worked so hard on this. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and send to WP:AFD Classic WP:NOTNEWS violation, also see WP:109PAPERS and WP:LASTING, of which this article has none. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP can, by all means, AFD this. But the "109" examples is bullshit, this individual's death and prior notability is easily established through the myriad RS here. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not feed the trolls. --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2022 (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) RD: Tjahjo Kumolo[edit]

Article: Tjahjo Kumolo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Sitting Indonesian cabinet minister, five-term parliamentarian. Juxlos (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable person in my country, I have heard him in the news from TV for quite a while long before his death. I have checked the sourcing and the article is fine. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable minister and figure. I support his article to be listed on recent death list. ~~~~ Mmnashrullah (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the line "served two terms in the DPR between 1987 and 1997" - needs a cite. Once that's fixed, good to go for RD. I wouldn't support a blurb though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Yair Lapid becomes Prime Minister of Israel[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Yair Lapid (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Israeli politician Yair Lapid assumes office as the fourteenth Prime Minister of Israel. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times, Deutsche Welle, The Toronto Star, The Jerusalem Post, Axios
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: He became Prime Minister after the Knesset (Israeli parliament) was dissolved due toa political crisis. He had previously agreed with Naftali Bennett in 2021 that they would both serve as PM for two years. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure how to handle this. Maybe treat it like an election, where the government has been changed? But, he wasn't elected. Netanyahu was elected, then they ousted him, then Bennett came along and now Lapid's in power. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We essentially already posted this last June. We made Naftali Bennett the target article, but all relevant articles were clear on the wacky terms of this government and who was the alternate prime minister. It's still the 36th session, this is just a tag. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fine maybe this time I won't put my comment. CR-1-AB (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need a rationale, though, if you actually want to seem supportive. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support New PM along with a dissolution of gov't is pretty news/blurb worthy in my book. Overall state of Lapid's article is pretty good too. I've also replaced the blurb image since its nominated for speedy deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Change in head of government is usually always notable. The Kip (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Run-of-the-mill notability, somewhat comparable to Boris Johnson or Xi Jinping (technically). Juxlos (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose on quality four citation needed tags, and a few clarification needed tags. Should hopefully be easy to fix, but would be good to fix them before posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changing heads of government is generally significant. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I fixed up the four citation-needed tags that were there, otherwise good to go per above consensus and ITN/R.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for the "except when that change was already posted as part of a general election" exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Willie Morrow[edit]

Article: Willie Morrow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The San Diego Union-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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (June 30); died on June 22. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Morrow's company and barbershop were located on Market Street in San Diego from the 1960s through 1990s isn't cited. This article is almost ready to go though. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) SCOTUS blocks POTUS from implementing measures to cut CO2 emissions[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: EPA (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​SCOTUS blocks POTUS from implementing measures to halve CO2 emissions by 2030 (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This SCOTUS ruling means that the World cannot avoid dangerous climate change anymore Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This isnt significant. No article to the story. We dont normally put every small decision the supreme court makes for obvious reasoning Haris920 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose several things wrong here. The case is West Virginia v. EPA which should be the linked article. But the problem is, that wasn't the decision. The court ruled on the major questions doctrine, that the EPA interpreted the part of the Clean Air Act to assume they could have existing power plant reduce emissions by using "outside the fenceline" clearer sources (wind, solar, etc), in addition to emission controls on the plant. Court ruled that congress did not allow them to make plants consider the "outside the fenceline" emissions, but can still regular on emissions controls on the plant. And this was all about a policy long abandoned the Clean Power Plan which never came into effect. The decision does have implications for the EPA to be more effective as well as large questions for other parts of the exec branch and their congressional mandate, but this is nowhere near the landmine that Dobbs was last week, and did not severely hamper the EPA at this point as some though it could have. Masem (t) 20:25, 30 June 2022 (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) RD: Rolando Andaya Jr.[edit]

Article: Rolando Andaya Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8] [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Filipino politician. Longtime member of congress and was a cabinet secretary. Jollibinay (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks good. Referenced enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 2022 June 30 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "Controversies" subsection contains 1 charge and 2 allegations - just the charge would suffice IMO. Juxlos (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the Controversies subsection takes up half of the Career section, perhaps it's an indication that the other half of the Career section needs to be expanded. Maybe it is a little too heavy on the negative stuffs at this time. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Jollibinay for the expansion. --PFHLai (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine, but there is some WP:WEIGHT concerns that should be addressed. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Article is good for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[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: Snake Island during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russia withdraws from Snake Island, having occupied it since the start of the war (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP News, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Widely and prominently covered; it has been described as a significant victory for Ukraine, and as well as having the potential to allow Ukrainian grain exports from Odessa to resume. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I understand that this is technically covered in ongoing, I feel this does somewhat change the tides or at least a boost for Ukraine during this invasion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a minor objective in a much wider war, already covered in the ongoing section. We didn't post the recent Ukrainian withdrawal from Sievierodonetsk, so it would be POV to post the Russian withdrawal from Snake Island. Neither is likely to be a decisive victory. Modest Genius talk 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Modest Genius, this is a minor part of the much bigger war. We haven't posted many other parts of this war that were similar/possibly more important on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although this may be a significant fillip for Ukraine, if we are not posting Kremenchuk shopping mall attack. I really don't think this should be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This island is of little strategic importance. (Source: Focus (German magazine)) Grimes2 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeÁ la Kremenchuk, others. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2022 (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 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Jim Pappin[edit]

Article: Jim Pappin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com; Associated Press; Toronto Sun
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good to go. BTW, in general death of a professional athlete, particularly for someone who plays in major American sports, most of the time they get into RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only when there are wikieditors working on these sportsmen's wikibios to get them ready for use on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Woody Williams[edit]

Article: Hershel W. Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Last surviving WWII Medal of Honor recipient GreatCaesarsGhost 19:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Decent B-article with a lot of prose. One hesitates to say "blurb", of course, but...--WaltCip-(talk) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear god. Now we'll have a deluge of people opposing a blurb that no one supported. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's American and that seems to be the main qualification for pushing for a blurb..... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill of Rights Bill[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: Bill of Rights Bill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A proposed removal of the Human Rights Act and alteration to the constitutional rights of UK citizens. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Sky, The Independent
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, on a recent topic and currently under live discussion by UK Parliament and media. It was today the subject of Prime Minister's Questions. There is further interest given proposed Labour alteration to add a right to abortion into the Bill MKT92 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting "proposed removals" of anything. Mere proposals have no impact. This is just inside baseball of UK politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close “proposed removal” means nothing for ITNR. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this? What does this even mean? What's the context? Why should ITN care?--WaltCip-(talk) 18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN blurbs aren't in headlinese, and even headlinese usually has a predicate. What happened to prompt a blurb proposal? The most significant recent update to this story seems to be the bill's introduction, and that happened a full week ago. —Cryptic 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not yet This actually is a big deal (for USians, think "repeal of the 2nd amendment" or something similar), but it would only be ITN-worthy if and when it actually happens. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait/Oppose It should get posted if/when it's actually repealed, but this isn't that. The Kip (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until such time that it actually becomes law, if it ever does. People propose repealing things in the US Constitution all the time (seriously, there's always a bill that gets proposed in the House and goes nowhere). No different with the UK, from what I can tell. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, other than we don't have a constitution, let alone the nonsense and continually reinterpreted "amendments" to one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from my understanding (and I'm not an expert), the UK has an unwritten constitution that is formed from a combination of judicial precedent and certain acts of Parliament. The US constitution consists of the actual written constitution and the court's interpretation of our written constitution becomes binding precedent, and therefore part of constitutional law. Our judicial systems are very similar since we both use common law (which I am glad about -- thanks for giving us that!). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1992 amendment did nothing but delay pay raises that legislators give themselves till the next election, another did nothing but let 18.0-21.0 year olds vote and another did nothing but repeal the amendment that made alcoholic beverages illegal nationwide. Another did nothing but allow women to vote. None of those ever had disputed interpretation and I think we agree those were good amendments (also some others like the amendment that banned slavery and the one that made ex-slaves citizens) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:SPECULATION. If they do remove it, and if that removal generates lots of coverage in mainstream media, then and only then should we post this. Way too soon right now, and so I suggest this is closed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2022 (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.

Blurb or ongoing: 2022 Ecuadorian protests[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A series of violent protests (pictured) against President Guillermo Lasso's economic policies causes food and fuel shortages across Ecuador (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, The New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, updated with current info and the national protests three years prior was posted three times on ITN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would this perhaps be better-suited for ongoing? The Kip (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Kip: I was thinking about that, but seeing how the 2019 Ecuadorian protests had their own blurb, I thought a blurb was best although I'm open for either route. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support blurb. Bedivere (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Political unrest without tangible consequences, so far, doesn't rise to ITN-blurb significance, IMO. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The country is facing massive food shortages, the president was impeached for his response, there has been bloody/deadly clashes between military and protestors and there has been takeovers of several providence-level government buildings. I'm pretty sure the country is facing some tangible consequences IMO. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. of fatalities? -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So everything I mentioned should be disregarded because it only had 5 deaths? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better suited to Ongoing. -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, as I said to The Kip, I was 50/50 on blurb or ongoing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Been reading about this for the last few weeks, I'm glad to see someone nominate a good quality article about it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. I'm not sure that the articles are placing the cause of fuel and food price increases to be the riots, but some seem to be placing blame on the economic policies. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The protestors have created blockades into entry points and ports in major cities preventing goods from being shipped in and out causing shortages. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't exactly matching the lead of the article. If what you're saying is the case, I'd oppose on article quality. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhawk10: I fixed the lead to reflect this with a source. What's wrong with the article? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per hawk10's points. Posting on ongoing might be considered if the unrest continues, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The leaders of the protests reached an agreement with the Lasso government, calling off the strike and starting a negotiation process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The protests are well-covered in the media but if the unrest still continues, it will be at a lower level, as CONAIE and Lasso government recently reached a deal. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuluá prison riot[edit]

Article: Tuluá prison riot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A prison riot and fire killed at least 51 people and 24 injured in Tuluá, Colombia. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, CNN, Washington Post, The Guardian
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as a one line stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Contains no information in the article which isnt already on the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.4.173 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Literally just a one sentence article. Should be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, once the article has been expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded and is not a stub anymore. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, stub of all stubs. The Kip (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless someone can tell me why this is notable beyond an arbitrary death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fire has had international coverage (The Guardian, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, CBS News), and prison riots with such death tolls aren't common in Colombia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that the article has been expanded. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now it's good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does not meet minimum requirement of "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" given multiple 2-sentence paragraphs. SpencerT•C 18:33, 2 July 2022 (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: