Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

First launch of SpaceX Starship
First launch of SpaceX Starship

view — page history — related changes — edit

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.

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do...[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.

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.
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

April 22[edit]

April 22, 2023 (2023-04-22) (Saturday)

April 21[edit]

April 21, 2023 (2023-04-21) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

  • Twitter drops the "state-affiliated" and "government-funded" labels used for the accounts of media organizations. (Al Jazeera)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Jeremy Nobis[edit]

Article: Jeremy Nobis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Salt Lake Tribune
Credits:

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: Nicknamed "The Icon". Died in jail. Needs some expansion. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Article: Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: There hasn't been many updates to the article recently. The only updates that are made are just minor ones. Interstellarity (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment There just haven't been many developments in the past couple months. We're only one month into the spring season, I assume actions will increase in the next month or two. If they don't, removal should be considered. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Until Russia leaves Ukrainian soil, I shall vehemently oppose removal. MyriadSims (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose Obviously still a major event which continues to get frequent news coverage, even if there isn't as much fighting right now, which will likely change soon. Just looking at the BBC website right now, 3 of the top stories are related to Ukraine/Russia. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I feel like this won't go through even though in terms of contribution size, this article has had far less than the Israeli protests, where consensus seems to be heading towards removing it from ongoing. But in any case, oppose, still receiving substantial updates and is still ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. NoahTalk 02:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think I will have to say this on a Wikipedia page, but the war is not over, the article is still being updated, and, when I search up "Recent news" on Yandex, it brings up the war on at least 6 times out of 10, and this is an important event that is still ongoing. there is still battles surrounding the Kherson and Donetsk areas, and there are still constant Airstrikes in areas such as Kyiv, Lyiv, Kherson, and Luhansk. and I can't go a day without seeing at least one report about it on the news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Furthermore, I just went on Google, first headline to pop up: "The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said he is “confident” that Ukraine is prepared to retake more territory as Kyiv readies for a new offensive against invading Russian forces", "Jack Teixeira, the US air national guardsman accused of leaking classified defence documents to a small group of gamers, posted sensitive information months earlier than previously known and to a much larger chat group", "A Moscow court has ordered the arrest in absentia of Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev, adding him to its list of “foreign agents”, state-owned news agency RIA has reported" you get the point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/22/russia-ukraine-war-at-a-glance-what-we-know-on-day-423-of-the-invasion Editor 5426387 (Talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose—The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - still going on, still being updated. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing Removal: Israel Judicial Reform unrest[edit]

Article: 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Article is no longer being updated frequently, protests have seemed to die down. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak oppose - still receiving daily updates, including major entries every couple of days, as evidenced in the history. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support That history shows only a single substantive edit since April 15, which was also when the last major event occurred. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - still in the news. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Knightsoftheswords. Updates are still coming in several times a week, meets the requirements for an ongoing article. --Jayron32 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as the most recent protest action was just yesterday at the world Zionist congress. It might be worth visiting this in a week or so but for now it's definitely still ongoing. Flyingfishee (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support There were no major protests since April 15. The most recent events are not significant by any means.^^Maxxies (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Maxxies and GreatCaesarsGhost. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - In brief, it's no longer In the news. Jusdafax (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Nowhere near as major an event as it was several weeks ago. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2023 French pension reform unrest[edit]

Article: 2023 French pension reform unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: So here's the problem. While this is still in the news and is talked about a lot on it, the article is NOT getting updates. The most recent update was from April 14, a whole week ago. Per the guidelines specified on WP:ONGOING,

  • "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status."

So unless this gets updated then we will have to remove this like we did with the Mahsa Amini protests. Plus, the article doesn't even mention anything that happened in between April 6 and April 14 and I feel that a significant update must be added in between that period as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support removal Per nom, lacks regular updates. Additionally, will the Sudan article possibly rolling onto Ongoing, will need the space available for this. SpencerT•C 05:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal – Article is not ongoingly being updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal as per the above. Compusolus (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removal - At this time the protests have slowed down.BabbaQ (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed. --Tone 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 20[edit]

April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Kenji Yonekura[edit]

Article: Kenji Yonekura (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nikkansports
Credits:

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: Japanese boxer, also competed in the Olympics. May need a bit of sourcing, otherwise, looks good! Tails Wx 21:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Salma Khadra Jayyusi[edit]

Article: Salma Khadra Jayyusi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gulf News
Credits:

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: Prominent Palestinian poet. Looks good. Curbon7 (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fakescientist, it should be sourced now! Tails Wx 00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, well-sourced, though it could use some expansion! Tails Wx 00:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Buzzfeed News shuts down[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: BuzzFeed News (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American digital media conglomerate BuzzFeed shuts down its news website, causing the company's stock to collapse by 16%. (Post)
News source(s): The Independent - NYT - Variety - NPR - WSJ - NBC - CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Buzzfeed News just shut down, with its parent company's stock value collapsing by 15%. It's the end of an era, eh? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - on significance. Like Gawker before it, minor detail in the US media landscape. nableezy - 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose standard business news. If it were the NYTimes or WaPpst, maybe there would be something with actual significance. --Masem (t) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Web site closes. CoatCheck (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose and...? We don't doubt your good faith, but not every news item you read is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Routine and insignificant event, affecting a small news organization compared to the Reuters, NYTs, and BBCs of the world. It seems like this is SNOW close worthy as well. DecafPotato (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose some news website shuts down temporarily, this is not really a big deal. I would assume something like this would occur every month or so, it just happens to be on a news website. oh, and when I went to visit their website, it is still up and running. so it must be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Editor 5426387: It's not temporary, it's PERMANENT as in BuzzFeed News is about to have its head chopped by the guillotine due to funding issues. Although, that doesn't change the notability of this. NoahTalk 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Companies die all the time. Unless it is a major brand or major news outlet like NYT then I see no reason for it to be posted. NoahTalk 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Solar eclipse 2023[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Solar eclipse of April 20, 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A hybrid solar eclipse occurs across the South Pacific in Australia, East Timor, and Indonesia. (Post)
News source(s): (New York Times) (People.com)
Credits:

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.

 СтасС (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - passes WP:N. I'm American, and I still heard a lot of huff puff about this online. Also, it was pretty big in Oceania, where it was visible, with it becoming a big moment for astrotourism and costing governments tens of millions of dollars (Australian). Additionally, it was a hyrbid solar eclipse, which are exceptionally rare, only accounting for 3% of eclipses in the 21st century. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - think full eclipses should be ITN/R. nableezy - 19:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They already are. Modest Genius talk 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ready. Total and hybrid eclipses are on WP:ITNR, so this can be posted as soon as the article is up to standard. I've added the ITNR flag above. However, the article has almost no prose description of the event. It's almost entirely tables, lists of related eclipses, and an excessive gallery. There need to be multiple paragraphs of fully-referenced prose describing what happened during the event, estimates of how many people viewed it etc. Tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Article is currently a stub and needs additional sourcing. It's borderline though, so I expect it could be viable with a few changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on Quality - Article is a stub with. Also, I can't tell but are the three "series" sections unsourced? Because they look like it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think editors en-wiki do it, Although, I not sure it in this.--СтасС (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another thing, the entire "related eclipses" section looks completely unnecessary and looks like it could just be deleted outright. may be wrong though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose first off, it's a stub, second off, some hybrid Solar Eclipse is not ITN-worthy, and third, need more sourcing.Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Solar eclipses are WP:ITN/R, meaning that at least procedurally, there are ITN-worthy (whatever that means at this point), in fact, arguably one of the most ITN-worthy things. However, hey, I'm at least glad your not saying per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Rock moves in front of another rock, not encyclopedic content. Needs to be expanded beyond a stub. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This eclipse belongs to the Solar Saros 129 series, it is the last hybrid one of this series. The next eclipse in this series will be the first total eclipse lf this series: Solar eclipse of April 30, 2041. Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose consists of a short lead section and a gallery of pictures and tables. Needs much more prose to be considered for the main page. --Jayron32 19:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Harold Riley[edit]

Article: Harold Riley (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: English painter of world leaders. The article needs additional refs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Starship maiden launch[edit]

After much debate, consensus to post was determined. Changes to the blurb can be suggested at WP:ERRORS. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: SpaceX Starship orbital test flight (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding in the upper atmosphere (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, makes its maiden flight
Alternative blurb II: ​ SpaceX launches Starship, the most powerful rocket ever launched
Alternative blurb III: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb IV: ​ SpaceX Starship, the most powerful rocket in history, successfully launches from Starbase, Texas, before exploding three minutes into the flight
Alternative blurb V: ​ SpaceX's Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, explodes in midair on its first launch attempt
Alternative blurb VI: ​ SpaceX conducts an orbital launch test of Starship, which ends in an explosion three minutes into the flight.
News source(s): BBC CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The most powerful rocket ever launched. The beginning of humanity's journey into the Solar System. Incredibly notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mars journey-sized support. Just watched it with my daughters. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, good way of putting it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uhm... I'm really put off by the fact that I have to consider ITN-worthy as (yet another) millionaire's whim. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:POV. This is way more than just a millionaire's whim, this is a hugely significant event in the history of spaceflight! All over the news, has broken many records. Would we have posted Apollo 4? (Since this was basically on the same scale, if not more significant.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's actually a good question. I have the suspicion that if ITN were around back then, that only Apollo 8, 11, and 13 (and yes, probably 4) would have been posted due to their overwhelming significance as compared to other launches in the series (despite them all being landmark events in their own right). But we'll never know the answer to that interesting hypothetical. I still contend, of course, the Watergate burglary would never have made ITN back then. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an important discussion to have as humanity returns to the Moon in the next few years. Personally, I believe all the Apollo missions would've been notable for posting. In regards to the Artemis program, I think we should definitely post the first missions back, until a point where they come routine enough. The event is hugely notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait dangit – Actual article is not yet ready. Needs a bunch of work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On it as we speak PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fingers crossed. I will be making lunch for the family. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Weak support – Article looking alright now, acceptable for main page, and for the record, the maiden flight test was a success. 30km is fine. I hope someone can write a better blurb.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Holding judgment until the article is ready to roll. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC
  • Neutral - This is a tough call, given that this was a maiden flight and the mission accomplished all of its major objectives of clearing the tower and surviving max-Q (the highest points of dynamic pressure on the spacecraft), but the rocket never staged and the RSO had to detonate it before it could reach orbit. So it never actually crossed the Karman Line. If that's considered our threshold for any space flight, then we necessarily have to oppose. On the other hand, it certainly made the news, and it somewhat opens the way to the Moon and Mars. So it's a tough call. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the fact that this is the largest rocket ever launched (twice as powerful as the Saturn V) is notable enough PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correct, and I'm definitely sympathetic to that first. It's a huge "first", and I'm tempted to support on that basis alone. But the Karman Line is a mighty border, and I think you will find a lot of people will consider that to be the barometer of significance even if that wasn't the main objective. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about this: The Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and never reached its destination. Do we consider it notable? They built it, tested it, they made their milestones and then some. It's an achievement nonetheless. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) I chuckle at that comparison simply because the Titanic was manned/crewed, unlike Starship, and the sinking was considered international news on the basis of it being a catastrophe with very few peers. But otherwise, it's a valid comparison and I see your point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I actually expected some chuckling at the comparison, and it was a great loss of life. Granted, no movie will be made of this launch, but still. And support blurb 3 --Ouro (blah blah) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Never say never, we could see an action movie about this launch starring Tom Cruise hanging on to the side :P PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With or without a harness in frame? Cheers. WimePocy 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1! --Ouro (blah blah) 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Launch was bigger (number of engines and thrust) than the four failed N1 (rocket). Pretty sure failed MAIDEN launches have been posted on ITN. Although it was not on the ground, very likely it will make the Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions once somebody does the calcualtion of the remaining amount of fuel when it detonated.194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good point PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The most recent maiden launch that got discussed was Terran 1 last month, and that wound up being not posted on grounds that it didn't make it to orbit and complete a 100% nominal mission.
    Likewise, the size of the rocket isn't what makes it noteworthy, it's that it was intended for spaceflight. And it did not reach space any more than SN8 through SN15. Nottheking (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now, some significant parts of the text on both the April 17 attempt, and the April 20 successful launch, lack sources. We need to fix that. Once those two issues are fixed, I would support posting this. --Jayron32 14:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added NYT ref should take care of the tags. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good to go! --Jayron32 14:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Alt III, which covers the situation nicely. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just wonder if we should classify it as a success. SpaceX is calling it one due to the large amount of valuable data gathered, despite the explosion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are those who say that no experiment is actually a failure, because You can always learn something. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Very true PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course SpaceX is calling it a success. We shouldn't put that in Wiki voice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well we'd need to find other reliable sources when it comes to rocketry branding this as a "failure" then. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Literally every single news outlets says that this launch is a failure. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not every, most in the space industry do not PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Are we going to post every test of this thing? Don't see the notability at the moment, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is much more than just an average rocket test. This is:
    -The first flight of the Super Heavy booster, as well as the most amount of engines successfully ignited in a flight I believe
    -The most powerful rocket ever flown, twice the thrust of the Saturn V
    -Made it to the upper atmosphere, whereas previous tests were only a few kilometers in altitude
    -All over the news
    Much, much more than a traditional test PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think point 4 is the only relevant one to this discussion. --Jayron32 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Though with point 4, it meets ITNR. The first flight was a huge success - the first phase did it's job - unfortunate that stage separation seems to have failed; but fixing that isn't rocket science. And of course the first phase failed to land ... thought so did SLS :). The second stage has been tested in flight numerous times - so nothing major there. Had they gone with the earlier plan of only flying the first stage, they would have been no issue. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who the heck removed rockets from ITNR - but left darts? That's absurd - there's far too little science there already, especially compared to sports events (assuming darts is indeed a sport and not a drinking game). Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly, this is definitely more notable and In The News than a darts tournament (though not to disrespect that sport). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Huge achievement and milestone, not all tests are equal. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose — Wait until it succeeds. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It did. Your comment is like arguing Apollo 4 didn't succeed because it didn't land on the Moon. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not comparable whatsoever: Apollo 4 was never planned to land on the Moon; its plan was to make orbit and perform an S-IVB restart. It completed all of its objectives.
    By comparison, this launch did not achieve its objectives. The first-stage burn was anomalous (with at least 6 engines visibly failing) with a proper MECO (main engine cut-off) never being called out. The ship then tumbled before its internal systems ordered a self destruct.
    Had it been a successful mission, we'd have seen proper MECO, then a full second-stage burn. The upper stage would have crossed the Kármán Line and reached space, making a suborbital partial-loop of earth before impacting in the Pacific Ocean.
    This is not what happened, thus it was not a success on the order of Apollo 4. Nottheking (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great explanation, but I wasn't responding to your !vote. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not an argument. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was the plan, but none of them were metrics of success. In this instance, success was measured by the amound of data collected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Very significant IMO, and the article looks good with a quick skim (though maybe I'm just missing something). TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only thing needed in the article is a pic from the actual launch, same for the blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support While no longer ITNR, this particular launch of the heaviest ever rocket and its subsequent explosion make a very good case for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - all over the news, and a significant milestone in man's journey to the Solar System. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment - the blurbs only link the actual rocket however, and not the article about the actual launch. Considering how symbiotic the two are, I'd suggest bold linking both articles in the blurb. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Unsuccessful test that didn't reach space, let alone orbit. I'll be happy for us to post a blurb if/when this rocket successfully reaches orbit. Modest Genius talk 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except it was successful? The principal objective was to test the new rocket and get it off the ground, which it did. Sure, it exploded, but it had already accomplished the former. Like @PrecariousWorlds stated, explosion =/= failure. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only because SpaceX set very limited criteria, deliberately designed to cover themselves in case the mission wasn't completed. They want to claim some good PR whatever happened. The launch was intended to reach space on a suborbital trajectory and re-enter near Hawaii. That wasn't achieved. The rocket got off the ground, yes, but exploded shortly thereafter. Even if this flight had achieved its full goals, it still wouldn't have entered orbit, so I'm not convinced it would be suitable for ITN. Not even managing stage separation is a major failure for a rocket. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you understand the history of SpaceX, you'll know that they take an incredibly iterative testing process, unlike others in the space industry who prefer to get things right on the first go (usually because they are dependent on public funding, rather than SpaceX which has a large pool of private funds). Just look at the early Falcon 9 launches, nearly all of them would be deemed by most as a "failure", yet the immense amount of data gathered from it allowed the Falcon 9 to become the most successful rocket program...ever, now launching twice a week, with no "failures" in over 100 launches. They weren't trying to cover themselves for PR in this launch by saying a RUD was likely, rather making an accurate assessment that this is completely uncharted territory, and following their previous design policy. To say this is a failure implies that it's some devastating loss to SpaceX, when in reality they were completely planning for this outcome. It just isn't accurate. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am aware of the history. I'm also aware that SpaceX has vast legions of fans, who cheer everything they do regardless of how impressive it actually is, and very slick PR to generate positive news coverage. IMO the correct time for ITN to post this rocket is when it successfully reaches orbit, not before. We can't have a blurb for every incremental step towards that goal. Modest Genius talk 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then I'll bring up previous points:
    This is literally In The News, with significant coverage from just about everywhere, and marks the most powerful rocket launch in history, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V. It is the first flight of Super Heavy, and the integrated stack of Starship. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And it blew up before stage separation. It was a test flight that failed to reach its objectives, didn't get to space, and didn't enter orbit. We have fundamentally different views of whether that is sufficient to justify a blurb in ITN - which is OK - and simply restating them isn't going to change either opinion. Let the discussion play out and see how everyone else !votes. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, you're right, this discussion isn't getting to anywhere. I can see your point, but I do believe this is notable enough for posting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way SpaceX laid it out, nearly any outcome would be classified as a success. But they had a planned mission for it (perform a stage separation, reach space, make a suborbital flight that impacted into the Pacific Ocean) that was not completed. Spinning everything into a positive doesn't actually change the definition of spaceflight. Do remember as well: SpaceX calling it a success is a primary source, not secondary. And the news articles aren't specifically calling it a "success," they're talking about how it exploded.
    I'd also mention that we had a clearer example a last month with the Terran 1 launch: it actually did pass the Kármán Line, and its launchers said that "anything past Max Q made it a huge success," that didn't stop it from being considered a failed launch. And ultimately kept it from being posted to ITN as well. Nottheking (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The rocket failed, full stop. Even SpaceX acknowledged this. What makes this ITN worthy is that its the largest rocket to fly in 50+ years and the largest rocket to go kaboom in 50+ years. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tweet never said a failure, only that Starship had an RUD, which as stated above was expected. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just stop denying the facts. If you are into Starship, you would know that "rapid unscheduled disassembly" = rocket go kaboom = failed launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If we define a launch to a vessel taking off from its original location, then strictly speaking the launch was a success (as the commentators during the live cast said). I had to have my spherical cow moment. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly. RUD that was expected to happen is not the same as a complete failure. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A lot of outlets are labeling it as a success. On Wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary ones for us. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd have to see these secondary sources; though keep in mind that the talk headers for numerous relevant pages do warn that a lot of ostensibly second sources (such as space.com or Teslerati) are not considered neutral enough for use in sourcing.
    So far what I've seen is that they've been qualifying it, noting that it lifted off, but all noting that it exploded and/or failed to achieve its objectives. That sounds less like "calling it a success" and more "labeling it at least a partial failure." Nottheking (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Partial failure maybe, we could keep arguing semantics all day about this really, but my point is that simply labeling it a failure is misleading. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Reliable source coverage is stating the following regarding this launch in headlines:
    New York Times: "The most powerful rocket ever built got off the launchpad in South Texas but did not achieve its most ambitious goals on Thursday."
    The Verge: "SpaceX’s integrated Starship spacecraft successfully took off from its launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas, on Thursday but didn’t manage to fully complete its test flight."
    CNN: "SpaceX’s Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, took off from a launch pad on the coast of South Texas on Thursday at 9:28 a.m. ET, but exploded midair before stage separation."
    CBS: "SpaceX launched its 500-foot-tall Starship, by far the world's most powerful rocket, on an uncrewed test flight Thursday morning, but a few minutes after clearing the launch pad it failed in a midair explosion."
  • So it seems not even the media can really decide whether it was technically a success or a failure. This is going to make the conversation here difficult. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately a lot of people just see an explosion and assume "Wow, what a failure!", when in reality they were not even expecting Starship to make it that far, and the valuable data they got out of the launch made it well worth the loss. In this case, I think we should go with what industry experts think rather than sensationalist headlines. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose it is confirmed to have failed according to most reputable news sources. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There isn't yet a consensus, and a majority of sources actually within the space industry are not deeming it a failure ([1][2][3][4][5] and more) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even the BBC says that it isn't considered a failure PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Firstly I don't think we should take Twitter posts as valid evidence of the success, and secondly even if this launch did succeed it's dubious whether we should post it. The "largest spacecraft" is a record that will certainly be beaten in the next few years so there's no reason for us to jump the gun and post it now, especially when one can (and should) argue that this wasn't even a successful launch in the first place. Flyingfishee (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That twitter post was by an incredibly credible and reliable industry expert who has been covering space for years and writes for Ars Technica, and while I agree we shouldn't use Twitter posts as reliable sources for posting, it's just one example of many that this launch has not been deemed a failure.
    As for the last point, please tell me what spacecraft is launching in the near future that will surpass the power and capacity of Starship. No one in the industry is attempting something of this scale, and even if they were as you say, it is still years away. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The main objective of this test was to clear the launch tower. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't want to put this rudely but frankly most people will view it as failure, and rightly so, if it didn't make it into space. It didn't make it into space and therefore the common opinion is that the launch was a failure. To argue otherwise is like saying chatGPT will cause singularity because it's the closest we've gotten so far. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That has no relation to what I'm arguing for here. A majority of reliable sources within the space industry say the opposite, it doesn't really matter what people who don't know the actual objectives of the launch think it is. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is just sugarcoating. Of course all companies/orgs will learn from their failures, and "gather the data" as SpaceX might said. But it's disingenuous to say that a rocket that do somersaults and then exploded a success. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    after considering the arguments of @PrecariousWorlds and @CactiStaccingCrane I think I am able to Support altblurb V or VI. While it was unsuccessful in the common view that doesn't make it non-notable, a failure of something notable can be notable. Therefore it is ITN worthy - we just have to specify that this rocket exploded mid-flight. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yep, I think that sounds like a good plan, with my own preference for altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt blurb IV—The fact that it successfully cleared the tower is an important element of the story that should be mentioned on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose per Modest Genius' rationale. It did not make it to space.Found5dollar (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: While there's a lot being said by its operators to say "well, the real success was the lessons we learned along the way," it remains that this did not achieve the definition of spaceflight: the stack achieved a maximum altitude of 39 km, well below the 100 km of the Kármán Line. And it did not even achieve its own planned objectives. A successful flight would've resulted in it entering space on a suborbital trajectory, with Starship impacting into the Pacific Ocean.
It's also worth noting that we seemed to decline posting the Terran 1 launch back in March, as that rocket failed to achieve orbit. (though it did reach space, achieving a maximum altitude of nearly 120 km if memory serves) The discussion mostly focused on the fact that it did not achieve its full mission or orbit, and ultimately it went un-posted. By contrast, this was a mission with a lower threshold (suborbital spaceflight, not orbit) and it failed to even achieve spaceflight.
In the grand scheme of things, this wasn't the "first" flight of this program, unless we qualify it rather heavily. It was the first liftoff of a booster designed to go to orbit, except that the mission (even if nominally completed) wasn't orbital. It was preceded by numerous prototypes before it, and (at the risk of trending into WP:CRYSTAL) will likely be succeeded by further flights. Out of all of them, is this one we can confidently say is of the most encyclopedic significance? I'm pretty confident on a "no" as the answer to that question: the most significant "first" for the program will either be its first flight into space or into orbit. While I'd be open to a debate on which one when the time comes, for now that distinction is purely academic. Nottheking (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to crystalball what is gonna happen next launch, SpaceX will try 5 more times until it reentries the atmosphere near Hawaii, and then ITN will decide the incremental rate of success is not worth posting at any of the 6 launch attempts, because incremental. It's a different success path to what ITN has seen in the field, so of course it's gonna stick to the oldschool thinking. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe we should have posted Terran 1, and this rocket was much more complex and powerful than Terran 1, so that automatically gives it more weight.
At the end of the day, this is a major milestone in spaceflight history, and is literally In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that we've seen, time and again, that simply being "in the news" is not sufficient, hence why ITN doesn't cover all the random celebrity drama that drowns much of it. It needs to both be in the news and have encyclopedic significance. (after all, SpaceX has conducted 12 highly successful launches of StarLink this year alone, and every one of them wound up in the news... And none of them were even nominated here)
And the complexity & power isn't something that we measure here; Wikipedia isn't in the business of making arbitrary numerical cutoff lines, (to borrow from another subject often appearing here, we don't have a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS) but deal in terms of encyclopedic subjects. In this case, it's spaceflight & orbital spaceflight, neither of which this met the conditions for.
It's also worth noting that we didn't even get a nomination for SN8 back in December 2020, which in many ways could be counted as the same category: SpaceX labeled it a success, while it was clear it didn't complete its objectives and exploded as a result.
So it's pretty clear that the milestone we're waiting for isn't here: at minimum, it'll need to reach space, not just 39 km up into the stratosphere. Had this succeeded, it'd have made that mark, but just because it was planned isn't sufficient alone. Nottheking (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please tell me where in the ITN guidelines is encylopedic significance mentioned and more over what that even means. Are you stating that the event is unencyclopedic and that it should go to WP:AFD? Also, just because we didn't post SN8 doesn't mean that we can't post this story, per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially with how fluid consensus can be on ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a difference between saying "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either" (which wasn't my statement) but rather, "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either."
Atmospheric rocket-powered flights are fairly commonplace. Mentioning SN8, SN15, and others shows that these are comparatively common events, and not unusual. Had it actually made it to space at minimum, it'd be a different discussion; but for now, it's just another atmospheric test flight. It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't.
It's the same thing here: it might've been the first liftoff of Super Heavy (but not of Starship) but again, it didn't make it to space, much less orbit. Nottheking (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" It'd be akin to calling it ITN-worthy that a political candidate of X demographic had been nominated for an election for a country's Prime Minister: while their election might be newsworthy on grounds of them being the first of their kind elected as head of government, if they don't win the election it isn't." Flawed analogy, considering there wasn't a winner in this circumstance. And "X didn't meet criteria, and there's a large body of X that occurred, and thus it stands there's a logic to it, that when applied to Y, indicates that Y doesn't merit posting either." is just a more wordy rephrasing of "X wasn't posted so therefore Y shouldn't either". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support because it is the biggest rocket to ever flown since the Saturn V and caused the biggest rocket explosion since the N1 (rocket), both are last flown over 50 years ago. Records were made, even if it doesn't reach orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't really matter what SpaceX or a random person define the launch either as a success or failure (it failed). But a rocket that broke many spaceflight records should be listed as ITNs. Even more so if it caused a failure as this would made appearance all over international news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I support blurb V and VI because it is short and sweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that also creates notability. This is one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guess that Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions need an update... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we have enough data to update it at the present moment. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It did not explode; it was destroyed by its own on-board self-destruct. The Superheavy Booster was already effectively depleted, leaving just the propellant load aboard Starship itself (~1200t vs. 3400t on Superheavy) to be scattered. Since we saw it as a big white cloud, that means it did not ignite; there was no combustion, and no explosion beyond the power of the pyrotechnics fired that ripped the vessel open. Had a detonation of the propellant actually occurred, we'd have seen a brilliant reddish-to-purplish fireball. (and again, even if it had detonated, most of its propellant had been consumed by that point: it'd have been a smaller explosion than destroyed N1 L5, as well as numerous other disasters like at Halifax or Beirut)
Likewise, size doesn't matter in terms of notability, it's what it actually does that matters. There weren't that many records made, and those it did required heavy qualification. As more engines failed (at least 6) it's possible it didn't even break its own prior record for greatest thrust generated. (from its own static fire last month) The only actual record I can think of was "greatest rocket thrust to lift off of the ground," a record it'd have taken from the N1 rocket. But that's not a very significant record or first.
Overall, it seems like it's trying to pre-emptively ride on the coattails of far more significant records & that SpaceX hopes to achieve down the line here, such as "first 100% reusable spacecraft to orbit," "first methane-burning rocket to orbit" and "first full-flow staged combustion rocket to space or orbit." It could have started chipping away at those had it succeeded at its flight plan, but alas, it did not. Nottheking (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair points. Suppose if the Sea Dragon launches today then you wouldn't call its failed flight ITN worthy, but you absolutely would if it goes to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. If it made it to orbit I'd consider that very ITN-worthy; the first orbital flight of any orbital-class vehicle should be ITN. A failed attempt less so... Unless the failure was unusual enough to merit consideration on other criteria. (i.e, a bad enough disaster that results in people dying would almost certainly be ITN, given that's a very unusual form of deadly disaster)
So far Starship prototypes have taken to the sky at least 10 times so far. I am patiently waiting for the one that finally makes it into orbit. (or at least space) The news isn't about that something exists, but rather what it does. Nottheking (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the news certainly is about something that exists, as this is all over the front page of just about every major outlet PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The launch was at least partially successful. Plus it was a brand new type of rocket, the largest rocket ever, and it made it past the Max q stage. Nsk92 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I would support the launch that results in the first successful orbital flight. Too early for now. -- KTC (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Launch failures used to be ITNR- and the main goal here was to get it off the ground, which it did. If we aren't going to post this, then ITN needs to be wrapped up. I'm not kidding. This is a clear newsworthy even about a notable aspect of spaceflight. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Clearly in the news. RAN1 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Not only the most powerfull, but also the first fully reusable rocket who can reach orbit --Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The evidence suggests otherwise (for now). The rocket failed to reach space never mind achieve orbit, and then exploded leaving nothing reusable. ;-) -- KTC (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was supposed to fall into the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii anyway. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: We should have a header image for the launch, there's some pretty good images on spaceX's twitter 2605:B100:744:29F1:69E8:6488:78DF:D00E (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Not a stub and sourcing is sufficient. Opposes are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So... Pointing out that it did not reach space (or orbit) is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I'd be all for posting one that made it to orbit, (or even completed a successful suborbital mission, though many wouldn't agree with me on that!) but this accomplished neither; it broke up while still in the stratosphere. It didn't achieve spaceflight, and it seems highly unusual to post an atmospheric flight of which the likes have been routinely achieved. Nottheking (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, that's not a policy-based argument, that's a personal preference. Such arguments are not given weight when a discussion is closed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And how is a support not personal opinion, then? Do recall that policy does not require merely "length and sourcing" to get an ITN blurb, but the significance of it needs to be established. And implicit in a "support" is a declaration that one considers it significant. So how is that not merely a WP:ILIKEIT, especially when no criteria is given for implying that significance? Nottheking (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do recall that policy does not require merely "length and sourcing" to get an ITN blurb, but the significance of it needs to be established. – There is no policy that says this, and in fact sitewide consensus leans toward this approach at ITN as being inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternative blurb VI.
I don't think that we should mention "the most powerful rocket ever built" when descring failure that resulted in failure.
Otherwise, support, main story. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose As others have said above, the mission may have been successful under SpaceX very low-bar milestones, but in no way represents a rocket ready to safely deliver cargo and people into space. It is step 1 of N.≤ let's wait for a test flight designed to get into earth's orbit and that success for posting.--Masem (t) 21:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. It has been the largest, heaviest and most powerful rocket ever launched. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb III The launch was an obviously notable event, regardless of the subsequent explosion; it was supposed to fall into the Pacific Ocean anyway, as a planned part of the test. It is quite possible that people in the future will view this launch as a moderately significant historical event in the history of spaceflight, even if we don't realize this now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose and get back to me when SpaceX does indeed open up commercial space tourism/flights to other planets. Maybe this project becomes something, maybe it doesn't. Right now, this is an incremental record flight that was set for testing purposes for a company. Success be damned, this rocket wasn't even going to do anything monumentally groundbreaking (well, I guess if you count the weight record then maybe, but once again, incremental record that will inevitably be broken). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Nythar, Alex Calamaro and othe similar supports above. The opposers fail to convince me. I prefer blurb 3 but any are acceptable. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And yet it meets ITNR. It's the first flight of a major new rocket. And it was a success - the issues seem to have been in the second stage separation. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who the heck removed rockets from ITNR? Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it was done with (this edit) Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:In the news that reached a consensus for removal, mainly due to the rapid expansion of commercial spaceflight. The Kip (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Successful launch of a new rocket. We wouldn't be having this debate if they'd gone with an earlier plan and launched this without stage 2, which failed to separate. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The blurbs all seem to discuss Starship while it's the launch of Super Heavy that is the achievement here. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as it exploded even before completing its whole test flight path. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt blurb V due to significance (and the record that it sets) and quality of article. The arguments against posting pertaining to Starship's failure to reach space are ignoring the intention of the flight -- to crash into the water anyways. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: It surpassed the N1 as the most powerful rocket to ever blow up. --Carnildo (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Much as I despise Elon and generally don't care about the endless parade of rockets going up right now, the notability and news coverage are both there, and the article is acceptable. I'm rather indifferent about which blurb to use, as long as it's NPOV. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted. We need to decide this now before it falls off the news cycle. People above are roughly 2:1 in favor of posting, which is good enough for me in terms of consensus. Image to follow once protected at Commons. Sandstein 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Sandstein PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. I get that Elon has his fanboys here who can ram through every one of his ventures as "noteworthy", but nothing about yet another failed SpaceX launch meets any threshold of notability. Morgan695 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a way to critique the posting without launching into personal attacks. Curbon7 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Pull per all above. If we began giving out nickels for every rocket that failed, we'd be millionaires... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd like to see those other 20,000,000 failed rockets, if you please. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok then. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support. This story is clearly in the mainstream news worldwide, so just from the angle of notability and the basic guidelines of "substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest," this is clearly ITN-worthy. The rest comes down to minor details about whether it was a "success" or "failure," without recognizing it can be both, and both would be justification for it being on ITN. If you look at sources that don't either love or hate Mr. Musk, it is quite clear that it was both an achievement in terms of the "tallest and the most powerful rocket ever flown" in human history, and that it had a failure in separation. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's interesting to see how so much more polarized people are since the Falcon Heavy maiden launch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose/pull We could debate if the "within certain parameters successful" nature of this makes it ITN-worthy for a long while, or we could just acknowledge that accepting it for the box basically means any attempt to launch something at space now qualifies, setting a horrible precedent for every unimportant step to get a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - the most powerful rocket ever, the text currently on the main page, sounds a bit too WP:HYPE to me. Any interest in changing this to the most powerful rocket to date? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - is first launched. Is the word first needed here? Could possibly be removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: Pamela Chopra[edit]

Article: Pamela Chopra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:

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: Indian Playback singer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 19[edit]

April 19, 2023 (2023-04-19) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

  • Crime in Costa Rica
    • President Rodrigo Chaves orders a series of measures to fight increasing crime in Costa Rica, including the deployment of more police, tougher juvenile laws, extradition of foreign criminals, and restrictions on the sale of ammunition. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

RD: Dave Wilcox[edit]

Article: Dave Wilcox (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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: Pro Football Hall of Famer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Richard Riordan[edit]

Article: Richard Riordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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 mayor of LA. Needs some source work, but not in bad shape. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Sanaa stampede[edit]

Article: Sanaa stampede (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 90 people are killed and 322 people injured in a stampede in Sanaa, Yemen. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is still quite short, will be updated with more information as it becomes available and confirmed Mooonswimmer 02:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Davidson, RE: and there seems to be no lasting impact — don't go out of your way to provoke and be offensive. ITNC is not a free-for-all. El_C 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not agreeing with @Andrew Davidson, but how exactly is it offensive? Do you mean he's being offensive towards the people affected? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's highly insensitive at best and a dog whistle at worse, Knightoftheswords281. I can't force humanity or compassion on your or Andrew Davidson's part, but I will enforce minimal decorum. El_C 13:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El C and @Kurtis, oh I'm not saying that @Andrew Davidson was incorrect in his assertion that this has no lasting impact, I was just asking for clarification since for whatever reason, I interpreted El C's remarks about Andrew Davidson being offensive as being directed towards members of ITN and not the victims. I would like to ask El C, how could his statements be a dogwhistle? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Referring to the deaths of so many people as having "no lasting impact" will be offensive to the moral sensibilities of most readers because they can envision themselves losing a loved one in such a tragic event. When someone says (even inadvertently) that other people's losses will have no lasting impact, it almost feels like they're saying that my losses will have no lasting impact. It is as though I am vicariously experiencing the death of a relative or close friend in the stampede, and am reading that comment as I grieve for my deceased loved one. That is what makes it offensive to people other than those affected by this tragedy—we feel their feelings as if they were our own. Kurtis (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281 and Andrew Davidson: The many hundreds (probably thousands) of people who've lost loved ones in this horrific tragedy will most assuredly experience a "lasting impact" from this event. Kurtis (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, as I will always say, if you think it fails WP:NEVENTS, you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the deaths of 85 people and the injuries of 322 have "no lasting impact". Sure. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the sort of callous bullshit that got LaserLegs banned, Andrew. Cut it out. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now, one glaring CN tag needs fixing. If that is fixed, I think this is sufficiently developed to post (though, of course, more expansion is invited). --Jayron32 13:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Looks to be of sufficient length and depth for a main page posting, and everything is tied to a reliable source. Though as I said before, don't feel the need to stop making it even better. --Jayron32 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support—An absolutely horrific tragedy. Kurtis (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support—Suggest changing blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support. Unusual event, high number of casualties, article meets our minimum posting standards but is unfortunately quite short. The reports linked above have further details that could be added to the article, but that shouldn't hold up posting. Modest Genius talk 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence that this meets WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Shots fired by the Houthi de facto administration, ostensibly for crowd control, caused an accidental explosion and panic. At least 90 people were killed and 322 people injured in the ensuing crush."
    It meets WP:NEVENTS. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which provision of NEVENTS does it meet? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. Obviously I wish it affected zero people, but this falls far below the threshold of "national or international". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: This affects a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand if we're counting everyone that knew the deceased. You don't think the deaths of nearly a hundred people in a single event is noteworthy enough to be on the main page???

    I'm sorry, but just... how? Kurtis (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I repeat my earlier question. Which provision of WP:NEVENTS does it meet? I'm arguing that the deaths of nearly a hundred people is not "national or international" in scope. Are you disputing that? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I'll break it down, underlining the relevant bits for emphasis:
    • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The stampede in Sanaa is not a "routine" event; human stampedes resulting in around 100 deaths is something that rarely happens. Routine in the context of deaths would be things like car accidents, school shootings in the U.S. with less than 10 casualties, terrorist attacks in Somalia with less than 10 casualties, etc. Things that happen all the time and are unexceptional in terms of death toll. 100 people is an exceptionally high number of people to die in a human stampede, which itself is not an everyday event.
    • It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Self-explanatory.
    • WP:GEOSCOPE—An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. It is too early to say exactly how this stampede will impact Yemen in the years to come, but losing nearly 100 people in a single incident will absolutely resonate in some form or fashion for a very long time.
    • WP:INDEPTH—The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines Also WP:DIVERSE—Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Reuters, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera—need I go on? Also note that none of them are mirrors of one another; they are all original articles written by each outlet.
    So yes, I think notability is pretty clearly established here. Even by the strictest standards for ITN, this tragedy is noteworthy and significant. Kurtis (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Routine events are usually not notable, but it does not follow that non-routine events are usually notable. There's no WP:DEATHCOUNT policy because that's not how we measure notability (try as ITN regulars might).
    • Recent events aren't automatically non-notable, but they're not automatically notable either. And notability requires verifiable evidence. If that verifiable evidence does not exist, then we assume that it is not notable.
    • This has not had "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group". As I said above, it had such an impact on a few hundred/thousand people. Sure, it's possible that this will cause some major social or legal change in Yemen, but we're getting deep into WP:CRYSTAL at that point.
    • I think the part of INDEPTH that should be highlighted is "must be significant and not in passing". As in, we need to see that it's not just a news story but an actual encyclopedic subject.
    This is just another article that was made because someone saw it in the news, with no regard for whether it has lasting encyclopedic significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Serious question If an American mass shooting isn't notable enough to post in part because "nothing changes", then why is a stampede notable enough to post? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First of all, this question inherently implies that stampedes resulting in multiple deaths are common in Yemen. Second of all, 90 people are dead. As much as this community dislikes blurbing American mass shootings, if an American mass shooting reached 90 deaths it would've most certainly been posted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS then? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To some degree I suppose, but general significance comes into effect too.
    As @Kurtis states above, mass shootings, terrorist attacks, etc with less than 10 casualties are unfortunately commonplace; ones with 100+ are not. Add in the fact it was a human stampede, which doesn't exactly happen too often, and you've got a fairly notable event. The Kip (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm looking around, and I don't see any indication that this article has been nominated for AfD. I thought surely if this article failed WP:NEVENTS that it'd be slated for deletion. What's the waiting around for? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, there is the WP:RAPID issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, but that then makes opposing on the basis of failing WP:NEVENT inapplicable, as we're still in that stage of the article being a developing story - which is that very stage that makes it an ITN candidate since we only have up to 7 days to post a story anyway. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I believe there is a good reason to post and the article seems of good quality. CaptainGalaxy 11:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - and I find the fails NEVENT vote to be completely specious. Yes, English language sources are hard to find that cover poor people in Yemen in much depth, but this is widely covered in the Arabic press, see for example Al Jazeera, al Arabiya, al-Quds al-Arabi. nableezy - 15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted. Sandstein 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Miguel Díaz-Canel is re-elected for a second term[edit]

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW, consensus to post unlikely to develop. The Kip (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Miguel Díaz-Canel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cuba's National Assembly re-elects Miguel Diaz-Canel as president for a second term despite the country's economic challenges. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Prensa Latina
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article needs to be updated, could use some expansion and better sectioning Mooonswimmer 21:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The president of Cuba is not recognized as having significant power (hence why this is not ITNR), instead that being the first leader if the communist party, whichDiaz-Canal also holds. So there is no real change here. --Masem (t) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The president of Cuba has no real power on his own. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: Bud Shuster[edit]

Article: Bud Shuster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

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: The archetypical Pennsylvania Republican. Needs a lot of source work. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Moon Bin[edit]

Article: Moon Bin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yonhap News, Fantagio via Pinkvilla, NME, ABS-CBN News, Reuters, NY Times, BBC News
Credits:

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: K-pop idol best known for being a member of the boyband Astro and its sub-unit Moonbin & Sanha. Vida0007 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Filmography still needs quite a bit of work to be worthy of ITNRD ready, and there are a couple of uncited statements in the article otherwise. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think the article is quite okay now. Deep sorrow for Arohas. Htanaungg (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps consider for blurb? - Based on the fact that it was one of the first items on the BBC newsreel just now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judging by our article he does not seem to have been a massive figure in any of the fields, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd give a no on that, but when I first heard about his death, I did think the idea does have some weight. He doesn't seem like that major a figure in K-pop from my (limited) understanding of the genre going off what I know, but also going off what I know, he is a pretty well-known person within K-pop circles. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking the BBC rn, its seems that his death, like many other Kpop-artists deaths, are receiving a lot of coverage in relation to the slave-esque working conditions within the industry (see for example, Sulli#Death and impact, which also received a lot of international attetion). My understanding is that blurbs for deaths are posted if a) the individual was GOATed, or b) their death was extremely unusual or otherwise notable in of itself, none of which is really applicable to our boy here. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I don't think it warrants a blurb either, though a tragic death. Still, it was worth bringing up IMO PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak conditional support - there are still some uncited sentences. Also, I'm concerned about the section on his career, where the latter two subsections are in list format instead of prose. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've since tagged the sections in question. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Torkham landslide[edit]

Article: 2023 Torkham landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Pakistan, a landslide caused by a thunderstorm buries dozens of people and trucks, resulting in the closure of a a major border crossing with Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - Al Jazeera - VOA - AP - ABC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A major landslide that in addition to causing three fatalities, has buried dozens of people and twenty trucks, leading to the closure of a notable border with Afghanistan - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Article is not in a state worth posting on the main page. It's basically a stub, with the information basically being a restatement of the blurb (that there had been such a landslide) or banal and uninteresting information about the number of emergency vehicles responding to the event; which is probably so trivial that it doesn't belong and feels like padding the total text. The article needs a considerable expansion before this is main page ready. --Jayron32 16:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Jayron and quality issues with the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality for now. Article isn't much longer than a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait. There's too little information available to make an informed decision or write a minimum-length article. If/when more details emerge (e.g. casualty numbers), and the article is updated, I'll be willing to reconsider. Modest Genius talk 19:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) India becomes the world's most populous country[edit]

Consensus to wait until it actually occurs, not just a projection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

 Regards, theTigerKing  11:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support post pending updates in the article Significant and expected milestone that is expected to be remain unchanged for most part of this century. India's population surpassed 1.428 billion, slightly higher than China’s 1.425 billion people, according to the UN’s World Population dashboard.Regards, theTigerKing  12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Article currently does not match this news. Is it a projection for later this year? Possibly not a particularly helpful thing for us to feature, as the list won't get a significant update in prose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment According to Reuters, this is happening "later this month". So it seems we're not there yet, but on the brink. Curbon7 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discrepancy comes from India not having accurate census data and resistance from the PRC, who want their number to include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Curbon7 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The Wikipedia article we're supposed to highlight says "China: 1,411,750,000" and "India: 1,392,329,000". Math is not my strong suit, so someone is going to need to double check my calculations, but I believe that 1,392,329,000 is not more than 1,411,750,000. --Jayron32 12:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is it necessary to be so snarky? You can communicate your concern in a more courteous manner. Zagalejo (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, but snark has the advantage of drawing attention to it. Your response is evidence that it works as intended. --Jayron32 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, 3 + 3 = 7. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support but wait for India to actually overtake China - As per @Maplestrip. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support when India actually supersedes China per above. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comment - also the bolded article is orange-tagged. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The UN projection is that it'll overtake China by mid-2023, not that it has already happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article does not reflect this information, and the UN report says that this isn't estimated to happen until mid-2023. ARandomName123 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article still says that China is the most populated, so Article Should be updated. and I'm pretty sure 1,411,750,000 is larger than 1,392,329,000. even if that was the case where it is larger, this would naturally still not be ITN-worthy, for that a country surpassing another in population is not really that ITN-worthy. basically, article should be updated. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Curbon7 it's happened again! The Kip (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose by virtue of the fact that this is an estimate. I think it's irresponsible to run a ITN story on something that may not have happened yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose now because it hasn't even happened yet, but Support for when it does happy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment- India is projected to have 3 million more people by the middle of the 2023. We may not have definite date and time on when it will happen this year. Different statistics and population measuring websites have their timers running at different rate and scales. And most importantly, they are just the projections and estimates. Exact figures at a given point may be hard to extrapolate, given different countries have their own way and timelines of determining the population of its people within its national borders. Thought was good to have it nominated considering it is trending everywhere today. Will nevertheless, it will become a fact this year that the country has actually over taken China as the worlds most populous nation on the planet. Regards, theTigerKing  14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now, at least, since everyone else has brought up that it hasn't actually happened yet. But since India is on track to become the most populous country sometime this year, I'll support when it makes it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per above. DecafPotato (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per above. It hasn't actually happened yet. The Kip (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is a reason we rely on recent censuses or relaible ("current") population estimates; both haven't happened yet. Gotitbro (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until the official censuses of China and India have been released. We cannot rely on projections alone, not to mention that the target article still states that China is more populous than India (as of this writing, at least). Vida0007 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The 2021 census of India has been delayed multiple times by the authorities. There is no clear indication when the census will be conducted. It could be after the next general election planned in May 2024. Maxxies (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as premature at this point. The sources quoted say that India is projected to become the most populous country some time in mid-2023, not that it has already happened. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. At this time, it is only a projection. It would be preferable to wait until it is actually happened. However, the population estimate would not be able to be verified as the estimate and projection are based on the 2011 Indian Census. The 2021 Indian census has been delayed several times and no timeline has been provided by the Indian authorities for this census.^^Maxxies (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Ongoing: 2023 Sudan clashes[edit]

Article: 2023 Sudan clashes (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: As the conflict has entered its fourth day, casualties approach 3,000, and one ceasefire has already failed, I think it is time to move this from blurb to ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This article looks appropriate for ongoing when the blurb rolls off. We shouldn't move to ongoing before then, but starting the discussion is helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pull The number of casualties is sourced to The Meghalayan. Checking that out, I find that it's a news site based in NE India. I doubt that they have any reporters anywhere near the scene and so are just compiling rumours from the Internet as clickbait. The article contains a map which shows areas supposedly controlled by each side. So far as I can tell, that's OR / speculation.
Essentially, this is a chaotic civil war and the sides are naturally making wild claims and accusations of atrocities, false flag operations and any other propaganda which occurs to them. Russian mercenaries are involved in this as there's gold to be gained and so you can expect dirty tricks and misinformation from them too.
We're an encyclopedia, not a news source, and so we're supposed to work from reliable sources to provide settled facts. This conflict is an uncertain work-in-progress and so we should await the verdict of history rather than joining the fray too.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't the appropriate place to soapbox about your opinions on the war. It's clearly a topic which is well covered in the news. --Jayron32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is of the quality of our article, which is poor. For example, the NYT reports that, "In the turmoil, it was unclear who controlled various parts of the capital. Each day, one side or the other has claimed control of key installations, including airports and the state broadcaster, only to have the claims quickly disputed." But our article leads with a precise and detailed map showing the supposed control of each side. A footnote explains that this is "Based upon Timeline section" and that's tagged as "improper synthesis". Another section has an orange cleanup tag which has been there for over two days. The general situation seems quite chaotic due to the fog of war and so we can't expect quick fixes for such issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's what you had meant, you should have said that instead of what you said the first time. --Jayron32 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the opportunity to dig deeper into this subject right now, but I'm uncomfortable that no one below has responded to these concerns either. Death toll is now cited to Al Jazeera at least, but beyond that, do you still feel like written coverage of these clashes is improving yet? Is our own article on the subject at a high enough quality right now? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support when it would roll off, the article is receiving appropriate, continuous updates and that qualifies it for ongoing. It's fine leaving it as a blurb for now, but it also seems to qualify for Ongoing when and if it would roll off. --Jayron32 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support if still ongoing when its blurb rolls off per @Jayron32. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above, if the situation is still ongoing Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once blurb rolls off, assuming the conflict is still active. The Kip (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Quite an alarming situation. From what experts predict, this is likely the start of a years long conflict and likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Citing: [7] Ecrusized (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    . . . likely to become a proxy war between regional powers. Oh no, not another one of those. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support—A significant and ongoing development. Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ongoing when the blurb rolls off, not before. The situation continues to be very fluid and zones of control are changing rapidly. Teh article is getting substantial updates every day. Modest Genius talk 19:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What's the reason behind waiting for the blurb rolling off? Is there a consensus for not double posting? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support One of the most significant political events happening at this moment Synotia (moan) 10:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Bob Maguire[edit]

Article: Bob Maguire (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/father-bob-maguire-catholic-priest-dies/101814184
Credits:

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: Rebel Catholic priest in Melbourne, Australia. Better known than any other priest in this city of 5 million people. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak oppose Media work and Retirement still have some clean up/uncited areas that need to be fixed, but it won't be hard. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • READY The article has attracted a large amount of editing since the death. Looks good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is adequate enough for RD. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WHY ARE THE ADMINS IGNORING THIS??? Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. My question is a serious one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In part, the new vector skin makes it hard to see all the noms on a page. Masem (t) 02:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Admins are people too, you can't just snap your fingers and summon one like royalty. There are only around three admins who actively post RDs, and they have lives too. I also have some noms that have been tagged as ready for a couple days, and I'm not complaining, because I know it'll get done eventually. Or if a nom is about to roll-off this page, just leave a message on the talk page and that usually does the trick. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat - Several Admin actions have occurred since the most recent comment above. You might know, but it's not obvious to me who the posting Admins are. It's 28 hours since I suggested the article was ready. In a time critical environment, ignoring it for that long simply isn't good enough. You want the glory of being an Admin? Do your job!!!! If you can't do it, something really needs to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did anyone (like you) mark it ready in the header line so that it would stand out to help the admins identify it? Masem (t) 03:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Todd Haimes[edit]

Article: Todd Haimes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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: Significant figure in NYC theatre history. A stub at the second but being actively updated so should be long enough if/by time this is approved Star Mississippi 17:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Article is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Article seems worse than it actually is because it doesn't have sections. It's actually not too bad for holisticity, I think the only thing is some expansion of his later career, which only has a brief mention. Curbon7 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 18[edit]

April 18, 2023 (2023-04-18) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • Netflix ends its DVD rental service after 25 years, citing the reduced demand for physical rentals. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Charles Stanley[edit]

Article: Charles Stanley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Credits:

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: Prominent Baptist televangelist. Needs some source work. Curbon7 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose article is orange tagged, and with good reason. Many CN tags are in both the 'Influences and theology' and 'Personal life' sections of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supriyo v. Union of India[edit]

Article: Supriyo v. Union of India (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of India begins its consideration of landmark cases petitioning for the legalization of same-sex marriage in India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - TheIndianExpress
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A significant development in a country ruled by a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, an arguably healthy expression of judiciary-state separation. Previously in 2018, the Supreme Court also decriminalized homosexuality in India. OutwardSpiral (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really what ongoing is for, consider nominating when a decision is announced? Courcelles (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OutwardSpiral you have proposed a blurb but also marked it as "Ongoing"; you can't do both as there are no blurbs in the Ongoing section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated! Thank you for pointing it out -- indeed, the article was nominated as a blurb, and I misinterpreted the ongoing tag. OutwardSpiral (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope you do realise that Narendra Modi never once said anything unfavourable against homosexuals while Manmohan Singh, the so-called progressive left wing prime minister called it contrary to India's values. When Shashi Tharoor proposed to legalise same sex marriage, his own party didn't support him in the lok sabha while the head of the RSS publicly called for the respect of sexual minorities with hindu based arguments Varoon2542 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose but A blurb on the verdict (if in favour of same-sex marriage) would be more sensible. DogeChungus (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose trials don't typically go in ongoing, if that's the objective here. Neutral on a blurb of the verdict. The Kip (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If the Supreme Court indeed legalizes same-sex marriage in India, this should be posted. It would be historic and notable from multiple angles. It would be the largest country to have same-sex marriage. It would literally double the number of people on earth in a same-sex marriage country b/c of India’s large population. It would also be notable as a post-colonial non-Western country legalizing. With this said, I’m not sure if this should be in ongoing; granted the trial is two weeks long if I remember correctly, which may be an argument for doing so. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, if it results in legalization I think there's a solid argument for a blurb, for the reasons listed. I just personally don't think it should be in ongoing, nor blurbed until a verdict is reached. The Kip (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose merely 'begins consideration'. If the court makes a landmark ruling, we can consider it then. Simply starting their work is not significant enough to post. Modest Genius talk 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Dominion v. Fox[edit]

It's already been posted, and there is no chance that consensus to pull it will develop. Closing to prevent further unnecessary arguing. (non-admin closure) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dominion Voting Systems agrees to a $787 million settlement in their lawsuit against Fox News over defamation claims from the 2020 United States presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:
 Masem (t) 20:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Significant settlement in a highly watched case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Considering this is one of the biggest impacts from Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election, this would make sense for the notability guidelines. No issues on quality, either. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. The Kip (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t see any notable consequences from this. Neither is Dominion Voting Systems a global brand so that its defamation can be considered a big deal, nor is Fox News banned from broadcasting as a result, nor does this ruling prevent Trump from running for president. This would’ve been a scandal had Trump been an incumbent president, but it’s just a minor fallout with a long delay.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is easily one of the largest settlements for a defamation suit in legal history. Dominion is not a global brand, but Fox is. This is being widely described as a de-facto admission of guilt on the part of Fox. It may have a significant impact on the networks reputation and may also be a harbinger for the remaining legal cases Fox is facing. Trump was not a party to the case, so it's impact, or lack thereof on him is irrelevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said, Fox isn’t banned from broadcasting as a result. However this will affect its reputation is too early to say, and it’d be challenging to measure it in foreseeable future (probably by number of viewers). I tried to compare this to Volkswagen emissions scandal, but it appears to be a minor thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps, a discussion to revisit its reliability at WP:RSPSS will also take place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I added a single cn tag and I'd like to see some expansion of the section on the settlement. But the article is good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - quality and significance both good enough. nableezy - 22:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It is not a particularly serious crime (worse is an electoral crime or a call to uprising), nor has it had an important international follow-up, nor is it going to change anything. Fights between two big companies. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was an electoral "crime", Fox lied about Dominion's voting machines to influence the election and sow doubt about the results. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Its not a criminal case but a civil one, but I question how one thinks that three quarters of a billion dollars is somehow not "serious". nableezy - 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - quality check, significance check, this is quite historic that one of the major news channels in America admits lying about news concerning the US election. And then also paying out a major sum of money for it.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support article is in good quality, {{citation needed}} tag resolved! Tails Wx 23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose — The traditionally hesitant ITN is eager to support a settlement in a meaningless case. In the United States, this will receive a few days attention at most. ITN has very rarely, if ever, covered a lawsuit between two companies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Quality article (although could use a little more information regarding the settlement), historically significant settlement amount. SpencerT•C 00:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Ultimately, most cases are settled out of court. Sure this one is notable, but what are the impacts of such a settlement? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per ElijahPepe, and the fact that this is a side-story in the general election. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per ElijahPepe. DecafPotato (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Big news in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How about the world? Murdoch's circle of lies spans three countries, but not much more. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are no requirements for posting a blurb in ITN that the news it covers relates to "the world". --Jayron32 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Got it. The Dadeville shooting, the Supreme Court case on the Sabbath, and the shooting of Ralph Yarl are all notable because they were top headlines in the U.S. Conversely, local news in Tanzania or Cambodia is also notable because it's in the news there.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Literally no one, in this discussion, argued for any of that. In this current conversation, you were the only person to mention any of that. Also, zero of those stories are posted in ITN right now. If you're going to invent things that no one said or did, and then object to that, well, that's just silly. You need to focus on the words that are being said, and talk with people about what they are saying, not invent things never said, and then pretend like that's a reasonable objection. --Jayron32 17:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure how you're getting from point A to B. I'm saying that the logic that something somewhere in the world is notable is unreasonable, and it applies the same here. ITN implicitly has that in order to prevent it from getting stories that have zero impact. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - quality is fine for posting to ITN. Passes WP:NEVENTS. To @ElijahPepe, I would like to ask, especially with how fluid consensus on ITN can be, I would like to state that just because we haven't posted these types of stories before doesn't mean that we should never. Consensus (again, especially on ITN) can change. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, a meaningful, notable case with long-term repercussions. The enormous sum of money lost by Fox suggests that they expected to lose even more if they went to trial. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This is a staggering amount of money to lose in a defamation suit—or really in anything—and it comes as part of a chain of events that's been national and international news for years now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 09:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment This is not an oppose nor a support, as I think it might be notable enough for ITN, but I seriously wish people would let discussions run for a reasonable amount of time. This ran for around 12 hours, and for much of that time Europe and Asia would have been asleep. Where I am it was posted at 20:46 and the last comment was at 07:53 - so I've only just seen it myself. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not really rising to the significance bar for which we usually post stories, and we are not a news ticker. Why was this posted? I don't think there's consensus above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment A settlement, not a juried verdict. I doubt this would even be a blip here if it involved CNN, for some reason. CoatCheck (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. Not meeting the global significance bar for ITN. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no bar for global significance. That phrase (or any reasonable synonym of it) appears nowhere in the documentation at WP:ITN or any other guidance on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support News source coverage is evidence this is a significant story, and the article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 12:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now that I'm awake and able to weigh in, post-posting support. It's plenty significant enough, it's in the news, the article is up to par. What more is needed? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting Support Widely covered by reliable sources and good quality article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support as one of the largest defamation settlements in US history (and given the total, I imagine it's one of the largest in recent world history). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment — The motion to post was made far too early for any consensus to develop. Regardless, ITN is not the place for high scores or monetary achievements, especially when the "achievement" is arbitrary. A settlement is not even an admission of guilt. The world will, and has, moved on. If ITN is to be treated as In the U.S. news, then I suppose I should start reviewing accordingly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is literally one story about the United States on ITN right now. The other stories are Sudan, Ghana, and Europe. Try again. nableezy - 17:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, if you look at all of the recommended articles we've got in ITN (highlights in blurbs, ongoing, and RDs), you can add to the list ongoing links about France, Israel, and Ukraine, and recent deaths of a resident of India, Northern Ireland, India, Germany/U.S., Ireland, and Switzerland. We have quite a good balance of stories, and the U.S. is certainly not over-represented. Indeed, India, with two RD stories, has the most representation. Isn't it great to actually look at what is written, rather than inventing things to be upset about, and then complaining about the stuff you invented? --Jayron32 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's one story because it's the only one nominated. We don't need an article for the United States for representation. If we do something truly notable, then we can have an ITN entry. The U.S. hasn't done anything exceptional, and that's fine. This is the mentality that I'm used to and sensibly guided this part of the main page. This nomination seems to have subverted that for no reason .elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are a ton of nominations for US stories that have been rejected. Just currently on this page there are nominations for Shooting of Ralph Yarl, Dadeville shooting, for the Phantom of the Opera ending on Broadway, for 2023 Rutgers University strike, and that isnt counting the aborted SpaceX launch. Can try again if you like. nableezy - 21:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Before you go whirling off saying that "ITN is just US-pedia" I would encourage you to run your own some statistics about how much the U.S. is actually represented on ITN so as to back up your assertion, and furthermore, note also there is nothing precluding you from nominating equivalent stories of this sort across the pond or in other nations as well, so long as reliable sources exist and the coverage is there. As it is, your comment just says "I don't like this" which isn't really the best vehicle to induce systematic change. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wrote the initial article on the lawsuit before it was turned into a redirect and then recreated. If you believe my comment is IDONTLIKEIT, you've skimmed it over. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with my reasoning. I don't care whether or not you created the article, because that fact is not relevant to this discussion. You believe the article shouldn't have been posted to begin with, because by your own words, you feel it's not notable worldwide -- which is not how items should be judged here. If you want a criteria for global significance, get it created. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Zambia's mining sector has a female executive for the first time. According to the mentality global significance doesn't matter, that's ITN-worthy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please disassemble your straw man argument and do not put words in my mouth. I specifically said there is no criteria for global significance and that is all that I meant, without casting any prejudgments on the newsworthiness or notability of any other stories. If you want to nominate them on the basis of their significance, go right ahead. If not, then there is no relevance. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You approved this nomination purely on the basis of the lack of consensus, when it clearly exists. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support - meets threshold. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose - civil claim between two companies over defamation, and it was settled, not decided. Not a precedent that "fake news is bad". Juxlos (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Vladimir Kara-Murza[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Vladimir Kara-Murza (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza is convicted in a Moscow court on charges of treason and violating Russia's war censorship laws, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Post)
News source(s): (AP)
Credits:
 СтасС (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Somewhat covered by ongoing, and otherwise, not sure if notable enough for blurbing; I don't remember if we blurbed Navalny's arrest. The Kip (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Already covered by ongoing, and will continue to be covered by ongoing until it is removed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This case has had much greater international coverage than the one above. But it is covered in ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as this is covered by the ongoing item. However, if notable related events continue to happen (e.g. arrests, information leaks, changes in economic sanctions etc.) while the invasion is in a slow mode, with the Battle of Bakhmut being the main military engagement, there are growing arguments that the ongoing item should be removed so that space for new blurbs is freed (anyway, we won’t keep it in ongoing for good).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: Chris Smith[edit]

Article: Chris Smith (defensive end) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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: NFL/XFL DE, died this morning. 31. The Kip (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose on article quality. Way too many unsourced statements in the article to pass through onto ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Albert del Rosario[edit]

Article: Albert del Rosario (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beijing hospital fire[edit]

Article: 2023 Beijing hospital fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twenty-nine people are killed during a fire at a hospital in Beijing, China. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua (Al Jazeera)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Good day. Need update news. СтасС (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reopening now that an article has emerged. Oppose on quality, as it's a stub. The Kip (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of the article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and will vote once I am done doing so! Tails Wx 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gee, an article creator voting on their own work. I wonder how that'll go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, instead of needless sarcasm, we should praise article writers for their hard work, and for their transparency when commenting on an ITN nomination of said work. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done long ago: curprev 16:36, 18 April 2023‎ Tails Wx talk contribs‎ 111 bytes +111‎ Start thanked Tag: Visual edit--СтасС (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said that writing articles is bad, nor is being transparent about writing those articles. What I do have an issue with is with the article creator voting on his/her/their own article on ITN/C, because voting is more for third parties to look at its notability/quality/"does this belong on ITN" from a neutral POV, and I don't think that the article creator (and I'm not trying to single anybody out! This goes for anyone) would ever 'Oppose' their own work. Just my 2 cents on it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't remember the exact nom, but there was one within the last week or so in which the article creator voted against posting. The Kip (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with Kicking that we should be applauding people who create articles and then bringing them forward for an ITN nomination. Cheers to you too! --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is, where am I in the credits section? ;) Tails Wx 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done--СтасС (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Tails Wx 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose pending expansion. The article has two small paragraphs, and not much else. Is this really all the information we have? --Jayron32 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ralph Yarl shooting[edit]

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
non-admin close: consensus to post very unlikely to develop Abcmaxx (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Shooting of Ralph Yarl (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, Ralph Yarl, an adolescent African American boy, is shot for accidentally ringing the doorbell to the wrong house while picking up his siblings, leading to protests and charges. (Post)
News source(s): NYT - NPR - NBC - CNN - - CBS - BBC - ABC - Axios - AP - MSNBC - Rolling Stone - Time - Vox - The Independent - USA Today - PBS - NYP - Huff Post - ABC (Australia) - South China Morning Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is a crazy story; a boy was shot and wounded allegedly just for knocking on the wrong door while picking up his younger siblings. It's led to plenty of protests, $1.5 million USD being raised, and charges. Has widespread, sustained WP:RS coverage, even amongst foreign outlets, has its own article, and passes WP:NEVENTS. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose People (especially in the US) are shot everyday, there are protests everyday, politicians give their sympathies, articles are made, and then someone else is shot. Had this happened in a country where guns are much stricter, it would easily pass, but I can't support this on these notability issues and also the quality of the article, as it appears to be quickly made and is essentially a stub at this point in time. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Fakescientist. Unfortunately all too commonplace. The Kip (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reasons other such shootings have not been posted; unless notable protests emerge. The noms by Knight are fast appearing to be WP:POINTY. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How exactly? There is nothing in ITN criteria that prohibits these nominations. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not exactly seeing what you're accusing here. Sure, most of their noms haven't quite met the ITNR notability bar, but in my opinion they've been good-faith noms. The Kip (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd argue that coming up with arbitrary non-policy standards (like protests) is closer to WP:POINTY. Either it meets policy requirements or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the recourse is WP:AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support For all the same reasons I've given before, reasons that make this different than shootings we shouldn't post, like the Dadeville shooting. I won't debate it further because I know this nomination isn't going anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Did someone change WP:Notability (events) so that everything in the daily newspaper's crime section can get an article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – The enthusiasm in bringing stories to ITN/C is appreciated but this story falls far short of ITN/C levels of notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the event is unique, and has received broad coverage. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - at this time. Not unique case for the US unfortunately. I would change my mind if in the coming days protests etc would start happening in connection to this. BabbaQ (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Deaths from gun violence are commonplace in the US. And it appears that deaths from people shooting visitors to their house are also commonplace: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/nyregion/man-charged-kaylin-gillis-driveway-shooting.html Chrisclear (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

April 17[edit]

April 17, 2023 (2023-04-17) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

  • Recycling in Australia
    • Further sites of illicit soft plastic storage are found in Sydney after the collapse of commercial plastic recycler REDcycle. After taking $20 million from Coles and Woolworths to recycle soft plastics at 2,000 locations, the company instead stored 12,000 tonnes of plastics at more than 44 locations across Australia. (9 News) (The Guardian)
  • The provincial health ministry of Santa Fe, Argentina, asks the public to "not underestimate" the current situation of dengue fever after the province surpasses 10,000 cases and reports its third death from the disease amid a national outbreak. (La Capital) (Infobae)

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Paul Hinrichs[edit]

Article: Paul Hinrichs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ky-leadernews.com/paul-herky-hinrichs/
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Bob Berry[edit]

Article: Bob Berry (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oregon Live
Credits:

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 quarterback. Needs some source work, but not too bad. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: April Stevens[edit]

Article: April Stevens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

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: Singer in the 1950s and 60s. Needs significant source work. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oleh Barna[edit]

Article: Oleh Barna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Unian.net
Credits:

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 Ukrainian MP KIA. Curbon7 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syria truffle hunter attack[edit]

Article: 2023 Hama attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Syria, 36 truffle hunters are killed by the Islamic State in the deserts near Hama. (Post)
News source(s): WaPo - VOA - The National
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A high casualty event with an unusual twist: 36 truffle hunters were killed by ISIL, as well as five shepherds in another part of Syria. The article is in need of serious expansion, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now for multiple issues, sadly. 1, the article's a stub and needs expansion, and 2, there's a tag, though it can be fixed! Tails Wx 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on significance (and the EUAA link doesnt say anything about this). nableezy - 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on significance/notability, article quality, and the fact that that the article is tagged. Sure, the article can be fixed, but it's gonna take a lot of effort and sources to do so. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per above, Editor 5426387 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, article's a stub. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Could be convinced that this is notable if there's a government response. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list of ongoing armed conflicts. Syria is categorised as a war but not a major one.
  • Ongoing Note that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights maintains a "daily death toll" for incidents like this and they list several incidents every day. Some parts of the world like Syria and Sudan have endemic conflict and violence and so it goes. See the map for the hotspots which typically last for years. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose But maybe find hook for DYK around the truffs? For me it was interesting to learn that in Syria it also has truffs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose seemingly a common event in that part of the world, as noted in that article's bg section and above. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality; article has little information about the event itself; it is mostly background information currently. Would need some expansion to be main-page ready. --Jayron32 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose due to article quality, although the attack is important enough to be posted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) SpaceX Starship[edit]

Procedural closure: The launch has been cancelled. In the future, please make nominations only after the event has happened and the article has been updated accordingly. Sandstein 13:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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
Articles: SpaceX Starship (talk · history · tag) and SpaceX Starship orbital test flight (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The SpaceX rocket Starship makes its maiden flight. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The SpaceX rocket Starship makes its maiden flight, making it the most powerful rocket ever built.
Alternative blurb II: ​ SpaceX Starship makes its maiden flight.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Launch in around 2-3 hours since nomination (12:00-13:00 GMT), so add the nomination here as a prep. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Absolutely support, but add to the blurb that it's the largest rocket created up to date. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - this is WP:ITN/R. Article is of sufficient quality to be posted (though there is one CN tag in the Mission profile section). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not anymore btw... it was removed from ITN/R. NoahTalk 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Both largest and most powerful rocket built ever. NoahTalk 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Assuming the launch isn't delayed or scrubbed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Close - Launch scrubbed. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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: Faith Thomas[edit]

Article: Faith Thomas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo The Guardian
Credits:

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: First Aboriginal woman to play for the Australian cricket team.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Finland, Unit 3 of the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant (pictured), Europe's largest nuclear reactor, begins regular operation after eighteen years of delayed construction. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters - VOA - AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This factory has a fairly intriguing backstory that I'm sure will dazzle many of our readers: it was scheduled to be completed 14 years ago, but then suffered several delays and became widely scrutinized. Its opening is also interesting as it comes amongst an ongoing debate about nuclear energy in Europe, especially as Germany just closed down all theirs and Russia shut off energy supply to Finland in May. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 03:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. Major national event involving a notable facility in Finland receiving international coverage. Article is sufficient for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - this is like on page 12 below the fold of even European papers. nableezy - 04:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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. - ITN criteria. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where did I do that? nableezy - 04:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You just insinuated that it shouldn't be posted since even most Europeans would care. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, thats not what I did. If you dont understand my comment maybe dont badger me about it? nableezy - 19:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's... not really what they did.
    They're using the example of most Europeans not caring about an event in Europe to illustrate the idea that this isn't particularly significant. That criteria would be moreso if they insinuated it shouldn't be posted because it's only about Finland. The Kip (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In light of Germany shutting down their last nuclear power plants this weekend this is interesting. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting =/= notable. The Kip (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Huh, right. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One of ITN's stated purposes is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Interesting might not be equal to notable, but interesting should nonetheless play a major role in determining which articles to post. Despite your oppose rationale of "more suited to DYK" (which is inapplicable DYK only applies to a new article or a five-fold expansion of an existing article), this is actually making news and we should be serving Wikipedia's readers by providing information from a well-written article, not withholding it on account of a draconian standard of significance established by a handful of users. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With the clarification that this is not Europe's largest nuclear plant but rather an expansion of the existing power plant with what is now the largest single reactor in Europe, I see even less significance here. Beyond that, its not on the front page of the just the world section of WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Times of London, Le Monde. Hell, it isnt even the top Finland story in Le Monde's international section, that would be this story on Finland erecting a barrier with Russia. Seems like there is consensus to post, but I dont really get why, this is barely news. nableezy - 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Nice to see there's at least one country in the world that knows the right way to generate energy. Still, "largest in Europe" isn't ITN material. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"largest in Europe" isn't ITN material That about sums up WP:ITN's bewildering idiosyncrasies in a nutshell. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TIL what 'idiosyncrasies' means. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see what is an idiosyncrasy here. I think it's darn clear by now that I have a high bar when it comes to ITN. In fact, I could probably be swayed to at least strike my vote here. However, I'm not seeing that bar met at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've created your own standard that's not based in any policy or guideline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As compared to the rigid standards that accompany most other nominations? The standard is "significance". The significance billing here is "largest in Europe", which is an arbitrary distinction. It is the same reason I opposed the self-driving cars nom, which I would have supported if it were a "world first", such as was the case with the Ghana and the malaria vaccine. Don't get me wrong, I find this quite interesting, but a lot of the other arguments regarding the merits of posting seem a little sensationalist. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
significance of which nowhere in ITN is a clearly defined variable for it is defined. Under these rules, sure, you maybe able to have exceptionally high standards for ITN, but @WaltCip for example has a low bar for ITN stories (this is why I think the significance criterion should be deprecated or majorly reformed). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And why am I being called out for this? I said my bar was higher, and I acknowledge that others may not have said bar. It's that simple. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Knightoftheswords281 You want it to be deprecated/reformed? Take it to Wikipedia talk:ITN/C, please, and don't take it out on DarkSide. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per nableezy and DarkSide. Perhaps more suited to DYK, but probably not ITN material. The Kip (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Striking my oppose as I've been convinced by later arguments. Support. The Kip (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Beautiful-looking article, well-cited and even some lovely pictures of inside and out. Seems like a perfect article and subject to feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work This will make a good twofer with the German phase-out. But there's some stuff about the mafia which needs clarifying. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - A long-anticipated power plant that has been under construction for decades, and the largest of its kind in Europe. It broke news on my NYTimes email updates, which only send out for major events. I certainly think it's newsworthy. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I stumbled upon the article after reading the news and ended up making a quick edit. Would like to see it get more views and thereby accrue some more information which would be fitting for a plant of this size. Mithridates (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This event has significant economic and geopolitical implications for Europe, particularly in regards to relations with Russia, as well as implications for the rest of the world regarding climate change energy alternatives. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per above - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Significant geopolitical implication given the past two decades of climate emergency. Article is in good shape. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as not a significant development and not as widely covered in the international media to merit inclusion on ITN. More people live in China, India or in Africa alone than they do in Europe. I suggest nominating this at DYK instead. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you saying that we shouldn't feature stories from Europe on ITN? That might be the most egregious and absurd violation of the fourth clause of the "Please do not" section on ITN voting conduct. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support this us like the malaria vaccine story.. we're not going to post every nuclear power plant opening, but this the largest one planned for a long while. Article is good shape. --Masem (t) 17:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If posted, the blurb needs to be adjusted. The nuclear power plant has been running since the 1980s, but the newsworthy thing is that they completed/opened a new nuclear reactor in the power plant on April 16. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Updated. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see how this reaches the bar for ITN. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Rockstone and DarkSide. This is just.......an update on a building being built? That happens in literally every country, all the time. That's not ITN worthy, see WP:FASTCYCLE. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Large infrastructure does get built in most countries, yet few have such detailed articles written on them. We also sometimes feature the opening of bridges, tunnels, or railways. Other constructions tend to have less distinct start-dates of operations, so it can be harder to feature (for example) large towers or road networks in ITNs. However, these are all great subjects for a well-updated encyclopedia to feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Important both energy and international policy related.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. It's nice to see that at least some European nations are taking positive steps for renewable energy. On a more serious note the expansion of this nuclear power plant has been a somewhat major issue within Finland for a long time due to the massive delays, which makes its eventual opening even more significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support It's a pretty solid article, though the update (a single sentence in the lead) is a bit thin. --Jayron32 11:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per WaltCip and Flyingfishee. Shanes (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted SpencerT•C 03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 16[edit]

April 16, 2023 (2023-04-16) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

The Phantom of the Opera[edit]

Proposed image
Article: The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Phantom of the Opera, (Majestic Theater pictured) the longest-running Broadway show, closes after 35 years and 13,981 performances. (Post)
News source(s): AP, NPR, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major theater news with articles popping up around the world about this milestone. While not an award like the Tony's (which is listed on recurring items), It is a rare occurrence and treated very much like an award. Art, and particularly theater, are not highlighted often on ITN, but this occurrence is arguably the most notable event in theater in decades. The last time a longest running show closed was Cats in 2000, and It will take about 10 years for Chicago to break this record if the show lasts that long. Found5dollar (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose: This probably is more suited for DYK. 167.91.2.226 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hard to see how it would be eligible, unless it becomes a GA very quickly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional support - I was actually just about to nominate this myself. Per my "subject article = newsworthy" clause, I think it should be posted. This is a major drama-related news (I know a lot of y'all like that) that had already been receiving sustained, international, WP:RS coverage before, all of which has been accentuated since its last showing. I'm not to invested in theater myself, and even I was getting bombarded with stories from even non-American outlets regarding this story. Unfortunately, the Phantom article itself is littered with various {{CN}} tags. On a similar note, I would also support including the Majestic theater as a bolded article, as it would be a great way to feature a GA on the main page. By the way, for the folks that always oppose ITN noms with "this is more suited to DYK," are y'all actually aware of the criteria for posting to DYK? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 16:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Even if the recent event is deemed newsworthy, the target article cannot sustain a "quality update" without giving the closure WP:UNDUE weight. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure how; the few sentences necessary to note the final performance would not overwhelm the rest of the text in the article. --Jayron32 18:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The date and final cast were set some time ago. The only updates I see in the last week are a performance-by-performance log of the actor performing the phantom. So it's already undue, and I can't imagine what else there is to say. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose not really ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you mean ITN? Because this wasn't nominated for WP:ITN/R. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial trivia is WP:DYK's cup of tea, not ours. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should clarify its the longest ever running show, as the blurb could be read as longest running at the time of its last performance. But oppose on significance. nableezy - 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Admittedly I'm very uninformed about opera, but what's stopping them from just performing again in 1-2 years? We've had issues in ITN in the past where "best of their generation" athletes announced their retirements, only to come out of retirement. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That would be a revival production which isn't counted as adding to the original production run, so the numbering would restart. So a 2025 revival would break the run record in 2061. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support if article sourced. Huge milestone in English-language musical theatre and impossible to surpass for at least a decade and likely even longer. However, the article has several sourcing deficiencies at the moment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm always a bit unconvinced with the ending of theatre runs, as a new Phantom of the Opera will surely go in production in a few years. That being said, this is indeed a record. If the article is updated sufficiently and well-cited, I'd enjoy seeing it on ITN. I think this is a great subject for us to feature, a fine moment to celebrate the longevity of this play. Right now, I feel like the article isn't quite there yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Professional theater almost never makes it to ITN; the Tony Awards are ITN/R but no one ever bothers to nominate them nor bring them up to quality. This is an opportunity to post a story in an area that has almost zero representation. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can wait to see your nomination this June. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll put it on my radar. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The end of an era as they say. NoahTalk 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The show started in London years ahead of Broadway. It's still running there but there's talk of it ending later this year and, if that happens, there would be an encore as the primary and longest run is the one that matters most. Note also that we had this nominated last September. It's effectively like sports retirements as you can expect that there will be yet more productions and revivals in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support Unabashed Phantom fan here, I think it can barely meet notability requirements but not by much. Fine if it doesn't get posted, although we do have very little theatre coverage and some change might be nice. The Kip (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Yeah, tricky one. Whilst "Longest Broadway Show" is a thing, as Andrew says, it's been running since 1986 in London (apart from a Covid break) with over twice as many performances than the Boradway version. However, even that is not going to break any West End show records either because of The Mousetrap, and at least two other West End shows have more performances than the target article. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per Andrew. This is like sports retirements. As people sometimes go out of retirement, it’s not unlikely that the musical will be staged again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: Once a Broadway production closes, it's done for good and it won't have another "run". There are revival performances but they usually happen in single years and not for prolonged periods of time. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, when an “original run” ends, any future revival won’t be “original” any more. However, Broadway theatre doesn’t really indicate that revivals are rare and short-lived (Chicago is a proof for that). So, if the musical with the second-longest original run in history had a long revival, it’s normal to expect the one with the longest run to get it as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is the problem with posting pop culture on ITN? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support important, well-known record; per ITN guidelines, a story in the news deemed significant by ITN users. One orange tag, but otherwise article appears in reasonable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Top theatre news along with a record for a classic, good to cover news beyond the usual drab. Should post this before it becomes stale. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmad Jamal[edit]

Article: Ahmad Jamal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Pitchfork
Credits:

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: "Awards and honors", "Compilations" need sourcing. Discography needs assessment. Mooonswimmer 00:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Saikazaki bombing[edit]

(Non admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Saikazaki bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured a day later) evades injury when a pipe bomb is thrown towards him in Saikazaki, Wakayama. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Japan, prime minister Fumio Kishida (pictured) avoids an attack in Saikazaki, Wakayama.
News source(s): BBC - The Telegraph - France 24 - The Hindustan Times - CNN - Reuters - Politico - Al Jazeera - Bloomberg
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The attempted assassination of Japanese PM Fumio Kishida. It has widespread WP:RS coverage and passes WP:NEVENTS. I'm surprised that this hasn't been nominated yet. By the way, for the people who will oppose because he didn't die, bear in mind that we posted the stabbing of Salman Rushdie in August. I don't know about you, but the Prime Minister of Japan is more important than some author that most folks my age don't know (especially considering what happened to Abe in July). Unfortunately, the subject article looks like the lungs of a chain smoker. It needs some serious rehab before posting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that would go against precedent though. If ITN was only going to accept “crazy” style assassination attempts, then what would be classified crazy? A drone strike isn’t “crazy” enough to be a significant assassination attempt, so why would a pipe bomb? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no "precedent" at ITN. The closest thing to that is ITNR, which is not precedent but the result of consensus from rigorous discussion. Every non-ITNR candidate is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems counter-productive though. ITN for attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister had four comments (only) and all directly about failed assassination attempts not being posted on ITN before it was SNOW closed. If precedent doesn’t matter, then that discussion (as well as the linked above discussion for former Brazil president attempted assassination ITN) mean nothing and are basically defunct. Obviously neither would be posted since they aren’t news anymore, but precedent basically closed them, so saying ITN doesn’t have precedent is false. Maybe an RfC discussion for ITNR might be best for this type of situation since there are two previous attempted assassinations that were not posted to ITN (one directly closed on grounds that it failed). Elijahandskip (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The comparision with the Rushdie stabbing is unjustified, he was seriously injured and the incident was the culmination of a long running, high profile controversy.
    I do not have a strong opinion on this incident, but no one appears to have been seriously injured including the PM, so the significance of this is questionable. Gotitbro (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Article is a bit short for my tastes. Not quite there for this type of topic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose due to a lack of importance. No-one was seriously injured & there's very little info about the suspect & the possible motives. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Article is a little short, and lacks information on things such as details on the would-be killer. An attempt on the life of any world leader, IMO, is notable, successful or not. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Failed attempt, just one bystander with minor injuries - lacks significance.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - the story here is that there is no story here. nableezy - 22:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose ‘Twas a smoke bomb. The bodyguard did a great job blocking, kicking it away, shielding and evacuating his protected. Jehochman Talk 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Dadeville shooting[edit]

WP:SNOW close. WP:NEVENT is in question and falls short of the very rough ITN/C threshold for US mass shootings ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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
The site of the shooting, pictured before its renovation from a bank.
Article: Dadeville shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, twenty-eight people are injured and four killed in a mass shooting at a 16th birthday celebration in a Dadeville, Alabama, Alabama dance studio (pictured) (Post)
News source(s): NYT - AP - USA Today - CNN - NPR
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Twenty casualties, including a beloved high school athlete. All I'm going to say is that it passed WP:NEVENTS, it's notable enough to have its own article, and it's literally in the news. The article does need some quality-related fixes, however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

2023 Dubai apartment fire[edit]

Article: 2023 Dubai apartment fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An apartment fire kills 16 and injures 9 in Al-Ras, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Gulf News, ABC News
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support pending improvements - there's very little actual information on the fire. Also, the response section needs greater clarity and sourcing, and the aftermath section should paradoxically probably be integrated into the background section, since all info contained in there are about prior events. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 20:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually in the process of rewriting and expanding the aftermath section. I will move it up to the background section shortly. Kurtis (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose on notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support after improvement, if this can make it past the Council of No. Fires in the UAE are not typical, and this is the latest of four such articles in that category.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, fires in the UAE are actually quite common. Check out this list of fires involving high-rise building façades and pay particularly close attention to their prevalence in Emirati cities like Dubai or Sharjah. Kurtis (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD/Blurb: Atique Ahmed[edit]

Article: Atique Ahmed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former member of the parliament Atique Ahmed and his brother was shot dead live on TV in Prayagraj, India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose A number of uncited statements, some of which may have BLP issues (about still living people, not just the subject). Not suitable for the Main Page at this point. Black Kite (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 15[edit]

April 15, 2023 (2023-04-15) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

(Ready) RD: Irma Blank[edit]

Article: Irma Blank (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): artnews.com, also one in Italian
Credits:

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: Unusual German-Italian artist, new article, derived from the German. There's much more detail in the sources if someone has time and interest. Not my topic but we share the place of birth ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Article is good enough for RD, with enough citations and a long enough article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Mufti Abdul Shakoor[edit]

Article: Mufti Abdul Shakoor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, Geo
Credits:

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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corach Rambler wins Grand National[edit]

Article: 2023 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In horse racing, following a delay to proceedings following protests, Corach Rambler (jockeyed by Derek Fox) wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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.

 XxLuckyCxX (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conditional Support - unfortunately, the article, as with many ITN/R competitions mostly consists of a table wall (plus some background). There's nothing about the actual race itself aside from the lead. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Sudan clashes[edit]

Article: 2023 Sudanese Armed Forces-Rapid Support Forces confrontation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Clashes erupt after fighters from the Rapid Support Forces attacked several army camps in Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
  • support rsf have at least one airport under control, possibly the capital. Rsf is more popular against the junta.49.205.151.137 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • extreme support - it is probably even more than a coup attempt at this point Braganza (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Article is sufficiently referenced and the even is important inasmuch as this looks like a civil war/coup attempt. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support though recommend trying to improve the reading flow on the events, and nixxing the flags in the reactions section. --Masem (t) 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Sourced. Length is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Extreme wait seems to be an ongoing situation. We have to wait and see how it turns out, and if it is a simple confrontations or something worse (like a possible failed or successful coup d'état). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - even if the coup fails, its still pretty notable. Also, the article is in surprisingly good shape for such a recent article (though as @Masem pointed out, the events section probably needs to be modified for greater readability.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per Alsor. Situation is still developing. I think waiting to assess the situation would be prudent. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait seems more appropriate. There is a pending move discussion ongoing as well. - Indefensible (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. It happened. It's notable. The article is ready. If it ends up becoming something more than a single confrontation, then we can move it to ongoing after it falls off ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait The blurb is not really descriptive. Both sides seem to claim a lot according to BBC, so I'd prefer to wait to be able to have a more descriptive blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support important event with the article in pretty good shape for an ongoing conflict. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support even if it failed an attempted coup would still be significant. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
War in Sudan – ongoing since 2008
  • Oppose Confused and competing claims so it's not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Don't get you. Is the article not reliable or what? There is a full on war right now. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Information is still coming in and much of it disputed. We know there is conflict, but many of the details are still murky. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would ongoing fit better then, in your opinion? DecafPotato (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking at the bold linked article now that this has been posted, the first thing I read is that this is "Part of the Sudanese transition to democracy". That's such obvious BS that one doesn't need go any further. Essentially, mayhem in Sudan is like shootings in the US and we already have it listed as a war in the list of ongoing armed conflicts. That entry has about 400,000 deaths since 2008 and so these latest skirmishes are just a drop in the ocean. They just seem to be attracting attention because they are happening in the capital. No doubt someone will claim that this "democracy" has resulted in an "election" and we'll be forced to run that too. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Somehow I'm not remotely surprised that you can't see how this represents a significant uptick in the conflict. The Kip (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The situation has escalated and clashes have spread throughout the country [9]. No reason to wait with posting at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support considerable escalation in the last 24h; article is acceptable enough and can only improve w additional exposure Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on significance. Article looks decent, but I have not examined it in great detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support due to significance and likelihood to stay in the news. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I'm not sure what's murky about this - military units attacking the government with fighter jets is absolutely ITN. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - notable enough, has extensive media cover with information becoming more reliable by the hour. The article is well written and sources
FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: article has been moved to 2023 Sudan clashes, could you (or anyone else) fix the link? Thanks, ansh.666 21:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done - it's been moved again since this comment, to 2023 Sudanese clashes, so that's the current link target. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I're updated the blurb with the death toll and made it less about the blow-by-blow details of the fighting: "In Sudan, at least 97 people die in clashes between rival factions of the military regime." Sandstein 08:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ford launches hands-free driving on UK motorways[edit]

(Non admin closure) WP:SNOW closing, as consensus to post will not appear to develop. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: Self-driving car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom's Department for Transport approves Ford Motor Company's on 2,300 miles (3,700 km) of motorways in England, Scotland and Wales. The UK becomes the first European country to approve hands-free driving technology on public roads. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Good day. New technology--СтасС (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - not a very riveting story, but its in the news. Target article has not been updated however.
- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 23:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose not really relevant. There are many issues that are "in the news", but we cannot include all "In the news" per se. Good faith nomination, of course _-_Alsor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    but not with the first news that comes before our eyes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. "First European country" is an arbitrary distinction and not ITN worthy. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to mention this new legislation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial trivia. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - not ITN worthy. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I don't see any noteworthy advancement in self-driving technology here. This is just approving another safety system Ford has implemented that makes sure the driver's eyes are on the road, in contrast to the traditional method of checking if the driver is attentative by keeping their hands on the wheel. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) Ghana becomes first country to approve Oxford malaria vaccine R21/Matrix-M[edit]

Article: Malaria vaccine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ghana becomes the first country to approve the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ R21/Matrix-M, a proven-effective malaria vaccine, is first approved for use by regulators in Ghana.
News source(s): (Pharmaceutical Technology), AP, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
  • Oppose One nation approving a vaccine is not really ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 13:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am going to change my !vote on this, though I have added an altblurb that is towards my reasoning. That is, when I look back at the news about this, I don't see a really good point where the vaccine clearly became *the* candidate for use; it was shown to meet WHO's requirement in 2021, and had successful human testing in 2022, but never a point that marked it as ready to be used to the public. Its clear from other articles that Ghana must have seen the last phase 3 tests (yet to be publicly published) and opted to go with it; WHO is also looking into it but how soon that is, is not clear. So this seems like a key point. We're clearly not going to post when other countries approve it for use (though maybe consider the WHO's approval). --Masem (t) 14:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • One could argue that a malaria vaccine in itself is newsworthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      the vaccine yes (although Masem has not questioned this), its approval by a specific country no. It is purely a bureaucratic formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I ain't questionin' that anybody was questionin' anything, just pointin' out. Cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 17:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mid Support - sure you can dismiss this as "just one nation," but I don't think folks in the first-world are aware of how crippling malaria is in the tropics. We're talking about what is the sixth most fatal cause of death in most low-income countries, a scourge that exterminates half a million people annually, many of whom (80%) are children, one that devastates these countries financially. This vaccine developed by Oxford is the most efficient malaria vaccine to be developed, primarily in that is able to combat the disease well before its destructive symptoms raise their ugly heads. Even if it's just "one country," this is still likely the start of a major medical miracle. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The development of the vaccine would have been the ITN item, not approval by one country, on that same reasoning - its what the vaccine means to the part of the world suffering from malaria. Masem (t) 15:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, it has to start somewhere. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "has to start somewhere" was the successful creation and human trials of the vaccine. Masem (t) 23:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No question there. But if nobody chose to actually use the vaccine then we would have probably never known much about it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. If Ghana is Malaria free, we can talk about it, but that doesn't seem possible with this vaccine according to the articleParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support if the article's improved per Knightoftheswords. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work The topic is more significant than most of the stuff posted at ITN but the target article is quite broad and has some issues including orange cleanup tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support an effective malaria vaccine has been a major international goal for a long time and it's great to see progress on it. Also the vaccine being approved for use is probably the most significant stage of it's development so it's not like there will be a better time than now. Flyingfishee (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Either we start adding more items to ITN or we stagnate. Pluswhich, a working malaria vaccine should be major medical news. What more is it going to take? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Support per Masem. In fact, I felt quite compelled to oppose per their original comment as well, but have also felt swayed by the amendment. This vaccine is quite significant, so I think it deserves a little extra ITN recognition at checkpoints that we would not post for other vaccines. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support A malaria vaccine with 77% efficacy (WHO goal was 75%) being approved for use by a national regulator for the first time is absolutely significant for posting. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 20:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1151134415"