Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Volodymyr Zelensky
Volodymyr Zelensky

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... 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.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions[edit]


April 26[edit]


RD: John Havlicek[edit]

Article: John Havlicek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Boston Globe Yahoo! SportsBoston Herald Sporting News

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: All-time NBA great. I have resolved CN tags and added more death citations. May still need some work here and there. pbp 02:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Needs copy editing and fully referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs referencing especially in the statistics section. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
References have been added to the statistics section, and there are no outstanding CN tags, so I reckon this is good to go. We ARE talking about one of the NBA's legends, after all. pbp 03:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple paragraphs without a single reference. Stephen 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Arts and culture
  • The parliament of Ukraine passes the language law in a vote of 278 to 38, that will secure the use of Ukrainian as the country's only official language. (RFE/RL) (TASS)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

Malaria vaccine pilot program[edit]

Article: RTS,S (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A widespread field trial begins in Malawi of a recombinant protein-based malaria vaccine.
Alternative blurb: ​An inoculation programme using the first malaria vaccine begins in Malawi.
Alternative blurb II: ​A pilot vaccination program(me) with RTS,S, the first malaria vaccine to receive regulatory approval, begins in Malawi.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Independent, Vox, National Public Radio, Al Jazeera.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article could use further work. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Quick comment. This was in the news in the UK a few days ago, and I note that our article states the "trial" began on the 23rd. I looked into it then, and this isn't a clinical trial (a single phase III has already been completed) but a post-European Medicines Agency-approval essentially expanded-access programme which will report safety and feasibility of giving four doses in the context of Africa. The four doses together only give an estimated ~40% protection. As far as I recall, and from memory only, this or similar has been in development since the Stone Age, presumably because four doses are actually needed to provide a very marginal protection. I'm not aware of another approved vaccine with such unfavourable characteristics. None of this is to say oppose, as I personally found it very interesting, but the news coverage does not really reflect the situation. (COI note: I have consulted for GW infectious diseases, though not malaria, in the distant past.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Espresso Addict: I'm happy to find different wording for a blurb. My understanding is quite similar to what you described; that this isn't a trial for efficacy of the vaccine as such, but for safety, feasibility, costs, etc. Even so, "trial" is the most neutral wording I could come up with that's still used by the sources; many others are calling it a "rollout", even though it's clearly not on the open market. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    It's not a trial in my understanding of the word. Expanded access program(me) is the usual term when the company supplies the intervention free or at cost with the aim of getting safety data. There's also the question of the ethics of using a vaccine that isn't (afaik) approved in Malawi. I don't know what ITN wants to do when most of the news sources are, well, wrong is the word that springs to mind. But I might be too close to the topic area to know what trial means in non-technical English in this context. Program(me) seems a neutral word. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I've suggested an alternative (long) blurb. Note, I haven't yet reviewed RTS,S; also malaria vaccine is not fully updated and, from the state of the lead, looks as if it needs a copy edit; also I don't know which English variant is appropriate. Also the item should be moved to 23rd. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un Meeting[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Kim–Putin meetings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian Leader Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet for the first time.
Alternative blurb: ​Russian Leader Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet for the first time.
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: First meeting between the two, first article better for subject but filled with citation needed, second one more vague and doesn't refer to the meeting as much but better cited. Rockin 12:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Stub. Anyway, no concrete results, just talk. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless a notable agreement comes out of this meeting,(i.e. Putin convinces Kim to give up NK's nuclear weapons) it is just two world leaders talking to each other. Unlike Kim meeting Trump, it is not uncommon for the Russian leader to meet the North Korean leader(unlike Trump's meeting, which was the first one and also between two hostile countries). 331dot (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As of now, no suitable text has been put in Wikipedia about this. Two targets are offered above: the first is the article Kim–Putin meetings which is such a small stub it contains next to no useful information. The second is the article North Korea–Russia relations, which the only update is a picture with a caption and has ZERO prose text about the meeting. Ping us when you have actual text to assess. There's nothing useful to link from the main page as yet. --Jayron32 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all of the above. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Prefer North Korea–Russia relations as it puts the event in context, but it has not been updated in favour of starting the (at present) useless stub Kim–Putin meetings. Not opposed in principle, mainly because we seem to be on a slow news cycle with events going back to the 18th, more than a week ago, and this is in the news internationally. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Disasters and accidents
  • Floods and mudslides in the South African city of Durban and the wider KwaZulu-Natal province have killed at least 60 people. (BBC)
  • Police evacuate 148 homes in Sokndal, Norway. Wildfires have burned through about 7.5 square kilometers (2.9 sq. miles) of land in the area. A spokesperson for the European Union Forest Fire Information System says wildfires in northern Europe "are way above the average" for this time of year. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Asia Press reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered the execution by firing squad of four foreign ministry officials following the failure of his February Hanoi summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, after accusing them of "selling information to the U.S." before the summit. (Daily Mail) (Yahoo News)

(Reposted to RD IAR-ily) Death of Lyra McKee to Ongoing[edit]

Article: Lyra McKee (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

Nominator's comments: This is currently the 7th of 6 RDs because I IAR'd to leave it in place. Her funeral this afternoon was attended by the PM & President of Ireland, the PM & Opposition leader of the UK, and heads of parties from both sides in Northern Ireland. It has dominated the BBC index page all day. I am not proposing leaving this here for more than a day or so, but today does not seem to be the day to remove it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as a special case - this does seem like the wrong time to remove. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but see no problem IARing her to an earlier spot in RDs using today as the basis. It doesn't seem lik there's going to be a massive investigation to her death, or the type of death mourning we got with Mandela (week long ceremonies, most of country closed down, etc.) That is, there's never going to be a separate article for her death, at the present. --Masem (t) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have reinstated her as an IAR 7th RD entry at the head of the list, using funeral date, per Masem's comment above. This is in the news today, people will be looking for it, and this seems a sensible compromise given that ongoing isn't really the right place. If consensus is against this then it can be removed again.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Masem's solution. Thanks, Amakuru. ETA As RDs seem to be accumulating rapidly at the moment, I would not necessarily suggest leaving McKee at the funeral date for the full cycle; eg Hannelore Elsner has only just been posted and Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian is rendered stale with hardly any consideration. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if you're not seriously considering this for ongoing, please change the template. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of unpicking one template to substitute another? Suggest that for the next RD to be posted, the posting admin takes off McKee instead of the last, as the case is now off the BBC top index page. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with re-dating the item, per Masem. At this point the ongoing coverage seems to be mainly in the UK, and it's fading. (A tragic loss, though.) – Sca (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the RD item, as I thought the news had faded here too, although I now note the BBC is fronting its Northern Ireland index page with "Political talks plan for Northern Ireland expected ... in the wake of Lyra McKee murder". I'll leave this open for now in case anyone wishes to discuss ongoing further. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • Murder of Karina Vetrano
    • In the United States, Chanel Lewis is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 2016 murder of Karina Vetrano while she was running in Queens, New York City. The judge had earlier declined the defense's motion of a re-trial due to what they alleged to be police and juror misconduct. (ABC)
  • Eight pedestrians in Sunnyvale, California, are injured when a car is intentionally driven into them. The driver is arrested after crashing into a tree. The FBI is assisting in the investigation. (NBC News)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg[edit]

Article: Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ref issues and yellow tags. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Once all issues sorted out, perhaps propose a blurb. This guy was like, local version of king for 36 years. Kingsif (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment His titles and honors need references. The rest of the article is probably satisfactory for RD. As he abdicated a long time ago this is not ITNR and I don't think his importance justifies a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the titles and honors section needs referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Heather Harper[edit]

Article: Heather Harper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ROH

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Internationally known soprano from Belfast, famous for stepping in for the world premiere of Britten's War Requiem, Grammy for recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment. I was coming here to comment that it needed some more sources, but hopefully everything should be in the Guardian obituary. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lê Đức Anh[edit]

Article: Lê Đức Anh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Jakarta Post, The Straits Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former head of state, helped defeat the Khmer Rouge. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Luzon earthquake[edit]

Article: 2019 Luzon earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in an earthquake in Luzon, Philippines.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed in a series of earthquakes in Luzon, Philippines.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated

 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Was going to nominate it myself. Article looks decent enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems good to go. And for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not significant. Low death toll and magnitude Rockin 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support News sources are reporting this, and the article is of high enough quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Altblurb to note two major quakes so far have been reported in the same. --Masem (t) 17:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I need to redact that. Apparently the second quake is not connected to the first one despite being in the same region and <24 hr later. I'm not seeing any deaths/injuries tied to the Visayas one, yet, so I wouldn't combined them. --Masem (t) 17:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I think it might still be better. There have been 421 aftershocks. I have a sinking feeling there will be more.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
        • As long as those are the Luzon quake aftershocks, then that's fine. I had heard about the Visayas quake, but now that I know its not connected, that should be kept separate (and right now, 0 deaths == not an ITN thing). --Masem (t) 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
          • @Masem: Do you support posting now? I think the article is ready. The original blurb is fine by me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Quality is good. --Masem (t) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support notable and article is well cited. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Julio César Toresani[edit]

Article: Julio César Toresani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Nacion, Teller Report, El Mundo

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Argentinian football soccer player and manager. Played for three of the biggest teams in Argentina. He was depressed and committed suicide. Most of news about his death are in Spanish. --SirEdimon (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's not going to win any awards but it's just about ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems at least to need some referencing work. There seems to be no source at all for all the results in the infobox, and many teams mentioned there that aren't in the text, but I can't see how to tag that. I've tagged a few others that seem to be missing but I don't read Spanish so they might well be in the existing sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy McNeill[edit]

Article: Billy McNeill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Celtic FC, BBC Sport

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish Football Hall of Fame member; record holder of most appearances for Celtic; captained the Celtic team that won the 1966–67 European CupJmorrison230582 (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • 'Oppose Support Went through it and several statements need referenced. Given iconic nature among Celtic fans am sure this will be done quickly.

Look fine now, nothing especially contentious I can see.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted --Jayron32 16:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Wu Yili[edit]

Article: Wu Yili (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Venerable Pianist Elaine Wu Passes Away"

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death was reported on April 21. Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as usual, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have not checked the Chinese-language sourcing. Couple of sources needed, in particular a more reliable statement for the idea that she was one of the world's oldest pianists at 87. (In my experience it is relatively common for pianists to continue into their eighties.) Some features of the personal life could be expanded, eg when did she marry (her husband suddenly comes out of nowhere), did she have children. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I've added the source for "Elaine Yi-Li Wu" (it's the name printed on the cover of her album). I've removed "one of the world's oldest pianists", that's what the source says but not essential to the article. It's not really wrong though, as "one of" makes the statement conveniently vague. The husband did not pop out of nowhere: it's clearly stated that he was the lead violinist of her orchestra, where they presumably met. None of the sources I've found mention any children of hers, but do not say she's childless either, so there's nothing I can add about that. And I'm not aware of any ITN rules that require such detailed information. Many RD articles, including Hansjörg Auer that you recently nominated and posted, have little or no information about their families. -Zanhe (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I'm one of the world's oldest pianists, for some sense of "old" and "pianist". ITN still requires "a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items", though this has been pushed under the carpet for some RDs of late. I believe Auer to have been unmarried because English-language sources did not mention any spouse, including some of the "personal account" variety that one would expect to end with a note about the grieving spouse, if there were one. There was some information about his mother surviving him, but that did not seem encyclopedic.
I'll take another look at Wu with a view to posting when I've gone through the enormous list of pings I got up to. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Zanhe: ETA. I realise that I did indeed miss the first mention of Wu's husband. Apologies, I was tired and trying to get through assessing this nomination before retiring. Thanks for adding the material on the Cultural Revolution. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: No worries, and thank you for adding the info about her work on Guangdong music. -Zanhe (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hannelore Elsner[edit]

Article: Hannelore Elsner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Welt, Hollywood Reporter and others

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German actress, a national institution with a career of 50 years, late (2000) international recognition. Article was a stub. There could be more, but on a funeral day in real life, and with another woman to cover, this is it for now. The list of films (which I found and left) could possibly be shortened. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support a dn needs resolving in (currently) ref 1, but otherwise this is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What's a dn? Ref 1 looks ok now. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
{{dn}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Tagesschau went to a disambiguation page. I was so sure that was a primary topic, - well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems well-referenced, and although she was probably internationally not as well-known as Bruno Ganz, she was one of Germany's most familiar actresses with a continuing presence until her death. --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking good, @Gerda Arendt:, but I'd like a source for her birthname of Elstner (or hide this text in lead & infobox) before posting. (There's also another minor sourcing issue tagged that need not hold up posting, imo.) Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Birth name and marriages sourced. More obits over night, - anybody welcome to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Not seeing much in English; I'll take another look this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you expect in English when all her films were in German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The Guardian usually covers European film. They had good coverage of Agnès Varda, as I recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Polly Higgins[edit]

Article: Polly Higgins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish lawyer, and pioneer of the ecocide recognition movement, dies at age 50. Article has sourcing problems. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until references are added for claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've expanded and referenced, though I've only been able to find her organisation/personal site/PR material to support the honorary degree/professorship. That could perhaps be removed if necessary. Pinging @The Rambling Man: to take another look. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive bio, well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: David Lama[edit]

Article: David Lama (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This needs to mention death in prose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Not confirmed dead yet 67.183.112.3 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The IP is right. All the sources say "presumed dead".--SirEdimon (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - until confirmed. Then Support.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - reopened as death has been confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Very notable mountaineer. Article is ready. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:6D6E:4CB4:B734:395F (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe a blurb for all 3 is reasonable. We did that for those 3 athletes that died in a helicopter crash about 4 years ago. Particular if all 3 are in good sharep. --Masem (t) 04:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the idea in principle, but Auer is a short stub, and neither of the other two is properly developed, despite their presumed deaths having been in the news several days ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The news today is that the bodies were found, so its no longer guessing. --Masem (t) 05:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple tags, several sections are unsourced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ukrainian presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Volodymyr Zelensky (talk, history) and 2019 Ukrainian presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: Volodymyr Zelensky wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
Alternative blurb: ​Comedian Volodymyr Zelensky wins the Ukrainian presidential election by a wide margin.
Alternative blurb II: ​Political newcomer Volodymyr Zelensky, known for playing a comical president on TV, wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: Volodymyr Zelensky (pictured) wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
News source(s): BBC, AFP, Reuters, dpa, AP

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Open to suggestions on the blurb (this is my first ITN nomination). Funcrunch (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I've slightly copyedited the blurb per standard practice. Brandmeistertalk 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I included the "political newcomer" bit in my suggested blurb because that seems to be what is most newsworthy. (Not only a newcomer, but a comedian known for playing the part on TV that he's now more or less replicating in real life.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb – Of five RS sources, one, AFP, declares Zelensky victor outright, while four say he's won "a landslide" but hedge with references to exit polls. AFP says he drew 73 percent to Poroshenko's 25.5 percent. (Four sources added above.)Sca (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support not altblurb which is loaded like a tabloid, we're here to report facts, not spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Comment – (a) "A wide margin" is not sensationalism at all. (b) All RS sources above – none of which is a tabloid – use more effusive terminology: "Wins presidency by landslide" (BBC), "Appears headed for landslide victory" (AP), "wins Ukrainian presidential race by landslide" (Reuters), "becomes president-elect in landslide win" (AFP), "drubs Poroshenko" (dpa).
    Regarding the snide comment, "Spray journalese all over the place, how disgusting," I'm getting tired of these kinds of disparaging, belittling comments, which violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF, among others. Please desist once and for all. – Sca (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    You're not making any sense. I commented on the content not the commentator. I don't even know who constructed the journalistic alt, nor does it matter. Give the threats a rest, boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support yes, this is an okay thing to happen. Kingsif (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The filmography and TV appearances sections seem to be completely unreferenced. Support alt3 is these issues are fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't the election article be the target here? ITN/R is for the election, not the candidate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. A comedian with no political experience winning a presidential election is funny, but I don't think it's necessary to highlight. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb The extra details in the other proposed blurbs are not consistent with our normal practice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Not that I necessarily support "funny" (per Zetta) alt blurb, but just because an event is ITN/R, that doesn't mean the blurb has to fit a mold; why not write a blurb that accurately presents the news being reported, since recurring events are still going to be different each time. Here, the not-politician who has done no campaigning won with a landslide, which is remarkable, and also plays the president on a comedy show. Both facts are notable, and half what has put this election in international news (can you remember the last time there were US headlines about a Ukrainian election?) Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment bold the election, not the winning candidate. Election needs a copyedit, I'm not sure this is a normal sentence: " However, March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and the occupation of parts of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast by separatists (since April 2014), roughly 12% of eligible voters were unable to participate in the elections." --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Election article actually isn't terrible, just bold it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The election should be the target article and it isn't ready: no reactions, it isn't fully updated in the lead and the grey map is probably intended to be colour coded with the results. Also we do not usually post based on non-official results, so please could someone with the appropriate language skills check that the table has the final official results, preferably using inline direct links for clarity. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Reactions are an aftermath to the election and not necessary, and some would argue superflous. The only relevant reaction now, the president's concession is included. We have official preliminary results with more than 70% (updating) 99.27% of the votes counted. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We used to require at least one sourced paragraph of post-result analysis, including such things as a note as to whether the election was considered well conducted, comments on turn out, any discussions over government formation, and how the election result was viewed internally and externally. Otherwise the article provides no real expansion on "x won", and there's no point in linking it. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. I will keep working on expanding the Results section. But AFAIK there has been no contention about the results. Even the incumbent president has Tweeted about the fairness of the elections and mentioned it in his concession speech. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I was talking about the general case of an election. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The map has color,The other map doesn't so I'm guessing it's been updated in the last half hour, since it read well, too. Added picture + alt3. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The first map shows first round. The second map is for second round. The election article is otherwise ready and has a summary of the results. We could use some one SVG skills to update the second map.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment The first round map has been moved to replace the grey one, but there have been prose updates, and it looks ready. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The election article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Don't worry, Ukraine, we have some right comedians in politics here in the UK too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Why hasn't this been posted? Most RSs have shifted to second-day stories, such as "Comedian's win in Ukrainian presidential election poses riddle" at Reuters. All agree on the 73/24% result, which once again is oviously a "wide margin," no two ways about it.
    Updated links: AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    You do know that we aren't concerned with what other news sources do because we aren't a newspaper. Complaints of this nature are not useful to anyone. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No, we aren't a newspaper. But in cases like this all our information comes from RS newspapers or news agencies. Why should we ignore the information they provide about the character of this election? Cuz we're above that sort of thing, or what? Absurd. – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
PS: What do you mean by "other news sources" - ?? ITN is not a news source, it's more or less a news summary. Wiki/ITN dies not have reporters covering news events; it's entirely dependent on news entities for information about such events. – Sca (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
More useful to the readers (remember them?) would be a blurb that told something about the nature of the election and its results. One of the possibilities in this election was that Poroshenko would be reelected. That he wasn't, and that political neophyte Zelensky outpolled him by a wide margin, shows how widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions is in Ukraine. It makes no sense to exclude that fact from the blurb. Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If readers want to learn more, they are allowed to read the article. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
And if they don't want to read the article, ignorance is bliss? – Sca (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted alt3, keeping with tradition. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Boring. What does an internal ITN 'tradition' have to do with real events in the real world? Sca (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
We aren't interested in being exciting. We're interested in being correct. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Please explain why "by a wide margin" (73-24%) is incorrect. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 The bolded article should be the election.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the fact that he was a comedian before becoming the president should be mentioned in the blurb. That's what a all of the major media networks mentioned in their titles anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.9 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Sri Lanka bombings[edit]

Article: 2019 Sri Lanka bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 138 people are reported to have been killed and hundreds are injured in explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Details are not known as it is developing. Will update blurb as soon as more news comes through. Unnamed source tells AFP "at least 80 people had been admitted to hospital in the capital". Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Would it be appropriate to withdraw this until we have enough information to consider a blurb. Given the little that we know, this seems to be a suitable candidate once the article is more than a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is growing and well-referenced. The topic is significant enough for a blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb should be updated before posting. The article is developing with new information so wait for some time so we have some accurate information before posting. Incident is clearly important. -Nizil (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as is, number can be updated again as appropriate even after the blurb is on the main page. 89.138.131.240 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • support Sadads (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – This has an almost 100% chance of being posted. Give it an hour or two for the page to develop properly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable event/tragedy. --AntanO 08:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support needs to be posted ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. I have used 156 as the highest figure I could confirm (NDTV), please keep it updated. -- King of ♠ 08:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment at 443 words it could be considered a stub. What was the reason to express this to the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Nope, see WP:STUB. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I did. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well you can lead a horse to water. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    But you can't make it post articles to the Wikipedia main page with sentences like "Explosion in Dematagoda reported from a housing complex in Mahavila Udyana Road."
    If you find it so upsetting, you are welcome to fix it. In the meantime, trying to claim this was posted as a stub is not the way to do things to improve article quality, now is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article has lost its front page quality. Do we pull? Sherenk1 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Background is missing, reaction information is more than all other information on the page. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, good work. Better to help improve the article, rather than wasting everyone's time debating pull/post/pull/re-pull, like the Notre Dame fire article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't pull an article that is obviously the top story on every news outlet around the world. Good call to keep news items in the news. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks adequate for now, although the reactions are basically padding, IMO.
Let's not go down the pushmi-pullyu path again. Sca (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Article is not of excellent quality, but it's clearly improving. Echo Fuzheado; this obviously belongs at the ITN. Once, the media-blackout is pulled, I hope to see a much well-documented article. WBGconverse 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I would stress that article quality has to take into account of the location of these type of events. If this event took place in a major 1st World city (eg like the fire at Notre Dame) I would fully expect many many more details. But Sri Lanka is not a First World country, news is generally slower there, and with the social media blackout imposed, it will be even slower. What is there (excluding the international reaction section) is pretty damn good in this situation. The article is sufficiently well structured to make it easy for new contributors to add to it. And unlike the Paris fire, there's not a massive rush of edits, it is relatively more stable. So seems fine at this point. --Masem (t) 16:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are all valid reasons to keep the article at an AFD, but it doesn't explain why it is important to feature an article on the main page which is as light on details as this article. It was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
How about ITN Purpose #1: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news? Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, we still want quality, but I stress that what that quality is varies on what exactly happened. I am willing to give an event in a more remote/less technically advanced country the benefit of doubt of lack of details compared to something happening in a major Western city where there is no shortage to news. There's enough details of this event, and the necessary organization, to make it postable for something happening in Sri Lanka, but wouldnt' be appropriate if it were an event in the US or the like. --Masem (t) 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Did I say the subject is inappropriate for the main page? No, I did not. I said that there was no reason to rush the article out. The attacks section is still laughably short. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually agreeing with Laser here; I'm working on the article but getting it clean and correct is hard with a lot of disruptive IPs and the well-meaning edits from users that are uncited and/or in poor English. It's better, but still has enough issues for two templates at the top. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The attacks section may be short compared to if this happened in Europe or the US, but that's because of Sri Lanka not being a highly advanced countries, remote enough that Western reporters are going to be a bit slower on uptake, and that there is a social media block out, which is going to delay info getting out. When this was posted, the major attacks were all IDd and an initial death toll had been made. We're still waiting on the "who" but we had what, when, and where all covered and the rest will take time to get filtered to the WEstern news. --Masem (t) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
More updated now, happy to be posted. I objected not on content, per se, but on written quality and layout.Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it was rushed up, for no reason at all, none whatsoever., well wrong, twice over. Firstly what was said above, it clearly meets one of the major pillars of ITN, to publish information on events that people come here to see (e.g. how many pageviews do you think it'll have by tomorrow? how many complaints from actual readers have we had about its appearance, either upon posting or now??), but secondly, clear consensus to post. Really, if we're trying to translate "two real reasons" into "no reason at all, none whatsoever", I think there's a problem in understanding here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, TRM, as always you've added clarity and aided in my understanding of how best to help the project. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You're very welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Saburido[edit]

Article: Jacqueline Saburido (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Saburido suffered severe burns as a result of an accident caused by a drunk driver and became a famous speaker and campaigner against drink driving appearing in several TV shows and public campaign alerting about the consequences of driving under influence. The article is fine for me. I fixed some dead links and update information regarding her death. --SirEdimon (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • OpposeSupport purely on article quality—whilst well-written, it reads like a narrative of the entire accent with bare-bones for the rest of the content. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Updated article to be less storytime about other people-y. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourced. And definitely a person that has recieved enough of pulblicity and attention overall for over 20 years to be RD worthy. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ready for posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The photo is copyrighted by the Texas State Department. I did not remove it as a courtesy to Kingsif to correct me if I am wrong. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposing based on a photo? Remove the photo and then discuss it with Kingsif.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:COPYVIO is a basic tenet on the Main Page and Wikipedia in general. I could be mistaken about the license. Forgive me if I am not quick to revert an edit made by another editor. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems fine for me, but as there's a reasonable doubt I removed it myself until Kingsif is able to clarify it. I'm prety sure that Kingsif will not be offended about it.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Not offended at all :) does Texas not come under "original work of the US government", which all bears no copyright? Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Each subnational government in the U.S. has its own copyright laws. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Great, should probably PROD it on Commons then Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be rude of me when I know the user who uploaded it is active almost everyday and they can self nominate for deletion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The article appears well written and minimally comprehensive. Restored ready mark.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RD: Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian[edit]

Article: Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, The Art Newspaper

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article looks pretty solidly sourced. Only showed up in the news today, though she died on April 20 Challenger l (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Very Weak Oppose This is a really good article, with lots of solid referencing. But as I'm digging into the references, it looks like the Career section doesn't match the given sources. There's some contradictions in some of the text there about the chronology (including even the subheading "Exile and return to Iran" which doesn't actually include any information about a return to Iran). I may have time to help align that section with the sources later, but can't make promises. It's really close. Kenmelken (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Xiao Yang[edit]

Article: Xiao Yang (judge) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Caixin, BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of China. Article is fully referenced. Zanhe (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Turpin case[edit]

Apparently of insular interest and significance outside the US as well as sordid and perhaps sensationalized. Withdrawn so we can move on. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Turpin case (talk, history)
Blurb: David and Louise Turpin are sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after they plead guilty to several criminal counts including torture, child abuse, and false imprisonment.
News source(s): The Independent, The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A high quality article about a subject that has been of significant interest in popular culture as well as the news media. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose yes there's some moderate news coverage, yes the article's of decent quality, but it's a lurid story of limited encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have to sadly oppose this. It is a national story brought to international attention because it happened in the US. Not saying its not notable or within Wiki criteria, but just not for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen this in the news at all, ever, and hadn't heard of it until I saw this nom. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Lyra McKee[edit]

Article: Lyra McKee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Journalist shot dead during a riot in Northern Ireland. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable death because of background, and circumstances in which it occurred. Also received international coverage. This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per This is Paul. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing Ready. Let's slow down a little here; it's unclear to me whether or not the subject was notable prior to her death. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe she meets WP:CREATIVE but I can understand the hesitation.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Now appears adequately sourced and developed. I think the subject's notability before her death is very questionable; the standards for journalists are very (too?) tough and she would not have been eligible as an author (requires a minimum of two published, reviewed books); such figures appear at Speedy quite often, in my experience. Let's see if anyone wants to move it to "Killing of..." but I don't think that needs to hold up an RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extinction Rebellion[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Extinction Rebellion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Extinction Rebellion group occupies major road junctions for several days in London to protest climate change, with over 1000 arrested.
News source(s): The Guardian, Telegraph, Met Police arrest count

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Protests have been major news in the UK all week and are being heavily discussed in the media. User:GKFXtalk 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment & Support Added more context to blurb to explain why it's not just a plain ol' protest. Kingsif (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This barely registered as a blip in the World section of the New York Times, who are usually quick to report on these sorts of things if they are notable. So I have my doubts as to the notability of these protests.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Agree with Walt that it's below the radar on most major news sites. (The Guardian, though often a valuable RS, favors these kinds of topics. And the Telegraph 's Thursday piece about Emma Thompson? C'mon.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: News coverage of it has been pretty significant here in the UK. I count eight related headlines on the homepage of the Telegraph, which is much further to the right of the political specrum than the Guardian, and in the paper edition over the last few days it has also taken up a large amount of space. However I will acknoledge that it's been less reported abroad. In terms of notability it's unusual for protestors to be arrested in such large numbers in the UK - over 500 people at this point. It's been even reported that police were running out of cells to hold protestors. As an example of TV news there's this interview on Channel 5, and another on Good Morning Britain. User:GKFXtalk 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Where are you getting "closing stations" from? They caused a brief interruption to service on the Docklands Light Railway for an hour or so, but there's no mention—either in the Wikipedia article or any coverage I can find—of them closing stations, let alone "for several days". ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That wasn't my version of the blurb. I've amended it to focus on the road-based protest and the number of arrests. (ref Met Police on Twitter) User:GKFXtalk 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it's quite un-British to do this (and the French do it practically weekly), it's still not enough for me to be considered worthy of even a passing mention in the year's most encyclopedically interesting events. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll take the risk of disagreeing with TRM, and say that this isn't even un-British. A similar group (probably including most of the same people) were camped out outside St Pauls a couple of years ago, the fuel protestors blocked roads practically weekly in the 2000s, anything with the slightest connection to either GM crops or oil drilling can expect a group of protestors camped out nearby… "Blocking the road" is nowadays the default course of action for any British special-interest group trying to draw attention to whatever cause they're promoting. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: When was the last time over 400 people were arrested, in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well, according to the government, last year, an average of 1914 people were arrested in the UK every single day. Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It seems like a bigger deal than the Boston Marathon, which was a routine local sports event, but is currently in ITN. It looks like there's more to come as people like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg get involved. Andrew D. (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly will not get anywhere. Climate change last year was deemed [next to] irreversible as this point. All the protesters will achieve is legal trouble and (to a degree) embarrassment. 174.151.164.174 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the reversiblity of climate change or otherwise has a bearing on this ITN candidate. (Also, citation needed!) Nor does anyone appear embarrassed. The relevant factors for notability are the amount of disruption caused, actual or likely impacts on government policy, etc. User:GKFXtalk 14:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The great unwashed have now gone home, after their mummies and daddies picked them up in their 4x4s. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Lug, if they're riding in Range Rovers their mummies & daddies doubtless made sure they were thoroughly washed before they left home. – Sca (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There's literally still an XR truck and several hundred people chanting on... a bridge... as I type now. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moderate sized protests, no where near in size to what we generally look for at ITN. Long term significance is likely negligible, if that zero. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the good reasons outlined above. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant protests, with a decent article. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has received little coverage outside the UK. The impact of these protests have been very limited. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Capitalistroadster. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References[edit]

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

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