Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Mette Frederiksen in 2009
Mette Frederiksen

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

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


Suggestions[edit]

June 7[edit]


June 6[edit]

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Dubai bus crash[edit]

Article: 2019 Dubai bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 17 people of different nationalities have been killed and several more injured after a bus hit an overhead road sign in Dubai, UAE.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Article just created as it is top news on BBC. More work remains to be done. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose @Sherenk1: what's the point of creating and nominating a one-sentence substub? It's a waste of everyone's time. Article is now at AfD. -Zanhe (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing: Kivu Ebola Outbreak[edit]

Article: 2018-2019_Kivu_Ebola_outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

Nominator's comments: The death toll of this outbreak recently surpassed 1,000, a significant milestone which makes this the second-worst outbreak of Ebola ever. The death toll appears to be accelerating, as we're now approaching 100 deaths per week. Also, for an article about a current event, the article is in very good shape. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


RD: Dr. John[edit]

Article: Dr. John (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American musician dies at age 77. Davey2116 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Incredible entertainer, 6 Grammies. Good article. 7&6=thirteen (?) 00:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragically, the article is a mess. It would require a LOT of work to get to Main Page standards. Teemu08 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly unreferenced. Stephen 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose In terrible shape, with large amounts unreferenced. About half should have been culled under the BLP rules. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose most definitely not in good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Danish general elections[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Danish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The centre-left bloc wins a majority in the Danish general election.
Alternative blurb: ​In the Danish general election, centre-left parties supporting Mette Frederiksen (pictured) as the new Prime Minister win a majority.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Danish general election, centre-left parties led by Mette Frederiksen (pictured) win a majority.
News source(s): Metro Express

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: You know, an election.

  • Comment It's not exactly correct to say that the centre-left alliance won. There is no formal alliance, only informal blocks. It might be better as "Centre-left parties win a majority in the 2019 Danish general elections". Number 57 10:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Changed to traditional denomination. complainer 10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb (my blurb) Article in good shape, I am a major contributor. The blurb needs to be balanced, as difficult negotiations will start now, and it is not certain, that Frederiksen can become PM, but considering that the former PM has already resigned, the exception that she will become PM is fair. ― Heb the best (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Slight nitpicks, but corrected "wins" in the altblurb to "win" so as to match with the pluralized "centre-left parties". Also, added a definite article to "Prime Minister" and a concluding period to both at the end of both blurbs. (I should probably ask, are we even allowed to edit the proposed blurbs while they are being discussed? Because I have a feeling that the blurbs probably aren't freely editable, unlike the rest of Wikipedia--and thus, feel free to revert this if such edits are not allowed.) TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is information with unclear sourcing. The Opinion poll section needs a summary. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Support Alternative blurb II (which I proposed) This is ITNR and the article is now properly sourced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose charming picture and all that, but a lot of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5[edit]

Armed attacks and conflicts
  • Sudanese protests
    • The Central Committee of Sudanese Doctors say the number of people killed this week in Sudan is at least 100, and that 40 bodies were pulled from the River Nile at Khartoum on Tuesday. Members of the Rapid Support Forces have reportedly been roaming the streets attacking civilians as it pushes deeper into Khartoum. (BBC)
    • A Sudanese official denies that 100 people were killed by a paramilitary unit during protests, saying that the number was at most 46. (BBC)

Business and economy
  • Fiat Chrysler withdraws its merger proposal for French carmaker Renault after Renault board members were unable to reach a decision on the offer. (BBC)
  • YouTube announces a new policy regarding hate speech and harassment on the video sharing platform, saying it will specifically ban videos that include neo-nazi and supremacist content, subsequently suspending several popular right-wing channels, and demonetizing Steven Crowder's. (CNET)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Elio Sgreccia[edit]

Article: Elio Sgreccia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Catholic Herald, La Stampa

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Cardinal of the Catholic Church, bioethicist and president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Should be adequately referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Adequately referenced, acceptable quality article. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I added a cn tag, but anyway the article looks ok for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – CN tags remain and relies almost entirely on primary sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Until concerns taken care of.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs and BabbaQ: CN tags resolved and a few more references to non-primary sources added. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I will strike my oppose. This doesn't inspire confidence. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 4[edit]

Business and economics

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Lennart Johansson[edit]

Article: Lennart Johansson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Top name within UEFA. BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is not super long, but is well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Coverage is fine. Just need a few sources in his early life. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Darwin shooting[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 01:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Darwin shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​5 people are killed by a gunman in Darwin, Australia.
Alternative blurb: ​A gunman kills 5 people in Darwin, Australia.
Alternative blurb II: ​5 people are killed in a shooting in Darwin, Australia.
 Since incidents like this are relatively rare in Australia, I hereby nominate this article. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk ? contribs), 21:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least presently, looks like domestic crime (guy with criminal history goes on a seemingly targetted shooting rampage). Terror has already been ruled out, but would be open if this was something with more motivation than just life-criminal being stupid. --Masem (t) 21:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose local criminal news story only.—Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the point being missed here really is that gun crime in Australia is really incredibly low for a nation whose population owns a reasonably large number of guns. Testimony to this is the sparse category of Category:Mass shootings in Australia which has a grand total of 11 entries, of which around 4 are from the past few decades. Compare that to the gun crimes which occur in the United States (including those which aren't terror related, just loonies with guns shooting festival goers, for example), there have been more mass shootings in the US in the past month than in Australia in the past four decades. In summary, it's probably a hundred times more significant than the Virginia shootings. But the article is weak and the lasting significance is limited, hence the w/o. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreeing on this in part: the situation woudl be different if this was seemingly a law-abiding citizen that suddenly went on a spree. A known criminal (though legally out of prison) going on a shooting spree is not unusual anywhere. --Masem (t) 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      Theoretically speaking, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • TRM I'll make you a deal: the first time you comment on a random act of violence without making some unprovoked, unrelated derisive remark about your feelings with regard to gun violence in the United States being too routine to be notable, I'll buy you a pint. (LaserLegs logged out) --76.122.98.253 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Why? What did I say that was incorrect? Australia has a much smaller population than the US. It has a much lower gun crime rate than the US. This crime is way more significant than what happened in Virginia, but as I said, probably still not significant enough for our main page. I'm not deriding gun crime in the US, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy I"m afraid while absolutely nothing is done about the daily slaughter. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Because you brought up a subject that cast a negative light on the US in a nom that had nothing to do with the U.S. Because you never pass up an opportunity to throw shade at our country, our government, and our people. Yorktown was 238 years ago; move on with your life. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
          In fairness, keep in mind that Cornwallis never made it to the surrender ceremony, so perhaps the news never made it back to the higher echelons of British society. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
          • There's no way you can properly gauge the scope of this event without making a comparison to mass shootings that occur in the US. TRM was as objective as could be. You are trying to find things wrong with his !vote and casting aspersions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
            • Nope, this nom has nothing to do with the US, no one had previously brought up the US, and there isn't any reason I can think of to compare the USA to Australia. None, zip, zero, nadda. --116.84.217.160 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
              • Well think harder. Given that more than a dozen editors thought a non-terror-related shooting of twelve in Virginia, US, where mass shootings happen every day, was worth supporting, it was interesting to know why that dozen editors didn't think that a non-terror-related shooting of four in Australia, where mass shootings happen once a decade, was worth supporting. This is setting a very useful precedent for other mass shootings in the US which aren't terror related, so if nothing else, at least we're raising the bar even further on the standard daily killing stories from the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Indeed, I think the actions that occur in the US cast a negative light over the US, not me comparing like-for-like events across the planet. Everything I said was factually correct. If you think that "throwing shade" then I'm afraid there's no hope in having a reasonable conversation with you here. As someone once said, "truth hurts". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
            • "Yorktown was 238 years ago; move on with your life": Given the triteness of the comment, I'm not sure TRM is the one who needs to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per TRM and the overall circumstances of the event.--WaltCip (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- not really that notable a story considering the circumstances. Rockstonetalk to me! 05:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Comparatively insignificant in magnitude – and "not terrorism-related," according to Australia's PM. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - minimal lasting impact, and no terror connection, means that this falls short of the threshold of significance required for posting, despite the rarity of such incidents down under. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and TRM; mass shootings are incredibly rare in Australia (and therefore more noteworthy), but the circumstances of this don't rise to notability for ITN, in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and TRM - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

RD: Nechama Rivlin[edit]

Article: Nechama Rivlin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo, Haaretz

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Short article but mostly OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • support article seems sourced and good to go. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – 2 citations needed. Also, she was an academic for 40 years. Can we manage more than 2 sourced sentences on her career and perhaps mention her academic career in the lead? She is currently portrayed as armpiece. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
While those citations needed can be looked into, I do not think they warrant exclusion from being in RD. And your second point is a content issue, not a ITRN issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they preclude posting as this is a BLP issue. And the second point is a quality issue which is an ITNR issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Except she wasn't an academic, she worked in academia, but she was indeed most famous for being the wife of the President. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per C&C. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. If the three needed sources are added I may reconsider. Acabashi (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Acabashi:the article is now completely sourced. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I deleted the claims I couldn't find references for, and that were not in the Hebrew article. While the content itself could be expanded, the article itself is now referenced and as per ITNR, ready to go on RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. --BoothSiftTalks 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift:Can you clarify? Which part of the article remains unsourced? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "First Lady", for a start. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I added two refs for that. Again, we are not adding a featured article, we are adding an RD. The article is good to go, we don't need to nit-pick. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We. Do. It has nothing to do with an FA: information is supposed to be supported by citations, including for BLPs - which includes those who have recently died. It's about having some basic standards in place, including for those that are directly linked from the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely spot on. I will give it a full review later on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
My only question is, do the Israelis actually use the phrase "first lady" – presumably of U.S. derivation? Sounds a bit hackneyed to the modern ear. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Good question. A google search (which is indicative, rather than 'proof'), seems to have a heavy majority of "wife of the president" or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A quick Google search shows many RS are reporting her death as "First Lady", for example, [2],[3],[4],[5] Sir Joseph (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And many others do not. Those that do seem to have the term in lower case, as a descriptor, rather than capitalised as a formal title. The article is not reflecting the majority of sources at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". So support. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article" which is where we're falling short. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    The quality of the article is fine, what you are doing now is picking nits. You are discussing the content of the article now, not the quality of the article. If you want to improve the article, feel free to do so, but the article is appropriate to be mentioned in RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not following you at all. Where did I "discuss the content of the article"? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. What I did say was that gaping chasms in the biography are a quality issue and that's grounds for opposing an article. I don't think that's "picking nits" but of course your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Where's the gaping chasm in the biography? There is no quality issue in this article. It's sourced appropriately. She is famous for being the wife of the President, not for having anything to do with education. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Her 40 year career as a researcher in "academia" glossed over in two sentences. What did she research? Did she remain a research for 40 years with only a bachelor's degree? What did she do in the Department of Zoology? What did she do in the Department of Ecology? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    That is not what she is notable for. Her entry is for being the First Lady of Israel. There are "millions" of people who do research in colleges, who knows what they do. Right now, yes, you are nitpicking. This article is sufficiently notable and of good quality for RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Then her notability is entirely inherited. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Then go file an AFD. You know the page is good enough for RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, because she is notable. We just failed to write a "minimally comprehensive" article about her. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support- article is relatively brief but well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Adequately sourced, start length, so good enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass ministerial resignations during Sri Lanka anti-Muslim riots[edit]

Articles: 2019 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka (talk, history) and 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: Anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka sees mass resignations of ministers
Alternative blurb: ​Sri Lanka sees mass ministerial resignations amidst casualties and looting during ongoing anti-Muslim riots
Alternative blurb II: ​Casualties and looting during ongoing anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka sees mass ministerial resignations.
News source(s): Original announcement (video, English), NY Times Reuters Al Jazeera RT Channel News Asia

Article updated

Nominator's comments: All Muslim cabinet ministers, state ministers, and deputy ministers mass-resigned to allow space for free and open investigations of the Sri Lanka Easter bombings, and due to increasing anti-Muslim sentiment due to the ongoing anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, which saw at least 9 dead, and thousands of property destroyed. Suggestions for alternative blurbs are welcome. P31?P40? (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. The general story--communal breakdown in Sri Lanka--is ITN-worthy as it would be in any country. The mass resignation is an event that provides for a useful and timely "event" hook to cover the story in ITN. For a possible blurb: "Nine Muslim ministers resign from the government of Sri Lanka amid deepening(?) communal divisions following the [church bombings]/[anti-Muslim riots]."--Mkativerata (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mkativerata on this being a worthy nom, but this article is a textbook example of why proseline is discouraged. As an uninformed reader, I was so distracted that I could not follow the narrative and comprehend the scope of the happenings. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Unfortunately, the article remains substandard in terms of prose. It needs a thorough rewrite – if possible, by an English speaker or speakers versed in Sri Lanka. It could go into Ongoing – if there were current updates on major Eng.-lang. news sites. Still haven't seen any. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is dominating local news and sees international coverage as well. Banedon (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. While the article may not be in the best structure, the language is reasonably clear, grammar is fine, and all statements are well sourced. As this is very significant news, may I suggest this be posted sooner please? If anyone has the time and experience, please do feel free to make the necessary changes to the article. P31?P40? (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @P31?P40?: - while I agree with your sentiments, your support is tacitly provided in the nomination itself, and there is not yet sufficient consensus to post. No need to hurry things. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support ongoing - I feel that an ongoing listing such as that proposed below, rather than a blurb, is preferable to this story (which is of clear significance to ITN). Article quality is passable at present, but could be enhanced. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Banedon and others. The article doesn't seem to have any significant quality concerns, so it seems to be ready. Brendon the Wizard ?? ? 22:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per BrendonTheWizard, I agree with him. --BoothSiftTalks 02:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The article needs a complete overhaul for grammar, tone and to remove proseline. Stephen 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Stephen. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Linda Collins-Smith[edit]

Article: Linda Collins-Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-sourced article. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose not updated properly, tense issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article has now been updated. -Zanhe (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

June 3[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

(Ready) RD: Tang Dingyuan[edit]

Article: Tang Dingyuan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well-sourced. Thanks for starting this article Zanhe! Thsmi002 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Massacre in Sudan[edit]

Article: 2018–19 Sudanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 65 protesters are killed when forces loyal to the high command of the Sudanese Armed Forces open fire upon a sit-in outside their headquarters in Khartoum with thousands of attendees.
News source(s): Liberation News, teleSUR English, teleSUR English

Nominator's comments: Army intervention in Khartoum, several casualties. Currently 1-sentence update in the article which can be improved. I cannot work on the article at the moment but the story is ITN. Tone 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – This has been going on for several days, with up to 100 casualties reported. Today BBC quotes opsn saying "40 bodies pulled from Nile." – Sca (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment At the moment it doesn't appear that a blurb to support has been proposed, but the recent escalation appears to be the deadliest since the protests started and the president was ousted. As of less than an hour ago, the death toll since Monday rose to 108. I'd definitely support posting something on notability. Brendon the Wizard ?? ? 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Seems to be a very significant geopolitical event. -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this is now a massacre. -Zanhe (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Paul Darrow[edit]

Article: Paul Darrow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Entertainment Weekly/Yahoo, The Guardian

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A couple of small sourcing issues, most of the article looks pretty well-sourced. Challenger l (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think you underestimate the amount of work needed - there are multiple paragraphs without citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree. There are at least 11 sources needed for the 'Career' section, and as this was a BLP until two days ago, ie he very recently deceased, we have to treat it in that regard. Acabashi (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - but if work is done, ping me.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Donald M. Fraser[edit]

Article: Donald M. Fraser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician, former congressman and mayor of Minneapolis, dies at age 95. Major sourcing gaps. Davey2116 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose as noted, bereft of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even close.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lanka anti-Muslim riots[edit]

Withdrawn by nom. New developments on June 4 is more significant for ITN. P31?P40? (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2019 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka (talk, history) and 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): SCMP, Daily Mirror, many more are in the article.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: After the ISIS Easter bombings, rioters and hardline groups who fuelled the 2018 and 2014 riots are back in action. At least 9 dead, and hundreds of houses and business are set on fire. Suggestions welcome for alternative blurbs. P31?P40? (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both quality and that this is better suited as a Ongoing event. Daily Mirror should be a source avoided for RSes, for example. -- User:Masem 15:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Who are you? I haven't check but surely a no name signature is against policy. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
An admin that typed an extra ~. User:Masem. P31?P40? (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That being said, Masem, can you help with listing it as "ongoing event" please? I am not familiar with ITN at all. P31?P40? (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
You'd need to get rid of the blurbs, then the ongoing nom will show up. --Masem (t) 03:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unfind any current reports on this among major Eng.-lang. sources. Sca (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
1 2 3 (from today). The latest news states that Bodu Bala Sena has promised to create countrywide pandemonium at noon on June 3. P31?P40? (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
None of those is a major Eng.-lang. RS. The editorial independence of state-owned Al Jazeera may reasonably be questioned, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sca. France24, Jakarta Post The Hindu Japan Times BBC. A little google search goes a long way. P31?P40? (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That BBC story is three weeks old. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I know, because there was nothing new other than violence. There is also a strong barrier blocking news going out, hence I was sourcing dependable local news agencies. P31?P40? (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • New development. All Muslim cabinet ministers, state ministers, and deputy ministers, resigned. This happened 45min ago, while rioters beat up Muslim bystanders in other parts of the country. Major incidents are unfolding in Sri Lanka. Sources TBA. P31?P40? (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Might make a separate article – if properly sourced. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This is very recent news. This facebook video is the only latest source elaborating the decision in English. As you can see in the video, there are mics from Reuters, BBC, and others. Hopefully, their articles will be up in a few days. Either way, this news item is eligible for ITN, as a news item, or as a current event. The folks here can decide. P31?P40? (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

June 1[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
  • A suicide bomber driving a Humvee detonated the vehicle loaded with explosives near a security building in Afghanistan, killing 8 officers. (ariananews)
Arts and culture

Business and economics
  • Chinese authorities begin an investigation into American multinational courier delivery services company FedEx for allegedly undermining the rights of Chinese clients. The investigation stems from allegations by Chinese telecommunications company Huawei that FedEx attempted to divert the shipping route of its packages without the company's prior authorization which in turn has been denied by FedEx. (CNBC)

Disasters and accidents
  • Twenty-nine people are injured in a fire at a center used as temporary accommodation for about 500 migrants in the northwestern Bosnian town of Velika Kladusa. (Reuters)
  • An explosion at a Russian Military high-explosive production and storage facility in the city of Dzerzhinsk injures 79 people. (BBC)
  • Six earthquakes, the first 5.3 Mw, in a two-hour period near Kor?? in southeastern Albania injure four people and damage around 100 houses. (Reuters)
  • Cruise ship MSC Opera collides with a riverboat and the quayside at Venice, Italy: four people are injured, none seriously. The incident leads to renewed demands to ban large cruise ships from the Lagoon of Venice. (BBC)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Leah Chase[edit]

Article: Leah Chase (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Queen of Creole Cuisine and involved in civil rights. Article has a handful of CNs and a few uncited statements but not too far off. Masem (t) 17:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support subject important enough and article good enough. – John M Wolfson (talk ? contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The article has referencing issues. It also has an unconventional structure, but that is not independently disqualifying. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Article: 2019 UEFA Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Liverpool win the UEFA Champions League, defeating Tottenham Hotspur in the final.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: A prose summary has been added already. SounderBruce 20:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good article, excellent update, well-formatted article, who could ask for anything more from an ITNR whose event has concluded simply minutes ago? Shades of that good ol' canoe race up the Thames, well done to SounderBruce for the hard work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go. SIX TIMES. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support without doubt. No reason not to. IWI (chat) 21:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Substantial article with impressive referencing Brendon the Wizard ?? ? 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Run of the mill event. Inconsequential. Occurs every year and not special in any way when viewed from different part of the world. Shameful. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    It's ITNR. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, Mario "Chopper" Savio was a useful midfielder in away games, but got a bit over-excited inside the box. I wonder will we post the result of this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, and WP:POINT. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. However, I'm really puzzled by some editors' judgment of routine events. The 64th routine annual football match gets an automatic pass whereas the 18th deadliest mass shooting in the last 70 years of US history is deemed unimportant. -Zanhe (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    It's ITNR. I suppose we could add "every mass shooting in the US" as an ITNR so every mass shooting gets an immediate listing. The point is that this match will be spoken about and discussed for decades, whereas the daily mass shooting event in the US won't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    You will remember this; I will remember that. That is the definition of POV. Balance gets us to NPOV. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    The 18th deadliest shooting in 70 years is not the same as "every mass shooting in the US", just as the UEFA Final is not the same as "every football match in Europe". -Zanhe (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Come on, multiple people are shot to death every day in the US. This is no different in any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    But it's not every day or even every year that more than a dozen people in the US are killed in a single shooting. If this off-topic thread is to continue, it should probably be moved to the relevant nomination. Brendon the Wizard ?? ? 00:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. This off-topic thread is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
What topic are we discussing? Sca (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Antonio Reyes[edit]

Article: José Antonio Reyes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Arsenal winger Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - well sourced Spiderone 13:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but a few paragraphs are still unreferenced. Will get to it after the big match. now that paragraphs are adequately referenced. SounderBruce 20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Bruce, mostly fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Marking ready per edits completed by SounderBruce. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ani Yudhoyono[edit]

Article: Ani Yudhoyono (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Straits Times, Washington Post

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Juxlos (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Virginia Beach shooting[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Virginia Beach shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting at a municipal building in Virginia Beach, US, leaves at least thirteen people dead and five others wounded.
News source(s): (WSJ) (CNN) (Fox News)
Nominator's comments: Even though mass shootings aren't uncommon in the US, this one has a notable amount of deaths and is receiving a lot of coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ?) 00:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the death toll rises sharply and/or this turns out to be a terrorist incident. Mass shootings in the united states are fairly commonplace occurrences.[6] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This has gone into double-digit fatalities (we currently have a boat crash with fewer deaths). I also recall noting here after the Suzano school shooting a few months ago that the eight deaths there were a lot for any such event outside the US; someone responded that that would be a high death toll anywhere. So I think 12 deaths here gets it on the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if only due to the brevity of the article at the moment. – John M Wolfson (talk ? contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mass shootings are common occurrences in the US, and they never result in any action. Like suicides, they are best not reported. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A severe event, and the deadliest for some time, regardless of the occurrence. Thirteen people died so I definitely would say it is worthy of the main page. IWI (chat) 04:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support although mass shootings are common in the US, double-digit death tolls are relatively rare. This is the deadliest shooting of the year so far, see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. -Zanhe (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --Wow (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is all over the news and is clearly notable. The article is in good shape. I really don't know what the argument is to not post this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Davey2116. Jusdafax (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes the List of deadliest shootings in the US. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:C486:B74F:DFAC:DEA3 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Horrible news need more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:2025:DA63:A047:946D:7A0:9C2 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support both on the significance of the story and the current state of the article covering it Brendon the Wizard ?? ? 07:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as mass shooting is a daily occurrence in the US. It wasn't a terrorist incident because the perpetrator was most probably a mentally disturbed, god-fearing Christian White male in his 30s or 40s with a medical history. Besides you take the reactions out and you don't have enough meat in the article. - Invisible Lad (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per we currently have a boat crash with fewer deaths; that's because where the boat crash took place made it extremely rare. The same clearly can't be said for this relatively common phenomena, unfortunately. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:EC31:1054:4F0C:C40F (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Although mass shootings are relatively common in the United States, double digit death tolls are relatively rare. Article looks fine. Compilergeek (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose shootings in the US are far too common for ITN. 184.216.174.71 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Please restore the support !vote you deleted when you posted your oppose. You don’t get to do that, inadvertently or deliberately. Jusdafax (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, given the number of fatalities, this one is pretty big, even for the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Purely domestic incident - guy is fired, goes on shooting spree next day at place he was fired from. Tragic but part of the gun culture that we unforuntately have in the US. --Masem (t) 12:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949", and 43rd mass shooting in the US in May 2019. Other than the death toll there is essentially nothing to distinguish this from almost any of the other 147 events in the USA this year - 31 May was the 151st day of the year so it is essentially a daily occurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
That's like saying the 2019 UEFA Champions League Final (a shoo-in nomination above) is the 1,000th (random big number, likely much more) football match played this year in Europe. -Zanhe (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. The point being made is that there's always a list that these mass shootings will feature on. "Deadliest mass shooting this year", "Deadliest school shooting since Z", etc etc. It's all indicative of inconsequential news. So what? We all know that mass shootings happen every day in the United States. Nothing changes, it's not encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Football games occur every day in Europe and nothing changes. How are they more encyclopedic than mass murders with real victims? -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? Mind you, what do I know, apparently I'm "clueless" so no point in discussing this with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you actually answer the question? Besides, no one said the word "clueless" here besides you. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not true, but don't let the truth get in way. And the answer is already clear: the Champions League final will be in the news for days, will be recalled for years and is ITNR. Yet another mass shooting with no consequence whatsoever is actually barely encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – As far as we know, he was not fired and was a current employee. This is the deadliest shooting in the U.S. this year. It was also "18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949". Also unique about this incident is the use of a silencer. The death toll is significant. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 (and other years) for a reason; they're simply run-of-the-mill. Yes, this one was the largest death toll this year, but I don't see anything particularly notable about it otherwise. Someone said above "it's the 18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949". Would we post anything else that was the 18th biggest something since 1949? The answer is - probably not, unless it was particularly notable for another reason. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The "18th biggest something" in the post-war era that causes a dozen deaths will likely be posted. The Sinking of Hableány, which was just posted, probably wouldn't rank in the top 50 deadliest maritime disasters in Europe in the last 70 years per List of maritime disasters in the 20th century. -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Which would be a good argument if more than 300 pleasure cruisers sank every year in Europe. But they don't. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If someone had nominated any other event - weather catastrophe, non-ITNR sporting event outcome, etc - with a note of "18th largest of its type", the nom would be speedy closed. These events are considered routine now, and something particularly extraordinary has to happen in order for these sorts of events to stand out.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just another mass shooting in the workplace which while tragic has become all too common in the US. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as noted, commonplace and inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The 18th-most-deadly mass shooting in the post-war history of one of the globe's 200-odd countries. Of course not. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Major shooting with a large number of deaths. Forget about the Champions League; I would say that Mass shootings in the United States is a much more important topic as a whole than Super Bowl, which we post every year per ITN/R. If we would post the 50th most significant Super Bowl since 1949, why wouldn't we post the 18th most significant mass shooting in the US? -- King of ♠ 22:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    This is becoming silly now, we don't post B because we posted A. You should know that. This shooting will have precisely zero long term impact, in years to come no-one will talk about it or read about it, it's just a one-line in the list of mass murders in the US. The other events on the other hand will be discussed and re-visited time and again. Whether that's right or wrong in your (and others) personal opinion, is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing silly about logical consistency. If we don't dismiss major sports events on the basis that they're routine, there's no reason to apply the "routineness" criterion to major crimes, which are by all means less routine. -Zanhe (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
No, the logical consistency comes from the fact that the Champions League final is ITNR. Unless I'm mistaken, mass shootings in the US aren't on ITNR. And mass shootings in America happen every single day and have little or no consequence whatsoever. This is barely encyclopedic and probably could be covered by a single line in a general "Mass shootings in the United States in May 2019" article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of ITN/R is to prevent events of virtually identical importance year to year from receiving disparate treatment each time it happens. As shootings are not regular and vary vastly in importance, it would be very difficult to construct an ITN/R item for them. However, it is entirely valid to compare non-ITN/R items to lowest-common-denominator ITN/R items in importance; the argument is that if an ITN/R has been repeatedly reconfirmed despite attempts to remove it from the list (The Boat Race comes to mind in particular), then anything at least as important as it should be posted. ITN/R does not magically set aside a class of events that do not need to meet significance requirements; rather, the inclusion of an item in ITN/R is the judgment that such an item does in fact meet the requirements in each of its iterations, and so logically the minimum level of importance cannot exceed whatever the ITN/R event attains. -- King of ♠ 06:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the purpose of ITNR. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It's ridiculous (and callous) to say that "in years to come no-one will talk about it or read about it". Crimes of a much smaller scale are remembered and discussed all the time. See Laurie Dann. Those events were discussed in the news last year. Obviously, someone will remember. Zagalejo^^^ 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - mass shootings are simply too frequent in the United States to justify posting this one, which does not have an especially massive death toll compared to the norm, particularly in recent times (18th most deadly since 1949, sure, but 6th most deadly since 2015). Arguments about the relative merits of other nominations are irrelevant, we consider this nomination on its own merits, and it is not significant enough as stands to merit a blurb in my view, unless there is some hitherto unknown development (terrorist connections, more fatalities, etc.) - Stormy clouds (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • 6th deadliest shooting since 2015 is another good reason to post. This means this high a death toll is a twice yearly event. This is confirmed by the fact that this is the deadliest shooting this year and since November 2018. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree, to be perfectly candid. Twice yearly is way too often to be posting blurbs about what is ultimately one type of mass murder in one country, especially when there is and will be no lasting impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2116. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – 13 murdered at one place/time is significant enough. Levivich 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    And by the way, no, 13 murdered at one place/time does not happen often. Levivich 03:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per other supports, this does not happen daily/often--BoothSiftTalks 04:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed thirteen people killed at the same place/time hasn't happened in the United States since 17 people (not including the perpetrator) were killed at the same time/place in 2018 indeed it's only the joint 6th highest death toll in the United States in the last 5 years and only the 43rd times something similar happened in the United States in May 2019. I suppose you could argue that something happening more than once a day is not common at all, but not everybody is going to agree that makes it suitable for ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common occurance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common occurrence. Use of silencer made it unique. Regrettable, and only highlights failure of U.S. policy regarding an ongoing and upward trending epidemic of gun violence. It was unique only in that it was an employee in a work-place setting. I've written professionally about this for the past decade. But this is news, but not new. 7&6=thirteen (?) 11:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Although I'm a little bothered by the crass tone of some comments, and certainly don't agree that incidents such as this one are "best not reported," that this was evidently a purely personal act by an individual gone wacko militates against wider, ITN-level significance. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hawkeye7 and because the article names the perpetrator, further increasing the risk of mass shooting contagion - posting would be irresponsible. Narayanese (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That should not be a concern of WP. If the guy was still alive, and only the suspect, there would be good reason to keep the name out until a conviction. But he died by law enforcement, and while there are BLP elements that still apply, there's no question he was the shooter. --Masem (t) 15:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I still oppose per all the above, but this isn't a good reason to oppose, given that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. – John M Wolfson (talk ? contribs) 16:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And it's certainly not here to repress or 'manage' disagreeable news out of concern for public safety. News is what is, period. (But again, this isn't ITN material). Sca (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

May 31[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • 2019 Alberta wildfires
    • In northern Alberta, Canada, an estimated 10,000 people have been evacuated due to fast spreading wildfires. (Global News)
    • Air quality warnings are issued for most of Alberta as a result of the thick smoke moving across the province. Places as far south as Calgary have reached 10+ on the Air Quality Health Index, and rated worse than some of the most polluted cities in the world. (Calgary Herald)

Law and crime

Sports

(Closed) RD: Roky Erickson[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Roky Erickson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, New Musical Express, El País

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  ‑ Iridescent 07:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very sparsely referenced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a long way to go with the refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article sadly is ~80% unreferenced, and the structure needs improvement. I might try to work on it but the RD likely will be stale by that time. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Claus von Bülow[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Claus von Bülow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks like he died on the 25th but the death was not reported until the 30th.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - decent shape.BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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

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