Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates - Wikipedia

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

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

(Ready) RD: Caressing

Nominator's comments: 23 year old American racehorse and brood mare. C Class article, looks in good shape. Died 14 September only announced today. JW 1961 ^Talk 22:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good depth of coverage and referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This gets less than two views a day, and there is zero coverage of the death on Google News besides this one horse-specific website; I see no indication this is significant enough for the main page. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google News (like all their products) is curated per user. After wiping my browser and changing my IP, a Google search for "caressing racing" gives me about a page and a half of results about this topic. All subject publications, but it's more than just one. RD nominations have for years taken WP:N to be satisfied by any article at all, and the redress is to nominate at WP:AFD.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Joshua vs. Oleksandr Usyk

Nominator's comments: The coverage indicates that there was a record crowd for this and Usyk's readership is now even greater than Lewis Hamilton's. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose just one weight category, nothing remarkable about the fight that makes it rise above the normal regular boxing matches which are essentially a massive money-making exercise for a couple of people. And this isn't WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM, this isn't ITN/R and if we posted every weight category title fight we'd be inundated with stories. And what on earth has it got to do with Lewis Hamilton? Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not ITNR" is not a reason to not post an ITNC nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know that (I've been here long enough), I was simply pointing out that there was no special treatment for the heavyweight category. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewis Hamilton thing is the persistent objective to translate ITN into WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not heard of Usyk before so that was just some context. Usyk was actually just the #3 article yesterday – the top two were Squid Game and UFC 266. The latter seems to be the fight of most interest to our readers but it didn't get much love from mainstream media whereas Joshua vs Usyk was covered by the likes of the NYT, as noted above. And, of course, all of these stories are utterly crushing our bottom blurbs which are stale stuff from over a week ago and which just about nobody is reading. That's the real issue here – that ITN wants to be the BOTTOM25. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing figures are not a factor, have not been a factor, will not be a factor, &c &c 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the pursuit of pageviews is not one of ITN's goals. That is left for WP:TOP25, which operates just like a tabloid newspaper, instead of an encyclopedia. And it's a little pot/kettle when there is opposition to the Ryder Cup article (which logged nearly 1/4 million pageviews over the weekend) because the article doesn't cover Brexit. Clearly disruptive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. We have posted high profile boxing matches before, and heavyweight is the class that most people pay attention to, but I don't think this fight rises to the profile level needed. As part of the role of ITN is to draw attention to articles, and motivate their improvement, readership should not be a main factor in determining what gets posted. If any user feels that ITN should just be an automated ticker of the most read articles, they may propose that- though I'm not sure why we would want more people to read articles that people are already reading without our help. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, Anthony Joshua's fights seem to rarely have any promotion here in the United States despite the fact he's a unified heavyweight champ. It seems as if British media (such as Talksport, which can be heard in the U.S. through various streaming options) will talk up the fight before it happens, with U.S. media (such as ESPN) only issuing an news alert after the fight has concluded. I don't know why the heavyweight bouts have lost luster here, but it is evident they have (irrespective of how heavyweight boxing is still perceived in the rest of the world). rawmustard (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If there was some manner of record here—an unheard-of title unification or the like—I'd consider it but as nothing out of the ordinary has happened here this is really no different to any other title fight, and I say this as a combat sports fan. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua held titles of the three (of the four) major sanctioning bodies and lost it to Usyk. (Yes, I know, if there's a unification fight between Usyk and Fury (the holder of the other major title, and the lineal champion) mainstays here will still oppose lol.) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would mean that Usyk has not won anything that has not already been won before—when I say "unheard of", I meant along the lines of Conor McGregor's first champ-champ accomplishment, or even Amanda Nunes being the first to defend two concurrent titles, not merely the changing of hands of a collection of belts that have already been nominally unified long before. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, hence mainstays here, and even some who are not, will oppose no matter what unless some white British guy is involved. It was very hard to get in Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao to be posted here, and indeed, it wasn't. Good thing Pacman's next fight was against a white British dude, while was not as big in the news as the De La Hoya fight, was still posted (LOL). No worries, ITN is diverse since we have Gaelic football! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not entirely sure what race or nationality has to do with my position here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, race or nationality plays no part in my consideration of nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Given the structure of boxing without any regular championship/playoff structure, such that these title fights can happen at any time, there has to be something significant beyond just title-winning to be an ITN item, and from discussion above, this present fight just seems to be shuffling of the current titles among the top fighters out there. --Masem (t) 14:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, boxing has many championship fights, often multiple per year. If/when someone fights the belt unification fight with Fury, that match may be ITN-worthy (especially if all the belts are unified). But the importance of this particular match is not significant enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would only consider a reunification of all the belts to be noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Bucking the trend here, but surely the heavyweight title is the "big one" when it comes to boxing, the category where anyone can enter and the best person wins irrespective of weight. And, although it's not something I watch myself, this is clearly an event and a sport which attract large interest - Sky Sports charged viewers a one-off £25 to watch it, which gives an indication how much the public wanted to see it. Plus I've been at pubs before when a boxing event is on and they are rammed. As such, I don't think this has less importance than the FA Cup / Superbowl / AFL Grand Final / Wimbledon / take your pick - it's the blue riband event of this sport. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure the "heavyweight" category is the blue riband for boxing, not any more. It's certainly one of the biggest money-making events in the sport at the moment, but as noted above, it's barely made a scratch in the US (and I think it's obvious why that is right now!), it's not like the golden era with Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman etc. This is very much about the money and I suspect most of the organisers were disappointed they couldn't contrive a draw so they could do another multi-million dollar show. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just earlier you were arguing that ITN would suffer from stagnation if we did not have a diverse selection of topics, regardless of viewership and regardless of hits. I don't understand why you are singling out boxing for reasons that could easily be applied to a variety of other sports that are ITN/R. WaltCip-(talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was certainly referring to a niche sport that we represent annually. If we were to selectively post this "heavyweight" championship bout, then there'd be little reason to not post all subsequent title bouts, and that's patently absurd. I don't think a routine boxing match should get ITN. I don't think a routine football match should get ITN. I don't think a routine rugby match should get ITN. Stagnation is definitely something we should be working harder to avoid, but just unleashing tabloid journalism (aka WP:TOP25) at ITN would spell the end of it. That may not be such a bad thing, but would need consensus. As it stands, this particular match is of no real encyclopedic value at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt that heavyweight boxing has lost a great deal of its popularity and viewership since the Tyson v Holyfield days (at least in the US, its prime market). To suggest it's still on a par with Wimbledon in terms of prestige is misleading in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with that comparison is that those things take place once a year - ad only once. With five separate belts for each weight there theoretically could be a dozen title fights a year in that weight (for example, there are currently at least three weights that have four different title holders). Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hakuho to retire

Nominator's comments: Sumo has a recorded history since 1750s and Hakuho is regarded GOAT in these 250 years. Unlike in other sports, this retirement is not "reversible". Since Reuters has picked it up it is pretty much certain. Not sure when it's best to post this: now, when there is an official announcement, or when he gets his official retirement ceremony (yes sumo has this). 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:996D:12AD:F617:108E (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The promotion of wrestlers to yokozuna rank is an ITN/R item, and Hakuhō Shō's promotion was listed in 2015. I would be opposed to a blanket addition of yokozuna retirement to this practice, I think the merits of this item depend on whether Hakuhō Shō is a sufficiently exceptional sportsperson. --LukeSurl ^t c 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, he became yokozuna in 2007. The ITN item in 2015 was Sumo wrestler Hakuhō Shō wins a record-breaking 33rd makuuchi championship. --LukeSurl ^t c 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It should be rare for us to post sports retirements, but I think this rises to that level, given this man's career and status. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I don't know what the precedence is for posting retirements, and if this would be the first or at least one of the first then I'm not sure we should start, but Hakuhō is as accomplished in his field as any sporting name is ever likely to be. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think this would set a precedent for retirement of GOATs that wouldn't be desirable. Like an old person dying, retirements are inevitable and pivotal figures such as Roger Federer, Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, Serena Willams, Lewis Hamilton etc are all likely to retire some time fairly soon, but I wouldn't advocate posting any of them, however notable their achievements.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sports have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We posted the retirements of Sachin Tendulkar(here) and Alex Ferguson(here). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on merit but the article still need some updating. He's not just record holders on success, the others aren't even close. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with the other supporters, he seems like an important person in his sport. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject hasn't actually retired; there is just a report that he's planning to, due to injury. This might change if his condition or mood improves or it could just be a manoeuvre as he tries to establish a stable. High profile stars routinely go through this sort of will-he / won't-he and comebacks are quite common too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typically with this sort of thing it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal handing in of paperwork or a retirement ceremony. The reports don't indicate that he's just thinking about it, but that he decided to. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Reuters' report cites NTV which just attributes anonymous "sources". Neither the subject nor the Sumo Association seems to have made a formal statement. This is just gossip and rumour. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The JT article says "Yokozuna Hakuho, the most decorated wrestler in sumo history, has decided to call time on his storied career, according to multiple media outlets.". That's pretty definitive, and as with elections, we report what the media reports. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As an ozeki with the record he holds, there will be the traditional retirement ceremony, this isn't something that's taken lightly or from which there is a comeback. If we want to wait then the ceremony would be a definitive "he has retired" point but also even just the announcement that one will happen should be definitive. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And in most cases like this, it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal ceremony or handing in of paperwork. If we waited for that, the argument would then be "not in the news" 331dot (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The retirement ceremony will not happen for about another year, no sense in waiting that long. The Japanese press has reported that his retirement paperwork has been handed in [1] so no going back on it now. I agree that should be posted at the time of the announcement anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That source doesn't seem to say anything about handing in paperwork and it's not a statement by the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the first sentence. It will formally be announced on Wednesday.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I have no issue with posting now; my point is more that the formal nature of sumo means that isn't likely be backpedalled upon like, say, Michael Jordan or George Foreman retiring. Once it's announced it's a fait accompli as far as we're concerned given the ceremonies involved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Just because he is the GOAT in sumo does not mean we should post his retirement, given that his article does not show how he is relevant beyond the rather niche boundaries of sumo. Chaosquo (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosquo What should he be relevant in other than his field to merit posting? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because sumo is a niche sport in my opinion, he has to have something other just being a GOAT in sumo for me to justify posting him to the front page. Chaosquo (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but every sport is a "niche sport". Very little would be posted if it had to be broadly relevant to global society. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any more niche than American football or the All-Ireland championship (neither of which I would want to see ignored)? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both deliberately misunderstanding me. Niche is mostly defined by viewership. For me, posting a retirement of a athlete should be held to the same standard as a death of a person, and Hakuhō does not meet that bar. Also, all four currently posted items are broadly relevant to global society, either by their own merits or because it was agreed to on ITN/R.

Chaosquo I didn't misunderstand anything. Every sport is only relevant to those that watch it or follow it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo is the sport with the longest recorded history where complete lists of champions exists since the 1700s. And cricket is a fairly similarly niche sport yet it gets regularly featured on ITN and got a GOAT nod recently, and doesn't have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is the biggest spectator sport in the world after (association) football, but do feel free to carry on posting nonsense... Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose even with the stance that the retirement is irreversible, we simply just don't post sports retirements. We don't post things like CEO retirements or other influential outside of world leaders (which do involve changing of leadership by necessity). --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  we simply just don't post sports retirements—As pointed out above, we have posted sports retirements before, at least twice. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And I agree posting retirements should be rare; Peyton Manning's retirement was nominated but not posted(correctly) but I think Tom Brady's would merit it(though according to him that won't be for awhile yet). It's usually sports retirements that get the most attention, but others might. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Support A comparison to a CEO retirement is a little odd, they don't have the iconic status that the greatest sportspeople achieve. His status in sumo is similar to Sachin Tendulkar in cricket which we did post. No question that he is the greatest sumo wrestler of all time and this is being widely reported.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree CEO's can lack "iconic" status, with people like Bill Gates, Lee Iacocca, John D. Rockefeller etc. but as with anyone in sports, those who are "iconic" will be few and far between. --Masem (t) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the Tendulkar and Ferguson postings were a long time ago. Things have changed since then, and I find it unlikely we'd post those now.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, everything else ignored, cricket is the second most popular sport worldwide. Sumo? Not quite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure covering only popular topics as we see them is a road we want to go down. Sumo is popular in Japan. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Subjective editor opinion about significance is something, but what is even more telling is that this does not appear to be so significant of a major sportsman retiring that it actually made world-wide front page news (no mention on Guardian; BBC; NYT, so on so forth). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  BBC covered it as a news item rather than sports item, for some reason, I don't know if that speaks to greater prominence in their view or lesser however. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Must be pretty awkward to be missing a BBC article from 6 hours ago yet still reason an oppose with that. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I cannot remember when sumo news ever made it to the front headlines in anglophone news. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, oppose on quality would we post the retirement of Messi? Jordan or Gretzky had we been around then? Sumo's a big enough sport that some sumo things are ITN/R, and this guy is regarded as the greatest sumo of all time. And as mentioned above, this is actually a global headline on the BBC right now. However, his article needs some improvement before it makes it to the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely we would have posted Jordan's retirements - both his first and second one. Jordan was an example of an athlete that had incredible international recognition. The first was especially notable because he was retiring in his prime and he went from there to another major league sport. I'm not so sure about Gretzsky. I'm positive that a Messi nom will make it to ITN without being SNOWed out of the room when he retires. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose I don't think that announcements of retirement made by famous sportspeople should be posted because there are many cases in which people have come out of retirement. Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry are all household names in their respective sports who have returned to competition after announcing retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril Simeonovski It's been noted above that there is no coming back from retiring from sumo. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that so I revoke my vote. However, I won't support this announcement of retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose posting the retirement of any sportsperson. Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As mentioned above, we have previously posted retirements of "greatest" sportspeople where there was little or no chance of them returning. This certainly falls into this category and the fact that the sport is not one that is popular in the Anglosphere should not prevent that, per WP:CSB. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the most successful person in a quarter of a millennium in his sport? Of course. And comparisons to retiring CEOs are patently absurd (like retire from British Gas, get a job at Astra-Zeneca, retire from Astra-Zeneca, get a job at Accenture.... give me strength). The household name/not widely reported issue is also absurd, this is clearly a niche sport and reported upon by only those news sources who have a clear, eclectic role. And as for blanket "oppose any sportsperson retiring", well, that's taken the biscuit. Job done here, an absolute legend. If he died at any point hereafter, he'd be blurbed. His retirement is easily worth a blurb. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

74th Tony Awards

Nominator's comments: Many ITN/R awards noms fail because they're little more than just a table of nominees and winners. This one seems to be more than that (though it may be because its convoluted journey to actually happening at all requires some explanation). Seems like there are no major unsourced sections, but more review is always good. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there should be something about the ceremony itself - the articles covers the planning of it, but specifics of the ceremony should be included. --Masem (t) 05:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on a list of performances and presenters, but can't finish it now—and the source I'm working from seems to have tapped out around the halfway mark of the CBS show. Hopefully it will be updated soon or I'll look elsewhere later.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a relatively routine event. If something special happened during the awards I might change my mind but I didn't notice anything especially notable. Elithanathile (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's ITN/R. It doesn't matter if you think it was routine or notable or not. It'll be posted pending an article update. WaltCip-(talk) 12:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Elithanathile ITNR is specifically for the posting of routine events where notability does not need to be debated every time. If you feel that the Tony Awards should not be on the ITNR list, please propose their removal at WT:ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tony Awards, as routine as they are, are ITN/R. The article needs a little more prose and what Masem points out. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article quality about good enough, event is ITNR (which should be challenged on talkpage not here). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still missing ceremony information. --Masem (t) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator update I think I have something approaching a complete list of performances in the newly created "ceremony information" section and I've found two reviews for a "reception" section. Ultimately I'd like to see more (I thought I saw another review in a major trade paper, but like the first third of it was just the reviewer complaining that his Paramount+ app didn't work). Perhaps there will be more reviews and obviously when the viewership figures come out this afternoon that can be added.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on relative significance of this compared with other ITN/R items which are also about to be included (such as the German elections). ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rubber stamp in terms of notability. It will be posted as long as the article is adequately updated. Usually we are criticized for not enough turnover in postings, so a lot of them potentially ready to go is not a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN/R isn't a rubber stamp Um yes, that's exactly the point of ITNR. And ITN rules specifically say we shouldn't just compare with other things, and the comparison makes no sense, because if you wanted to compare, you should compare with what's on ITN (and so old it's not to any other news platform). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder Cup

Nominator's comments: This event is listed at ITNR but (at the moment) the article hasn't been updated enough. It could also be noted that the United States won by the largest margin of victory in the history of the event. -- Calidum 03:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article has some flag-waving but does not address or explain the issue of Brexit. See Team without a country and Golf Today for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What a load of bunkum: seven of Europe’s 12 players aren’t technically part of that continent anymore - we didn't leave the continent of Europe. And the Ryder Cup was never about the European Union. What a pointless conjecture. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? Has the UK actually left Europe? Where has it gone? Actually, even your link points it out ("As the Ryder Cup has always been a geographical representation of the countries within the physical boundaries of Europe, not political ones..."). Also, Viktor Hovland isn't an EU citizen either... Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can tell, the team has no affiliation with the European Union. See Team Europe and Flag of Europe. cityuser (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Andrew knows that. The article has precisely zero references to either the "European Union" or the "EU", nor should it. This kind of tangential disruption is completely unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many articles that make reference to Brexit e.g. this news article (which has been published on a few sites), which seems to go on about not-EU players. But it's not directly/at all relevant to the tournament itself, so no need to be in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In the hoooollllleeeee!!!!! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some round summaries have now been added, so article looks good enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support summaries are weak but at least are present. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there should be at least some prose under the "Course" section, no? I don't think a {{Main}} link to the separate article is enough.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or at least merged into another section. Spencer^T•C 23:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sammarinese abortion referendum

Nominator's comments: Significant as one amongst the last European states to legalise this; widely covered in international news.UKFranceUSCanadaSwitzerland RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Sammarinese"? While that may be in some sense the "correct" demonym, I can honestly say I've never heard of it, and it would be much better to simply title this "2021 San Marino abortion referendum".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the creator of the article, and conveniently the link can be piped in the blurb, completely side-stepping the issue. If you wish to move the article nothing prevents you doing so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright then, I've done that. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Boldblazer: Please see WP:COMMONNAME. RfC started on Talk:2019_Sammarinese_general_election#Mass_move_request regarding this particular issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Being one of the last to adapt such regulation is certainly far from being significant.--Masem (t) 03:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above comment, being one of the lasts countries to do something doesn't make it ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think we would post the last country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage (though we might, though it'll probably take centuries), but the last in merely Europe does not count IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't even the last in Europe: according to source in the article, Malta, Andorra and the Vatican City still don't permit abortion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lewis Hamilton

(Closed) 2021 Swiss same-sex marriage referendum

German elections

 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and close shouldn't be nominated as a blank blurb before the results happen, this is an obvious attempt to WP:GAME the system for a nomination credit. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. I didn't specify a blurb yet, because I indeed wanted to wait for results or more concrete things to report on. In the future, where would be best place to mention/suggest topics, without knowing yet what the blurb/text should be? This is my first Wikipedia:In the news nomination. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not the first person recently to post an election blurb many hours before the results are announced (and there's been similar issues with people nomming sports events before there's a result). It was nothing personal, just seems stupid to allow people to pre-emptively nominate, as the only benefit as I see it is so that someone gets the nomination credit. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Early exit-poll results have SPD, CDU virtually tied. [3] [4] [5] – Sca (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They are exit polls, not an official result, which could take hours or even days. This should be re-nominated when the results are actually confirmed. Rather than encouraging people to nominate articles 7 hours before the polls even shut in the country.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't post exit polling, but we don't need to wait for final, official results if the German media calls it. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Elections are not appropriate for ongoing as they are routine events. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an ongoing nomination. How odd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was working from the nomination's source which has "ongoing = yes". The default for this parameter is "no" so the nominator presumably supposed that "yes" was acceptable but the template only seems to accept "add/rem/no" which is certainly odd. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not tagged visibly as ongoing. Suggest you strike your comment and allow regular discussion to continue. One imagines, in fact, that this would be WP:ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support regular ITN blurb when ready i.e. in other words wait as with other national elections; this is ITN/R material, just needs for the article to be updated, and for some form of official results. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Late evening coverage puts Scholz and the SPD ahead. [6] [7] [8] [9] – Sca (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's now about 293 out of 299 constituencies reporting. That solves the first of the issues ("some form of results"); now it's on article quality; which I have not taken the time to check again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Preliminary results to be confirmed in half-hour's time, [10]. Added provisional blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Clearly a work-in-progress yet. Some issues requiring address before posting:

1. Tense needs to be checked throughout
2. Orange tag under Campaign, Major issues section
3. Tables are unsourced in this article: In Parties and candidates, Competing parties and Opinion polls. Some of these are pulled from other articles, where they are referenced, but the standard here should be in-article referencing. The one in Competing parties appears to be wholly WP:OR. The only reference that could cover it conveys only incomplete information. This effectively renders the whole Opinion polls section an {{unreferenced section}}, and if the non-sequitur external links were (deservedly) removed, it would become a section containing no prose at all.
4. Prose results should be added when they become available

130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Results are out. I'd edit appropriately. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think adding information on the SPD's intended coalition partners would be useful for the item. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not even sure the SPD will actually be in the coalition, we don't necessarily need to add speculation at this early a stage. +altblurb; if a bit verbose RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Far and away the No. 1 story in the news today. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb III - Biggest story in the news as of right now. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Blurb III as imo it is most neutral and accurate. If you are following the news reporting, you know it's not yet clear which major party will lead a coalition, which is why I oppose Alt 2. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There may be a slight issue with alt blurb III though. It may suggest that Scholz is the party leader, which is not the case. He is just their main candidate and the party is led by two other people. So, the 'led by' bit seems a little off to me. Probably best to just cut that out and simply state that the social democrats won the most seats. The most clear and simple in the end. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would he be their choice for chancellor? 331dot (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, most certainly he would be. And i am not saying alt 3 is totally wrong or misleading. It just is an unusual circumstance that the frontrunner of a major party is not actually the party leader of said party, i would assume. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. I think't it's right to remove him from the blurb, though. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if one were to replace 'led by' with something a bit different that does not suggest he is the leader(which in a way is he despite not being so) then it would be fine to mention Scholz of course. As is it can be nitpicked, is all i am saying. 80.228.131.131 (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly altered blurb 2, for grammatical tense and proper verb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb III as this is the normal way that we post elections, and isn't making any guesses/assumptions about who will actually take control. Article looks much better now- there is one section tagged for expansion, but I don't believe that is strictly necessary for this page to be ITN-worthy, as it's not a key part of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt III. We can update this down the line with any potential coalition but this is cleanest way to post the actual election results for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt III now that it's been updated; added main updaters to nomination RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as Blurb I is incorrect: Angela Merkel is still cancellor. Besides that, it is not really encyclopedic to say that the SPD is the party of olaf scholz and the CDU the party of Angela Merkel, because both dont own the parties. --LennBr (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt III I do see one cite tag but that shouldn't hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as this article is effected by an edit-war/by vandalism. See here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported and on the elections-talk page for more information about it. --LennBr (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Disruptive editing is WP:NOTVAND. Also, not an issue for ITN, but for AN/3RR or ANI RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - May somebody close this please? There is a consensus around posting alt blurb III. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not yet. It's still possible that a so-called 'traffic light' (red, yellow, green) coalition could be announced in this cycle. Warte, bitte.
  – Sca (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: There is an orange {expand} tag for the Campaign section. Is more prose coming to that section? --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Looks like it ain't gonna happen real soon. [11] [12] I still prefer Alt2, [13] but I would be OK with Alt3 for now. – Sca (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Quality comment There remains 2 unreferenced tables in the article (1 of which looks to be WP:OR) and an orange tag.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Citizen Live

Nominator's comments: If I remember right, we posted Venezuela Aid Live and that was much smaller. Global Citizen holds at least one music festival a year, but this is also by the far the biggest and, perhaps more relevantly, broadest in scope. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find anything in the searchable archives where we posted the Venezuela Aid Live (or where it was even proposed as an ITNC. I have doubts that unless the event broke records in fundraising, we would not post something like this. --Masem (t) 00:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn’t find anything either, but I swear I remember some drama about putting the logo on the main page and didn’t think DYK would have bothered. The other possible comparison for precedent would be One Love Manchester, also comparatively small. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kingsif: The other possible comparison for precedent would be One Love Manchester... - are you saying here that OLM got posted to ITN? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that it seems like the only other concert of even close to comparable size in the ITN era. It didn’t get posted, but Live Aid was like 40 years ago so we can’t compare that. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Support The idea of spreading awareness of a concert that only raises awareness of things that are already front and center (as opposed to money) feels sketchy, but it is an abnormally big show. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merely spreading awareness. If there is some additional hook(i.e. a fundraising record, policy change tied to this event), I would reconsider. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Not much in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Montana train derailment

2021 AFL Grand Final

 Steelkamp (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the match description has a lot of slang and sports report hyperbole. Needs a ironing out Bumbubookworm (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree ("Cough up a mark", "slotted a snap"). This simply needs rewriting in normal prose. Also, the continual switching between "Melbourne" and "Demons" needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the match summary has been improved now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kamla Bhasin

Nominator's comments: Indian women feminist Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Written like an essay, lots of apparent mindreading into her motives and editorial expansion on the themes ("she lamented...she adjudged...really important to her...however her revulsion of capitalism emerges..."). There are footnotes, but that's not all a decent bio needs. And no, I'm not against India, women or feminism, just against flowery rhetoric for any cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Release of Michael Spavor and Kovrig / Meng Wanzhou

Nominator's comments: Major news in Canada with international implications, due to the descriptions of the Michaels' detentions as hostage diplomacy and the deterioration of Canada-China relations and US-China relations after the initial arrests. Main article still needs some work though. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 04:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This saga doesn't appear to have made a massive splash outside of Canada, and it met probably the calmest end possible. I also think the impact on international relations will be fairly unremarkable (in other words, China will stay China). Nohomersryan (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasoned above. Additionally, undue. Meng's arrest is the spark of this fiasco, and should be the focus even if passed through. – robertsky (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added alt blurb focusing on Meng, feel free to change if it is too long. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per previous. Lacks broad significance. Although fairly widely covered, this deal made headlines mainly in Canada. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sca: The release of Meng and the Michaels made the front page of the New York Times, with the article emphasizing its implications on US-China relations. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In the news here in Australia. [18][19] Steelkamp (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Meng was charged with fraud in the USA, Canada detained her per an extradition treaty and China retaliated with sham charges against two moderately relevant Canadians. Kidnapping and extortion all around and a rare thing for Canada to get mixed up in. Weak only because we should also bold Meng Wanzhou and that article is meh quality. Opposes "because the event is only relating to a single country" are "unproductive" and should be ignored when evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Support a blurb only mentioning the release of Meng Wanzhou which is a significant event concerning the China-US relations (Canada was only a pawn). STSC (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First Two, but oppose overAmericanizing it. This was always Canada's game to lose. And we won! End of an era, or news chapter, at least. If around half the audience only knows a small part of this international intrigue info, now is the time to learn more. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Already out of news cycle, and probably more suitable for ITN during initial arrests. HaudenosauneeC (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  When arrests are nominated, ITN usually invokes BLPCRIME and moves to "Wait for conviction". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support also news in Europe. And that the two were for all intents and purposes hostages makes it a quite unusual and notable story. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:B49E:7D7A:B3FE:B093 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable geopolitical impact noted in Australia an uninvolved country, hostage diplomacy over a telco company that is the subject of state-spying allegations Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major implications around global players. Chinese citizen, Meng, was arrested in Canada on the orders of US for violating US sanctions against Iran, immediately followed by Chinese government arresting 2 Canadians. Now that Meng was released after striking a deal with the US, these two Canadians are also released "just so happened" right afterwards? That's clearly state-sanctioned hostage taking. Front page of New York Times and coverage in uninvolved countries demonstrate the geopolitical implications. I also don't buy the "out of news cycle" bit. Our most recent entry was the death of President of Algeria, which happened a week ago. Now that is definitely "out of the news cycle". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb one. It is the resolution of a major, year-long diplomatic row between Canada, China, and the US. The users who oppose on the basis that this didn't create a major splash outside of Canada forget that ITN does not have a ban on news items which effect a single country. This was likely the biggest ongoing news item in Canada since she were detained. --PlasmaTwa2 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside from COVID, anyway. And maybe reconciliation. But yeah, "it's up there"! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Major event in foreign relations between Canada, China, and the United States.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Hostage diplomacy involving 3+ countries? Certainly worthy. I'll never understand any substantive rationale for including snooker championships, but not stuff like this. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A notable political chess game involving multiple countries and a major tech company. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Important case making news headlines. It will likely also set a precedent where China may end up acting more like the US when it comes to imposing its laws it feels strongly about on foreigners. The Chinese have already passed laws allowing foreigners who never set foot in China to be prosecuted in China for violating its domestic laws on sedition. Count Iblis (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I support this, but perhaps we shouldn’t state unequivocally that the two events are directly related, even though they almost certainly are, as China explicitly denies there is a connection. 142.116.123.215 (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready pretty clear consensus to post this. No more CN tags in Meng Wanzhou. Admins can decide what blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Len Ashurst

Nominator's comments: A footballer who managed several teams. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the fair use image should be deleted, it's far too early to assume we can't get a free image. Also, the article lacks several citations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, I have now added more sources. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Is it good to go now? Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Referenced. Spencer^T•C 23:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Grey Ruthven, 2nd Earl of Gowrie

Nominator's comments: A Thatcher-era arts minister who quit because he could not afford to live in London on a minister’s salary. This wikibio could use a few more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the article is long enough and is sourced properly. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jitender Mann Gogi

Nominator's comments: India's most wanted gangster killed in most unique circumstances. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sufficiently referenced. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Article has since been expanded, which also means it needs more copyediting before hitting the front page. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The nominator has written "India's most wanted gangster". This should be "on Delhi police's most-wanted list". BBC DTM (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 1412 characters? That's a bit stubby. Can this wikibio be expanded? --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Not a stub anymore. Now >2400 characters long. --PFHLai (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Posthumously created stub, not convinced of his notability beyond the one event of his killing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Then WP:AFD it. We have plenty of bios created post-death, that isn't a problem a lot of the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Is notable before, during, and after his death based on the sources. I've made a lot of posthumous article RDs in early 2021s and nobody seem to be bothered. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article needs work, for references, grammar, spelling etc. No comment on notability, but certainly needs copyediting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) :-) and :-( sold for $237,500 as NFTs

RD: Charles Grier Sellers

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Taito Phillip Field

Nominator's comments: He was the first MP in New Zealand of Pacific Island descent. His wikibio is long enough but could use a few more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a day after nom and it still has lots of work to do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought

Nominator's comments: Article needs a more substantial update. The NYT article quotes an archaeologist who says "this is probably the biggest discovery about the peopling of America in a hundred years". These footprints are more definitive than the 26,000-year-old stone tools discovered in Mexico reported last year which got some skepticism. Davey2116 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We need a link to the journal where the paper documenting the discovery was published. AP article doesn't mention it and NYT has a paywall. Also, the one-sentence update citing the NYT article with restricted access at the end of the intro is insufficient. One such discovery requires a separate section or at least a paragraph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like the NYT article gives a DOI, which links to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7586. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I wasn't able to access the NYT article because of the paywall. Now that this was published in Science, we need a better update in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As stated in the article, there are several known sites that are pre-Clovis, thus "Humans arrived in North America at least 10,000 years before previously thought" is not really accurate. The significance of these new findings is that they are ... better quality than the other ones. So, let's not make too much of a hype here. --Tone 08:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The NYT account is good and there's a more accessible equivalent at the BBC. The footprints in time are more evocative than most such stories and they are excitingly evanescent as erosion is now destroying them so there's a race to glean this evidence before it's gone. Carpe diem. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The finding implies that humans arrived in North America more than 30,000 years ago (consistent with the dating of the stone tools from Mexico), because the ice sheets would have made it impossible to cross over from Asia into North America later than 30,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Target article has a one-sentence update in the lead, and the body of the target article does not mention the topic at all. Insufficient update to qualify for a main page notice. If you fix this with a sufficiently in-depth update to the body of an article, consider this vote changed to full support. --Jayron32 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought the Clovis hypothesis was already disproved.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This assertion has been published within the last 24 hours. The scientific community has not had time to respond to this. It is good that it is getting all this attention, because more research in this area needs to be done and actual bodies need to be found. However it also could be a flash in a pan. I do not feel this one instance of evidence is sufficient for Wikipedia to assert humans in New Mexico 23,000 years ago as fact. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why it's in the news. When new research results would start to corroborate this and gradually a pile of independent results is built up that's considered to be large enough that it's considered to be proven that humans settled North America much longer ago, then that won't make news headlines. The incremental scientific steps would likely also be considered too technical to merit big stories in the popular press. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is the first paper to publish on a theory that is contrary to one that has otherwise been accepted by numerous other anthropologists, even as a peer reviewed paper in a high quality journal, giving it presumption of being "right" by giving it ITN weight would be improper (I'll point to the current ongoing discussion related to the COVID-19 lab leak theory as evidence of why we don't give weight to one-off peer reviewed theories that go against the grain of long-standing scientific agreement). --Masem (t) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the job of the major media outlets, like the NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. to make these editorial decisions on how much coverage to give to certain science stories. We don't have to follow any single such news outlet, but we should use the criteria that a science news story must be published in a high quality peer reviewed journal and must also have significant coverage in the major news outlets. If we deviate from this too much, then we are censoring the news based on our biases. Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But reading the NYT and BBC, their writing emphasis this is a possible result and not firm proof yet. Even a lead researcher on the paper is not certain of the result yet, from the BBC article ""One of the reasons there is so much debate is that there is a real lack of very firm, unequivocal data points. That's what we think we probably have," Prof Matthew Bennett, first author on the paper from Bournemouth University, told BBC News.". We have to be careful here about presenting a paper - which I'm not doubting has grounded scientific method behind it - as the singular source to change a theory that is the subject of debate, based on these sources. This is not censoring news, but upholding SCIRS for all purposes that as an encyclopedia, we're looking to summarize dominate views of the scientific community and this doesn't have it, even if mainstream sources are reporting it. --Masem (t) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but it's then for the blurb to convey the correct message. E.g., one can say that "A new finding suggests that humans may have arrived in North America about 10,000 years earlier than previously thought.". Count Iblis (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, haven't evaluated quality. It's a big enough deal that it's worth presenting as a piece of research, rather than established fact; "scientists find evidence", etc. Not going to dig through the archives at the moment, but IIRC we've posted other substantive findings when they occurred. FWIW, this paper isn't based on cutting edge techniques; the methods are pretty basic, it's the data that are interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, if consensus develops to post, I'd much prefer wording describing how long before the present the evidence is from, rather than trying to spell out the difference between this timeline and whatever was "previously thought", since that's often controversial. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  When we've posted scientific findings in the past, it is usually because those findings are not in challenge to an established theory or where controversy within the scientific community exists. I know we've posted anthropological findings in the past but as best I recall, when they were found they didn't radically present a change to current theories, only extending farther back when humans occupied a certain reason or had developed certain capabilities. Its clear from the sources that when humans were in the Americans is a subject of debate in the scientific community so we should be a bit more careful on giving weight to one paper. --Masem (t) 15:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as written As they say, a lot of people think a lot of things about where and when. I have a hunch about frost giants predating mammoths around Temagami. Regardless, a new paper, even by people who know what they're doing, seems unlikely to change any generally accepted timeline this quickly. In a scientific sense, I mean. Even frost giants from space could seem believable to folks who don't know how magnetic anomalies work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – FWIW, to a layman like me this all seems rather iffy and arcane. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, try this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Sca, not that accessible or even interesting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One small step for a man, one giant leap for Prof. Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not even one of his selected works, nice! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Brilliant reunion you guys. Great, always a benefit to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "You betcha, Miss Piggy", (as they say in Hollywood) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And as seriously edumacated Wikipedians put it, GARCH! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Elliott

Nominator's comments: Controversial Australian businessman, former state and federal president of the Liberal Party, and former president of Carlton Football Club. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality issues. Giant orange tag, citation problems. Usual problems. --Jayron32 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tall el-Hammam and Jericho destruction by an impact event

• Post-closing comment I seriously object to many of the comments above, rushing to denigrate the announced result. In fact, they are almost certainly BLP violations regarding the researchers involved. For the record, Scientific Reports is not the "other end of the quality scale", it is more of an open-access online spinoff from Nature, which simply doesn't have room for all the top quality science being done, let alone 64 page articles. There is nothing about the paper that suggests WP:FRINGE, and hitting on that, or even the closer's remark that it is outside the "mainstream", is unacceptable. For the record, a much earlier city in the same general area was identified in 2020 (same journal) as wiped out by a similar cosmic airburst (Abu Hureyra, Syria, c. 10800 BCE). This is mainstream science, not fringe. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Abdelkader Bensalah

Nominator's comments: Head of state of Algeria after Abdelaziz Bouteflika resigned. I hope this goes on RD after the predecessor scrolls off ITN first. The Political career section looks a little thin -- please beef things up if you have the source materials. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert Fyfe

Nominator's comments: Scottish actor known largely as Howard Sibshaw in Last of the Summer Wine, Cloud Atlas, many other credits. CoatCheck (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: please expand the prose to at least double its current size of 766 characters. Stubs are not eligible for RD. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment also needs more sources in the filmography section- I've sourced about half of it, other half needs to be done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2021 Mansfield earthquake

(Closed) RD: Gabby Petito