Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

August 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) US missile testEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:55, 25 August 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: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States conducts its first intermediate-range missile since withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.
News source(s): Sydney Morning HeraldBBC
Nominator's comments: The US has recently withdrawn from this significant Cold War-era treaty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We just posted the withdrawl. And it was known that the US was getting ready to do this test ASAP after the withdrawl. Not a significant event for ITN. --Masem (t) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose just business as usual now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Yes, we did post the US withdrawal from the ITN recently. But I don't think it was clear then or was a given that U.S. will quickly resume testing that had been prohibited by the ITN, and the consequences of such a possible resumption were not clear as well. For example, it was possible that there would be a push of some sort to conclude a new treaty. However, on Aug 22, after the U.S. test, there was a UN Security Council meeting[1], called by China and Russia, and it became apparent that nobody is in the mood to push for a new treaty. China then explicitly stated that it is not interested in negotiations for a potential new treaty [2]. Then Putin ordered the Russian military to prepare a "symmetrical response" to the U.S. test [3]. So now it appears that a period of a missile arms race will follow. That seems significant enough to me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 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.

(Closed) Jack WhitakerEdit

Now stale.
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: Jack Whitaker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN NBC

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. I am working to improve the sourcing. DBigXray 05:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed lot of improvements made since you last reviewed. The Rambling Man, Please review again. --DBigXray 08:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Weak support one minor claim left unreferenced at this time, article is improved, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed thank you. I have referenced that claim now.--DBigXray 09:40, 22 August 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.

(Closed) Kathleen BlancoEdit

Now stale.
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: Kathleen Blanco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, CBS News

Article needs updating

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: American politician, former governor of Louisiana (2004–08) dies at age 76. Article needs lots of work. Davey2116 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not in close shape for posting. --Masem (t) 00:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This article may have been edited by a serial copyright violator with a particular interest in Louisiana politics – please check this link. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 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.

(Closed) 2019 Canary Islands wildfiresEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:54, 25 August 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 Canary Islands wildfires (talk, history)
Blurb: ​9000 people are evacuated from their homes due to the second wildfire within a week in Gran Canaria, the worst to hit Spain in the last six years.
News source(s): BBC, Euronews, Sky News, El País, AP, Guardian, AFP

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a significant event in Spain; it is being covered by all national news outlets as well as significant international ones. In addition, the Canary Islands are a popular summer tourist destination, although tourism has not yet been affected by the events. Vishal dh (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose local event that happens commonly, without casualty figure or anyother reason that makes it notable of blurb. --DBigXray 10:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Some 8,000 evacuated; fires said to be "out of control," spreading. (Two sources added.) – Sca (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should this cause significant damage then it would make sense to post, but just the existence of wildfires or the evacuation order isn't sufficient for posting. --Masem (t) 16:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait As of right now it has not yet caused sufficient damage to be internationally notable. However, if the fire threatens a major population centre, or if the fire destroys the UNESCO site on Gran Canaria, then that would change. And I will note that the fire is rather close to both of those. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem & NorthernFalcon. Modest Genius talk 18:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – No fatalities (yet), but this 24,000-acre (38 sq. mi.) wildfire remains out of control despite 1,000 firefighters and 14 water-dropping helicopters and planes. By any standard – including those of the Western U.S. – that's major. Let's keep an eye on it. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: Possibly a candidate for Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Didn't take long for the California fires to be posted, as I remember that was before reports of people dying, and I think a good part of an entire island with threats to a WHS is more important internationally and historically than celebrities' houses, as sad as any kind of destruction is.
And I'm pretty sure the Tenerife fire on the 18/19 was actually within the Teide UNESCO WHS already. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: fwiw the California wildfires in November 2018 (I'm assuming its these, specifically the Woolsey Fire because of the celebrity homes) were posted with 25 confirmed deaths and the near-total destruction of Paradise, CA in the Camp Fire. It was nominated when the destruction became evident, and the deaths were confirmed by the time it gained support for posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Which is fair and sad, but a wildfire in one of two island volcano WHS (not caused by the volcano) and another WHS that only got designated this year is also pretty tragic, whether there's people killed or towns destroyed. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Number of evacuated grown to 9000, affected area grown to 10,000 ha (over 6% of the entire island). Article updated to reflect latest information. Vishal dh (talk) 05:56, 21 August 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.

August 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Cedric BensonEdit

Article: Cedric Benson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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 good sourcing DBigXray 08:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Calling for NFL experts to help with sourcing. User:Bagumba please take a look. --DBigXray 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kip AddottaEdit

Article: Kip Addotta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): THR

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: Comedina frequently on Carson, but probably his legacy is the pun-filled song "Wet Dream". Article is almost there, releases need sources. While died on 13th, family only just announced his death on 17th. Masem (t) 15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 17 August 2019 Kabul bombingEdit

Article: 17 August 2019 Kabul bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: 63 non-British/American people were killed in Kabul bombing.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 63 people are killed in a bombing of a wedding in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP

 Abutalub (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support alt blurb. This news is the headline of every news site across the world. --DBigXray 11:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - headline news.BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle due to high mortality. However, two-thirds of the current article consists of comments from assembled notables, while descriptive text is a spare 170 words. Further, the article's statement that "there were no immediate claims of responsibility" is misleading, as RS reports from AP, BBC, the Guardian and AFP say the local 'IS' affiliate claimed responsibility. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - High casualty, hence notable as well - Sherenk1 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - not the most comprehensive article imaginable but covers the bases satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted - Article may be short but that's about as much as major sources are reporting this morning, so should be fine. --Masem (t) 15:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    Masem Don't link Afghanistan please. Common geographical location. Plus, consistency in the template too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Masem (t) 15:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What a terrible blurb. Who proposed this first blurb? – Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Snide. – Sca (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Still quite thin. – Sca (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I spot checked the latest news on this and there's not much else to say, that doesn't get into politicizing the incident (which is mostly speculation on the current US-Afghanistan talks, which we shouldn't post.) --Masem (t) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Masem please make it 80 dead and 160 injured : src reuters--DBigXray 13:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • FWIW fixes like these should goes to WP:ERRORS (so more eyes see it). --Masem (t) 13:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Masem thanks, I will post there as well. I would not call this an error. Current events are expected to evolve and would need updation accordingly. regards. --DBigXray 06:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Damodar Ganesh BapatEdit

Article: Damodar Ganesh Bapat (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 excellent sourcing. Indian social worker. DBigXray 08:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man thanks for the feedback, I have further expanded the article. --DBigXray 16:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportAmmarpad (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 16Edit

International relations
Law and crime
  • Death of Jeffrey Epstein
    • The death of accused sexual trafficker Jeffrey Epstein is ruled a suicide by hanging by the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Epstein's attorneys say they will be conducting their own investigation into his death. (CNN)

RD: Richard Williams (animator)Edit

Article: Richard Williams (animator) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Multiple award-winning director. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Filmography needs more sourcing and there's no prose about his death, just a single reference in the lede. Spengouli (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: José NápolesEdit

Article: José Nápoles (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN

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: Boxing legend. " one of the greatest fighters of all time". Start Class article, sourcing needs some volunteers. DBigXray 15:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

RD: Peter FondaEdit

Article: Peter Fonda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News

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.

 Masem (t) 23:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I can see someone arguing for a blurb here , but before we go that road, this is a poorly sourced article. And if someone tries to sweep the filmography (unsourced) to a separate article, that's not appropriate per recent discussion on the ITN talk page. Let's get this up to RD quality first before we talk a blurb. --Masem (t) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose far from ready, but never a blurb in any situation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:DENY.--WaltCip (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support RD, support blurb We've posted some black woman writer I've never heard of a few weeks ago simoply because she was a black person with a Nobel prize (in literature!). Fonda clearly deserves a blurb then. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the criteria that says if 5.44.170.9 hasn't heard of someone, they can't be posted. I think it's also mildly offensive that you indicate Morrison was posted because she was "some black woman" who received a Nobel prize. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Find me another nobel prize in literature winner who's death was posted as a blurb on english wikipedia over the past 10-15 years. It's self evient she was only posted because she was 1) woman 2) black for anyone who isn't lying to themselves 5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
P.S. The fact that my comment is considered to be "offensive", and was even removed as such speaks volumes about the state of this website in 2019 as well as confirms what I said. No wonder the vote succeed, if all opposition is declared offensive and is immediately removed/banned from the website. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We would have blurbed the first white man to win the Nobel Prize in Literature when he died too! Does knowing that make you feel better? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If you don't like the state of Wikipedia, perhaps you should find somewhere else to spend your time and make your offensive statements. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@331dot and Coffeeandcrumbs: The IP is trolling. I deleted their original comment for race baiting, but was reverted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The IP seems to be making a WP:POINT. If someone who knows how comes along it would be worth collapsing this convo.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This blurbed death thing is getting out of control. Not every really famous person gets a blurb just because you like them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
To note, I would be against this as a blurb myself, but was only cautioning here because of how his death was being handled in newspapers as "oh gosh, a major loss!", and wanted to address the major block to that point first. --Masem (t) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I wanted to do the same thing. RD only. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Unsourced early life chunks, disproportionate Twitter beef, just OK in his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb As per Muboshgu--BoothSiftTalks 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – In view of the subject's somewhat checkered film oeuvre. – Sca (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I'm not seeing blurb-level fame here. Should be RD.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is locked, but I've left my suggestions for CN resolutions on the talk page. It's a shame to see RD half-filled with barely-not-stubs of completely un-notable people, while a widely-recognized name gets left off. Oppose blurb, died of natural causes. I take that other IPs point, though, I think it better to not repeat mistakes.130.233.3.115 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a well-grounded reason why Fonda is still ignored in RD? --Biafra (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • RDs for the ITN box on main page must show a level of quality representative of what WP can be. Fonda's article remains drastically poorly sourced throughout, and no one has bothered to update it. --Masem (t) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • understood. i'm just wondering that lot of other persons who were (still are?) visible there are with poorer and weaker quality... --Biafra (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Felice GimondiEdit

Article: Felice Gimondi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sport Sky

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 only seven cyclists to have won all three Grand Tours of road cycling (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, and Vuelta a EspañaHolapaco77 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Princess Christina of the NetherlandsEdit

Article: Princess Christina of the Netherlands (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NL 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: Start Class article. DBigXray 15:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Early life section looks to be entirely unreferenced, and other issues thereafter. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article needs some spit polish in several areas. In the realm of referencing, there are many more inline cites needed. While some stuff is uncontroversial and easily verifiable (like the fact that she had three sisters, etc.) other stuff which is more open to interpretation or not readily available in the public record, like "Christina was a bright and happy child, with a considerable talent for music. She also had a capacity for languages and as a young girl delighted the visiting President of the French Republic, René Coty, by conversing fluently with him in French." and the information on the faith healer, and several other places, needs direct inline citations. Furthermore, the article is woefully incomplete, it looks like she did nothing of note between changing her name in 1963, getting married and having children in the 1970s, and dying in 2019. Surely in four decades there's something worth reporting that happened in there? It does need some work. --Jayron32 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Lets get people looking this article and fixing it! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Support per improvements. Weak Oppose - A few missing citations left in a couple of sections, as editors above have pointed out. If this is resolved, please ignore this !vote or consider it a support !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 05:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed all major issues. A lot of good work has been done by several editors to improve this. It needs a review again.--DBigXray 17:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Still missing citations for some areas. Kingsif (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed added more citations for the missing ones and expanded the article more. Now every major info is reliably sourced. please review. courtesy ping, The Rambling Man, User:Jayron32, User:Vanilla Wizard, Kingsif--DBigXray 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Great work, thank you! I've struck my previous comment and replaced my !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Vanilla Wizard thanks for reconsidering your !vote. I have made some further improvements to the page as well. Hope it gets posted before getting archived --DBigXray 06:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to go. Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 07:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Tone, can someone give the credits. --DBigXray 12:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
now done by Tone.--DBigXray 13:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 15Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: V. B. ChandrasekharEdit

Article: V. B. Chandrasekhar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India

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 India Cricketer dies Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ural Airlines Flight 178Edit

Article: Ural Airlines Flight 178 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​All 233 people on board Ural Airlines Flight 178 survive as the aircraft crashlands in a cornfield following a bird strike in both engines of the Airbus A321 (aircraft pictured) operating the flight.
News source(s): BBC, AP

Nominator's comments: Not quite the Miracle on the Hudson, but close. Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I know it's refreshing to see an airline story that isn't a catastrophe for once, but "plane lands safely" is not really newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A successful emergency landing with no casualties isn't a significant story. Modest Genius talk 16:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - The Miracle on the Hudson was a "plane lands safely" "with no casualties" story and it was posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Over a decade ago. I'm not convinced it would meet today's ITN criteria for that exact reason. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. When was the last time pilots made an emergency landing of a large wide-body jet on rough terrain with full fuel tanks after both its engines failed and managed to avoid any deaths or serious injuries? This is a miracle on Hudson-tier event, IMO 5.44.170.9 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the distance and angle from the runway, it seems that the plane did not climb to any significant height or yaw/turn from the "liftoff vector" (pardon my terminology). As such, a successful ditch is not nearly as remarkable as that if 1549. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It is good that there were no fatalities, but a successful emergency landing does not quite make it to the INT level. There are several other Russia stories, such as the 9M730 Burevestnik situation and the current mass protests in Moscow, that are a lot more significant. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the idea that "if they'd only all just died, this would be postable!" is pretty nonsensical. Banedon (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    "Nonsensical" is quite a strong word here. You can simply disagree with the opposers without it. Our opposes are based on the fact on the ground not because we relish death. If they indeed all died, the story would have been completely different. The Russian government, Aviation stakeholders, US and Airbus would have issued series of statements. Media would have gone agog with scoop and images, flights would be delayed/canceled. A high-level investigation panel would have been established, technical investigators would have been imported from US/France to start studying the remnants of the plane. That's a STORY and what differentiate the others with this. There are almost 10 air crashes that happened after the last one we posted here. This one is not different from them. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A nice "brite" (as they used to say in the noozbiz), but not really significant. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Banedon. I believe this is notable enough for ITN and the article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The article is good, but I believe this is not notable enough for ITN. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it's a good news story but is already getting stale. Not much of encyclopdic long-term value, aircraft routinely suffer bird strikes, we won't be learning an awful amount from this incident other than a tick in the box for the pilot and for Airbus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others above--BoothSiftTalks 06:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This would be like not posting Apollo 13 because the astronauts lived. Sometimes a "successful failure" is still notable. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would further add the points that there were more injuries here than with the Hudson River event, and we don't often post things related to Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I think comparing a bird strike (daily occurrence) and successful controlled descent into terrain (from a few hundred metres) with Apollo 13 (the third ever attempt at a moon landing, tens of thousands of miles in space, 50-odd years ago, employing the scientific minds of NASA to find a solution....) is the biggest stretch of imagination I've seen today. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I was not making a direct comparison other than the fact that people do not have to die for something to be notable. Please link to stories on double bird strikes that brought down commercial aircraft from each day of the last week(since these occur daily). 331dot (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Apollo 13 was not heavily followed by the public until the astronauts were in danger. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why bring up Apollo 13? There are dozens of aircraft crashes in the past few years where nobody died. We haven't posted any of them. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And if you read my comment correctly, you'll see I said that bird strikes are a daily occurrence. This was a bird strike. It has no long-term encyclopedic value, will have no impact on flying and hence my weak oppose. It's great that everyone survived but it's happened plenty of times. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Bird strikes do happen daily. Bird strikes that take out all engines of an airliner and result in a crash landing in which everyone survives is pretty much a "less than once in a decade" event. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but ultimately it was a controlled descent into terrain in which everyone survived. That has happened more than one a decade. You can intersect as many different aspects as you like to make it unique, but ultimately it's just crash from which everyone escaped but nothing will change, the EV is very low. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What definition of EV are you using? 331dot (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly one that's wildly different from you as this is in no way comparable to Apollo 13. This is a minor story with no long-lasting impact, it's borderline trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And FYI, some light reading which demonstrates that on any given day in the US alone, seven years ago there was an average of 28 bird strikes per day. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
But that does not mean that 28 commercial airliners are brought down in cornfields with injuries every day. So, since this isn't notable, I guess the Hudson River incident article should be deleted. Maybe they should take the plane out of the museum, too. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, other stuff definitely exists. I guess after a point we stop making a fuss over things that are relatively routine. Or we don't make a fuss about it at all because it happens in other countries. Who knows? As you know, they even made a movie about Sully, so it's unlikely that the Hudson page will be deleted. And also unlikely that this will be deleted either, but as for EV and newsworthiness, it's down at the bottom end of the scale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I have not kept track about how often things related to Russia are posted in INT. But this story is really small potatoes compared with several other Russia related stories that are happening now. The 9M730 Burevestnik story, nominated below, is a much more significant event, both nationally and internationally. But by far the biggest story in Russia now is the ongoing protests related to the 2019 Moscow City Duma election. Thousands of people have been arrested, and the protests have spread significantly beyond Moscow. These are the largest protests in Russia since 2011-2013[4]. If any current Russia story deserves ITN posting, it is that one, rather than a story about an aircraft birds strike. Nsk92 (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. Also, there is precedent as 5.44.170.9 points out above, with US Airways Flight 1549 which was posted to ITN when it happened. Regards SoWhy 08:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot and SoWhy. ——SerialNumber54129 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose A passenger plane crash in which everyone survives is quite common. For example: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and this only includes large passenger aircraft since 2018. At least one of those stories involved a plane landing in the water similar to the Miracle on the Hudson. I will grant that of these six crashes, this story is the most notable because it involved the largest aircraft. However, while it is a heartwarming story, I don't believe it is notable within an international context. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Opposing this is not easy because it may sound like expressing some pessimistic thought because no one died. But a plane crash in which everyone survives is really not news and would be forgotten soon, in a matter of weeks at most. Whereas those with heavy fatality tend to make lasting impression to the families of victims, affect government procedures and aviation industry in general. That's why we post them, not because we relish fatality. It's just how human mind perceive events since time immemorial, we cannot change this here on Wikipedia. I've to add that, the analogy to old posting (10 years ago) is not relevant here. The same thing would not be posted if it were to be judged with today's criteria. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment An American plane, with American passengers, landing on an American river would not be reported these days? Don't make me laugh. Complete fiction. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly per Ammarpad, though I disagree on 1549. There's a big difference between a control descent 60 seconds after liftoff on your original trajectory and maneuvering an engine-less A320 to avoid crashing into a dense urban area. I would agree it was much fluffed up by having occurred in the "capital of the world." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on the principle that we have posted near-disasters in aviation before, and otherwise meets quality and newsworthiness, and that its clear if we didn't at this point, we are showing bias. It's still being considered a major accident in terms of aviation - it is being given the same thorough investigation that a crash would have had (for those asking about lasting impact). Even if the "difficulty" of the safe landing between this crash and the 1549 flight is far different, it still was fast action to save a large number of lives. --Masem (t) 14:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per 331dot, basically, but I'd more like to point out that this is definitely on the news from what I've searched, so there is at least a notability aspect to it. Plus, it was still an accident, so it's not like nothing happened, though I wouldn't call it an Apollo 13. Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A large commercial airliner landing in a cornfield is not a routine occurrence. That there were no fatalities should not be a bar to it being significant or newsworthy. -- KTC (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Now he's officially a Hero of Russia – demonstrating that hype knows no borders. What next – a jaunt to the ISS? He was just doing his job, for which he evidently was well-trained. – Sca (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)  
  • Support – NPOV. Precedent shows that if this happened in U.S., France, UK, Australia, or Canada, we would have posted it. We should set our personal feels aside and post this. It is in the news and the Hero of the Russian Federation is a nice kicker showing high notability. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Please AGF - the rationale given in opposition is perfectly reasonable, there is no cause to imply bias. And only one prior nom has been provided for precedence, and it is 10 years old. ITN has changed a lot in that time. Read that discussion; its crazy it got posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I include myself in bias and bias is not bad faith. It is a fact of life. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - article in good shape, awards of Russia's highest civilian medals to crew adds much weight to notability, its in the news and Russia is generally under-represented at ITN. Support reasons seem to outweigh oppose reasons. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    You should know much better than to mark your own nomination as ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    Marking one's own nomination as ready is allowable, as an independent admin can either post it or overrule. What is an abuse of admin tools is to post one's own nomination, especially where there are opposes. You will notice that I have not done this. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    Wait, what? I understand that a simple majority is not enough to be considered consensus, but how can consensus exists when the majority of editors are in opposition? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment can we switch the image please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment  "I really don't feel like a hero," Capt. Yusupov said. "I did what I had to do." – Sca (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vidya SinhaEdit

Article: Vidya Sinha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hindu

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 decent sourcing I am working on the filmography now excellent sourcing. DBigXray 15:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed The sourcing issues have all been fixed now. The Rambling Man please review again.--DBigXray 07:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thanks Tone, can someone post the credits. regards.--DBigXray 12:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
now done by Tone.--DBigXray 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Frank TsaoEdit

Article: Frank Tsao (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Straits Times, SCMP

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: multinational shipping magnate. Died on August 12, announced on August 14. Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Short but adequate. One could wish for a few more references for diversity of coverage, but the ones cited appear to be RS and the article is acceptably cited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be preferable to have a couple more sources since ref [1] goes up to [r] but otherwise fine.  Nixinova T  C  06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem and Nixinova: I've added more sources and content, including several published books. I've only included sources with in-depth coverage of him. -Zanhe (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) August 2019 Philadelphia shootingEdit

AGF nom that won't gain traction. Six injuries and no deaths isn't notable in the grand scheme of things in the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 15 August 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: August 2019 Philadelphia shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United States, six Philadelphia police officers are shot.
News source(s): CNN, NBC News

Article needs updating
 Davey2116 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Limited long-term impact. Given the US's history of shootings, article doesn't make it clear how this event stands out among the dozens of other ones that have happened this year. SpencerT•C 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fails WP:BODYCOUNT. Mass shootings are far too common in the US to post all but the most serious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is nowhere near ready for the main page as of now. But lets be honest, people don't shoot at cops every day in the U.S. This is not normal. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This looks like they got shot while on duty, responding to a general gang shootout. While sad, this is equivalent to military personnel dying in aircraft accidents. It's nowhere close to the previous shooting events. --Masem (t) 01:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no deaths (Thank God!), and as said earlier not really newsworthy in the U.S.. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:28, 15 August 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.

(Closed) Nyonoksa evacuationEdit

Closed in favor of #9M730 Burevestnik. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:26, 14 August 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: Nyonoksa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the wake of an unexplained explosion at a nuclear testing facility near Nyonoksa, Russia, local residents are ordered to evacuate by Russian officials.
News source(s): New York Times, The Independent,
Nominator's comments: May need a better target; there's enough on Google to create a new article if needed. Jayron32 16:53, 14 August 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: Ningali LawfordEdit

Article: Ningali Lawford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC

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. Death reported on 14 August. DBigXray 06:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Polly FarmerEdit

Article: Graham Farmer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Age

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: The article is currently the subject of a Requested move from Graham Farmer to Polly Farmer. The latter is the person's clear common name and is already a redirect. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose A few unsourced patches, but the article is not far off. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: I have added a couple of references that cover his awards, and membership of premiership teams. Are there other concerns? (Maybe you could cn them.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support he is probably one of the first Excitement Machines of the VFL and WAFL. — Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a notable Australian Rules Footballer recognized as such across Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a sprinkling of [citation needed] tags in there which must be resolved before posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
All fixed. OK now? HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Literally considered a Legend in his field.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure that Aussie rules is a big enough field though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Waverley Park's field was originally 200 metres long and 160 metres across. That's a big field in my book.--WaltCip (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree:, yes, it's a sport you're obviously not familiar with. I suggest you have a look at the attendances at games. See List of sports attendance figures#Top 10 leagues in average attendance. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It was never going to get a blurb, HiLo48, that was the only point I was making. Attendances have nothing to do with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You made no point that I could see, and it was a typical comment from someone not familiar with a particular sport, and consequently denigrating it. And you're still doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD referencing issues appear to have been resolved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

August 13Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • According to Interfax, the governor of Arkhangelsk Oblast dismisses as "complete nonsense" the advice by authorities in Severodvinsk to residents of Nyonoksa to evacuate on August 14. This follows the accidental explosion on Thursday of what is speculated to be a nuclear-powered missile. Russian nuclear agency Rosatom says the failed test involved a "nuclear isotope power source" for a liquid-propelled rocket engine. (The Independent) (CBS News)
  • Venezuelan migrant crisis
    • A new poll from Consultores 21 suggests that at least 4.7 million Venezuelans are living outside of the country, with the range going up to 6 million — 19% of the nation's entire population in 2017. (Miami Herald)
Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections
  • Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro
    • Hundreds of thousands of students, schoolteachers and university professors hold demonstrations across Brazil against sweeping cuts in the education budget. Protestors also voice opposition to the government's plan to delegate the administrative and financial management of federal universities and institutes to a privately-held fund. (Agência Brasil) (Telesur English)
    • Earlier in the day, over a thousand Indigenous Brazilian women, representing over 100 ethnic groups, march on Brasília after an overnight occupation of the headquarters of the Ministry of Health's Special Secretariat of Indigenous Health. Protestors chanted against the government's recent attempts at municipalization and privatization of the Indigenous health subsystem, and called for stricter environmental regulations. (BBC) (Telesur English)

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Hussein SalemEdit

Article: Hussein Salem (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters

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 good sourcing. Egyptian Tycoon. DBigXray 06:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Lekima (2019)Edit

Article: Typhoon Lekima (2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Lekima impacts the Phillipines and East China, killing 80 and causing at least US$3.47 billion in damage.
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Lekima impacts the Phillipines and East China, killing at least 80 and damaging more than 900,000 acres (3,600 km2) of cropland.
Alternative blurb II: Typhoon Lekima (pictured) impacts the Philippines, the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan and East China, killing at least 80 people.
News source(s): BBC, NBCNews

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very notable typhoon that has killed more people and caused more damage than most storms do. NoahTalk 01:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - biggest typhoon of the year, major damage in multiple countries. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support important and of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in both quality and importance, but I would not include the damage cost in the blurb. It would be better to find an estimate number of injured or displaced by the storm here, going back to past natural disasters. --Masem (t) 02:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Added an improved altblurb (at least, IMO) --Masem (t) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Sam Walton (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There's one Twitter source which I'd prefer to be replaced with a better source, but overall this is ready. Alt blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I've added another altblurb to add more affected regions and remove the unsourced cropland phrase. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Altblurb II, but waiting for image to clear protection queue. --Masem (t) 15:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 12Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • At lest 24 people died after floods strucked across Vietnam. In the south, nearly 3,900 houses and more than 22,000 hectares of crops were submerged, mostly in Lam Dong Province. Floods have also damaged more than 30km of national roads, including the road leading to the tourist city of Dalat and also destroyed 142 hectares of aquarium farming and 4,300 cages of river-raised fish. (Al Jazeera)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: DJ ArafatEdit

Article: DJ Arafat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, CNN

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: I am working to fix the sourcing and expansion. Start Class article with excellent sourcing. DBigXray 07:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose predominantly unreferenced, and still marked as a double-stub(ble). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Weak oppose needs a proper copyedit for English and encyclopedic tone. I just modified a sentence which read He had multiple motorcycle accidents one of the accidents happened in 2009 was a serious accident which, to me, would be completely unacceptable to promote on our Main Page. Other similar (but not as bad) issues exist. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch, I have done a recheck on the article to copy edit for problems. --DBigXray 05:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  Working yup, I am working to address these. Some help will be appreciated. :) --DBigXray 15:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed The sourcing issues. The article is expanded. Now it is a Start Class article with excellent sourcing. User talk:The Rambling Man and TDKR Chicago 101 please see if you can now support this. --DBigXray 08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It looks quite better now than when it was nominated. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Updates mentioned above look fine. --Masem (t) 14:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: José Luis BrownEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 05:05, 19 August 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: José Luis Brown (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times, Euronews

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 Argentina international soccer player. FIFA World Cup winner with Argentina in 1986. Article needs some referencing work. --SirEdimon (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:40, 13 August 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: Lu YonggenEdit

Article: Lu Yonggen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper

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: Chinese scientist and philanthropist. Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support AGF on Chinese sources. Looks overall good. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to goBabbaQ (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support g2g. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen
  • Israeli–Palestinian conflict
    • Israeli riot police clash with Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Temple Mount site in East Jerusalem. With holidays coincidentally falling on the same day (11 August) this year for both Judaism and Islam, some Palestinians began protesting the admittance of Jewish visitors to the site, despite a longstanding agreement barring Jewish visitors. Following the agreement, the Al-Aqsa police barred Jews from the site. Israeli forces then fired rubber bullets and tear gas at people inside. The Jews were then admitted, which caused further tensions on both sides of the dispute. (Al Jazeera)
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Sergio Obeso RiveraEdit

Article: Sergio Obeso Rivera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Vatican News, Catholic Herald

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: Cardinal of the Catholic Church; article short but referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to be fully sourced, no obvious issues. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Should we really have a "Controversy" section in this article?. I think not. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I've merged the paragraph into the Biography section. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    And it surely looks quite more neutral now. Marked this nomination ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support dreadful proseline but I was holding off because of the undue weight issues with a whole controversy section, better now it's been merged. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(READY) 9M730 BurevestnikEdit

Article: 9M730 Burevestnik (talk, history)
Blurb: 9M730 Burevestnik, a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile, blows up, killing seven people.
Alternative blurb: 9M730 Burevestnik, a Russian experimental nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile, blows up, killing seven people near Nyonoksa, Russia, as local residents are ordered to evacuate by Russian officials.
News source(s): [10][11]

Nominator's comments: I realise that as a tragedies go, it doesn't rise to the level of a truck explosion or car bombing, but these are common events and this is rare and interesting. A lot of people find these sort of accidents fascinating. And there's always the danger that one day we may wind up on the wrong end of something like this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Pretty important since this is a notable weapon and explosion left radioactive contamination. Oranjelo100 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I understand there's no consensus among experts that the reason for the radiation leak was the Burevestnik rocket. As a reminder, the official response was that the disaster happened on a "nuclear battery unit", whatever the hell that means. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story is still developing, but relatively little information has been made public and the article still needs improvements.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Yes, but since every proposed blurb is a variant on "9M730 Burevestnik explodes" and we have no indication that the explosion involved 9M730 Burevestnik, these opposes seem reasonable enough. "Something exploded, the investigation hasn't concluded what, and the evidence is pointing towards it being an accident involving an RTG (of which there are hundreds scattered across Russia) rather than a missile failure" is a tricky headline to write, let alone an article. ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    So we just stick with RS and attribute the spike in radiation to what RS are claiming. It's not that tricky. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose For now, the mention in the article is enough. Also it is claimed that the exploded rocket used liquid fuel, and Burevestnik uses solid. And also, I think the amount of radiation released supports the claim that contamination was from a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, not a reactor. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The developing and important story is not only that some sort of nuclear accident occurred, but also Russian authorities’ spotty, reluctant, and self-contradictory release of information about it. Michael Z. 2019-08-14 14:24 z
  • Weak support this has re-entered the news where I live, it's clearly a very rare nuclear accident, but I think "explodes" rather than "blows up" might be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Appears to be a significant developing story with staying power. Nsk92 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, perhaps with an expanded blurb about the recent evacuation of the local populace (see above; I mistakenly started a new nomination not realizing this was the same event.) --Jayron32 18:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not on the story, but I would not be highlighting the Nyonoksa article - it is in poor shape and dominated by the missile issue. The evacuation should be covered in the missile's article. --Masem (t) 18:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note CNN reported this evacuation has been canceled. – Ammarpad (talk)
  • Oppose Too soon for any conclusions. It's still not known whether the accident has anything to do with the development works on the Burevestnik cruise missile. BlackFlanker (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's clear that there has been a minor nuclear accident, regardless of the source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    No one denies that. However, not much is known about the cause of the accident and the device being tested at the site. Russian MoD probably won't dislose these kind of informations any time soon. BlackFlanker (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    And, like North Korea, they probably will never disclose any information. So we go with our RS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This story seems to be growing in significance as time passes, due to the possibility of radiation contaminating the environment. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC))
  • Weak oppose Its in the news, and the article on the rocket is fine, but the more I think about this, the lack of firm details that we have, most of it being feed from the Russian government which we know we have to take with a grain of salt, I think its the type of story to avoid featuring right now because we can't be 100% of what's actually happened. I'm sure the 7 people have died from a test rocket explosion, but most of the other factors are iffy. I'd not oppose posting this outright, just that I think this is not a good story to feature. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    Well how odd. We have verification that people died here and we have that same verification that radiation has spiked. This is like a North Korean missile test. Why is it "not a good story to feature"? I think this is the strangest oppose I've ever read from you Masem. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    It's more from the article quality stance. We know people died from the missile accident, but how much of the rest is verified. If this isn't a concern to others, then we're ready to go, but I feel this is something that has been an issue in the past (eg I want to say that the initial posting of the Mueller report were cautioned because we had no idea what was in it). --Masem (t) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Agree with Masem. Given the relatively small number of victims, and the arcane nature of the incident, I'm not convinced this event is of ITN-level significance. And at 270 words, the article is rather sketchy. – Sca (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Notable story, with global significance and coverage. Article is short but is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose / wait: this is tricky. It's clearly an unusual accident which is attracting a lot of media attention, but almost everything we know about it is supposition and outsider estimates. The amount of radiation released seems to be very small, though it wouldn't be the first time a cover up hid the true extent of the problem. We don't even know which missile system was involved; Burevestnik is just an educated guess which would make some Russian statements inconsistent. Based on the factual information available, I think we should treat this like any other explosion that kills seven people; so probably doesn't merit an ITN blurb. However this could well develop into something more significant if further details emerge. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, the reports I've seen said the radiation spike was 20 times background for one hour. That is very small, less than the amount most people receive in a day and roughly 80 banana equivalent dose. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and Modest Genius. The verified facts in evidence don't raise to a blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As yet it's a content-free article. There's certainly interest, but as yet we have little content to offer. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Rugby ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2019 Rugby Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, South Africa win the Rugby Championship.
News source(s): RTE

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: ITNR and not nominated three days ago, needs work on prose for sure, but just putting it out there in case we all missed it. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Charticle. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This would be good to post, but needs a prose summary of the tournament. Currently it's just a series of tables. Modest Genius talk 18:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Explosion in Morogoro, TanzaniaEdit

Article: Morogoro tanker explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A fuel tanker collides with a motorcycle, causing an explosion leading to 62 deaths and 70 injuries in Morogoro, Tanzania
Alternative blurb: ​In Morogoro, Tanzania a fuel tanker explodes, causing the deaths of 62 people and injuring 70
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 62 people died and more than 70 injured in a fuel tanker explosion in Tanzania
News source(s): CNN, NPR, New York Times, BBC, NYT 2, archive 2

Nominator's comments: I updated the article, might have a few errors though. BoothSiftTalks 07:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support alt Blurb II. I have merged my duplicate nomination above as well as the article. The article is a well referenced start class article and ready IMHO.--DBigXray 07:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "The event was similar to one that occurred in Kenya in 2011, in which 100 people were killed." Really, says who? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb II. Significant mass casualty incident. The problematic commentary referenced in the above oppose vote has been removed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above MSN12102001 (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per aboveBabbaQ (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, but both article title and blurb must specify that it was a fuel tanker truck that exploded. In Eng.-lang. usage, the phrase "fuel tanker" may refer to a ship or an airplane. Ready notation therefore removed. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, adding "Truck" per Sca.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs)
Thanks User:Masem. Can someone post the credits ? --DBigXray 17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
done by User:Ammarpad --DBigXray 18:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted to RD; no consensus to post blurb): Jeffrey EpsteinEdit

This can go on and on but I don't see a consensus developing. It's already on RD, so that's something. --Tone 03:36, 12 August 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: Jeffrey Epstein (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured), facing numerous charges of child sex trafficking, kills himself while in U.S. federal custody.
Alternative blurb: ​In United States federal custody while facing numerous charges of international sex trafficking, Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) dies of an apparent suicide.
Alternative blurb II: ​Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) kills himself in US federal custody during an ongoing international sex trafficking investigation.
Alternative blurb III: ​Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) dies of an apparent suicide while in U.S. federal custody, facing numerous charges of international sex trafficking.
Alternative blurb IV: ​American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) dies of an apparent suicide while in U.S. federal custody, facing numerous charges of international sex trafficking.
News source(s): NY Times, ABC7 NY, AP

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article seems to be in order because it has been in the spotlight recently so most of it has been under scrutiny. --Pudeo (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not because of the person but the situation around him, this may be blurb-appropriate, somehing like "While facing numerous charges of sex trafficking, Epstein commits suicide while in a New York jail." or something like that. --Masem (t) 13:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - He's definitely noteworthy enough for RD but, as pointed out above, the case around him was very notable. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:65B5:3AF9:D9B7:A502 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment, I also believe this individual "deserves" a blurb. A period for this indivual. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Updated into a blurb. Obviously gigantic story that will capture the media attention for days if not weeks Also, support alt-blurb 3 blurb. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Note that Epstein is a convicted sex offender. He was convicted of soliciting underage girls. We can't say "alleged pedophile" because he has already been convicted of a crime that in layman's terms is tantamount to pedophilia. He is a convicted pedophile facing new charges. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for 'Recent deaths' section. Störm (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb, a local case with limited repurcussions. Should be published as ITN RD if there are no other issues.--DBigXray 14:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any blurb that says committed suicide. Suicide is legal in New York and is also not a federal crime. Support altblurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • "Committed suicide" is standard language in the US. We know in other countries suicide is a crime and we'd have to be more careful on wording, but in the US it's standard terminology. --Masem (t) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      Masem, NOT TRUE. Many U.S. media are consistently saying "died by apparent suicide".[13][14][15][16][17] The NYTimes is the only source I found that says committed suicide. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      It is true, from my admittedly anecdotal experience, that "committed" suicide is the most common phrase used for that action. 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    Consider the source: The NYT remains the No. 1 newspaper in the U.S. and arguably the world. Further, "commit" doesn't necessarily denote a criminal act. – Sca (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Patently untrue, I don't know of a single person in even the UK that reads the NYT at all, an American option here would be WaPo, but even that's uncommon; it's not even the most circulated or bought newspaper in the US, actually, let's not base an argument on clear hyperbole Kingsif (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, you should widen your circle of acquaintances. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: Note that the hed on the AP story now says, "Officials: Jeffrey Epstein dies by suicide in jail cell," while that on the NYT page one promo says, "Jeffrey Epstein Hanged Himself in Jail, Officials Say." – Sca (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    This article in NYTimes used to say committed suicide less than an hour ago. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    I believe the reason why the media is mostly using "apparent suicide" rather than "committed suicide" is because there are doubts circulating as to whether Epstein actually died by suicide. For example: [18] Thus, the usage of "apparent suicide" in this circumstance would not necessarily disprove the usage of "commit suicide" in cases where the manner of death is certain. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • ITN has been over the "committed suicide" phrasing before, and I'm fairly certain it was agreed that it's fine. I'm not sure objections based on such wording should be counted, given past consensus. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • With significant objection. Also see sources cited above. Consensus can change. Can you offer a reason not to use altblurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Probably that at this point in time, the cause of death is suspected suicide, the investigaton is not yet complete. (He was supposed to be under suicide watch, so there are several questions floating around). --Masem (t) 15:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Hence the apparent. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
            • "Died of suicide" is too wishy-washy, IMO; "killed himself" is the best (assuming it's true and reliably sourced that he did, of course) as I've said before. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Subject was of scant general significance; notable mainly for the lurid details of his past – support RD only. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's the rub - the way the case was going, with this week revealing a number of high profile individuals that were claimed to be involved with Epstein's sex trafficking, there was a likely high chance we would have posted the results of the conviction - this is a high-profile trial even if it only "local". The fact that the individual decided to end his involvement via suicide - well, he won't be convicted, but there will continue to be ongoing investigation, and the case remains of high importance. Hence why a blurb makes sense here. --Masem (t) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
He may be important to whatever other cases may arise from this situation, but posting his death as an RD is sufficient for the record. – Sca (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Wikipedia is (in theory at least) meant to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a gossip magazine. Similar to Sca's comment above, the only reason this is deemed to be newsworthy is because of the nature of the allegations against him. It's extremely likely that most other people in the finance sector are not deemed to be worthy of a blurb upon their death. Chrisclear (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD only This guy is notable enough to warrant ITNC RD and I see no CN tags on his article. Multiple sources have reported his death. However, I see little hope of us ever getting the blurb correct and I'm not sure that his death warrants a blurb anyway. pbp 15:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready for RD RD is a no brainer. The article is in good shape including solid referencing. Weak Support for blurb. Although there is a sensationalist element to this story, his death does seem to meet the criteria for a blurb at WP:ITNRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support AltBlurb The circumstances around his death are sufficient in my view to warrant a blurb. I don't think it's being gossipy to acknowledge that. As Masem said, this was a significant trial implicating multiple high-profile individuals, and the death of the central figure seems significant. Regardless, his death should be posted as an RD if not as a blurb. Cwilson97 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb Epstein may not seem like a hugely significant figure, but this story goes beyond him. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2 Deserves a blurb, Epstein shouldn't be in bold if the story is not just the death but also how big the case was and the connected relevance (i.e. he wouldn't get a blurb on his own, don't make him the target). Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • No objection except for the spelling of paedophile. That is not common spelling in the U.S. Also see concerns by Masem of not clear cut that he killed himself. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I added Altblurb3 which combines the best of both altblurb and altblurb2. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support one of the altblurb: This isn't just a death, this is a major development in an ongoing news story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Clearly. The death, rather than his life, is indisputably the story, and it is front-page news internationally. This is a significant development in his already-notable case. Davey2116 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Just RD? What the hell. STSC (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this enlightening comment. – Sca (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Specifically altblurb. This is a major news story. Kurtis (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Blurb discussion open. SpencerT•C 16:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support AltBlurb 3 per others. Clearly meets level of significance, and has implications outside of the U.S. Spengouli (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
"Clearly" is one of the two most overused words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this enlightening comment. :) Spengouli (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
"Inconceivable!" --Masem (t) 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I think "prominently" is pushing it a bit. Its coverage on Le Monde is now at a par with a story about a provincial hospital. On Corriere it is not even the top ranking US story, and is ranked behind this important bit of world news. This is really a US story only, and not a particularly prominent one either. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention this bit of world news. – Sca (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. There has been a significant creep towards blurbs for RDs. These should be really exceptional. His criminal record is hardly enough to justify treatment as a world leader, and there are plenty of other financiers. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a case of a death of someone at the top of their field. The blurb is proposed because the death, rather than the person himself, is newsworthy (as per the death blurbs criteria at WP:ITNRD; if the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb). Davey2116 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I like the use of the word "may" there. I presume you are not suggesting that suicides are intrinsically "newsworthy" so you must be referring to the reporting of it. I must admit I do not see this at all. It is true that there has been a fair bit of rather bland coverage, but there has hardly been a "newsworthy reaction". —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb of any kind. This is a case of what-might-have-been. If he had stayed alive and his criminal case proceeded, he might have named a lot of powerful and rich people who were his "clients" and that could indeed have had major repercussions, in the U.S. one beyond. But with Epstein dead, none of this is going to happen. Also, I find the phrasing "apparent suicide" highly objectionable. There has not been any suggestion in any of the RS reporting the story that his death was anything other than suicide. Calling it "apparent suicide" casts doubt on this fact. We should not be promoting or worse yet, creating, conspiracy theories around his death. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, it has not been confirmed as suicide at all. Hence we must say "apparent" or somesuch, if we have a blurb in the first place. I would lean towards not having one.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The term "apparent suicide" is used in many RS reporting on the death (e.g., NBC News, WaPo, CBS, WSJ, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - we post blurbs based on real world significance, not on sensationalism. An accused rapist killing himself is not blurb-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually the criteria for death blurbs are listed at WP:ITNRD. This appears to meet that criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Zanhe, when the accused rapist is tied to Trump and Prince Andrew, he's not just "any old" rapist. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb it is still the #1 news article on BBC.com, and it is of international news significance as well. Here in Finland they ran it as a segment in the evening TV news. It is certainly a bigger news story than what's the current top ITN now, Toni Morrison dying of old age, in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    [19] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Zanhe, Sca et al. Sensationalized trivia. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per above. And for the record I believe "committed suicide" is fine, it's totally standard usage and doesn't imply a crime at all. Although in this case it's complicated because the suicide is not confirmed. Best to stick to RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. It briefly hit the headlines, yes, but there's no substance in any of the stories beyond "he committed suicide and also he was convicted of these things"; no sense that the death itself is widely significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93, it's being investigated by the FBI. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see the fact that it is a suspicious death making it a death of global significance. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as I am hearing a lot of Jeffrey Epstein in the news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb An RD is significant enough. While this is the news section, Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: obvious international significance, and its newsworthiness is only amplified by the "he ran into my knife ten times" nature of his death. Sceptre (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    Support blurb I was thinking of "Who said anything about sabotage?!" but YEAH. It's CBALL to say imply unproven facts, but that doesn't mean we have to be so obtuse as to pretend this was a regular old pedophile who offed himself. Also, "committed" should be avoided because it is quite likely he was murdered. "died by apparent suicide" is factually true. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb given Epstein's high status. Altblurb II (which I slightly modified to use American spelling) is the best, IMO. "Dying of suicide" isn't as direct as "committing suicide", and since the latter seems to have some objections "kills himself" is the best. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb just another criminal avoiding justice? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, you can't libel the dead. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't have strong opinions on whether the blurb should be posted or not, but could we not use "convicted pedophile"? As explained in the lead of pedophilia, pedophile is not the same as child molester (nor do I see pedophile being used by WP:RS); "convicted child sex abuser" or "convicted child sex molester" works better, although RS generally seem to refer to alleged child sex abuse. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing anywhere in the article that he was "convicted" of a crime called "child molesting" either - if we want to headline a person about their past crimes, we should ensure that the headline matches the article. (The article may need improving if this is lacking). — xaosflux Talk 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    That his victims were children should be in the blurb, but putting "child sex offender" can mean that he was a sex offender who was also a child. "Sex offender of children" works but is clunky, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Discussion of his testimony and impact on high ranking individuals is speculation, nevertheless clearly significant story with international impact as evidenced by being lead story on UK news media. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:A46A:4F7A:3702:2CF (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Meets notability for Wikipedia:ITNRD. MarvellingLiked (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per concerns raised above, since pedophilia is not a crime and one cannot thus be "convicted" of it, I have edited all blurbs that contained that phrase to "convicted child molester", which is a crime. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb 3. Cause of death itself is a major story, so meets notability for Wikipedia:ITNRD.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Per the supports, the circumstances surrounding his death are obviously suspicious and are causing a huge media frenzy. Merlinsorca 02:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. And “commit suicide” is fine as it is standard usage and does not equate to “criminal act.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments. I'm fine with the "commit suicide" verbiage, it is a common phrase. As far as the "child molester" phase, this isn't used in the article at all. The article does say he has an actual conviction of "procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18", and that he was a registered "sex offender". I'd support more a blurb that used this phrasing that is already in the article lede (American financier and convicted sex offender). That, or improve the article to better support that headline first. Procuring appears to have a different definition then molestation according to their articles as well. — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Literally is also common verbiage but we don't use that either because it is ambiguous and misused. "Commit suicide" is "outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase."[24] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • We can use "American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (pictured) kills himself while in U.S. federal custody, facing numerous charges of child sex trafficking." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Coffeeandcrumbs: That wording looks good. Like Xaos, I was also concerned about whether the charge he was actually convicted of can be called child molestation, but didn't have time to look into that in my original comment. I've added that as alt blurb 5 (with slight rewording to fix grammar issues). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Captin Eek, TRM, etc. (And 'commit suicide' is perfectly acceptable English). - SchroCat (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help.[25] by World Health Organization --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Coffeeandcrumbs, do you really think that this story is all about avoiding stigma? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Huh? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
          • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Well, It appears you brought up several links to stories and thinkpieces to show that 'commit suicide' is like a wrong grammar, obsoleted phrase or like we're 'committing' a serious grammatical gaffe by using the phrase. I think it's time to challenge that narrative. 'Commit suicide' is perfectly correct English. Period. Individually commit means to to carry into action deliberately and suicide means the act of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally: that's from American dictionary. No amount of thinkpieces and language engineering can change these meanings. Not in this decade and not even in this century. No one, not even United Nations (or any one for that matter) can prescribe overnight 'commit suicide' is wrong. So please spare us more links. We know there are attempts to dissuade its usage for some reasons, but we also know it's correct English with unambiguous meaning. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
            Ammarpad, I have never claimed it was "wrong grammar" or "grammatical gaffe". I am claiming it is IGNORANT, offensive, disparaging, and inaccurate to say that someone "committed suicide". It is an outdated and stigmatizing turn of phrase. Most importantly, ITS USE IS NOT NECESSARY! You have a perfectly accurate and acceptable alternative. Epstein killed himself. Simple, accurate, grammatically correct, use of active voice, and not a euphemism. Insisting on using "committed suicide" is POV pushing. The BBC story used to say "apparently commit suicide" and now says "apparently kill himself". We are quickly becoming the last legitimate place on the internet that uses this ignorant term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
            That's simply not true. And as there's some debate over whether or not he was on "suicide watch", I don't think this terminology is going away any time soon from many mainstream reliable sources. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
            A quote does not count. I will email NYTimes and I guarantee you they will change this. They have done several corrections in the past 48 hours. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb significance of this compared to, e.g., ongoing Romanian / Hong Kong / Russian protests which involve tens of thousands of people over a long period of time is very minute indeed. Banedon (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. "In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link." Suicide is a quite common response to imprisonment and serious criminal accusations. It's still the case that his death is newsworthy because he was a rich man accused of loathsome crimes. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppport alt blurb (I) Contrary to some opposes above, the suicide itself is also now a story with federal inquiries, including the FBI.[26]Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    The FBI handle lots of cases in a year, but that doesn't particularly raise them to the threshold required for ITN. This is a local-interest story, and while his death was unexpected it's not hugely significant on a global scale.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Shrug. Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, big international story and definitely blurbworthy. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In this case, "big" = relentlessly hyped because prurient. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Please consider striking this. Prurient means titillating or appealing to lustful or sexual desire. By saying this is hyped because it is prurient, you are suggesting we're all secretly getting off on stories about kids getting raped. That the crimes are of a sexual nature is true, that doesn't mean interest is likewise derived. The key points of curiosity here are 1) a rich person getting away with crimes because they are rich, and 2) connected to powerful people 3) who may themselves be complicit, 4)despite the crimes being of the sort that are not typically swept under the rug. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This user does not reply to 'users' who do not exist. – Sca (talk)
  • Comment The template appears to support only up to four altblurbs, and since no one seems to be supporting the original blurb I moved the former Altblurb V to the main "Blurb" parameter. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – FYI, four European Wikis – German, Dutch, Spanish and Norwegian – list Epstein under 'recent deaths,' but none include him in their versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    But the Chinese one does, and this is all WP:OTHERSTUFF.—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
One must wonder at the relevance of the Epstein tale to Chinese society. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
One must wonder at the relevance of Solomon P. Sharp to Chinese society. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I stress this part from ITN guidelines about deaths: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance.. There is definitely an allowance for this story, due to the unusualness of the death (in the midst of a major story, and now with several questions being raised of how he did it when he was to be on suicide watch). It can still be opposed, but I think most supporting are not doing this in recognizing Epstein as a transformative leader. -Masem (t) 16:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Nearly 5,000 Americans committed suicide in custody in 2014 (1) and it is probably higher now. Is that unusual? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
How many of those 5,000 Americans have substantial ties to many important people, including a sitting US President, a former US President, and a member of the British Royal Family? 331dot (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Boldly reopening. I see 25 votes supporting a blurb and 15 opposing one. How the f*ck is this not a consensus? 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That percentage would not pass an RFA, and in any event consensus is not a majority vote; the discussion above resulted in significant opposition that did not appear to be assuaged in the course of the discussion. Having said all that, I have no position as to whether the discussion should be extended. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:14, 12 August 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.

August 9Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Miriam RiveraEdit

Article: Miriam Rivera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety 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: Start Class article with good sourcing. Transgender TV personality. Death announced on 9 Aug. DBigXray 14:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment @DBigXray: please find a way to remove the COPYVIO deleted YouTube ref. Subject appears to be notable but I would also avoid refs to The Sun tabloid. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind feedback. I have removed the Youtube refs. Sun is not being used for anything controversial. --DBigXray 06:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is adequate but has almost nothing on the modelling/reality television aspects which are presumable the source of notability. Seems a rather big gap.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough for RD now.BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul FindleyEdit

Article: Paul Findley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): State Journal-Register, Military News, Seattle TimesKko 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.

 BoothSiftTalks 05:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Article has good sourcing and he was known for his anti-Zionist views. (Nonstopmaximum) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

August 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ernie ColónEdit

Article: Ernie Colón (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter

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: 60+ yr career comic artist across DC, Marvel and others. Unfortunately article has a ways to go sourcing wise. Masem (t) 22:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Support While the article is of reasonable length and covers the career. The lead needs to be expanded. --DBigXray 07:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no justification for uploading a non-free image within moments of this individual's death. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Support assuming all those works are backed up by the one source. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Overall ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine on the whole. Sam Walton (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosie RuizEdit

Article: Rosie Ruiz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News

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: Marathon runner (allegedly...) who got famous by cheating her way to winning the Boston Marathon Tdunsky(Talk) 15:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Article is in good shape. --Jayron32 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This happened on July 8, not August 8 and therefore I think this is rather stale. Rockphed (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    If the death was not announced until now, it's eligible. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    The article had it on 8/1 (uncited, but the details are accurate) and again on 8/5 (this time with the ref). Running Magazine had it on the 5th. This is stale. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's not stale. Your dates are both within last week in August. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose an unref para in there. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I removed the unreferenced paragraph, rationale is in my edit summary. If someone disagrees please ping me, otherwise the article is fully referenced now. Kees08 (Talk) 01:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fabrizio SaccomanniEdit

Article: Fabrizio Saccomanni (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): EuroNews, Corriere del Ticino

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.

 BoothSiftTalks 22:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Saudi Arabia loosens travel restrictions on womenEdit

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: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: Saudi Arabia loosens travel restrictions on women
Alternative blurb: ​In a royal decree, Saudi Arabia loosens travel restrictions on women
News source(s): NBC, New York Times, Guardian, Jerusalem Post, Time
 BoothSiftTalks 06:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Even if true, a totalitarian dictatorship like Saudi Arabia taking one incrimental step in women liberation all the while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Yemen, Syria, and across the world (as well as in their own country) doesn't deserve a mention on the third most popular website's main page next to anything mentioning positive change there 5.44.170.9 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Law isnt passed until August next year. This is just a stament of intent at this point and changes nothing. This should be brought up if the law is actually passed85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose as premature. Unless this gains sufficient notability to justify its own article, I would likely oppose its renomination as well. That said I would gently remind those who may be unaware that we do not weigh nominations based on any political criteria. Nor do we encourage politically pointed commentary in our discussions. Please see... WP:RGW and WP:NOTFORUM. And lastly, while we may discuss to our hearts content, we ask that editors actually vote only once (even if your IP changes). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
While I can't be sure (hence my decision not to strike the latter vote), there are some remarkable similarities in their style of commentary. So yes, I strongly suspect they are the same person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not the same person.... and no idea how you would come to that. I am unfamillier with how to format pages so i copy whoever is above me, still learning and my work computer wont let me log into my account. Pleasae assume good faith85.159.132.48 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, without prejudice when/if it actually becomes law. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if this were significant enough to post (I am ambivalent on that), it has now fallen from headlines. It was first reported late July and most mainstream media by August 1. Nothing substantial thereafter. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In the global scheme this administrative change would be of only passing significance. Sca (talk) 15:33, 9 August 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.

August 7Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disaster and accidents
  • The death toll of the heat wave in Japan rises to 57, while 18,347 others are hospitalized. (Japan Times)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Kary MullisEdit

Article: Kary Mullis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://mynewsla.com/education/2019/08/08/nobel-winner-kary-banks-mullis-who-revolutionized-dna-research-dies-in-o-c/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/kary-mullis-unconventional-nobel-laureate-who-unlocked-dna-research-dies-at-74/2019/08/12/e6391612-bbed-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

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: Updated, reliably sourced, of sufficient quality sentausa (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It's very close, but the last sentence of "Personal views" about being called an AIDS denialist 100% needs sourcing, and the awards need sourcing. Should not be hard to get this up before it slips off as stale. --Masem (t) 14:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: References added. sentausa (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted though it will likely slip off shortly. --Masem (t) 13:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Suicide Blast in AfghanistanEdit

Article: August 2019 Kabul bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, leads to 14 deaths and 145 injuries.
Alternative blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, leaves 14 people dead and 145 injured
Alternative blurb II: ​A suicide bombing near a police station in Kabul, Afghanistan, leaves 14 people dead and 145 injured
News source(s): BBC, NBC, New York Times

Article updated

 BoothSiftTalks 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. This number of victims is remarkable. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We're going to need a standalone article on this before it can be ITN. --Masem (t) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I see the article but it's far too short for ITN. And checking news -- coverage is surprisingly light. I mean, we have BBC and NYTimes covering it, but its not bringing up as many hits as I thought. We do need to consider that this region is unstable, there are similar bombings happening all the time, and the news tends to be weary of it, hence the lack of coverage. --Masem (t) 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, still a stub. Spengouli (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Spengouli: The article has been updated now and it is currently start class. --BoothSiftTalks 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, good work. Spengouli (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support as long as we post mass shootings in the US, there should be nothing stopping us posting these terror attacks in other similarly-afflicted countries. Weak because article isn't pulling up any trees, but just adequate. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It seems initially this was nominated without a standalone article, but now we have something and it looks presentable. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Sketchy – 190 words of real text – and such bombings are virtually commonplace for Afghanistan 18 years after the ill-fated U.S. invasion. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sca: The number of mass shootings in the US has also increased in which there are 250 already in 2019 only. That is probably more than the amount of bombings in Afghanistan so far. --BoothSiftTalks 05:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – That article just doesn't cut it for me I'm afraid. Gonna need quite the revamp until its eligible to be on the front page. jackchango talk 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – Article seems good now. Significat enough attack. jackchango talk 04:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henri BeloloEdit

Article: Henri Belolo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

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 excellent sourcing. Death announced on 7 Aug, died on 3 Aug. DBigXray 11:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Berman (musician)Edit

Article: David Berman (musician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stones

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. I am working to fix the sourcing with good sourcing. DBigXray 06:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Berman was an influential musician in the indie scene whose return from hiatus last month drew with significant press attention, including profiles in Pitchfork and the AV Club as well as a reddit AMA. The wiki article is well written, thoroughly sourced, and up-to-date. Diabolical Dr Ely 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unsourced paragraphs. Also the "Beginnings" section is mostly unreferenced as the one source listed supports only a small portion of the section. Possibly the case further throughout the article but I am not going to check at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are entirely unsourced paragraphs throughout the article. More references are needed--BoothSiftTalks 05:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unref at this time. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed A lot of improvements have been done in the sourcing area to make it worthy for ITN RD. Requesting a review again. --DBigXray 11:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Article issues appear to have been resolved. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted - Concerns above appear to have been resolved. Sam Walton (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Samwalton9. Can someone post the credits? --DBigXray 12:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Done by User:Samwalton9--DBigXray 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Tardigrades on moonEdit

Speculative trivia. Stephen 23:17, 7 August 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: Tardigrades (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tardigrades: 'Water bears' stuck on the moon after crash
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: The moon might now be home to thousands of planet Earth's most indestructible animals. 86.187.166.122 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In the unlikely event we post this, we need an actual reliable source; the one you've misleadingly labelled as "BBC" is actually Newsbeat which may technically be part of the BBC but is about as much a reliable source as a typical comic book. This story is considerably less of a story than it appears; although tardigrades do have the ability to enter cryptobiosis, they certainly won't have the ability to revive in a dry vacuum. The bacteria from Neil Armstrong's boot probably have a greater chance of lunar propagation. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not due to lack of reliable sources (e.g. CNN), but ITN-level significance not established. Cute picture, though! El_C 22:08, 7 August 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.
"That's one small stumble for Israel Aerospace Industries, one giant leap for moss piglets". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Om PrakashEdit

Article: J. Om Prakash (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 excellent sourcing DBigXray 16:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While well-referenced, the article has no sections and is too sparse in its coverage of the subject (the article and talk page still state that it's a stub); there is no lede/introduction; a good portion of the article consists of listing information in prose format (movies he produced and directed); and the longest paragraph currently in the article consists of just 3 sentences. SpencerT•C 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed User:Spencer Thanks for the useful feedback, I have expanded the article since you last reviewed. May I request you to take another look if you can support this.--DBigXray 07:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks much better now. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

August 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Crisis in Venezuela
    • The Argentine government says it has already received "hundreds" of reports of human rights abuses and criminal accusations against the Venezuelan government, days after Argentina invited Venezuelans in the country to file reports against the Venezuelan government. (La Nación)

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Zhuo RenxiEdit

Article: Zhuo Renxi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper, Sciencenet

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.

 Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny Doyle (singer)Edit

Article: Danny Doyle (singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Irish Post

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 excellent sourcing DBigXray 12:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - the article seems to be incomplete at the moment... It has a "Background" section and a discography, but where's the "Foreground" section?! The main body of the article should be describing his career in a bit more detail than at present. The Books section is currently unreferenced. Other than that, this looks OK. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru thanks. The background is now renamed to Biography. The Book section is now referenced. The article is a start class and covers everything that I could find in online sources. --DBigXray 13:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The only thing giving me concern right now is the "Selected singles" section. That always makes me wonder who did the selecting, and whether it's a representative list. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA there really should be some objective and sourced methodology used for the selection. I'll be happy to see what others say though.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeDiscogs is not a reliable source. It is user-generated/crowd-sourced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed User:Coffeeandcrumbs Thanks for the catch, I have replaced Discogs by better sources. Please review again. --DBigXray 07:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mrs YGPEdit

Article: Mrs YGP (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): thehindubusinessline, TNIE, The Hindu

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 excellent sourcing. DBigXray 07:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I've renamed the article to Mrs YGP, as that looks like the common name (it was only moved to YGP yesterday anyway, from Rajalakshmi Parthasarathy). Sourcing and content looks OK for a start-class article, and death is cited.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with page move. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - fully sourced, marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 11:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sushma SwarajEdit

Article: Sushma Swaraj (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Economic Times Times Now

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 Indian Cabinet Minister and one of the most prominent female politicans in India. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support While there are a few places where we need some sourcing, this is a well sourced article on the whole. Sam Walton (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Citations still needed. More importantly, there is an unnecessary WP:CSECTION. Even Donald Trump, the most controversial person in our time, does not have a controversy section. This subject certainly does not deserve one. The section needs to be merged into the relevant sections about the respective times in her career. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A well sourced article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Couple citations required. Otherwise good to go. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: important article, citations should be imporved, and death section needs improvement/expansion. Will work on it. --Titodutta (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - one of the highest-ranking women politicians in Indian history, unexpected death only months after her departure from politics. Article is almost fully sourced. The few unsourced sentences are unessential and can be commented out to prevent holding up the posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Regards SoWhy 06:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb): Toni MorrisonEdit

Article: Toni Morrison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American novelist Toni Morrison dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): BBC

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.

 The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some minor but necessary sourcing problems: about 6-7 lines in the body (roughly one per main section) are unsourced. All the books should have sourcing or at least ISBN numbers. Awards should all be sourced. But it's not so far away to be fixable in a few hours. --Masem (t) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Counting sourcing by line seems arbitrary. Are there contentious statements in those lines? pbp 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
A few may have been fixed but " In her position at Princeton, Morrison used her insights to encourage not merely new and emerging writers, but artists working to develop new forms of art through interdisciplinary play and cooperation." in "Princeton Years" is certainly a statement that cannot go unsourced in WP voice. --Masem (t) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Thank you for opposing. I think I got every taken care. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
That definitely all looks better, and so I'll go ahead and post this as RD, leaving the blurb discussion ongoing. --Masem (t) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest blurb - Nobel laureates who are also household names probably meet any reasonable criteria for having been a "major transformative world leader in their field". Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I would also say Toni Morrison was a major world figure, massively loved and appreciated all over the world. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • We do want to avoid "popularity" as a reason for a blurb. That got us into a mess with people like Carrie Fisher. Accomplishments is a different matter though. --Masem (t) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. An iconic figure in the U.S. and world literature. As the WaPo headline puts it, "Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate who transfigured American literature, dies at 88." In the interim RD is OK too, while a blurb option is being discussed. Nsk92 (talk)
  • Support RD, no blurb I don't think the reactions to the death have or will become so newsworthy, as it did with Bowie, Mandela, Prince, etc., to merit a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Muboshgu.--WaltCip (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Globally acclaimed author, Pulitzer and Nobel laureate, clearly at the top of her field. The so-called "Thatcher–Mandela standard" is not policy and is much too restrictive; and if we're comparing Morrison to Bowie and Prince, then I believe Morrison definitely qualifies for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Davey2116, the "Thatcher-Mandela standard" is about whether the death is in the news or whether the death is the news. The Thatcher/Bowie/etc deaths were the news. Morrison's death is in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu Reactions to her death are pouring in from many other authors and even many politicians, far exceeding the average RD death, so I'd say Morrison's death is the news. Besides, the news of deaths of pop-culture or political figures have greater reach partly due to the inherent nature of those professions, while our job is to be even-handed in giving blurbs to all who are at the top of their field. Davey2116 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Nobel laureate and first African American woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. Quite obviously a transformative leader in her field as evidenced by, e.g., Atlantic Magazine's obituary headline referring to her as "peerless". Maya Angelou, along with two dozen other authors, cosigned a 1988 letter in the New York Times Book Review saying of Morrison, "For all of America, for all of American letters, you have advanced the moral and artistic standards by which we must measure the daring and the love of our national imagination and our collective intelligence as a people." By all accounts, satisfies our criteria for a blurb. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    I want to expand on the significance of the 1988 letter. A group of some of the greatest African-American writers of the late 20th century believed that Toni Morrison was of such importance to literature and her snubs in her own country so acute, that "the legitimate need for our own critical voice in relation to our own literature can no longer be denied." They explicitly pull rank, the authors point out their own standing in the field and canon, in order to emphasize the esteem in which the field of literature holds Morrison. That these two dozen authors and critics published a joint letter in one of the United States most respected book reviews to praise not simply Morrison's work, but Morrison herself is indicative of the impact she has had on her field. For anyone mulling over whether she was one of the greatest living authors, I encourage you to read the answer her peers give to that question. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Wugapodes. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak support on blurb The article is in good shape aside from the awards list. Regarding the Mandela-Thatcher level, it was a good thing that we expanded potential blurbs first towards internationally significant personalities outside of the Western sphere, and then towards non-politicians. Does Toni Morrison meet the Mandela-Thatcher level for authors, however? Would I describe her as one of the greatest living authors? My first instinct was no. The Nobel Prize does assist in establishing greatness, but at the same time if a Nobel Prize was an automatic blurb then we'd have twelve new blurb-worthy people every year. But I decided on a weak support after noting several sources acclaiming Toni Morrison as one of the greatest female authors ever, living or dead, dating from before her death. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. It has been remarked above that Toni Morrison was the first African-American woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature. Looking at the List of Nobel laureates in Literature, it appears that so far she is the first and the only black woman, of any nationality, to have received the Nobel Prize in Literature, and one of only two black people, again of any nationality, to have ever received this prize (the other recipient being Wole Soyinka). Nsk92 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Don't forget Derek Walcott. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - remarkable woman. Article is ready as wellBabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – A transformative figure in her field. I have taken care of the needed citations. I hope no one minds that I added myself to credits. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD but discussion on the blurb should continue. --Masem (t) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Her peers felt she was of Mandela-Thatcher level importance. If you make a list those you perceive to be the greatest living authors and they are mostly white men, that should tell you something. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Transformative character, and I'd say we're nearing consensus at this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Meets the transformative figure test, and her death is front page news. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Shifted from RD to blurb. Consensus is in favor of posting as a blurb. SpencerT•C 01:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

August 5Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Bjorg LambrechtEdit

Article: Bjorg Lambrecht (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post, 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: Start Class article with decent sourcing DBigXray 06:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Much improved since I saw this page about 12 hours ago. Great work for thos involved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - improvements completed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose some good work here, but a [citation needed] in there now, and why are the various cycling events sometimes in italics when their articles aren't? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I've done some more work which might appease The Rambling Man as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Postedfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willi TokarevEdit

Article: Willi Tokarev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RadioLiberty, Teller Report

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, not sure if nominated yet. Death reported on August 4th. BoothSiftTalks 01:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose just one [cn] as far as I could see, but otherwise what's there appears (assuming good faith on the Russian language sources) to be fine. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I added a ref for the sentence that had a [cn] tag and added an extra citation in that paragraph. I also spot-checked a bunch of the Russian sources cited in the article and things were OK there. The article looks to be in fairly good shape. Nsk92 (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Postedfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) India revokes special status for KashmirEdit

Articles: Article 370 of the Constitution of India (talk, history) and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India revokes special status for Kashmir.
Alternative blurb: ​India's government has revoked the part of the constitution that gives Indian-administered Kashmir special status in an unprecedented move likely to spark unrest.
Alternative blurb II: ​India revokes special status for Kashmir and splits the state into two Union territories.
Alternative blurb III: ​India sends troops to Jammu and Kashmir, revoking its special status and establishing Ladakh as a separate territory.
Alternative blurb IV: ​India revokes Jammu and Kashmir's special status and establishes Ladakh as a separate territory.
News source(s): BBC, NDTV, NYTimes, AP

Article updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means and the article, which is not linked from the blurb, does not explain it really either. Also, the source says "plans to revoke", not "revokes", which is not the same. Regards SoWhy 06:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
now linked. --DBigXray 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A better blurb might be "India revokes the autonomous status of Kashmir." That said, it would be difficult to explain in one short blurb the full significance of this move and the historical significance of Article 370 to the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Current blurb "India revokes special status for Kashmir" misleading as of now.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until this becomes official. That might only be a few hours at this rate, but it is not currently official and no timeline has been provided regarding exactly when this will become official. This may eventually require a new article if the expected widespread protests over this move actually happen. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant. Impactful to the Kashmir region, India-Pakistan relations, terrorism and Indian politics. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with better blurb and if article quality is there. Not sure which article should be bolded. Hugely significant for the region and for India-Pakistan relations. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb II. Alt Blurb I is speculating something and Wikipedia should not be into speculation business. --DBigXray 13:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Wait – Tangible effects on the ground? – Sca (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • There has been an increase in Indian tropes in the major cities; major utilities have gone done; non-Indians in the area have been staying off the street fearing for their livelihood. Its unstable with concerns protests could break out. --Masem (t) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"Tropes" – you mean racial or ethnic slurs? "Gone done" = gone down? (If so, how is that related to today's constitutional order?) The AP story is headlined "unrest feared," and BBC paints a picture of uncertainty. Under the circumstances, an ITN posting seems premature. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The state has not been divided yet. It's that there is consideration in play to split per NYTimes. --Masem (t) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Historically and politically significant, but as for the consequences only time will tell. --Saqib (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is of great significance and is related to Kashmir, Indo-Pak relations, India's internal politics and many more. Blurb is a bit too short. Alt blurb is a bit foreboding and judgmental of future. So I'd support Alt blurb II. Amir (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - politically important. BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Quality is often overlooked when we get tied up parsing the blurb. I'm voting "meh" myself, but would appreciate others thoughts. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and added Alt III and Alt IV. I think the movement of troops and establishment of Ladakh are notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC); Edited 17:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, do we know if the split of territories already occurred? I can see special status is revoked, but I'm not sure the new Union Territories have been established. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Alt III India had already stationed almost 5,00,000 troops in Kashmir, I am not sure if additional 35,000 troops really deserve a mention. Rest is still acceptable. --DBigXray 17:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Read the linked articles. There's an additional "tens of thousands" of troops being sent because of autonomy being revoked. This is definitely significant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am aware of it. Dawn reports 8000 additional troops were sent. My point is why do we need to mention the additional 8k troops when Kashmir is a conflict zone with already half a million troops. --DBigXray 19:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Working Copyediting, checking tone. Support otherwise. --qedk (tc) 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment: Currently averaging 2.5 mil views. No better time to post imo. --qedk (tc) 15:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Notability has been established. Article has been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb IV: Important and notable. (the articles needs be copyedited, of course). Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • To restress: the state has not been split yet though the bill is currently in play in the legislative body. See CNN (updated 2 hrs ago). --Masem (t) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait till the bill comes into effect, but it is significant, because it's a major event in one of the longest-running geopolitical conflicts in the world. Also, oppose all blurbs as currently written; the term "special status" is POV and misleading. Substitute "separate set of laws" and I'd support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The bulk of the sources have called that section a "special status", as it had a unique gov't relationship compared to any other Indian state. This change revokes that. I don't see that as POV. --Masem (t) 20:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a direct article which we could use. But that is being considered AFD as of now. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Cmt: AFD snowballing[peacock term] towards keep.[irrelevant citation] DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative blurb IV: Important and is very major event not only to south asia, but to larger diplomatic and global affairs. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until there's a blurb wording that actually explains the significance of this. To anyone unfamiliar with Kashmir, "Revokes special status" could mean anything from an increase in the rate of sales tax, to the introduction of a two-tier system of local government, to a full-scale ground assault and the imposition of martial law. (All examples from the real world; these are what "revokes special status" would mean in the context of Heligoland, Alaska and Hong Kong respectively.) ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Given that I still cannot see confirmation that the area has been split into two separate states yet (its still in legislative process), I would recommend a blurb like "India revokes the special autonomous status for the Muslin-populated Kashmir state." Understanding the full impact takes at least a paragraph, but I think identifying that Kashmir holds a Muslim majority should give the main page reader a rough idea of the problem, with the expectation that a reader knows India is generally Hindu. --Masem (t) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a significant event which will determine the peace (Or lack thereof) of South Asia in the coming years
  • Support and in particular Masem's suggestion above. "Special status" should be more specific. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted There was clear consensus to post. I went with ALT IV; if there are further suggestions to refine the blurb wording, I encourage you to post at WP:ERRORS. I will do my best to check back for alternate suggestions but cannot guarantee my availability. Best, SpencerT•C 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull – We do not post orange tagged articles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Why was Article 370 of the Constitution of India article selected rather than Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019?Saff V. (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 4Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Kanti BhattEdit

Article: Kanti Bhatt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Indian Express

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. DBigXray 11:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - looks good to me.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support: very-well updated, regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs copyedit from native English speaker. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support satis now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed User:Coffeeandcrumbs and User:DaGizza have done extensive copy edit of the page. User:The Rambling Man may I request you to review the article again. --DBigXray 09:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – An oeuvre of "more than 45,000 columns" seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The estimate is cited to the Indian Express. It doesn't seem that implausible for a prolific, veteran columnist.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
45000 ÷ 68 = 661 per year
661 ÷ 365 = 1.8 per day
less than 2 per day, doesn't seem shocking to me. Sca are your Arithmetic skills questionable ? --DBigXray 15:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hypothetically possible if someone wrote columns every single day, day after day, for 68 years, achieving an average output of 13 per week, but most Eng.-lang columnists write only one or two columns a week over, say, a couple of decades. Seems unlikely to me, but just asking. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nuon CheaEdit

Article: Nuon Chea (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: One of the former Khmer Rouge leaders. Article looks reasonably sourced. Brandmeistertalk 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims but mostly okay. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good, and a somewhat big deal (not enough for a blurb, but I digress). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is OK for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Dayton shootingEdit

Posted and closed. Errors and update go to WP:ERRORS. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:12, 5 August 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 Dayton shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A mass shooting at a bar in Dayton, Ohio, kills 9 people.
Alternative blurb: ​Twenty people are killed in a mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas. About 12 hours later, nine people are killed in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio.
Alternative blurb II: ​In separate mass shootings 12 hours apart, 20 people are killed in El Paso, Texas, and 9 are killed in Dayton, Ohio.
Alternative blurb III: ​In the United States, 29 people are killed and 53 others are injured during separate mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.
News source(s): BBC (reporting on both)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Added an altblurb suggestion that combines the two shootings, though it might not be worded that well Kingsif (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I'd support Alt 1 or Alt 3 once we can link reliable sources that are reporting on these massacres together (though I believe there's no connection between the two gunmen if I'm not wrong). As a standalone story for Dayton, I'd have to recall that the Virginia Beach shooting didn't get included on ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle Mass shootings are increasing on frequency. But this isn't ready yet. We need more info to expand the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I've added altblurb 2 which I think is better because the other one might suggest the shootings are related (which we don't know yet). Johndavies837 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    If a combined sentence is used, I suggest changing "mass shootings" to "separate mass shootings". Makes it slightly more clear. — RockMFR 16:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Is it worth noting that 52 others were injured? That number seems especially high. Adding Alt 3 (but again, might be worded in a better way.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment we certainly must have a combined blurb, this isn't supposed to be a mass shooting ticker. We've already super-rapidly posted one irrelevant shooting, so we might as well post the second. As such, alt 3 is the only one with wheels right now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, it's hardly "irrelevant" when a racist Trump leads to an increase in domestic terrorism. That's what happened in El Paso, at least. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    The shootings that take place are irrelevant because nothing changes. "Thoughts and prayers". When people argue against prison riots in Brazil which kill 50+ yet argue in favour of shootings in the US which kill 9+, there's clearly a serious problem. There will be absolutely no long-term effects of either of these shootings, we all know that. It's a war zone, and things like this happen every day, just like prison riots in Brazil and bombs in Iraq. But more importantly, since we rushed the El Paso one to the main page, there's no reason not to do the same with this one, and a combined blurb is essential. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's not go down this rabbit hole today. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
I agree. I wasn't surprised at all to wake up this morning to see El Paso was posted, plus ca change! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I'm not going any further, just establishing the importance of these shootings. And the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting last weekend, also by a white supremacist, which I don't believe was nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"trying to" establish the importance. White supremacy killings have been going on for decades. It's just a lot easier now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you wouldn't. So I'm not replicating previous discussions here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Did you edit your comment? Or I misread something. No matter. I'm not going down this road with you again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea. Your comment makes no sense. And presumably as this is all new "white supremacist shootings", there's no replication or going down "this road ... again" in any case. A baseball culture of records and statistics means there will always be some kind of record broken or new reason to continually seek to post these kinds of action I suppose. From the outside, it's just another (bad) day. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Collapsed, per WP:FORUM and despite being warned. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The Ohio article is a stub and will need expansion before it can be posted. Support Alt blurb 3 in principle once the article is up to scratch. However the word "after" is not grammatically correct and should be replaced with "in." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem: Updated, with the blurb now using the word "in" three times. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure we need "In the United States". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Lots of people outside the US wouldn't otherwise know where El Paso and Dayton are; the only hint would be mass shootings, which are unlikely to happen elsewhere, but not impossible. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, so you could put "Texas" and "Ohio" in there instead. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    "In the United States" is what connects these two shootings (if we are to post one blurb about both events). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Good point. Replaced "in" with "during." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks just good enough to support now that's it's no longer a stub. Because it's a separate incident, I'd prefer a separate blurb, but I understand the motivations for combining them. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt III. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would normally oppose just the Dayton one because its of the smaller size -- but unfortunately the timing with the El paso one would make us seem bias to not mention both (as well as the fact the media is barrelling down this route). That said, not of the blurbs are currently satisfactory as they merge the two events. We need to identify the two events separately, including separate death counts. There's clearly no connection between the events beyond timing but a combined blurb is looking like they are. --Masem (t) 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that this is best suited for a separate blurb per Tavix and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say a separate blurb, but the phrasing of a single blurb needs to be distinct between the two. Adding 20+9 is very much inappropriate and suggests the events are tied together. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I prefer a separate blurb, but the current alt blurb 3 (added by Kingsif) is okay. Davey2116 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record, when I posted this comment, the alt blurb 3 was: "​In separate mass shootings 12 hours apart, 20 people are killed in El Paso, Texas, and 9 are killed in Dayton, Ohio.". Davey2116 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Added alt4 (as alt3, removed alt1 and moved others up) - names cities rather than United States, and separated the attacks and death counts. Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That's creating a lot of confusion as other editors expressed support for the old alt 3. Just create a new alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I did originally, but it didn't want to show 4 alts, so I did the logical thing and bumped the first one off. In previous noms having to do this hasn't created confusion, and as seen in a comment right above, people quickly got their heads round by writing "the current alt blurb 3 (added by Kingsif)". Potential confusion is something I considered, but wasn't worried about, since people are generally smart. Kingsif (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended discussion
(edit conflict) "People" ≠ one editor. And saying since people are generally smart doesn't help. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to an editor who hadn't !voted yet. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Since you insist on continuing, I'll say that I don't want to, and that I don't accept your points. Okay? More in the collapse, for explanation, because this is off-topic and shouldn't clog the page. Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Reply to ""People" ≠ one editor. And saying since people are generally smart doesn't help. What's obvious to you isn't obvious to an editor who hadn't !voted yet."
Well, it was only relevant in the one comment, but that one editor shows how easy it was for someone to immediately read the comment.
An editor who hadn't yet voted would vote on what they saw in the nom box, and below the comment. Anyone looking through the votes could easily distinguish between the votes above the comment saying they'd changed, and the votes below, and apply them appropriately, because people are generally smart.
You sound like you're preaching at me, your first comment was rude and did not AGF, and you keep trying to preach at me off-topic about being wrong and how people aren't smart - both irrelevant to the ITN-worthiness of this, which has already been posted, and treating me like I'm dumb. And since I'm a regular at ITN, I think I know what's off-topic. I'm not enjoying this "debate", and I don't know why you want to continue, since I can't imagine it's any fun for you, either.
But I will apologize: I didn't realize you'd added a comment when I reverted the edit, I thought you'd just un-collapsed your first comment (it's back in the collapse to give context to the off-topic conversation in here, and because of it's tone. Honestly, I feel your more recent comments adding to AO's should also be in here). Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for coming off as rude and if I made it seem like you swapped the alt blurbs to confuse editors voting. Let's carry-on as the blurb has already been posted. (Also, I added a separate collapse section just for consistency in reading). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Don't swap Alt II and Alt III after many editors voiced their opinion to use one over the other. That causes a lot of confusion. I've reverted and restoring the original Alt III. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
off topic
Not what I did, but okay. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Point being you changed Alt III into Alt II. Best you could do is admit that your edit could've caused confusion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I moved everything up, and I said that I moved everything up, and I said that the new suggestion was now alt3. I think that made it clear. The way you phrased your (pinged!) accusation made it seem that I wanted previous !votes to now apply to a different blurb, which is rude in the least and in no way AGF. Then you say you both reverted and restored, as if I broke something. Best you could do is be polite. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb and Altblurb and Altblurb2 are all inappropriate as they do not mentioned the country in which these events took place. Thankfully altblurb3 includes the country. Chrisclear (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Take it up with TRM, who passionately disagreed with including "United States". I'm all for keeping it in any blurb that goes up. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Posted. El_C 18:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – In U.S. journalism, and in general usage, El Paso is a (borderline - !) headline city while Dayton isn't one. Suggest change to "shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio." (There's a Dayton in Texas, too.) – Sca (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As pointed out here: "In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.
On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…
500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun
Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data." Count Iblis (talk) 03:19, 5 August 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.

(Closed) Franky ZapataEdit

Clearly not happening. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 4 August 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: Franky Zapata (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Frenchman Franky Zapata crosses English Channel on a flyboard
  • Oppose target article is tagged. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great accomplishment, but the article is bad referenced. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is this news? The nom isn't signed and didn't provide sources. Article has a big orange tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is better suited for DYK, if possible. --Masem (t) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as sports trivia. This nomination does not meet the minimum standards for being seriously considered here. Suggest close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:59, 4 August 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.

August 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Cliff BranchEdit

Article: Cliff Branch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

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 DBigXray 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - satis indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prose and source missing for highlights listed in the infobox. My concern largely stems from those raised at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#August_3_RD:_Joe_Longthorne about the nominator removing verifiable (though unsourced) text to expedite RD postings. The prose for the corresponding infobox highlights was commented out here. It should be verifiable. While information that is unlikely to be true can be boldly removed, infomation should not automatically be removed merely because they are not easily cited from recent obituaries. This seems counterproductive to the spirit of RD.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba please see WP:BURDEN if an editor raises concerns on unsourced content then the right thing to do is to find the reliable sources and give the issue its logical conclusion instead of arguing to keep the unsourced content. I am sure you are aware and honour the WP:V of wikipedia. Please open a thread on the article talk page and make your case why these commented out parts dont need a source. I say they need it. I would request you to !vote on your assessment of the current article status and point out major problems if any. I would also remind that this is not a GA review. --DBigXray 06:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
BURDEN states: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. People are objecting, and are also wary that might have a conflict of interest to fast track RDs to "success". Pro Bowls and All-Pro honors are easily verifiable. If you are you not familiar with American football, just ask for help.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference in making an article ITN Worthy vs Accusing to fast track RDs.--DBigXray 06:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you know how to verify Pro Bowls and All-Pros? If you do not, why remove it instead of tagging it for more knowledgeable editors to do so?—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba Please cut the crap. You are making accusations against me and despite being an admin, you lack the basic understanding that you have to provide diffs to back up your claims. Please start a thread on the talk page with the content that you believe I have wrongly commented out and then we can talk there.--DBigXray 11:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The career section is too light for a three-time all-pro. I've seen longer for guys that washed out of the league after one season. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I have added prose from the contentious infobox information to the body of the article, and referenced it. --Jayron32 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"contentious" indeed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment After cleaning up some dead links in the college section, it seems that a couple of the sentences are not supported and have now been tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed Bagumba Thanks a lot for for your help and good work in improving this article. I have corrected the first statement and moved the second to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this ITN/C--DBigXray 04:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You did not "fix" it, you again removed verifiable text. I have restored it with minor copyedits and added citation.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
...Which is another way of fixing the problem of unverified and unsourced content in a WP:BLP. I had moved the content to the talk page after sincere efforts from me to source it. Thanks for giving a helping hand on this article. regards. --DBigXray 11:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 El Paso shootingEdit

Article: 2019 El Paso shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, results in 20 people killed.
Alternative blurb: A mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, kills at least 20 people.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian, BBC, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Still a developing situation. Spengouli (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – We do not have solid information or a well-developed article to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support – But don't give the manifesto Main Page free promo. Something like "racially-motivated mass shooting" is preferable but our standard neutral description is probably enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance but wait for further updates to the article. 22 is a very large number even for the US, and certainly wouldn't be considered an annual occurrence if you look at List of mass shootings in the United States. -- King of ♠ 21:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's (just barely) long enough to post as it is. And it's a significant event in the ongoing catastrophe that is gun violence in the United States. Thoughts and prayers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait I support it's inclusion on the main page, but I think we should wait until a motive is established, and have it mentioned in the blurb. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
We almost never mention motive in blurbs about crimes or terrorism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "kills xx people" and yeah, let the dust settle first. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait There are conflicting reports on casualties and the article is a stub. Moving to support. See below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Articles need to include information on the supposed manifesto, but other than it should be added as "at least 20 dead" as that's the current death toll. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 23:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support due to scope and scale of this. Wish I can contribute more to the article but I'm not at my computer at the moment. If anyone has time, please expand on the article so we can put it up as soon as possible. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Twenty killed and there is credible evidence that this was a terrorist attack. I have updated the death toll in the initial blurb. Either is fine with me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- this is a terrorist attack and hate crime. Notable. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in good condition now. Updates can be made as more is known. This incident is also particularly notable because it happened very close to Mexico and involved Mexican citizens, so the Mexican government is now directly involved in assisting the victims. MX () 01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you mind adding this information about interstate assistance to the article? Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nice4What: I already did. I added the sentence about the government of Chihuahua providing assistance. More will follow once more is known. MX () 01:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article on a notable event which is in the news around the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - article is in better shape now. starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Let's get this one up quickly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a strong consensus to post with no opposition. Marking this as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem, sorry I'm late to the party--I wish this were a bit less passive. It's a human being who killed these people, not an abstract noun--"One subject killed at least... etc." With an "allegedly" in there or whatever. Or, to be more correcter, "one white dude". Drmies (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Drmies. The wording of both proposed blurbs is pretty consistent with how we report these kinds of things. We typically keep blurbs to a dry "just the facts please..." form. But feel free to add an alt blurb if you have a preferred wording. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. El_C 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I went with the alt blurb, since it seemed like the one that read most naturally, but if anyone find that phrasing to still be awkward, I also encourage you to propose a different alt. El_C 02:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine. We try to be careful with blurbs about controversial events so as to avoid any appearance of using the main page for editorializing. We have reported G-- knows how many terrorist bombings, but we never mention who is behind them & etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is the verb kills has the subject A mass shooting. A shooting "leads to" or "results in deaths". People kill. But I also hate calling it "deaths" because that is a weak word. I don't know. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We should go with: "At least 20 people are killed in a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You just (edit conflict)ed me. I was also going to say we should lead with the victims. "At least 20 are killed in a mass shooting in El Paso." – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No objections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  Done. El_C 03:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not opposing this posting at all - it is clearly more tragic than other US shootings, but in it wake, a statistic to remind editors here why US shootings tend not to get posted: per USA Today, the US has had 250 mass shootings through the first 215 days of this year. Exceptional cases like this should be posted, but not your "average" one. --Masem (t) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Masem. I have to admit, I came to this discussion section after seeing the blurb posted on the main page and I was very much expecting more (any?!) oppose votes. I'm not sure I understand the distinguishing characteristic here. Is it number of deaths? I'm also considering the decision to post this blurb to the main page in light of 2019 Dayton shooting, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "At least"? It's not a typhoon or earthquake, the bodies have been recovered and counted. Twenty. Complications kill later sometimes, but if so, update rather than sound pessimistic till then. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)
  • That still does not signify absolute certainty and it's what reliable sources say. The counted are 20, yes, we know that; what of the uncounted?. So this is not about sounding pessimistic, it's about reporting things the encyclopedic way. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There were also 20-some shot and injured in non-stable condition at local hospital. Those would add to the tally if those shots prove fatal , and hence why "at least" is used. --Masem (t) 14:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Second shooting? Should we change the blurb to incorporate the second shooting in Ohio? Dalran (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No, unless the events are related. If the Dayton shooting is to be posted, a separate discussion is needed. --Tone 09:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Ironically I would tend to agree that both (or neither) should be posted, 29 dead in a matter of a few hours in two separate shootings, neither of which will change anything at all, regardless of the clear tragic nature of such events. (For context, a total of eleven people were killed in London by shooting in the whole of 2018.) The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Combining the two shootings, arguably related thematically and timewise, could be done. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
If they're going to be combined thematically and timewise, should the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting be involved as well? It's close in range. 50.1.50.14 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
We have to draw the line somewhere. The garlic festival shooting was even more trivial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Understood - As a Californian, it certainly feels relevant (I was in Gilroy the day of the shooting), but I leave judgment to you guys. 50.1.50.14 (talk) 18:35, 6August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe LongthorneEdit

Article: Joe Longthorne (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: Start Class article with good sourcing. DBigXray 10:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Joe_Longthorne#Television is pretty underwhelming: right now there is 1 sentence each about his show and his 3 albums. Since this is what he seems to be notable for, there could be greater depth of coverage about this area. SpencerT•C 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Spencer Please tell me how I can convince you to support this. I have expanded the article and refs, since you have voted. The article has a long way to go before it gets GA status but I dont see that it has any surmountable problems that it cannot be promoted to mainpage. regards--DBigXray 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
My issue with the article isn't with referencing; you have done a great job with that. My concerns are over the depth of coverage of the subject's career for which he is notable. Reading the section on Television, I see several TV programs listed that he was involved in, such as The Joe Longthorne Show, Les Dennis Laughter Show and the Royal Variety Performance. But what is he known for doing on these shows/what is his role? The article mentions that he has 3 albums: what genre was it? What was the reaction to them? Similar information like that. Otherwise, I'm left with what's essentially a bulleted list in text form, without a lot of "meat" to the bones. For me, RD-worthy articles need to have sufficient depth of coverage in the work that the subject is principally known for, and based on what I see in the lede, this is what Longthorne is known for. I hope this provides more clarity. Reasonable minds may disagree with my assessment of the article, and I understand that. I hope this provides more clarity behind my reasoning. Best, SpencerT•C 20:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed the TV section and his career expanded as suggested. I have added whatever meat I could find. --DBigXray 02:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jocelyne Roy-VienneauEdit

Article: Jocelyne Roy-Vienneau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [27]

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.

 ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis (nom moved from 4 to 2 August to match her DoD). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Postedfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deepak ObhraiEdit

Article: Deepak Obhrai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC

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 DBigXray 06:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article looks good.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) US withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatyEdit

Article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States formally withdraws from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty it had with Russia.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States formally withdraws from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.
News source(s): NPR, BBC

Nominator's comments: This is basically the treaty between US and Russia that ended the Cold War. This is the formal withdraw (not planned, not expected), the INF treaty is considered dead by both sides. Masem (t) 17:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is notable per nom. Article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – End of an era in relations between two major world powers. Article looks well sourced and well kempt. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support In the past nomination it was argued that Congress should do the thing. But in a quick glance of recent news I didn't find any mention of Congress voting to withdraw from the treaty. This suggests it was Trump's unilateral decision. The update would look better with clarification of this issue and whether there was a formal written executive order. Brandmeistertalk 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I realized on that articl there wasn't a para on the actual withdraw, which I have expanded on, including that article from NBC, and added a few other details that are clear from reporting (that a new US missile test is going to happen RSN now without the treaty, and Russia wants to try to talk more). --Masem (t) 20:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The demise of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has been a foregone conclusion since since last year when both sides announced they would withdraw. Its formal expiration on Friday has little practical impact at this point. Keep in mind the INF treaty doesn't govern long-range nuclear missiles, which are covered by the New START treaty, due for renewal in 2021. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
But also remember the nuke with the shortest distance to travel will likely be the first to land. Won't matter much if MAD works. But if it doesn't, it'll be even bigger news than McGregor dusting Aldo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a significant development in global and especially European security. The article looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this really isn't making international news at all. And per Sca, please contextualise this, it's pretty small fry. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The terms of the deal have been broken repeatedly (and allegedly) by both sides already, so it died back when, if you ask me. But I also opposed the Iran deal blurb, which posted regardless, and at least this one might lead to bombs. If it wins, I prefer Alt Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major international development, regardless of how well the terms were adhered to recently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT. Consensus is in favor of posting. SpencerT•C 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

August 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • The town of Whaley Bridge in Derbyshire, England, is evacuated after heavy rain and flooding causes structural damage to the nearby dam at the Toddbrook Reservoir amid fears the dam could collapse. A severe flood warning has been issued for communities situated along the River Goyt. (BBC)

International relations

Science and technology

(Closed) RD: D. A. PennebakerEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 01:50, 7 August 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: D. A. Pennebaker (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: Director of the Bob Dylan documentary Dont Look Back. More references required. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nomination comment, several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:41, 4 August 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.

(Closed) RD: Harley RaceEdit

(non-admin closure) Opposition is clear to the article in its current state. This can be reverted if the article is actually improved in time before the nomination gets stale. starship.paint (talk) 03:20, 4 August 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: Harley Race (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://solowrestling.mundodeportivo.com/new/78845-ric-flair-revela-que-harley-race-padece-cancer-terminal

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.
 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty much most of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Man, myth and legend seem quite tangled together, even by wrestling standards. Would need a lot of work, probably not feasible in time. Prove me wrong, though, and I'll move. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose virtually all of his career is unref'd. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why are wrestling articles so badly referenced so often?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Because it's all fake? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if that were true, it's no excuse. All entertainment lies, doesn't stop the respective press from covering it. If Bobby Eaton can be a Featured Article, anyone can. Probably more to do with wrestling fans historically being jerked around by the glossier magazines (who said everything's real) and the mainstream newsprint (who said everything's fugazi). Kind of drove us underground, to dirtsheets, Usenet, shoot tapes, worked shoot DVDs, Angelfire, podcasts and that guy who was at the show and swears he saw it. Not exactly "reliable", relative to White House drama or Wimbledon acts, but the gap is mending lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: - Race was most relevant from 1965 to 1985. The people who care and know about Harley Race don't edit Wikipedia. The people who edit Wikipedia well don't care about Harley Race. starship.paint (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I normally edit Wikipedia well enough and care to catch up on wrestling history I mostly missed in real time. I'm just sandbagged lately by an onscreen keyboard, lack of copy/paste and no recourse if I get edit conflicted after wasting time trying regardless. Besides, I've seen fine and poor wrestler bios from every era; it's not so simple as blaming a generation, sadly. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: - your bias is showing. Plenty of stuff is fake / fictional - Romeo and Juliet, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Batman, Pokemon. Also almost all religions. starship.paint (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. If I can’t find any refs that mentions the unsourced information, the article needs a trip to AFD. INeedSupport :V 20:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
CBS Sports covers him managing Super Invader and Vinnie Vegas. That reporter fell for our plagiarism trap, though, mentioning only who Vegas "really" was, screw his Heenan Family "brother" Hercules. But that part still actually happened on TV, I promise. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, August 2, 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.

(Closed) Toddbrook Reservior and Whaley BridgeEdit

consensus is this nomination is premature. Please start a new nomination if the dam does fail. --Jayron32 14:08, 2 August 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.

Articles: Toddbrook Reservoir (talk, history) and Whaley Bridge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, the town of Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire is evacuated over fears that the dam of the Toddbrook Reservoir will collapse.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Extremely rare for a whole town in the UK to be evacuated. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive has happened, the evacuation has affected a handful of people, trivial in the big scheme of things. If the dam bursts and massive damage/loss of life occurs, perhaps this is worth considering, but right now, it's just a preventative action which is a mild inconvenience. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Yes, a rare occurrences for the UK. But even for the Whaley Bridge article the event has warranted the addition of just two sentences. If the dam does burst, that will obviously be a very different scenario. Even then, however, loss of life would seem to be unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wait. If the dam breaks, then maybe it will cause enough damage to be worth posting. A precautionary evacuation does not merit an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Modest Genius already said what I was planning to say. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait If the dam bursts it will probably prove sufficiently interesting to merit inclusion in ITN. While I disagree that loss of life should be the determining factor, I do agree that it is a factor. Since nobody has died, the evacuation is fairly small in scope, and we aren't even sure that the dam will burst this is hardly noteworthy enough to be put in the articles. Neither article mentions previous evacuations below the dam, but the dam had its spillway damaged in the 1960s, so there might have been previous high water events. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Currently this is summed up in just one line per article. Hopefully nothing happens to the dam, but if it does, then maybe a stand-alone article would be more apt. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:37, 2 August 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.