Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

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

Hassan Sheikh Mohamud in 2013
Hassan Sheikh Mohamud

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


May 20[edit]

May 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

  • Fourteen people are killed and 20 others are injured after a bus's brakes malfunction, causing it to crash on a highway in Jalisco, Mexico. (Reuters)
  • Eight people are injured in an explosion at an oil refinery in Ulsan, South Korea. (Reuters)

Health and environment

International relations

Sri Lanka Debt Default[edit]

Article: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sri Lanka defaults on its debt for the first time in the country's history. (Post)
News source(s): FT, BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs updating, but a significant event, even in the backdrop of recent turmoil there. 4iamking (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article needs updating to explain this is after an initial 30 day grave period that started in April to try to pay off debt before becoming fully in fault. Articke as stands puts the default in April and appears yo make this stale. But the event is going past that 30 day window. --Masem (t) 14:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support in principle. Major event, but article needs updating. The Kip (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

  • Around 200 anti-government militants ambush a security convoy in Gorno-Badakhshan, Tajikistan, on a road linking the country to China. Eight militants and one officer are killed, while 13 officers are injured and more than 70 militants are arrested. The Tajik interior ministry later stated that the attack was an attempt to "destabilise the social and political situation" in the region. (Reuters)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

  • Twelve people are killed and another is injured after a wall of a salt factory collapses in Morbi, Gujarat, India. Several others are missing. (Reuters)
  • One person is killed and several others are injured after a car drives into 14 cyclists in Przypki, Poland. (AP)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Mpho Moerane[edit]

Article: Mpho Moerane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

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

Nominator's comments: A short wikiarticle on a former mayor of Johannesburg with a short tenure. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support Article is fine. Still could use a DOB, if anyone can find it. Article is barely long enough but has reasonable sources for an article this size. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Found something which works for that (by my understanding of WP:CALC). Thankfully it just barely sneaks in before the paywall hits, ha. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO[edit]

Article: Enlargement of NATO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO.
Alternative blurb II: Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb III: ​In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO.
News source(s): CNN AP

Nominator's comments: This is no longer hypothetical, they have now actually applied. Sweden is abandoning 200 years of neutrality. This is not WP:CRYSTAL as the story is that they have applied. It would also be newsworthy if they are accepted or rejected. --> 331dot (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sweden's end of its 200-year neutrality has some merit, albeit violated two months ago when they agreed to send military support to Ukraine, but this is just a process of applying and not joining NATO. Let's wait until they officially become members and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had a nom for that which snow closed. And we will have many that say at the point of joining that it's old news. Most of us think this thing is worth posting but only question when. I think we should have a discussion about that preference over on the talk page, rather than having different editors shoot down each stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is that "applying" doesn't mean "joining", and that's the reason why we post at the moment of joining. In this particular case, the risk is that Turkey may veto their applications because Finland and Sweden allegedly support the Kurdish military groups (Reuters).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that it is too early to post now. My only question is which specific step is the best place to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait This is the third time this has been nominated in as many days, and the story hasn't significantly changed since it was closed the prior two times. When NATO accepts the new members, we have a meaningful story. Applying for entry is not a sufficient landmark here. Can we please read the already declined nominations and stop trying to beat this dead horse. Let's wait until they are actually accepted as new NATO members. --Jayron32 12:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At which point the argument will be "old news! They applied months ago!". 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I did read the prior nominations, thanks. As I note above, this is no longer hypothetical, or a mere announcement of intent. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first was closed with Too early to tell, we should revisit this when they actually send it in, IF they send it in. and the second was closed with There is clear SNOW consensus that the intent to join is not going to be the point of coverage. Whether we post when they fully apply and/or when NATO approves is a different matter, but this is clearly not going to be posted from the numerous waits.
Reading the declined nominations supports opening a new one now, and the story has significantly changed since then - Sweden and Finland have sent in their formal applications. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait It should only be when NATO has accepted their membership, though I do agree these countries finally taking sides is of interest, but that arguably is all under the Russia-Ukraine ongoing. As Turkey has expressed oppossion so far, we should wait until the NATO acceptance is done. --Masem (t) 12:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If as being claimed that the story is Finland and Sweden "abandoning" neutrality, that's a side effect of the Ukraine-Russia war, and thus should already be covered by that ongoing. Both countries have already taken a side (with Ukraine) in some type of capacity, so their neutrality was already abandoned. --Masem (t) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until if/when they actually get accepted, as that would be the ITN worthy event. Applying to something isn't notable enough for ITN< especially when Turkey have implied they'll veto the applications. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, because as of now this is still WP:CRYSTAL. Even if they apply, it doesn't really change the state of geopolitics that much until they get accepted, if they get accepted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fakescientist8000 This is not crystal because the story here is that they applied. Nothing more, nothing less than that. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If we don't post now, then we should determine what we will post, because there's guaranteed to be separate nominations for the Accession Protocol, for the last NATO member ratifying, for the treaty coming into force...Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a significant geopolitical change, marking Finland and Sweden abandoning neutrality - even Turkey vetoing their application will not change this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I also support the original blurb per 4iamking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BilledMammal. The newsworthy event is the decision to abandon a decade-long/centuries-long stance of pact-neutrality in favor of applying to join NATO. This alone has let to a lot of news coverage all over the world, with my sources explicitly highlighting the historicity of the application itself e.g.
Whether or not the application is accepted, is irrelevant. Those who argue to wait or see a CRYSTAL violation fail to take into account that it would only be a CRYSTAL violation if the blurb was "Sweden and Finland will join NATO". No one is proposing this though. Even if Turkey were ultimately successful in blocking their membership, the decision to apply itself will still have been newsworthy. There is no rule that an application and an acceptance can't both be newsworthy if they are about different things. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am in agreement with SoWhy that the most newsworthy aspect is the application to join NATO. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm convinced. Even the intention to do so greatly changes the geopolitical landscape in Europe. Neutrality as a principle is beginning to fade from existence.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Still premature. It remains to be seen whether Turkey will play the shill for Putinia. And Hungary lurks (surprise!) as a possible foil. Applying changes nothing. There's many a slip. Realistically, membership may happen later this year. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support thanks to SoWhy, and also as there are myriad other milestones that can be used, debated, and posted/rejected. Neutrality in Scandinavia is over, and Russia/Turkey's reactions are noteworthy enough. As pointed out by Scaramouche33, for those who don't want to post this event, what do we post instead? (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something newsworthy. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For not being newsworthy, this sure is in a lot of news outlets. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they can't just re-run yesterday's nooz, that would be to much of a snooze. But in this case it's not news anyone can use. -- Sca (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems to be of concern to Russia's apparatchiki, as they keep threatening nuclear war to Sweden and Finland for daring to consider joining. WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hot air. -- Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what people thought about Russia's threats to invade Ukraine as well. How wrong we were. WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    stop it, you're making me snooz..... zzzzz Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No, ending neutrality is NOT worthy because it's arbitrary and subjective. No, let's wait until they are accepted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how ending 200 years of neutrality is "arbitrary and subjective". It's not arbitrary, both nations have specific reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about what constitutes neutrality. Almost all of these self-proclaimed "neutral" countries send military aid. Sweden is in the EU and they are sending military aid to Ukraine. So yeah, it's kinda debatable as to whether or not they are really neutral. What is not debatable is if they are or are not in NATO, which also promises to have a much bigger impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources consistently described them as neutral. Per WP:V and WP:OR, that means we need to consider them to be formerly neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then by that definition I don't think simply ending "neutrality" is ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That the process is officially started and underway is underway is Newsworthy and worth a mention on ITN, we are past the stage of statements of intention that wouldnt be. 4iamking (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Too early to tell, there are (from SE's and FI's perspective) some rather annoying roadblocks (Turkey, Croatia, probably Hungary), and you know, we have the (related case) of Turkey applying to the EU in 1987 and not being in the EU in 2022, with the negotiations sort of started only in 2004 but then suspended after the attempt of a coup d'etat in 2016. We also have Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania in negotiations with the EU, and they've long applied for the status, but well, they aren't part of the EU, either. In any case, the application itself is not notable. The negotiations themselves aren't. But accession is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the news is that the application process is officially underway, not that they will be admitted (though those road blocks look extremely unlikely to actually block it). 4iamking (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I support the original blurb. I don't like ALT 1 & 2 because if Sweden as an EU nation (and Article 47.2 Existing) was truly neutral before is up for debate, and I don't like Alt 2/3 because its unnecessarily leading. 4iamking (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now is the time to post, when it's actually in the news. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this step is a pretty big deal in international relations. I agree with several commenters above that it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note the countries applied. While "Sweden and Finland join NATO" will also be worthy of ITN if/when it happens some time in the next year or so, I don't see how that negates this also being highly newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the act of application alone is a huge deal, perhaps as big (if not more) than formal membership itself, especially as it has been said Article 5 won't immediately apply on date of joining and their application is basically guaranteed to be successful. Certainly newsworthy. And regardless of acceptance, I agree with SoWhy that applying is noteworthy in itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer alt blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I empathize with the wait crowd, but due to the Russia Derangement Syndrome this is "in the news" now, and their admittance is a forgone conclusion. Should it be posted now, it should not be posted again when formally admitted. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IF it will preclude the next incremental steps from nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the only other postable aspect here would be the last country to approve. I don't think the formal accession ceremony would merit posting or the date effective. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be posted one time. If the last approval is the milestone then wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be posted twice, once now that it's officially started, and once they actually get admitted. both are equally newsworthy events and there will be quite some time between them most likely. 4iamking (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I Oppose, based on my crystal ball showing the end result with more news and longer-lasting impact (and Oppose Alt due to neither country's arguable neutrality matching Switzerland's for historic geopolitical distinction, plus prior SNOW). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt II as explicitly covered by ongoing and Oppose Alt III for tooting its own horn. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re Alt II, I can't see why our readers should be deprived of a more helpfully informative blurb simply because of the presence of 3 words in a different and largely unrelated part of the Main page. Tlhslobus (talk)
It's seven words, including one duplicated link from the exact same box. The main reason is still the incompleteness of the story. Readers aren't deprived, anyway, just not forcefed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the news now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative tag. The story here is less that S+F are joining NATO per se. Rather, it is that they are abandoning long-held stances of political neutrality. Whether or not NATO actually takes them, this remains unchanged. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is that the application process is formally started and underway... In practical terms both countries really renounced neutrality in 1995 when they joined the EU. 4iamking (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a big fan of the verb "renounce" in that ALT option for a couple reasons. Namely, I agree, Finland and Sweden haven't exactly been "neutral" for some time, not when compared to a country like Switzerland, which prizes neutrality, or the nonaligned movement members. My proposal would be something like "In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO."-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly because EU has Article 42.7 (and to a lesser extent Article 222) that prevent member states from effectively staying Neutral. Switzerland doesn't have this restriction by not being in the EU, but It does get most of the benefits of EU membership. Switzerland and the European Microstates are the only countries in the single market that can be truly called neutral. 4iamking (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major geopolitical change, especially for Sweden. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (preferably the alternative tag) — For all reasons mentioned above. Some editors have argued that their neutrality has already been technically broken when they decided to send military support to Ukraine (or even when they joined the EU); that is debatable (see Neutral country#Points of debate); what is not debatable is that asking to join a military alliance is clearly a historic breach of neutrality, which is the way that multiple news sources have chosen to report on this. Also, I should mention that there seems to be a contradiction between the argument that reporting this before they actually join is WP:CRYSTAL and the argument that Turkey seems bound to veto their entry... Rather, refusing to post this in anticipation of a likely Turkish veto sounds to me like that would be the WP:CRYSTAL-based decision here... LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As new alternative blurbs have been added I would like to clarify and explain my preferences about each of them (although I accept any in general): my strongest preference is Alternative Blurb 2, because it explains the reason for the application; my second preference is Alternative Blurb 1; then, it would be Alternative Blurb 3, which I don't like as much because it doesn't specify the change (and makes it seem like we have made an arbitrary decision as to what would constitute a 'major' change in foreign policy); finally, I think the original blurb is too dry, as it does not explain why their application is relevant. I do not agree with those opposing AltBlurbs 1 and 2 with the argument that Sweden and Finland may have already broken neutrality earlier — perhaps they have, that is a debatable issue; what is not debatable is that, right now, with this application they have now definitely broken neutrality (and that is how most sources seem to be reporting on it)! LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Support: It is the application that is the news, and which is the start of the period of greatest apparent danger, especially if the process gets prolonged (Ukraine seemingly eventually got invaded because it had applied years ago but was not quickly admitted). Arguably we should have posted it earlier (as soon as the countries officially stated their intention to apply) when it was even more newsworthy (and I feel rather embarrassed for Wikipedia in general, and ITN in particular, that we didn't, thus somehow deeming self-evidently-not-ITN-worthy a once in three quarters of a century profound change for Finland, and a once in two centuries profound change for Sweden), instead of repeatedly snow-closing before some of us had a chance to express our Support (thus somehow seemingly deeming the question not even worthy of discussion, though I'm not criticizing the snow-closers, who behaved reasonably given what had got posted at the time), but that's now water under the bridge, and in any case better late than never. Waiting until if and when the membership formally comes into effect (which may well include various obstructions and a possibly long ratification process in every NATO member Parliament) will merely compound the apparent mistakes that we have already made. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not posting speculative intents is not a 'mistake', just as we do not post election results until official announcements. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added altblurb 2 because I think our blurb should tell our readers why it's happening (which is because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Obviously this is my preferred blurb, though I will happily support whatever blurb is needed to get the story posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - wait until they're officially a part of the organization 2600:1702:530:3240:ACBF:E71F:1F77:4496 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major foreign policy development given past non-aligned stances, and this will almost certainly be more “in the news” than when they formally ascend to NATO. The Kip (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per The Kip, both are breaking decades old neutrality stance amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is making global news and is an ITN blurb noteworthy no brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Application for membership is the story/in the news. When they eventually get accepted/rejected can be discussed at that time but should not negate this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a clear consensus to post this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because my crystal ball says it will probably be considered stale at the point of joining, or, prior to that, the point of acceptance, or, prior to that, the rest of NATO voting… this is to say, I support posting these certainly ITN-worthy but progressive stories at the first or most publicly newsworthy point. And the public probably care more about the moment of application and all the implications with it, than the political debates that will happen. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It might be months or even years until it happens (if it does given Turkey's opposition). This should be posted when it's ratified by NATO. I wouldn't post a blurb about winning the lottery just because I'd bought a ticket. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bad analogy! The probability of winning the lottery after buying a ticket is not even remotely similar to that of joining NATO after applying to do so! And it is precisely because it might take a long time before they actually join that it makes sense to report now that they formally intend to join! LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do apologise *rolls eyes*. The rather obvious point I was making is that we'd be posting something that (a) may not happen for a long time, and (b) may not happen at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. We would be posting something that has already happened: they have applied! No-one is saying they will join. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the point. No one is proposing a blurb about winning the lottery but about buying the ticket. To modify your example: If you were the preeminent scholar on why lotteries should be banned and have led a decades-long crusade to ban all lotteries, then the very act of you buying a lottery ticket would indeed be newsworthy, regardless of your chances of winning. And thus, the act of two countries with a decades/centuries-long policy of neutrality formally deciding to end their neutrality (buying a lottery ticket), is indeed newsworthy as well, regardless of them joining or not (winning the lottery). Regards SoWhy 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Although it is not ratified yet, but it is already a major event. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Still premature. Turkey plays the shill for RU ... for now anyway. [1]Sca (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not really the process is formally underway, thats what the story is. Turkey objecting is just part of this process where Erdogan tries to gain some leverage in the whole ordeal, but it doesn't really detract from the actual story. 4iamking (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see how Recep Tayyip plays the game. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sca on this (and it's not that often I say that). Posting this now does seem premature to me, especially as it's not a formality that they'll actually join. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am most grateful for your lordship's astonishingly prescient remarks. -- Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the process being initiated and actually joining are two totally different stories, with totally different merits. thats more what my argument boils down to. That the process is officially started (and the what this means for European security) is what is dominating news headlines today. NATO admitting FI/SE would be something different. 4iamking (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until NATO accepts them. That will be the news. This is just the process leading up to the news. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In which the details are devilish. -- Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct but success or failure, the decision alone is newsworthy as evidenced by the huge amount of news sources saying that this decision alone is significant. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very newsworthy Googleguy007 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That can't be. Sca says it's not newsworthy. Who to believe? 🙄 WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca gives reasoning behind his, thus making his argument stronger. But oh my goodness, these are on the same level! 🙄 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The official applications are big news now regardless of the result. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a specific reason why Finland and Sweden should be treated differently than all other countries which have recently joined NATO and a blurb was posted at the time of their official accession? NATO’s recent expansion has been repeatedly cited as an argument in support of the invasion, so it doesn’t stand to reason that this is a special case because of the developments in Ukraine. Also, it’s not a major change in global politics. I’d rather call a major change if countries like Mexico or Brazil, whose economies are much bigger than Finland and Sweden combined, apply to join NATO (albeit still wait until the official joining to support posting a blurb). This smells like a systemic bias in favouring the Nordic over the Balkan countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the speed of the change is significant. Sweden and Finland have gone from neutral (or maybe first gear?) straight to fifth gear in the span of little over two months. Montenegro began negotiating with NATO after declaring independence, then applied for their Membership Action Plan two years after that, and then it took another 13 months before it was granted. That sort of process basically took just hours for Sweden and Finland, so okay, maybe there is bias, but it's with NATO (asterisk being Turkey) facilitating that sort of speed change. If Serbia applied for NATO membership tomorrow, that too would be a drastic change and would likewise be newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 18:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all hypothetical at this pt. -- Sca (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland and Sweden have deliberately stayed out of NATO since the foundation. The big news is their sudden wish to join. Most Eastern European countries probably wanted to join as soon as possible (when the Soviet Union, Russia or Serbia didn't prevent them) but knew they couldn't get in right away. Their official applications may have been timed to optimize their chances of being accepted (and not be invaded for applying). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not convincing at all. They stayed out by their choice because they wanted to be non-aligned, and NATO has never put any significant efforts to convince them to join. It was the same case with Yugoslavia which was non-aligned by choice, so Finland and Sweden are comparable to Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia as former Yugoslav states which joined NATO in the past. I think it’s a much greater shift when a country formerly part of the Warsaw Pact joins NATO.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The great shift for Eastern Europe was the end of communism and the breakup of the Warzaw pact, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I assume that would have produced many ITN items if ITN existed. Most of the newly independent countries viewed Soviet Union/Russia/Serbia as a former occupier and possible invader they wanted protection from. The NATO applications were a natural consequence of the shift. It wasn't the shift itself. Sweden and Finland have been politically stable for at least 75 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the NATO perspective, this is quite significant, as basically NATO will not only have the Baltic Sea as almost an internal one (Kaliningrad will be surrounded) but also they will have alternative routes of supply than the current choke point of the Suwałki Gap. So yes, them joining the Alliance does change quite a lot wrt to the defense of the Baltic states and Poland, even if Finland and Sweden were previously in a close relationship with NATO; and the defence of the Baltic is what preoccupied NATO commanders in the last couple of years.
    Besides, in NATO, economies don't matter as much as military prowess. For example, Finland has a quite well-organised army (they have conscription) and a robust navy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is clear consensus that the application itself meets the significance threshold, but have the supports considered the quality of target updates? It seems light to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it better to link to a single article, but there is Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations, though the latter is not as well updated as the former. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is a consensus and should be marked as ready/posted soon. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

RD/Blurb: Vangelis[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Vangelis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Greek composer and musician Vangelis (pictured) dies at the age of 79 (Post)
News source(s): [2], Guardian, BBC, Kathimerini, AP, Stereogum

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

Nominator's comments: Oscar winning composer. Needs some help Masem (t) 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb. Career spanning around 60 years, the use of his famous Oscar-winning theme alone made him extraordinary enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. As per Kirill C1. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Ennio Morricone didn't get a blurb and he was a much bigger name than Vangelis. Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers, but Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing to get a blurb. That said, his article is almost ready for RD, with only one CN tag and one or two uncited paragraphs. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers" - I 100% agree with that and feel that Morricone should have been blurbed. "Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing" - he is not just in film composing, in the field of music. He composed music not only for films, also for Stephen Hawking funeral. His also wrote for ballet and Olympic events. Big enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, Morricone should have been blurbed 100% but Vangelis is more than just an Oscar-winning composer, he's an extremely influential electronic musician. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reviewing the Morricone itn, I think it is important to stress that an RD that is a household name, or has an extensive body of work should not be taken towards whether we should have a blurb. Insteaf we are looking for what the sources (which should be in the article) stress about the person's legacy or impact. Vangelis has that in spades, while that was clearly lacking on Morrisons.--Masem (t) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Influential composer with a long and noteworthy career and a groundbreaking and influential electronic musician. If Sidney Poitier or Betty White get blurbs, this one should too. His death is already gaining global coverage with more international obits most likely to come in the next hours. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb A household name and one of the most outstanding and versatile composers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Some of his scores, such as “Chariots of Fire”, simply can’t get out of mind. I agree that Ennio Morricone also deserved a blurb, but his omission isn’t an argument not to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Per the Friends of Mr. Cairo. CoatCheck (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article is in good enough shape for the main page. Oppose blurb, because a blurb is not an honor or an award we bestow on dead people because we think they were really important. Blurbs are only for conveying information, and the only necessary information here is that he died. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about his death that needs reporting. --Jayron32 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People need to have something "unusual or noteworthy" about their death to get a blurb? That's news to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I merely reiterate the guidance at WP:ITNRD, which states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." This seems to check literally every one of those boxes. --Jayron32 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually used, not always. Still trying to get my head round "news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of "solely" as without coverage of police investigations, massive funerals or estate disputes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Ah yes, that's what real fame is (?) His death was a lead item on tonight's BBC News at Ten (with a clip of Chariots of Fire). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about fame (real or imagined). It's about whether the death is a story in itself. A television obituary, like in print, is basically a recap of the existing life story, with one new sentence/paragraph/postscript. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think it is about fame. Obituaries describe a person's entire life and an assessment of its significance. The death itself is merely the trigger for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In cases like these, exactly. Vangelis, who had done everything which made him a beloved and valuable musician, is now dead at 79. Everyone dies at an age, there's no hook. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't appear with a blurb as there's "no hook"? If only he'd had a "pizza collar bomb" explode live on TV, he'd have been straight in. Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two types of blurbs - for unusual death and for transformativeness. I think it is fair to say he was transformative. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only I see obits, I don't see the sort of coverage that would justify a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an hour the news spread to everywhere from The Guardian to Washington Post, and to outlets specialising in cinema. There is an article headline that says "How Blade Runner Changed Electronic Music Forever", there is also "What separates Vangelis from other composers of his time, is his implementation of synthesisers and electronic instruments within his compositions"[3], Grammy nominee writes that Vangelis "changed an entire era of music"[4]. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As I write this, news of his death has only been publicly known for 2-3 hr tops. Long form obits like the NYTimes will take some time to come out, but even then, existing sources establish his legacy for a likely blurb. --Masem (t) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I cite this "It’s probably fair to say that Vangelis’s score for Blade Runner is the crowning achievement of electronic film scores as a whole since, in 2019, Pitchfork declared it to be the greatest film score of all time. This feels completely earned, since not only is the score otherworldly and gorgeous, but it’s also hard to imagine this extremely influential sci-fi film being nearly as great without it"[5]. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb – Widely covered. 'Transformative' in many ways, not just for Chariots of Fire. [6] [7] [8]Sca (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One has to admire this (from the AP story): "Vangelis said he didn’t ever experiment with his music and usually did everything on the first take."
Sca (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • support blurb he was an influential musician. --KaraLG84 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pump the brakes I think this merits a blurb, but recent history has looked unkindly on rush to post death blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the article's shape is good enough for an RD posting while blurb discussion continues. --Masem (t) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, is there a way to post this to RD and have blurb discussions continue? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Man Dies, end of story. If he's a true household name, it'll draw its own attention in RD. No objection to a photo, if that's the main goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjectively, I also feel John Carpenter leads this field. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's only 74 and looks pretty healthy? His music is fully defined by his films. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes, his original soundtracks have digitally aged well. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Carpenter has made music for his own films. He isn't regarded as a musical pioneer in his own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His article regards him and Vangelis as "pioneers". Talk to it about that. In any case, if they also die alike, no blurb either. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd better let John know you've got him lined up. He'll be looking forward to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is almost ready for RD while Blurb conversation goes on. I have added a few [citation needed] tags that should be quite easy to fill. If someone can get to that, it would be great. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb. Certainly not transformative enough for the levels we require.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb RD is adequate here. Not one of the rare cases where a blurb for a recent death is justified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb Per others, RD is enough, and I dont feels like he meets any of the 2 criteria that could qualify it for one. 4iamking (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I see at least 3 {CN} tags in the career section, and another in the personal life section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: June Preston[edit]

Article: June Preston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter

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

Nominator's comments: Died on May 11th, however death was announced today. Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) End of Siege of Mariupol[edit]

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

Article: Siege of Mariupol (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The siege of Mariupol ends in a Russian victory. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, AP, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We posted the Moskva sinking, implying that sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb. Banedon (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – There was an element of inevitability about this, which wasn't the case with the Moskva. While possibly symbolic for the Russians, the final evacuation of Mariupol doesn't substantially change the balance of forces. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, wait. Nothing is clear yet. We only know that a chunk (probably a large one) of Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal got evacuated, just at this moment it doesn't seem they have ceded control of the plant. Another thing is that the Ukrainian side, quoted by AP, says that some Ukrainian troops still remain inside the plant. This medieval horror of a siege might be already wrapping up, but the credits haven't appeared yet on the screen. When it ends in whatever outcome, then yes, we should all be pounding on the F button hard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about that statement -- not a direct quote -- in the AP piece saying Ukraine was "working to pull out the fighters that remain." It seemed somewhat dodgy. Note that farther down in the story an ex-Ukraine official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, is quoted as saying (time not specified) in a BBC story that those remaining in the plant are still "able to defend it ... but I think it’s important to understand that their main mission is completed and now their lives need to be saved." I got the impression this statement may have been made before the evacuations detailed here. Situation murky. -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither AP nor BBC already feature the response of Danylyuk about the remaining soldiers. Still, we have no rush. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the first statement in the AP story probably is their paraphrase of the quote in the BBC story they cite. If the AP had its own quote they would have used it. War reporting these days seems to be somewhat incestuous. -- Sca (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per the very good summary by Szmenderowiecki. Not 100% clear that this has ended. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is already covered by the ongoing item. And we never decided that “sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb”. The sinking of the Moskva was posted because of the records that she was the largest Soviet/Russian warship to sink after World War II and the first Russian flagship to sink in more than a century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaitReports on the actual situation on the ground still a bit dodgy as to if fighting is definitively over (reports suggest some ukrainians may still be held up inside the works), otherwise significant enough I think. 4iamking (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what the hell is a "Russian victory"? Don't use Wikipedia's main page as a device for advancing pro-Russian propaganda. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting on a russian victory if there has been a russian victory is not pro-Russian propoganda. I despise what russia is doing as much as anyone but also udnerstand that we have to remove that bias while reporting. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what it is, like it or not. The siege of Mariupol ending would mean Mariupol is entirely under Russian control, and thus a Russian Victory. That's reporting facts, not "pro-Russian propaganda". We're talking about a battle, not the war. 4iamking (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are crazy. This is the "Russian special operation". Declaring "victory" is utter bollocks. Still, why not get the Russian flags out to celebrate guys! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no one is calling it a "special operation" other than Russia themselves, if not a "victory", what word would you use to describe the outcome of the battle? you can either call it a Ukrainian Defeat or a Russian Victory, but both amount to the same thing. 4iamking (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is calling it that, The Rambling Man is being purposely obtuse to accuse us of being russian sympathizers. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that "Russian propaganda", just because ukraine lost doesn't mean it's fake and it's "russian propaganda". I could say more, but Wikipedia wil not let me. (As usual). CR-1-AB (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me we should avoid the victory/defeat labels by referring to Ukrainian evacuation from and/or Russ occupation of Mariupol -- a widely known locale due to weeks of focused coverage. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait As per Szmenderowiecki Googleguy007 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless and until the war itself ends, individual sieges and battles are rather fluid ways to report on the war. We already have a link to an article about the war, which is sufficient. The status of the various military units and the territory under their control is not worth updating at this level of granularity; it's fluid anyways, and if people want that they can get there through the link that is already there. --Jayron32 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over now, very important. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. "Victory"? Come on. This is not how we should describe this humanitarian disaster. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per a previous discussion we had where individual battles should not be blurbed (as per the war being labelled "Ongoing" along with COVID). To all the folks out there who are claiming that Support !voters are "russian sympathizers" should be ashamed of yourselves for violating WP:ACCUSE and WP:CIVIL. Come on now... but Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Default position is to not post each battle. At first glance, the significance here is in the remarkable resistance on the city against overwhelming force. That being the case, the eventual fall is expected and not noteworthy. What's more, posting a lesser Russian victory days after their loss of Kharkiv creates a unneeded air of bias. It's just why we're better off just pointing to the Ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note. Russians didn't lose Kharkiv because they never captured it in the first place. They simply retreated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does this mean we're done posting incremental updates as blurbs? We posted the unverified claims of war crimes, we posted the propaganda victory (but strategically worthless) story about that Russian ship, and we posted I think some story about Russia at the UN. I hope it's finished now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's not over yet according to BBC. That said, I completely disagree with LaserLegs unusual perspective on the Russian invasion. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Kay Mellor[edit]

Article: Kay Mellor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Probably the best British television screenwriter. Died May 15 but just announced. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite a few "failed verification" notices to fix. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, think we're there now. The prose is very ordinary, but it's accurate and sourced, so whatever; the lead's thin... But I'm all done on this one, personally :) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs)

May 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Ben Roy Mottelson[edit]

Article: Ben Roy Mottelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT

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

Nominator's comments: American-Danish nuclear physicist. Death announced on this date. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sidney Kramer[edit]

Article: Sidney Kramer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; Bethesda Magazine; Montgomery Community Media

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle, just please fix that one CN tag! Other than that, we are good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That lone CN tag is now gone. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wikibio is READY for RD. Long enough (400+ words). No concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig has no complaints. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hilarion (Kapral)[edit]

Article: Hilarion (Kapral) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Metropolitan Hilarion of Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia dies in New York at age 74

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

Nominator's comments: Orthodox Metropolitan bishopKirill C1 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margot Heuman[edit]

Article: Margot Heuman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial

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

Nominator's comments: Died on May 11th, announced yesterday, added to article today. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rainer Basedow[edit]

Article: Rainer Basedow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel

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

Nominator's comments: German actor and cabaret artist Grimes2 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but I don't deserve credit yet, and it's not likely that will earn it, having a different RD on my plate for today. I only fixed some basic errors, such as letting him teach where he studied. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    removed my credit, won't get to it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Angus Grossart[edit]

Article: Angus Grossart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Telegraph; The Times; Bloomberg

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

 CPClegg (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Article at present is mostly a list of roles without any description ("CV in prose format"); insufficient depth of coverage at present. SpencerT•C 04:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spencer, there have been improvements thanks to Malcolmxl5. Is this good to go now? CPClegg (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outside of stating that he cofounded Noble Grossart, the article lacks any other information about specifically what he did with the company (outside of 1 sentence describing a dividend he received). What initiatives did he lead? What directions did the company make? Any business decisions (e.g. mergers/acquisitions), etc. SpencerT•C 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Article is well cited for one of its size, but I'm concerned about how it's size is a bit too small. If additions are made, it would be perfect. For now, it's still pretty good, just not 100%. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sweden ends its Neutrality[edit]

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

Article: Swedish neutrality (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sweden ends its 200-years old neutrality stance. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Nominator's comments: Both Sweden and Finland will formally apply to NATO, but I think the fact that such a notable country with such a notable neutrality stance in history (they did not take part in WW2 as both of its land neighbors Finland and Norway got invaded) is a major geopolitical change. Article needs a bit of massaging though. (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) New President of Somalia[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Somali presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is elected as President of Somalia. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, AP News, France24, Bloomberg, CNN, WSJ

Nominator's comments: Election of a head of state, president in Somalia holds pretty significant power per the list of head of states. Notable as the election had failed several times (one year delayed), with IMF and the international community threatening the stop of financial aid. Peaceful transfer of power. Reported a lot by RS. BastianMAT (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is one section in the elections article without any references at all. Other than this, everything seems fine.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the recent talk page discussion, this should not be described as an election as it seems to have been a complex process of indirect horse-trading in which delegates are typically bought. The results have a {{cn}} and the article contains painful howlers like "orchastrated". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus there seems to be that it's not our place to dictate what an election is... the word "election" doesn't define anything about who the electorate has to be. 4iamking (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The articles on the election and the president-elect are both in very good shape. Given that it's an ITNR item, I think it's ready to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kiril Simeonovski.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well cited, long enough, and generally issue free. Based on my personal consensus, what matters here is not whether or not the election was free or fair. That's not what we do, we're just here to show what's in the news without acting like a news ticker. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Fakescientist8000. It's ITNR and article is in good shape. No further debate belongs to us. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous. The Kip (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting I hope someone fixes the WP:PROSELINE in "January 2022 agreement" and adds accessibility to the tables, but otherwise it's good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment - I'm not convinced this nomination actually qualifies under WP:ITN/R. ITNR says either "general election" or "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election." This was an election by parliament not a general election. We say the PM is the one in Somalia who "constitutionally administer the executive of their respective state/government" / "the Prime Minister, who serves as the head of government". -- KTC (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But it did get the votes. Not sure we can invalidate our own minielections for having grown from a fundamental misconception. It's up to voters how diligent they want to be on an issue before choosing, in "real" democracy. Maybe a mass ping beats an administrative pull, let the electorate reconsider (not necesssarily change) their pick in light of the truth. I'll Post-Post Oppose, personally. Somalia is (believed to be) very politically corrupt and we shouldn't appear to promote such things unless our own protocol requires it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People supporting above explicitly noted that it's ITNR in 4 of the 5 support comments, so clearly the support related only to the quality of the article rather than whether it should be blurb in the first place. I could have pulled it, but I didn't because even though I don't think it's ITNR, I can see it be argued that it's close enough to qualify. Would welcome feedback @Muboshgu, Kiril Simeonovski, Hamza Ali Shah, Fakescientist8000, Alsoriano97, and The Kip: -- KTC (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already discussed at the time and the consensus was clear: whether they are "real" elections or not, if they are elections, the leadership of a country is being changed and RS are talking about it, it is ITNR and should be included in the Main Page if the quality and consensus requirements are met. We, as editors, cannot go much further. Another issue is whether in the blurb you can and do mention the "unfair" or "undemocratic" status of an election and I, particularly, don't think it is far-fetched. But beware, the debate on whether they are "real" elections or not can lead to non-neutral opinions, to long debates without consensus and in the end only taking into account the elections that take place in Western countries (mainly). Where would we put the limits, then, of what is and what is not "real" or "fair"? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I did not mark it as ITNR (someone else did)[9] but I posted it on its own merits. I explained my nomination in my comment, a head of state election, on the List of current heads of state and government it is blue (meaning signficant power) although not head of government in Somalia. For context, I found this nomination suitable as we posted the Italian presidential election, which was also a parliamentery vote with the president having even less power. In Somalia it made the election even more significant with a peaceful transfer of power, RS picking it up, and that they finally managed to complete the election after two year of delays (it even made it to the Wikipedia DYK and a lot of international pressure, besides a crisis). The article is in good shape, and of course the consesus decides the faith of this nomination. [10] @KTC: BastianMAT (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    KTC, I saw only the one oppose vote, with an argument that gained little to no traction on WT:ITN, and still see no pull votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by Alsoriano97, this has already been discussed and the consensus was that we as editors can’t decide what is and isn’t an election. As long as it is in ITN/R and it meets general criteria (coverage in reliable sources, quality of article etc), the elections should be posted. We are only telling readers what is in the news and it isn’t our place to decide what counts as an election.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 20:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by KTC, it's not about the election. It's that a change in an office without the executive power is not ITNR. The Prime Minister gets that free ticket. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @KTC: This election seems to end a year-long political crisis which occurred after the former president suspended prime minister's executive power, so it's very naive to believe that the prime minister administers the executive power in practice when the president can suspend it. Anyway, even if this isn't an ITNR item because "constitutionally" it's the prime minister with the executive power, this whole situation with the political crisis and all potential repercussions which this election ends is notable enough for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 United States infant formula shortage[edit]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2022 United States infant formula shortage (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11], [12]
Nominator's comments: Major US event that has been affecting thousands of households for months and will continue to do so for several weeks at least —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is not significant worldwide news. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not a significant event, not comparable to the other worldwide events we have on ongoing (COVID-19 pandemic and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), which is the level of how important things need to be to be posted on ongoing. If this wasn't in the US, it wouldn't even have been suggested... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph. Suggest snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus Christ, not the reaction I was expecting! How is being a US event disqualifying? Would the event be acceptable as a one-time entry rather than ongoing (even though it is ongoing)? Your own guideline for significance says "Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." What gives? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have enough significant coverage for the front page of this worldwide encyclopedia. End of story. If there were a shortage of the same food in any other country, nobody would nominate it here. Stop complaining at users who are applying the ITN rules correctly. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Global significance" is a code for "it happened in America" and is a yardstick rarely applied to other countries (such as disasters or sports). The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a significant and long running shortage of baby food, but that's not "significant". Welcome to ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the regulars here don't respect the rules. #Please do not... oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. There is no rule that this be "significant worldwide news" or "comparable to the other worldwide events". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the country/countries it affects, the news coverage doesn't demonstrate it's a notable enough event for the front page. Posting this explicitly so that people can't pull the "worldwide" trick to try and push US-stuff on the front page again. It's only US articles where we get an overkill of nominatuions that mostly get rejected as not important enough, never an issue with any other country... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word solely. The event only relating to a single country is not the only reason this is being opposed. It's also not significant. WaltCip-(talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a blurb, not ongoing, and the blurb should mention the plant closure that led to the shortage. The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: I re-nominated as a blurb below; please vote there, and if you're feeling really nice, help improve the blurb to ITN standards! Thanks!! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose blurb since the coverage does not demonstrate it being ITN worthy. Also, as this started months ago, any blurb would be stale. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally happening and drawing news coverage right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm done. Good luck Muboshgu. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Going against the anti-US bias here gets tiresome and I'm spent from having to argue that a domestic terrorist incident is worthy of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even less so as a blurb, didn't even realize there was such a thing, but regardless it just feels like a localized version of the Toilet Paper/Yeast shortages at the beginning of Covid, or the sunflower oil ones more recently.4iamking (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be aware, but all humans can survive without toilet paper and yeast. That is not true of all infants and formula. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do a quick search on for "Baby Formula" and tell me how many results you find that aren't just American tabloids or local news sites that are GDPR blocked anyway. Its not making the international news at all. 4iamking (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about? New York Times, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS: name a major US media entity that isn't covering this! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2022 United States infant formula shortage[edit]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2022 United States infant formula shortage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Widespread shortages of infant formula continue in the United States following a major recall and plant shutdown. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Infant formula shortages in the United States provoke acts of desperation.
Alternative blurb II: Infant formula shortages in the United States provoke action from the White House and Congress.
News source(s): [13], [14]
Nominator's comments: Maybe a one-time entry is more acceptable, if this isn't big enough or global enough for "Ongoing"? Major US event that has been affecting thousands of households for months and will continue to do so for several weeks at least. I'd remind whoever closes this for the second time that consensus is about the soundness of arguments, not the volume. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, so below. Oppose categorically. Not only is this a ridiculously localized microcosm of the supply chain crisis that all nations are facing due to COVID-19 (which is already an ongoing item), but the article (and not incidentally the blurb) is rife with POV problems. Let it go.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I on an alien planet? What POV? And all across the third most populous country in the world is "ridiculously localized"? I can sense I'm losing a battle here, but those arguments are bonkers. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A section header named "Republican misinformation about shortage" doesn't seem very WP:NPOV to me? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that, but they were all Republicans! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my comments on the other thread with the same heading name. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opened - I'm going to be gracious and re-open this thread, reverting User:Fakescientist8000's closure. It's true that this didn't get a chance to run for a full few hours. But in reopening this, I will caution that it's highly unlikely the consensus will change.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I can understand concerns this may seem stale since the shortage is based on events from Feb, but the part that is hitting hard, the 43% lack of supply, was the big news last week that brought this to a crisis level. --Masem (t) 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per above discussion, but also more than anything its really not reported in any meaningful way by any non-american news media.4iamking (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes of looking for international coverage: UK, UK, France, Spain, China, Mexico, Qatar/worldwide, Switzerland, Japan, Russia. I'm sure you can find a hundred others. Why are you lying? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Daily Mail is a deprecated source, and thus unreliable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, and I guess the dozens of other international sources are equally invalid, for a reason I'm sure you can create. Don't "cheers" me as if you're acting in good faith. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not "cheersing" you in particular, it's part of his signature (and yes, it often seems inappropriate in context). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero requirement that ITN items have international coverage. It can help highlight importance but by no means required. --Masem (t) 17:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But even then, I don't see how this is really much different from the sunflower shortages, shortly after the Ukraine war started or the yeast/toilet paper ones at the beginning of covid. If it were any other country I can almost guarantee nobody would have suggested it. 4iamking (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those would be tied to ongoing posts, so a new blurb wouldn't be appropriate. But this formula shortage is wholly unrelated to any ongoing event. --Masem (t) 17:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not really though, at least its all linked to how streamlined we've made our supply chains that any event can easily throw them off, but none of this is anything new and people have been talking about a "supply chain crisis" for a while now. 4iamking (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's certainly in the news. I'm in the UK but heard some of the buzz and wondered what was happening to generate it. Wikipedia is here to inform so what's the problem? Note that there are some interesting angles to the story. I'd not heard of shopping bots before... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to a situation that happened in Australia between 2008 and 2013.[15] SusunW (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having read the comments above, I am flummoxed. Here in Mexico, the event is causing grave concern that it may well spread south from the US because of the economic connections in the supply chain.[16],[17],[18],[19]. As most of the English-language news available here is from abroad, I note that the Guardian has been covering the situation for months[20],[21],[22] as has Aljazeera. The latter's coverage clearly shows that the issue in the US is having effects abroad, i.e. see impact on Russia. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The worlds third most populous country is experiencing a deep and long running shortage of baby food certainly significant and affecting millions of people. Honestly much more hard hitting than the Buffalo Body Count story we posted which is utterly insignificant in any way. If this had been any other country it would never have been snow-closed as "lacking international significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support A pretty rare event especially for the world's third most populous country (per LaserLegs). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The impact and international interest is very limited in a specific country in a specific way. This is not the New York Times and American users should start to think that this page is not for nominations to some non-existent type of Main Page: the USA and that not everything that affects this country has global impact. As Joseph said, if this were to affect another country (even another macro power) most likely the users above would be objecting. Wasting our time. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as we usually don’t post shortages of single products unless they trigger serious consequences such as global crises or famines. I might consider posting this in case it results in a significantly increased infant mortality; if that’s not the case, there’s no need to heed the shortage of an easily substitutable good. At the same time, most of Europe is short on natural gas, which is much more important commodity than baby milk, so a resounding no for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doctors indicate that formula is not easily substituted, warning against cow's milk, goat milk, sheep's milk, powdered milk and plant-based substitutes. They have also noted that mothers have to learn to lactate or re-lactate and for some that is not possible.[23],[24],[25],[26] SusunW (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling formula an "easily substituted good" is an astonishing level of ignorance of the topic. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From an economic point of view, substitutes don’t need to be of similar quality to attain the same goal. Margarine is a substitute for butter even though it’s made from oil. What doctors warn against is that the substitutes may not be of sufficient quality, but that doesn’t mean they fail to prevent babies from undernourishment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What alternatives are you even talking about? The questionable YouTube homebrews? The cow's milk that is well known to be harmful to younger infants? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Parental desperation is always sad everywhere, but pending a spike in infant mortality or the development of a new cheap wondersupplement, not shocking enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Terrible but too local (US-centric). We don't post similar shortages in other countries. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN candidate guideline specifically dismisses arguments based on an event being specific to one country; and this event has international effects and is no more limited to one country that the Ukraine war is. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What international effects? The Ukrainian war and this are two completely different things. One is an invasion which has killed countless people, devastated millions of lives, and shaped international geopolitics for the next few years. This, is some baby formula not being on the shelves. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a shortage, not a famine. We can't cover shortages unless there are absolutely severe immediate consequences. Thriley (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bloody hell, some countries on the planet don't even have formula. Get over it Amurica. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too US-centric when so many more newsworthy critical issues are going on around the world (whether those issues have to do with supply chain crises or other events). As stated above, there is not a famine, and there are alternatives. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't get my favourite brand of muesli here in Australia right now. This is precisely the kind of nomination that makes Americans look like ignorant, parochial fools to many people among the other 95% of the world's population. And most Americans aren't. Shut this down now to stop more people thinking otherwise!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think muesli (whatever the heck that is) and baby formula are the same thing? Babies without either breast milk or formula will die of malnourishment. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is more of an ongoing thing than an individual event, anyway. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - way minor, given that we're currently in a global food crisis. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: David Milgaard[edit]

Article: David Milgaard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian advocate for the wrongfully convicted and for all prisoners' rights. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Klara Höfels[edit]

Article: Klara Höfels (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ntv and many others

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

Nominator's comments: Actress with a wide range: first stage, then own experimental projects and popular tv crime series (and also the mother of a famous actress), - no article yet. The German one has much more detail, but my time to dig up sources was limited. Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Lebanese general elections[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Lebanese general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Lebanese Forces, led by Samir Geagea (pictured), wins the most seats in the 2022 Lebanese general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hezbollah and allies lost its majority in the Lebanese Parliament after the 2022 Lebanese general election.
News source(s): Lorient lejour, MTV Lebanon

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

Nominator's comments: Many article headlines go along the lines as this: "Lebanon Vote Brings Blow for Hezbollah Allies in Preliminary Results". This is a revolutionary achievment for the party after breaking through the 6-year ruling March 8 Alliance. Even after countless death threats, vote buying and fraud, the March 14 Alliance, lead by the Lebanese Forces, managed to gain the most seats. Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The "results" section is empty, the "reactions" section is incomplete and the "Political parties and coalitions" section is also orange-tagged. The article needs work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India and Korea are the champions of the 2022 Thomas & Uber Cups[edit]

Article: 2022 Thomas & Uber Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: India and South Korea are the champions of the 2022 Thomas & Uber Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In badminton, India wins the 2022 Thomas Cup, while South Korea wins the 2022 Uber Cup.
News source(s): Mint, Outlook

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

Nominator's comments: Thomas cup finals was today (May 15) while the Uber cup concluded yesterday. Still I feel like mentioning them both here as they are always associated with each other. Shanze1 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support ITNR recurring item, although I’ve suggested an altblurb. The Kip (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tables upon tables, no prose update. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose needs way more prose (like most sports articles nominated here, it is just table after table with no prose to explain it). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Urvashi Vaid[edit]

Article: Urvashi Vaid (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Advocate, LA Blade, GLAD
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A few (very few) statements are still unreferenced; I fixed a bunch of these from her obits —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Finland and Sweden announce intent to join NATO[edit]

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

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: Finland–NATO relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Finland formally confirms its intention to join NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Finland and Sweden announce their intentions to apply for membership in NATO.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator's comments: Sweden will probably follow suit with this, and a press conference will be held at 18:00 (6PM) CEST where the Swedish Democrats will formally show support or be against joining NATO. Twistedaxe (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Until the application letter is actually sent. 4iamking (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a lot of events that could be blurbed here, the parliamentary vote, the invitation, the signing of the accession protocol, the ratification by all members and the treaty coming into force. I don't think it's appropriate to have separate posts for each step. Which one did we use for North Macedonia? Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    as I see it there are 2 major events: the signing of the Ascension Protocol, which starts the process and Ratification/Full membership. In North Macedonia's case there was over a year gap between these events (AP was signed in February 2019; Full Ratification & Membership happened in March 2020) 4iamking (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect both Finland and Sweden will find their applications "fast-tracked". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, the gap may be shorter, and some prior steps like the MAP skipped, but both events will still take place. 4iamking (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Countries joining NATO is important enough for ITN, but countries merely saying they're going to isn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Once NATO officially accepts Finland is the time to post. --Masem (t) 13:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note When it happens, candidate article might be Finland–NATO relations, which will obviously require a re-write. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until it actually is accepted/denied. Until then, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Premature, as others have noted above ... and note below. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not needed. Turkey has opposed it too,[27] so I wonder if this will really happen. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a problem with all of his "friends and allies", not just the potential new-comers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the application is actually filed, which will be as in the news as this announcement.(when the application is accepted will also merit posting) A country abandoning neutrality to join a large alliance is notable and also tied to the invasion of Ukraine. Not worried about Turkey yet, they likely want something in return (Hungary too). 331dot (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per 331dot — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. There're a couple of points in the process that make sense for this to appear in ITN (assuming it's judged noteworthy):
    • Officially stating intention to join. (We are here.)
    • Submitting an application. (Some time next week?)
    • Negotiations concluding. (A few weeks' time?)
    • Ratification concluding. (Months?)
    • Entry into force. (Months? Probably very shortly after ratification concludes.)
Assuming it only appears on ITN once (which is pretty reasonable), which of these events is likely to send the largest surge of readers who would like to see the article, and so, by the criterion of being most useful to readers, be the event that triggers the ITN blurb? I'm not certain, but I would guess it'll be the accession entering into force - i.e., the last, ultimately decisive step in the process, which will probably come with a fresh wave of news reporting driving interest.
Also, yeah, the article to point to will be Finland–NATO relations, unless there's a specific Accession of Finland to NATO article created in the meantime, though I doubt it will be. FrankSpheres (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say application submission and entry into force are the main newsworthy events. It can be several months between them, it was 13 months for the last new member (North Macedonia), though likely the period may be shorter this time around. 4iamking (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Note Reopening. No consensus to close, let's wait and see. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It's certainly not gonna happen right away. Let's wait until at least one of them actually joins NATO. – Sca (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Uri Savir[edit]

Article: Uri Savir (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz; The Jerusalem Post; The Times of Israel; Associated Press

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

Nominator's comments: Date of death (May 14) per Knesset —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Nicholas (businessman)[edit]

Article: Peter Nicholas (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Boston Globe; Bloomberg News; Duke University

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maxi Rolón[edit]

Article: Maxi Rolón (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Marca
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former FC Barcelona and Argentina football prospect, from Rosario, Santa Fe just like you-know-who. His career fell into brief uneventful spells in South America, Catalan local football and - bizarrely - Iraq, before dying too soon. Page has been updated and sourced. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:790D:89FD:AB0C:A882 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David West (baseball)[edit]

Article: David West (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; Star Tribune; Delaware County Daily Times

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted Him and Jeff Innis so quickly.... the late 80s Mets I remember... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew Symonds[edit]

Article: Andrew Symonds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sydney Morning Herald, Fox Sports Australia,
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Craig Andrew1 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose article needs a lot more sourcing and general cleanup e.g. cricket and non-cricket related sections are interspersed with each other, WP:Controversy sections is currently violated too. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There has been a massive amount of constructive editing of this article today. No Citation needed tags remain. Looking good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment. Pretty much all of his domestic and international career has little to no references, whereas his TV appearance in India is refbomb'd to the extreme. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's Comment Big thanks to several editors for their efforts thus far with the referencing. The Career sections have significantly improved. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers! Getting there. Only a tiny bit left to do I think, then to sort out the refbombing Lugnuts mentioned. Should be done tonight I hope, at least pending any further input people may have. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Okay, I now think we're there. Pinging User:Joseph2302, User:TDKR Chicago 101 and User:Lugnuts, if you wouldn't mind casting your eyes over the progress made and considering whether it's now in an acceptable state or not. (There may still be little bits that need further attention, but at this point I've stared at it for too long to be able to distinguish good from bad, ha.) Thanks! Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That's an excellent update and kudos for sorting out the controversy sections. Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much improved, nice work. Andrew_Symonds#Career_highlights needs references, then willing to support once that is finished. SpencerT•C 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now updated that section! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Following all the updates that have been done. Great work from everyone who's chipped in. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great work on getting the updates and sourcing done. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well developed right now with the collaboration of every editors. Will it possible to add tributes section like we did to Shane Warne? I initially added tributes from his fellow teammates and opponent players but was removed saying it is not necessary. Kudos to everyone for putting their efforts. Abishe (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I helped with one of the orange tags, so the Indian League section should be good to go. Thank you to all the other updaters for your hard work on this article! This wikibio is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! There were a couple of CN tags left, but I've addressed them now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2022[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (talk · history · tag) and Kalush (rap group) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ukraine, represented by Kalush Orchestra (pictured) with the song "Stefania”, wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Turin, Italy. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, NY Times

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

Nominator's comments: It’s Eurovision! UA 631 Points 4iamking (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It still needs some updating, winner isn't in the lead. Other results need more detail. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Major event and article’s well-developed. The Kip (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Essential information updated. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the event article has no sources for Scoreboard section (and semi final scores appear to be missing). And if Kalush (rap group) is to be included as a bold link, it needs updating to mention that they won this event. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the event just happened, and the scoreboard contains a big amount of data. I'm working on it now, should be done within an hour or two. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well researched article with lots of useful details.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks ready now. Posting. --Tone 09:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could an image of the band be added, e.g. File:Kalush Orchestra at the Ukraine Media Center, 2022 A.png? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support, although I really wish Tone would've waited a few more hours for a larger consensus to concur. Article looks fine, good prose too. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support – Very, very widely covered, and has gotten 10M+ views on YouTube. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: shouldn't the link text be Eurovision Song Contest 2022, instead of just Eurovision Song Contest, for link clarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jochem van Hees (talkcontribs) 16:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to treat our readers like idiots. Anyone reading an entry in the "in the news" section is going to know that we're talking about the most recent contest. (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now Eurovisiongate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was already brought up before the votes were read and taken into account with the posted results, might bring some extra behind the scenes drama but it won't change any results. 4iamking (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brought up by whom? In which forum? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the EBU, with the press release you linked. 4iamking (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Buffalo shooting[edit]

Article: 2022 Buffalo shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Ten people are killed in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Ten people are killed in a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.
News source(s): AP News

Nominator's comments: At least 10 people killed, making this the deadliest mass murder in the US this year to date. Possible white supremacist motives. (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait The most likely nature of this attack, and it having a similar death toll to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting which was previously posted, definitely makes this "In the news" worthy IMO. But obviously the article needs a lot of expansion before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my previous reasons, and the article is in good enough shape now. Mount Patagonia (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Article is currently a stub. Need to wait before addressing it being a blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, but roughly equate to the 2021 Boulder shooting instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reminding, we never blurbed that one. 4iamking (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not waiting to vote any certain way. Just waiting to know more first, a lesson relearned from that one. Precedent isn't everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to sleep on it. If it's posted very quickly, remember, there's a presumption of innocence in BLPCRIME, even or especially for the worst apparent cases. Try to not present allegations as facts in "our" voice, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be closer to the 2019 El Paso shooting, which we did blurb, and Christchurch, as Masem mentioned below. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of manifesto awareness, sure. In location, number of dead, number of injured and percentage of police shot, no. Matter of focus. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only noting that the nature behind this shooting (which appears to be strongly racial motivated if the truth about having a manifesto, live streaming it, etc.) makes this far more unusual than typical mass shootings in the US. --Masem (t) 22:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mass shootings in the US occur with a frequency that makes them near commonplace and I rarely support blurbing them anymore. But multiple RS sources are stating unequivocally that this was a racially motivated attack. That's enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ad Orientem. This is clearly more than a "run of the mill American shooting". There was shooting in Milwaukee last night after the NBA game and we don't even have an article on it. This was a premeditated attack where a white supremacist went to a black area with the n-word written on his gun, livestreamed the attack, and he apparently put out a manifesto espousing Great Replacement Theory. This is an ITN story. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been on CNN for the past few hours and is already the deadliest shooting in America this year, as well as tying for the 2nd deadliest shooting in New York state's 234-year history. It's gotten a lot of publicity and NEEDS to be featured. The Wikipedia article for it has been fleshed out rather quickly, with help from me and others, of course. My case is concrete. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass shootings in the US are commonplace, and any speculation on motive (nothing has been confirmed) does not justify posting this, as it's speculation and not fact. Using alleged motives to post would be a violation of BLPCRIME in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We should wait and see if there's any more to this than just another member of the "well-regulated militia" with a few screws loose. If not, oppose, per Joseph2302. -- Sca (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are pretty clear this is comparable in nature to the Christchurch shooting, where the guy planned this online w/ info from radical Internet boards, made a manifesto, live streamed it, etc. [29]. It is being investigated as a hate crime already. --Masem (t) 00:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The death toll is about a fifth of Christchurch, so it's not at that level of notability, nor does it have the international aspect that Christchurch has. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Joseph2302.... Im willing to reconsider if any major developments come to light that would warrent a blurb, but at this point it just feels like another run of the mill mass shooting in the USA4iamking (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    4iamking, I sure hope we're not so numb as to call this "run of the mill": “If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number,” the document says. “To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman.” [30] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most mass shootings are motivated by some kind of "out there" thoughts, shall we say... at this point that alone doesn't really make it stand out, especially while they are still unproven. 4iamking (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's probably a better way to say this, but racism against Black Americans isn't even that "out there". In the past century, decade or year, I'll bet far more white people committed racially motivated acts against black people than general Americans shot anyone. Am I wrong? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The beliefs aren't rational to the average citizen, thats what I'm saying with "out there". As for the other point, probably because racism is pretty wide-spread but I got no statistics and regardless it's not really a meaningful comparison to make. 4iamking (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's meaningful in the context of understanding whether a common occurrence coinciding with a more common viewpoint makes the whole package more blurbworthy or more common. To me, "preventing earthquakes" or "following the voices" is "out there" in an unusual way. White supremacy is out there in the "constant public awareness" sense. Anyway, not trying to "whitewash" or "bury" anything. If spotlighting a killer for sharing racist propaganda is that important to anyone here, not just Muboshgu, go for it. Sorry to catch you in the middle of this. You were mostly "just there". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How odd that I believe that an incident that is quite literally "in the news" with an updated article in postable shape should be featured at In The News. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought you tried to explain how it wasn't "run of the mill" by citing the shooter's racist remarks, nevermind. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The motive is why this is "in the news" and not relegated to the back pages like the Milwaukee shootings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just opening Reuters or DR though I feel like this is a side story, even looking at the USA section right now its somewhat overshadowed by the abortion protests in Washington D.C. We probably are getting a bit numb to mass shootings in the USA, but I stick to my reasoning. 4iamking (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody died in the Milwaukee shootings. In my opinion, if ten people had, we'd be seeing a lot more news. This would include the usual rush to prominently speculate on any motive, based on any anonymous police source. These things are formulaic, if many die. Gun control debate is tomorrow, I'll decide then, thanks for clarifying your stance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thsi kind of mass-shooting has not been common this year. See List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 - this is the deadliest so far this year, and the only indiscriminate mass-shooting (the 2nd most deadly, 2022 Sacramento shooting, was a gang shootout. Others are similar, or domestic incidents, etc). There were quite a lot of these mass shootings in 2021 though, per List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021, but none seemed to be hate-motivated as this one is believed to be. Not sure if any of this makes a difference for people. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Procrastinating Reader. Swordman97 talk to me 00:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the rest of the world wakes up. We're not a news ticker. We can afford to let this thing run a decent amount of time to determine if there's a consensus. --WaltCip-(talk) 00:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This is a major event, apparently. Nythar (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings in the US occur with such a frequency that they are commonplace. I'd be more likely to support the addition of List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 as an Ongoing item, given that it is updated almost every day. Chrisclear (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Widely reported on as a hate crime, making it comparable to Oak Creek, Isla Vista, Charleston, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta, all of which were posted. Ionmars10 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I am always reluctant to support posting American mass shooting incidents it is clear this is not a run-of-the-mill event. This is evidenced by the coverage given internationally - the shooting is currently the top story on France24, and is highly prominent on ABC News Australia. This does not tend to happen for mass shootings in the US these days. The motive of the gunman in committing this attack (as possible racially-motivated extremism/terrorism) is particularly of note. AusLondonder (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While mass shootings in the United States are commonplace, those with double digit deaths (exclusive of the perpetrator) are significantly less so. That being said, the hate crime motive, which is increasingly being reported on as accurate, [31] means it rises above the pseudo-random nature of American mass shootings which despite being tragic, are not ITN material. Posting would be in line with the previous hate crimes shootings listed by Ionmars10. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the death toll, the livestreaming, the manifesto, the reported motive, all distinguish this and makes it stand out from the other mass shootings so far this year. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Front page news globally, and deadliest American mass shooting so far this year. Extra notability points for also being a hate crime. Honestly putting List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 in ongoing as suggested above is not such a bad idea. Davey2116 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing is for events that are continuously taking place at the time not intermittent about to happen ones. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Authorities calling it a hate crime. 11 of 13 victims are black. Suspect citing the Great Replacement. Not just "any shooting".—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see why a mass shooting being racially motivated makes it more notable. It's not like racially motivated mass shootings are rare in the US, either. Banedon (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So last month. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Failed WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in WP:ITNR is regular and not "rare". So what's your point?—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Common things are less notable. Agree? Banedon (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And currently posted are "common" events like successions, deaths, elections, and sporting events. Again, what's your point?—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of those are ITNR, apples and oranges. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OP opposes because it's not "rare". ITNRs are regular, and not rare. So quite relevant, unless the OP had said "Oppose, not ITNR".—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Death, neither rare nor R. It's all about those unwritten death PAGs, case by case, we post like we feel. All the terrorism charges, hateful Internet histories and variously affected survivors are nothing without a death toll and whether we collectively (yet personally) deem it blurbworthy. Banedon says nay. I say wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's vote and not !vote?—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Bingo! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    No, I opposed because it's not notable. Read it again. I don't see why a mass shooting being racially motivated makes it more notable. Banedon (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's racially motivated, had a 180 page manifesto written with it and was live streamed. That doesn't happen everyday in the big cities, no? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those pages are copypasta and the livestream had about 20 viewers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the attacker is most-likely an ordinary mentally-disturbed lone-wolf White male who mostly kept to himself and not in anyway linked to terrorism. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was under the impression we generally blurbed major domestic terrorism shootings where the motive was obvious (i.e. Pittsburgh synagogue, El Paso). Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy listing. I was actually looking for this article at main page and I am surprised that it is still not listed there. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings are common in the USA. This doesnt look any more notable from any other shooting Haris920 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • March's Las Tinajas massacre was a mass shooting with a death toll of double this. It was almost ignored; 99% of people have no idea that it happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was nominated but failed to be posted to do lack of article quality updates [32]. And that article is still too short to be posted if it happened today. --Masem (t) 12:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the unusual racially-motivated angle. Article is good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – Clear that it was racially motivated, [33] [34] [35] but since the perp apparently acted alone, its wider significance seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Front page news in countries outside North America. Part of the ongoing 2020–2022 United States racial unrest. W1lliam halifax (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    only since 2020? Feel like it's been going on longer than that. 4iamking (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the deadliest shooting in the US in 2022 and would've tied for deadliest in 2021 as well. Article in decent shape, shootings this deadly are rare enough to be reasonable to post. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Lone assailant, reducing its significance. Mass shootings in U.S. happen all the time. Like every past mass shooting, this will be forgotten and there will be no long-term significance. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like every past mass shooting, this will be forgotten and there will be no long-term significance. I don't think this one will be forgotten quite so soon. People still talk about the white supremacist shootings in Charleston, Pittsburgh, Poway, and El Paso. Terrorism is a lot more memorable than mental illness. Mlb96 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context that distinction seems somewhat blurred to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which buffalo was shot? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dummy, it was Buffalo, NEW YORK, with an N. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the white supremacy connection, which is unusual for most U.S. mass shootings, as well as the double-digit death count. Mlb96 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Racially motivated shootings broadcasted to and fueled by online hate boards are not common anywhere. This is why its getting unusual attention than the others it is being compared to. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Blurb would ideally mention the manifesto or at least the shooter's beliefs, since that's a major part of what makes this ITN-worthy. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as Ready. Discussion has been open for most of 24 hrs and consensus appears pretty solid (roughly 2:1). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is just another mass shooting which can be added to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. All such internal dialogue shootings are problematic, but endemic. This is no surprise, not news that will linger beyond a few more headlines. Racism in the US? This has been going on forever. And on top of that, while the US is now terrifyingly heading to a "pro-life" agenda, they're still arming everyone with a dollar to shoot anyone they like? Bizarre in extremis. Not newsworthy unless gun laws change in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Others note several recent mass shootings in the online racist vein, indicating this isn't unique, just a copycat. Still others note the casualties are far lower than in other "manifesto" cases. Biden has used it to push for police refunding and "unity" again, but not gun control, so legislative impact is unlikelier than usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Event is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose [redacted] --LaserLegs (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not exactly comparable to publishing a 180 page justification for a crime to hate forums and livestreaming it therein. Gotitbro (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is just standard fare in America these days. It's equivalent to posting an ITNC for a bomb killing 60 people in Iraq. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    60 people dying in Iraq or anywhere would be notable for ITN with a good-enough article. Would rather not compare though as they are rather disparate. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a good look for us to say that a crazy can work their way onto ITN by being sufficiently prolix. WaltCip-(talk) 22:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though, that is what makes note in the news here along with the nature of the crime. Gotitbro (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [redacted] --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not make false claims of attribution of these types of things. There is no evidence that your claim is even close to the truth and it is pretty much inappropriate in this current context. --Masem (t) 23:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting an opponent's argument as "pretty much inappropriate" is very fucked up in this context. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not redact the history, you can see what the comments were, which were 100% wrong in the context in attributing fault to a specific group for a different shooting, which is something inappropriate to bring to any discussion, much less this one, due to BLP-type concerns. I don't care what LL thinks but they should know better not to make those arguments. --Masem (t) 23:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't 100% wrong. Maybe partially, subjectively. You could have redacted the specific group, if that's your problem. In context, it is safe to say we opposed the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack even though the attacker posted anti-White hate speech on social media before the rampage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that there was no evidence that that specific indiciate was racially driven, or that the attacked posted hate speech, which is still a BLP violation. That's the problem. --Masem (t) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the "evidence" in this case from yesterday is much more solid. Is that it? Hate crime is hate crime and BLPCRIME is colourblind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerous law enforcement authorities, newspapers, and appropriate social media companies have confirmed what the suspect yesterday was said to have posted online and thus the reason it has been classified as a hate crime. While the suspect in the other attack may have posted online things before, it was nothing taken as recent as the suspect from Buffalo, nor after the investigation was done was taken as reasons for the attack. It appears that only far/alt-right have wanted to push that the suspect in that older attack was racially motivated, based on the sources I'm finding now from groups like ADL, etc. So yes, what is redacted is very much in BLP problematic range, compared to confirmed evidence that has been linked between what was posted recently and what happend in Buffalo directly in this case. --Masem (t) 00:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first section in Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack/Archive 5 contains many sources noting things believed to be written by the black suspect openly called for violence against old white people before he (allegedly) committed violence against old white people. Does that make them far-right? You'll probably say yes, but I say no. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The screen shot of Brooks' racist anti-white social media posts came via The Daily Mail so it was swept down the old memory hole even though it was re-reported by numerous WP:RS. At the time, it wasn't known that he was targeting people based on race. Looking back, we did post the 2016 BLM terror attack in Dallas with a mostly neutral blurb so if this were going to be posted it should be a similarly neutral blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Also, I forgot to tell Masem that Brooks' investigation isn't over, just stopped trending. We'll likely all hear both sides' reasons for the attack in the opening arguments of his October trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after slashing my previous Wait !vote. This is beginning to look more like the Christchurch shooting than the average American shooting. In the news and well cited. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With it on the news all weekend, I was surprised not to see it on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It only happened on Saturday afternoon, now the Laguna Woods church shooting just happened on Sunday afternoon; they all make instant news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The attack is notable for being the largest mass shooting in the US so far, and garnered headlines for being racially motivated. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- it's the headline story on right now (that may be because I live in the US). Unlike other mass shootings, this one was racially motivated, making it both political and racial terrorism. It also appears that the shooter was radicalized online, which means that this is not solely the action of a mentally ill individual. That passes the bar for inclusion on ITN. We've also included mass shootings from other countries that included smaller death tolls than this. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mass shootings in other countries are less common than mass shootings in the United States, which explains why we are more likely to put them on ITN. Leaning oppose per --WaltCip-. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - in terms of regularity and long-term wide impact, this is negligible. But it is headline news at least in English sources, I suppose. Juxlos (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Randy Weaver[edit]

Article: Randy Weaver (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Seattle Times, KREM, AP

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

Nominator's comments: Main participant in the siege of Ruby Ridge. 74. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Solid and decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can we have references for Randy's military awards listed at the end of the infobox, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PFHLai Done. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the new footnote, Fakescientist8000. I don't know about ABTC.NG, but I will AGF that it's RS. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lil Keed[edit]

Article: Lil Keed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, NBC

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

 Mooonswimmer 15:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is well cited, looks long enough, and is generally issue free. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decent article and solidly referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Sourcing in the Discography section is incomplete (e.g. for Mixtapes, only 2 out of 6 items have a footnote; for Guest appearances, seven of the final 8 entries have no footnotes.) Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations