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.

Nursultan Nazarbayev in 2017
Nursultan Nazarbayev

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]

March 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Six people are killed and twenty three other wounded in three bomb explosions during Nowruz celebration in Kabul, Afghanistan. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports

European Wikipedia blackouts[edit]

Article: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market#Public protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four European Wikipedias undergo a blackout to protest against controversial internet legislation
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18275462/eu-copyright-directive-protest-wikipedia-twitch-pornhub-final-vote

Nominator's comments: Four European Wikipedias undergoing a blackout seems like a significant event, especially for the for ITN of the largest Wikipedia language version. There are also some other major sites like Reddit and Twitch that display banners or hinder a specific feature today. This news was featured on major media in each language, for example Tagesschau, Der Spiegel, dr.dk, and many other sites.

I hope it's okay to link to a specific article section. The (sub)article itself could use some love, but I'm afraid that I don't feel very confident yet in editing Wikipedia. Confiks (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment At least the target article is in relatively good shape. A few citations needed. The only thing I think that is worthy of discussion will be whether this is a truly significant event or just some navel gazing. I think I would be more OK with this if we included Reddit and Twitch.tv. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing. If it had been Amazon or Google or Apple or something, sure, but not a handful of our own encyclopedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I can see how this can be seen as navel gazing. Still, more than 91 million internet-connected users[1] in those four countries didn't have access to Wikipedia. Also, for example, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in Germany[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confiks (talkcontribs) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Navel gazing.--174.64.100.70 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock[edit]

Article: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock (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: Almost there. Just needs some TLC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Google Stadia[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post a commercial announcement. Stephen 21:45, 20 March 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: Google Stadia (talk, history)
Blurb: Google announces development of a cloud gaming service (logo pictured) called Google Stadia.
News source(s): BBC
 GeographyAholic talk 18:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith nom. But even if this were notable, there's no metrics to measure the impact that this product may have until it's been released.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I edited it but User:Czar created it and added some actual content to start the thing. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting product announcements. As TRM says, there are other Main Page places this might be suitable. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Absolutely no free advertising on the Main Page, please. Or anywhere else. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith, and perhaps it can be posted elsewhere as others have noted, but it's not exactly ITN. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:27, 20 March 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 to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai[edit]

Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, The Washington Post, The Guardian, AP

Nominator's comments: Major humanitarian crisis unfolding in Mozambique and Zimbabwe with flood waters continuing to rise. Idai is being called one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in the entire Southern Hemisphere (indeed there is only one or two other known cyclones that have caused greater loss of life in the hemisphere: the 1892 Mauritius cyclone and possibly Cyclone Leon-Eline). Hundreds of people remain missing in both countries and the death toll is expected to exceed 1,300 between the two. Remains a big story in global media outlets. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to oppose on the basis that it is clearly NOT ongoing, and we don't post to ongoing just because an event has ongoing effects (or we feel the blurb wasn't up long enough). However, it appears an admin has now unilaterally posted this. So...nevermind, I guess. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    The ITN guidelines say, "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." This is clearly happening here, just see how much has been added today by Cyclonebiskit.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Big-time mea culpa there. I've been misinterpreting "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" as requiring that the events themselves be ongoing. No such requirement exists. My apologies, Espresso Addict. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I added it to Ongoing when I saw it had rolled off without seeing this entry, as the event clearly meets the guidelines quoted above for the reasons given by Cyclonebiskit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good call. I've amended it to aftermath as the Cyclone itself has dissipated, but moving to ongoing can definitely be at a sole admin's discretion. Stephen 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) Nursultan Nazarbayev's resignation[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Nursultan Nazarbayev (talk, history)
Blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as President of Kazakhstan, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as acting president.
Alternative blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as the first President of Kazakhstan after a 29 year tenure, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as interim president.
News source(s): Reuters, etc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After almost 30 years in office. Article updated. Brandmeistertalk 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support WP:ITN/R and article seems reasonably well-sourced and does not have an excessive number of tags. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R .BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:ITN/R & good-shape articles. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and malformed blurb. Many more citations needed in the target article (eg. Personal life and Honours sections unreferenced). I don't think this is ITN/R. ITNR says nothing about resignations. Perhaps the target should be the new president. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR- though I believe(could be wrong) we don't typically post interim/acting leaders, it seems the Acting President will be so until the end of the term. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • ITNR does mention "succession of a head of state", but only "where head of state is not an elected position" (although the article says that all Nazarbayev's elections have been considered sham). Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That has usually been interpreted to mean any change in head of state. We also don't judge the validity or fairness of a country's elections(some would argue the last US presidential election was a sham because the person with the most votes did not win). 331dot (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • As Banedon said below, if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. To your point about "where head of state is not an elected position" though: Nazarbayev was widely regarded by reliable sources to have been a dictator. We would very likely post if Kim Jong Un resigned and appointed a new head of state. Technically, they have elections in the DPRK, just as Nursultan Nazarbayev technically "won his election" with 97.7 percent of the "vote", but transfers of power are extremely rare in Kazakhstan (so rare that this is the only time it's ever happened) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I would further add that if the argument is that the elections shouldn't count as elections because they were just show elections, then the ITNR would apply after all(since the position is not really 'elected') 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. Banedon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but add context: "resigns as President of Kazakhstan after 29 years in power, appointing.." Johndavies837 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also support the inclusion of more contextual information. It is very significant how lengthy Nazarbayev's tenure was (nearly three decades) as the first and (until now) only President of independent Kazakhstan. I've proposed an altblurb, but if someone can produce a more concise version that still includes the significant details, I'd support it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Given WP:INT/R the suddenness of his resignation and the impact it will have on Kazakhstan, I think that this event is worthy of being on the main page. 20Infernix04 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of ITNR is that it presumes the event is notable enough for posting on the merits; we are only waiting for agreement on the blurb and adequate article quality. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some citations are needed and the article could do with updating in places. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with this going up as a blurb (pending a quality review) but to be ITNR there would need to be a standalone article about the change in leadership. I don't recall ever using the article about an elected official as the target of a change of leadership blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please point out where that requirement is. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hrm, you're right, no such requirement exists. Thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nazarbayev did not state any reason for his resignation (much to the shock of Russian officials which viewed him as a key ally). As a result, it would be very difficult to produce an article specifically about the change in leadership which was uniquely sudden and unexplained, but that certainly shouldn't prevent a blurb about the only change in power the country has ever seen. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Clearly notable; this should be made ITN/R if it isn't. The presidency section and the resignation subsection are now sourced, but the remainder of the article still has a few cn tags. Davey2116 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: WP:ITN/R and certainly a notable event. Article also looks to be updated and minimally comprehensive about the resignation, although details about the protests would be nice. Altblurb better shows the significance of the event. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Change of head of state is notable but the article needs more infomation about what is going on, two paragraphs is not going to cut it. Swordman97 talk to me 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. There are some citing issues across the article but the updated paragraph is ok. More content is always welcome but it covers the basics. I commented out the honors section since it has serious referencing issues. --Tone 08:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Pull This article has many sourcing and NPOV issues that were ignored. I do not doubt the significance of the event but my issue was with the quality of the article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we note that the capital city Astana has officially been renamed to "Nursultan" effective immediately, or would this make the blurb far too cluttered? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I briefly thought about this, as the renaming of any country's capital is newsworthy. But perhaps it should be considered on its own merits. Brandmeistertalk 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karen Uhlenbeck first woman to receive Abel Prize in mathematics[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Karen Uhlenbeck (talk, history)
Blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics.
Alternative blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems."
Alternative blurb II: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics."
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

Nominated event is 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: Karen Uhlenbeck is the first woman to win this exceptionally prestigious award. I think this remarkable accomplishment is newsworthy. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Abel is actually ITNR, so we needn't consider the gender aspect. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the story is not appearing in the front page at the moment, so I thought I'd nominate it. The blurb can be re-worked to down weight gender, if that's what people prefer. I just included this angle because it's the angle that most of the news sources are featuring. OtterAM (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
She certainly is a noteworthy academic, though I would posit that being the first woman is a notable detail of her achievement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - only a short paragraph for what her work actually is is not sufficient. I realize reading the selected works this is very esoteric math but we still need more discussion of it. --Masem (t) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a fair point. I will try to expand this section later today. If any other math aficionados want to give it a whirl, feel free. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The expanded content works for me. I don't think that needs to be in the blurb but primary concern is met. --Masem (t) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of press. (I accidentally created a second nomination above, but have removed that one.) I think the article is sufficient for a short biography. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the New York Times article. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Please crop the watermark before posting. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Or remove protection so I can do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)c
  • Support - I will support this because of win of prestigious award, article and sources looks decent.BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a problem with an article that is so unbalanced between the trivial details of her career and any information beyond the bald topic areas of her research. This does not inform readers about what her breakthroughs are and why they are important. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. Now much improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Bit list-heavy but sufficient sources and quality. First female winner of "Nobel prize for mathematics" is certainly notable. Per sources, maybe a blurb can be used that includes said commonly made comparison to the Nobel prizes? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This article has come a long way in the last hour.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is (arguably) the highest recognition in mathematics. Absolutely ITN-worthy. Would prefer either the altblurb or altblurb2. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, though may favor the first altblurb 2/2 space constrictions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support About time for a good news story. Two mass shootings, a natural disaster, and an air crash. Run it! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not at all "minimally comprehensive". She got the award " for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics." and the achievements section has basically one sentence about each. "She has also contributed to topological quantum field theory and integrable systems" This is one of the reasons she won the award for crying out loud give the WP:READERs something to go on. The article is not suitable for posting to MP for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
What would "minimally comprehensive" entail? An in-depth description of her technical work would be more than minimal. There's a reason that the New York Times, CNN, etc. don't say much on her contributions, it's hard to suitably summarize them for a general audience.
Her work on singularities of harmonic maps in geometric analysis (aka geometric PDEs) really was foundational and simultaneously applicable to gauge theory, Yang–Mills theory, and integrable systems. In some sense, the three sentences in the latter two paragraphs are really about those contributions in simultaneity (she did not really work on those independently of each other). In any case, it would take more work to provide more in-depth technical descriptions as a non-specialist but I would argue that it is minimally comprehensive. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "minimally comprehensive" is for this subject, that's sort of the point though. I read it, the whole "Research" section is little more than a bullet point list of what she won the award for, it doesn't tell me anything about her contributions to those areas. Honestly all the Able Prize winner articles are poor, except Nash but that's not really fair. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the others are quite a bit more comprehensive, e.g. Jean-Pierre Serre, Michael Atiyah, John Tate. However, Uhlenbeck is not as famous or well-known as some past winners and there is relatively less information on her and her work. In general though, descriptive writing of technical mathematical work is a rare and valuable art. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1 or 2. Article is sufficient. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2. Article is good to go. Swordman97 talk to me 02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Finally something that doesn't involve people dying :P Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted --Tone 08:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Kenneth To[edit]

Article: Kenneth To (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1][2]

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: 26-year-old swimmer dies of heart attack. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Needs copy editing and some referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "one ref at the end of each para" doesn't quite work here, a lot of unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Utrecht shooting[edit]

Article: 2019 Utrecht shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man has opened fire in a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht, killing three and injuring nine people
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, dpa, RTL

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: News still to come in. Article in initial stages. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until more details are available upon which we can base a judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks to be of comparatively minor moderate significance. Sca (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Three dead, nine wounded. Blurb amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - death toll rises. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
AP, Reuters, dpa say three dead and five (rather than nine) injured. (Added to sources.) – Sca (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rises, yes, but doesn't come close to the 21 killed in Mali on the same day. Barely cracks the top ten deadliest attacks of the week. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    GreatCaesarsGhost, feel free to nominate that attack in Mali. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is of sufficient quality, well referenced, detailed enough, topic is currently in the news. Checks all the boxes.--Jayron32 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub. Motivation still unknown. Outrageous statement "Several witnesses have claimed that the probable motive for the attack was an honour killing after a family dispute between two relatives." not backed by refs. No thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Rare case of mass shooting in the Netherlands. Article has been afd'ed though that seems a strange decision as the story is still in the headlines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The body count is quite low in the scheme of things, and there is no other factor which may suggest greater significance. There is much bias in the western media about this kind of attack being normal where brown/black people live but big news when it happens in our house. Add to that the theme of one of THEM coming HERE and killing US. We need to be cautious about thinking this significant because of the coverage it is getting; it often says more about the coverage than the event. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Several sources [3] [4] [5] say terrorism still being considered as a motive (or personal/family issues). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. International continued coverage despite the many tragedies in the news cycle. Article seems fine. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted modified blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit negotiations[edit]

Withdrawn for now, I guess we'll revisit after the request for an extension is made (or isn't). --LaserLegs (talk) 14:19, 18 March 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: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Last update was several days ago. LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive happens over the weekend. This week will see yet more Brexit votes, and an inevitable delay to implementation of Article 50, this isn't the time to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The never-ending Brexit story goes on. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 18 March 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.

March 17[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Politics and election

(Posted) RD: Alan Krueger[edit]

Article: Alan Krueger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY 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.

 IntoThinAir (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this is quite ready. The sourcing needs work -- there are several claims based on primary sources only (not all tagged) as well as unsourced material in the infobox. The lead needs rewriting. When did he stop being chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manohar Parrikar[edit]

Article: Manohar Parrikar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV

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: Start Class article with everything sourced. Indian Chief Minister. DBigXray 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The person in question is significant enough to be present in RD. The article too seems good. Adithya Pergade (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is "significant enough to be present in RD".--SirEdimon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Everything seems to be accounted for. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - One importante statement is unsourced: "He has since been credited with transparent, efficient and fast decision making in what was till then thought of as a sluggish ministry. He has also opened up several investigations into alleged scams like Augusta Westland Chopper scam." This kind of thing must be referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SirEdimon agree, I have removed this unsourced claim from the article and move to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this--DBigXray 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go in my opinion.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough quality for RD. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Disasters and accidents
  • A fire at a refugee camp in Nigeria kills eight and leaves 15,000 homeless. The residents are people displaced by ongoing conflict with Boko Haram. (Reuters)
  • Flooding over large portions of Nebraska leave one dead and two missing with over 900 people using emergency shelters. Many roads and highways in the state are also closed. (USA Today)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Dick Dale[edit]

Article: Dick Dale (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: LOADS of work needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Everything in the main prose is now cited to a source (with the caveat that I haven't checked every source already in the article beyond a few basic spot checks) and a lot of prose has been cleaned up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Ritchie333, the article is in much better shape. The discography still needs work so it is not ready to post. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the singles are covered by ref #45. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the article is good enough to post. Swordman97 talk to me 02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - decent shape now. BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Jayapura flooding[edit]

Article: 2019 Jayapura flood and landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 89 people are killed by a flash flood and landslide in Jayapura Regency and Jayapura, Indonesia.
News source(s): The Guardian (via AFP), DW

Nominator's comments: News is a bit buried by the media block in Papua and the NZ/Ethiopia events, but it's still there in front pages. Juxlos (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - The article is a bit small but seems good enough for me and the death toll is, obviously, very significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is adequate and sourced, though mainly not in English. The BBC is covering this on their world news index page and the ref I've added covers most of the basics. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's true that this has been overshadowed by NZ shooting and Ethiopia crash, but it's tragic too and the article looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Did not receive due attention because of other major international news, but coverage that did occur was reasonable. Death toll is significant. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. "The administrative villages of Dobonsolo, Doyobaru and Hini Kumbi were the most affected" most affected how? 73 are dead? Where? How? The impact section has a total of six lines of prose, one of which is dedicated to a damaged helicopter. Is a damaged helicopter "very significant"? I know I'm in the minority here, but this is another disaster stub that tells very little. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per refs, per attention, per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ok coverage of event. Well referenced. Obviously significant number of deaths.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Six Nations Championship[edit]

Article: 2019 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby, Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
Nominated event is 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.

 Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose great graphics and tables. Prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks prose... It needs background information in the article body and supporting info for some sections. NoahTalk 04:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment

International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mike Thalassitis[edit]

Article: Mike Thalassitis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): 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: C Class article with very good sourcing. A footballer and TV star. DBigXray 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on quality - good enough for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, marking ready. SpencerT•C 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) School strike for climate[edit]

Now older than oldest item on ITN. Stale. --WaltCip (talk) 14:08, 20 March 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: School strike for climate (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hundreds of thousands of pupils and students worldwide go on school strike to demand political action against global warming.
Alternative blurb: ​Hundreds of thousands of pupils and students joins Greta Thunberg in a worldwide school strike to demand political action against global warming.
Alternative blurb II: ​An estimated 1.4 million students worldwide participate in school strikes demanding political action against global warming.
News source(s): (CNN) + see also other sources in Article

Article updated
 --PJ Geest (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support News or Ongoing Disclaimer... I edit this article. Global phenom and original inspiration Swedish teen Greta Thunberg has been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. The article attracts new (young?) editors so there are sometimes spates of cleanup work to be done, and extra care to ensure neutrality but its a very good start. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Lots of coverage all right, but while one may very much sympathize with the objective, gauging the impact of these demonstrations, i.e. their significance, is problematic. They haven't had any immediate effect on consequential climate policies or, obviously, on the climate itself. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
See "Swedish student leader wins EU pledge to spend billions on climate" and "Greta Thunberg—Swedish Teen who Inspired School Climate Strikes—Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - significant protest internationally ... by children, even. starship.paint ~ KO 15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of notability, the article is not main page material in its current state. The table needs quite a few fixes (sourcing, proper sorting, and so on) before it can be considered acceptable quality-wise, and there's some WP:PROSELINE as well. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, but article needs some work. Davey2116 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The strike appears to already had an immediate impact, the UN Secretary General has called an emergency climate summit in response to the strikes.The lorax (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure "calling for" a meeting to discuss the problem can be described as an impact or effect. Sca (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting a lot of attention and the article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This has been "happening" for almost one year now. Why to put it on the main page now? It doesn't seem "ITN" material for me. It's not a current event (that happened in the past few hours or days), it has been happening for a long time now. It seems more like an "ongoing" thing for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Although there have been a few here and there, and even fewer have been large (>10,000), there was great buildup to March 15 and estimates are something like 2000+ events in 100+ countries involving 1 to 1.4 million people, just in the last 72 hours. That's very different from the here-and-there events that happened before, even if some of them were "large". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy --PJ Geest (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose still not clear why this isn't "ongoing". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Ongoing only, in line with TRM and my comments above. Sca (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Disorganised and poorly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on quality and significance, since we're here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is both something to say for blurb and ongoing. It is true the size of protests of 15 March where exceptional and they don't plan a global strike every week (probably less then once a month). On the other hand it is already been going on (and growing) for a long time. Plus for a lot of countries 15 March was only the first time they protested, so there is a chance this still expands in these countries in the future (which remains of course to be seen). For me this is a bit similar to the yellow vest movement, I don't know the yellow vests where blurb(s) or ongoing? I hope we get to concensus on this fast. PJ Geest (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, we should keep in mind that global warming has been "ongoing" for decades if not centuries. Sca (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So has Universe, Evolution, and especially taxation. You're point? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I trust you to figure that out for yourself. – Sca (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meanwhile the article has better quality and is better sourced. From above I interpret that there is more support for ongoing. So I suppose we should go for ongoing. --PJ Geest (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Yes it has been ongoing but how does that prevent us from blurbing now . Wars are ongoing but we choose to post blurbs when a significant and distinct event occurs within that war. On 15 March, these strikes came to the first notable climax. Sure, there is a chance for continued growth but this event is at least a noteworthy peak. Unlike other ongoing protests currently, this occurred in multiple countries in coordination. The current blurb is just not good enough and I am not opposed to ongoing but it would be challenged in 24 hours as the page may not sustain the updates required for ongoing. We have a significant noteworthy update and we should try to come up with a good blurb.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Along those lines see "In the largest ever protest of its kind..." and "...an international strike for climate action — reportedly the largest protest against global warming in human history. An estimated 1.4 million people in 123 countries took part. " NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Coffeeandcrumbs. —Hugh (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What about following blurb: More than 1 million pupils and students worldwide quit school for taking part in the largest protest against global warming in history. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The marches are over, and the coverage of this has ceased, so the event is effectively stale at this point.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    It wasn't stale when it was nominated, that's what counts.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the wide coverage of the March 15 strikes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per world wide coverage. per significance. article in decent shape, Blurb ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 19 March 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: W. S. Merwin[edit]

Article: W. S. Merwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, NPR

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: Start Class article with good sourcing. United States Poet Laureate and Twice winner of Pulitzer Prize for Poetry DBigXray 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Well referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support clearly meets RD requirements (great sourcing for the bibliography and awards); marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support done deal, especially now the easter egg links are gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per above.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Venezuelan blackout[edit]

Article: 2019 Venezuelan blackout (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Both CNN and Fox agree that the blackout is over. Of course the consequences will continue for some time, but the thing which was ongoing is no longer. LaserLegs (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems a little odd to me to remove something that was only added 24 hours ago. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources say it's over. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the article, “the blackout has yet to be fully resolved as of 15 March”. Stephen 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So the article is not updated, another good reason to remove it. Per WP:RS "Power has returned to Venezuela after a week after the country was plunged into darkness". --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • [6] Some power is back but looking to weeks to restore across the country. That said, this is now in "recovery" mode, so I would remove it as it has nothing directly to do with the ongoing presidential crisis. --Masem (t) 01:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps this could be bumped from the ongoing section to one of the bulleted items, especially since the third newest item at present is from 12 days ago. SpencerT•C 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thats a fine idea, the event was significant and a blurb is certainly appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
      • My suggestion for a blurb at this point would be something like "Electricity and water is restored to main population centers of Venezuela, after the country suffered a complete national blackout for 7 days". But that's about it. Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove but no need for a blurb.If we're to add a blurb for it, then no need for removing it from the Ongoing in the first place. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ”The power outage had yet to be fully resolved as of 16 March” according to Venezuelan sources, or we could quote “reliable” American sources themselves quoting the information minister from a failing government. Stephen 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, "fully" resolved according to anti-government Venezuelan sources. Reuters and the Guardian if "American sources" need to be de-legitimized with quotation marks. So we can keep in the ongoing box localized regional blackouts that have absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the ongoing political issues in the country, or we can get it out of there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There, I updated the lead with reliable sources, now can we please get this turd of an article off the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well? Are we pulling this or not? WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Do you support or oppose pulling it? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Now appears out of the news, even if minor outages are still ongoing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy[edit]

Article: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Andhra politician Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy stabbed to death
News source(s): the Times of India ,India Today

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.

 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Several paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose first two paras of bio unref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Idai[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After killing at least 126 people in southern Africa, Cyclone Idai (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Mozambique.
Alternative blurb: ​Flash floods and winds caused by Cyclone Idai (satellite image pictured) kill at least 173 people in Mozambique, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.
News source(s): AP, Guardian

Nominator's comments: Deadliest weather disaster thus far in 2019, and an unusually powerful storm for Mozambique. Worst damage thus far was from the precursor floods during the storm's formative stages, effects from the more powerful landfall today are unknown. Impact section needs some love but the bare essentials are there. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Impact section could use some work but the rest is a real good start page. Is 15 March the best date for our purposes? I think we are lagging behind sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We're definitely behind on the flood event, but the system just made landfall near Beira, Mozambique, and would likely warrant an update blurb regardless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I updated the deaths here after the total increased from 126 to 145 confirmed. Impacts are going to come in at a slow rate since Mozambique could see up to 500mm (20 in) of rain in addition to what it already has. Not to mention the ongoing gale force winds. NoahTalk 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until impact on Beira is known, then Support. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is good enough for me and the event is clearly significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Has impacted hundreds of thousands of people and killed about 140, seems worthy to be on the news. DerpieDerpie:D 14:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted KrinkleBot seems to be down so no image for now. SpencerT•C 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The description is somehow inappropriate as some deaths within the 169 are caused after landfall. 🐱💬 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Technically speaking, all the deaths were caused after the first landfall occurred. @Spencer: Probably would be better to use the alt blurb as it gives a more accurate scope of the storm's deadliness without being factually inaccurate. Additionally, I reverted the main one to the original 126 since we can't be certain of what was caused before and after the second landfall. NoahTalk 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Shifted to alt blurb. Thanks, SpencerT•C 00:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Several sources [7] [8] indicate death toll in region may approach 1,000. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Sca: We did note that in the article. NoahTalk 15:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Moved to Ongoing. The event is still in the headlines internationally and major updates are continuing to the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

Article: Christchurch mosque shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths.
Alternative blurb: ​A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths and injuries unknown.
News source(s): 1 News, AP News, Guardian, BBC

Article updated

 Sheldybett (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support but wait a few hours as the incident is still ongoing and the article is not yet well developed. This is an unprecedented event in New Zealand - we've had terrorist incidents before but not involving this number of (probable) deaths, possible multiple perpetrators, and never with automatic weapons, which are not readily available in this country. The blurb needs work. Excuse me if I'm not coherent, I'm in shock.-gadfium 03:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - And post as soon as possible. BabbaQ (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Yes this is notable, but we need more information and a better blurb. AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The blurb needs tweaking. Hazara Birar (Talk)
  • Wait - Not clear information. Article is not ready Sherenk1 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is updated with new information. The event is clearly notable. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - police have now confirmed multiple fatalities, which makes it ITN-worthy IMHO, given the rarity of such events in that part of the world. Blurb needs work though (no need for the street, for instance); I suggest something like A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths. Adpete (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Adpete, and concur on their suggestion of a clearer blurb. —Hugh (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Will we be clearly indicating that this was a terrorist attack>? DS (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Best here to follow the lead of the main news sources, per WP:RS. But certainly not yet, since I haven't seen it called that in the RS. Adpete (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Still needs more information, but it is notable enough.∻ℳcCunicano 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The blurb Can we reword the blurb to say "white supremacist terror attack"? The PM of Australia is already using the word 'terrorism' to describe what has happened. The shooter's manifesto also spoke of "white identity"-TenorTwelve (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Unless you get that phrase accepted into the article. Stephen 09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No. We generally do not identify ideological motivations for mass shootings in blurbs. I don't recall "Islamic extremists" or "anti-gay" showing up in earlier terror attack blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • UpdateMike Bush confirmed 50 deaths. This is likely the final toll so no need for at least.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jake Phelps[edit]

Article: Jake Phelps (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle

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: Editor of skateboarding magazine Thrasher. Fully sourced. Samuel Wiki (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article is a stub. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is no longer a stub. Editors are clearly interested in it. Lots of press about him with his recent passing. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose basically a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, just about good enough, and not a lot of other details online about him. Stephen 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Tel Aviv attempted strike[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:33, 17 March 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: 2019 Tel Aviv missile strike (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator's comments: I suspect we will not post yet but, according to RS, a counter strike is sure to follow. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - Until further escalations etc. If that happens consider this a Support.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Usual skirmish. Already out of news Sherenk1 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Usual? This is the first rocket attack to reach Tel Aviv since 2014. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:30, 15 March 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: Birch Bayh[edit]

Article: Birch Bayh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP & etc.

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: Prominent US Senator from the land of long ago. Article is not in horrible shape but as usual, referencing needs some work. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Still needs a fair amount of work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, may be a blurb candidate: authors of portions of the US constitution probably qualify. Only 'unreferenced' section I saw currently is self-referencing to pre-Internet official government publications. Currently meets any reasonable referencing requirements. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I tagged the hell out of the page and all requested citations were provided. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now fully sourced after the work of Coffeeandcrumbs (and myself). Davey2116 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Godfried Danneels[edit]

Article: Godfried Danneels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): De Standaard

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: Belgian Cardinal. Well fleshed out article (I haven't written nor updated it, I'm just the nominator here). Fram (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Whiting[edit]

Article: Charlie Whiting (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, news.com.au

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: One of the most influential people in Formula 1. Edit: Oof, I made the nomination before looking at the article, so I didn't realise how sparse it is. JuneGloom07 Talk 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for someone in such a prominent position for such a period, the article is basically a stub. What's there seems fine, but just not comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added links to some obituaries to the talk page. Not got time to add from them myself atm. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Expanded so it is no longer a stub. Reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. What's there is referenced but it's not really comprehensive enough - the 2005 US GP incident does seem to be unduly prominent and the "Legacy" section isn't about his legacy but tributes to him. He was of massive importance to the sport and does have a great legacy in terms of safety improvements, etc. that just isn't covered at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Have expanded a bit more. Everything that is there is referenced, and the vital details about him are there as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Appears decent enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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: