This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
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.
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.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A German property developing firm removes parts of the East Side Gallery, a historic stretch of the Berlin Wall amid heavy police presence, despite a week of protests. (BBC)
The United Nations prepares to move about half of its international staff in Syria out of the country as violence creeps closer to UN facilities. (AFP via GlobalPost)
2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis: Cyprus's Ministry of Finance says banks will remain shut until Thursday to give regulators time to guard against a run on deposits, and that big depositors in Cypriot banks can lose up to 40% of their funds, while depositors with less than 100,000 euros in their accounts will not be affected by bailout plans. (BBC)(CNN)
Comment Diplomatic stalemate followed by a resignation after a statement made by the subject at the parliament of Italy. Unusual and rare resignation in diplomatic arena.Regards, theTigerKing16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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.
Waiting is not relevant in terms of posting, as this is ITNR, so the mere occurrence of this conference was deemed notable. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1,000 dead ducks are pulled from Sichuan River in southwest China, sparking health and environmental concerns among residents. Also, more than 16,000 dead pigs have been pulled from Shanghai's Huangpu River over the past two weeks. (BBC)
The bodies of seven men, all shot in the head as if executed, are found dumped in plastic chairs placed along the side of a street in Uruapan, Michoacán, Mexico. (Al Jazeera)
Mild Oppose: Given that many of the Sunni-majority Arab states are the ones who arming and financing the SNC, I'm not sure if this is relevant. Perhaps, if the UN recognizes the SNC we could consider posting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on significance and newsworthiness as I can find reasonably prominent news articles about this. Oppose based on the lack of an update as the target article does not have enough prose which covers the event. --Jayron3203:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Landmark civil rights case in Hong Kong; big news in Hong Kong, Indonesia and the Philippines. --–HTD08:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landmark seems to be a subjective term, so I would remove that part. (Alternative suggested above.) Otherwise these seems to be ready to post; marking as such. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously? This is one country confirming the status quo over a relatively narrow section of immigration policy. 3142 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 people are killed in coordinated attacks by unidentified men armed with machine guns, bombs and rocket-propelled grenades in Northern NigeriaAdamawa State. (Indian Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: "A Spanish bull famous for killing three and injuring scores" "most famous and feared bull in Spain" drew record crowds and earned record rates, subject of a biography and had his own video game created, no question that Ratón ("Mouse") was number one in his field, no pun intended. Please note, according to the recent deaths link "Deaths of notable animals and other biological life forms are also reported here, if they first have their own page" abd there is precedent for listing animals, as was done with a full blurb on the death of Knut (polar bear). μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I even agree with that posting. But if we're going to post the deaths of non-humans, then they better be the Michael Jackson of the animal kingdom - I would need to see an absurdly notable critter to even consider supporting. This one doesn't do it for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, you're interpreting that a bit too literally. It's natural to type "person" as opposed to species-neutral terms like "creature" or "being". I don't think that implicitly or explicitly excludes non-humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alex (parrot) is rated B-Class on biographies, which, according to the talk-page is about 'people". In the last 6 years since Knut (polar bear) and Alex (parrot) died there has been no more famous animal than Raton to pass away. Requirements that he be the "Michael Jackson" of animals to get an RD listing are absurd: from the fact that it was explicitly argued that such listings as MJ's death would get full blurbs, not RD's, to the fact that very few bulls are known to record albums, have plastic surgery, or are ever accused of child molestation--while this bull does have his own biography and video game. Posting this is a rather simple matter--the animal was top in his field, the death is widely covered (of far more interest than Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration), the article was a rather good one that existed long before the animal died, and the update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry we disagree, but that's how I feel. It's fine to occasionally post the death of a sort-of-famous person, I guess, but if we're going to start posting sort-of-famous animals, then ITN has become a joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting nomination, the linkrot will be an issue, would hate for this to "die on the vine" (phrase du jour!) if I have to tag the article with {{linkrot}}. I note a wonderful five-sentence/three-ref update, so props for that, although, as I said, the attempt at referencing is very weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll be the first to say support. If he indeed was the top bull in bull fighting, then the animal meets the death criteria. It doesn't say in there that it has to be a human. Why wouldn't we post Koko (gorilla), or another famous animal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have another chance to nominate a death of an animal outside of Europe (or the U.S.) for a long time. Bummer. –HTD19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The field in which one is considered a very important figure must be of sufficiently wide interest to our readership for that criterion to be of any effect: I would not think that to be the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm tempted to support this, but I agree with those saying that this animal isn't quite famous enough in general; additionally bullfighting is not sufficiently popular worldwide for notable animals to be listed here, IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mir Hazar Khan Khoso elected as caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan
I support this in theory, as a change in head of government is notable, but I'm confused after skimming the article; is he actually the Prime Minister, or just an interim/acting Prime Minister(which is what "caretaker" suggests)? 331dot (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to Reuters: "Rebels in Central African Republic seized control of the country's riverside capital on Sunday, forcing embattled President Francois Bozize to flee into neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo". A unit of 150 French troops have arrived in the country, securing Bangui's airport and reinforcing 250 French troops already in the country. South Africa is readying to send more troops to assist the 400 it already has in CAR training Bozize's army. - Dumelow (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The president of a sovereign nation going into exile and the seizure of a nation's capital all seem immensely significant. I'm not familiar with the conflicts that are taking place in Africa, however regardless of the progress made previously, the seizure of a capital city would widely be considered "game changing". YuMaNuMaContrib10:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very notable event. That first Reuters link was dead so I removed it, but the description seems to be consistent with that of the BBC link. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update the last paragraph of "March 2013: invasion of Bangui" needs to be built out. The insurgents must have made some broadcast, or claimed official control over the country. --IP98 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eleven inmates are missing and two guards injured after gunmen attacked a prison in Trikala, Greece, less than a week after a hostage siege at a different jail. (BBC)
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.
Well according to the Ieng Sary precedent, this should go up. He co-founded a political party. But the article is in such shape that I will be surprised if it gets cleaned up in time for posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. It's also funny how some have lost sight of the fact that this is called "in the news". Berezovsky's (unexplained) death is most certainly in the news across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead story on guardian.co.uk is "Russian exile Boris Berezovsky found dead". Perhaps you're viewing a different "international" version which is dumbed down? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right, I switched it to the UK version now it's "Shane Smith, founder of Vice magazine 'I want to build the next CNN'". Thanks for the tip, I like Vice magazine. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked: UK edition now, I dont want to be "dumbed down. It's "Jobs Confidential" and has a little cartoon woman in a dominatrix suit. Don't know what that's about... the British press is really quite good! Thanks!! --IP98 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. The main headline on the left-hand side of the main page is "Police launch search of Berezovsky's home". Anyway, this RD has been posted, so no need to continue this pointless conversation. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, ok, I see it now, the tiny byline on the left hand side, beside the cartoon dominatrix. Is that what counts for front page coverage in the British press? I know it's a done deal, I just thought the guardian was funny. BBC had it in a big bold block on the main page. CNN didn't mention it at all yesterday, but then, we're all a bit "dumbed down" over here right? A Russian dies in the UK, and the UK covers it as world news. LOL. --IP98 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"LOL"? Sums it up doesn't it?! I don't even know where "over here" is, nor do I care. Let's both do something more constructive than argue over the placement of the Guardian headline. It's been posted, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing how he meets the criteria. From reading the article I see he was a businessman and helped fund a party, but I'm sure he's hardly the only person to do that. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, I don't think pure evil outranks meh. Of course I will also be very surprised if the nominator bothers to follow through and get this updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update is that he's dead. That's what R.D. means. I'm not trying to instigate anything, but are you suggesting that an RD nom has a lower update requirement? --IP98 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason to post outright lies? There is no such agreement--and if you want one post an RfC rather than a BS. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refer me to where at WP:ITN a minimum update is specified, and then you can make an accusation that such a minimum has not been met. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute untruth: that section that specifically does not specify a minimum update, but states that it is a subjective matter. By all means question a one sentence update (not that that is what we have here), but don't claim that it falls short of a minimum requirement that is nowhere defined. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your comment: as of that edit, there was a five sentence death section with four in line citations, more than meeting the example described at WP:ITN as generally more than sufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vastly wealthy, and highly significant politically, as a Russian oligarch who then dared to take on the Kremlin. Jheald (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates up for a "Recent Death" (RD) nomination almost always do not have a news worthy death, but their notability while they lived is considered much more greatly. SpencerT♦C
Support Update requirement is now clearly met. I think he meets Criterion #2 as a leading and highly prominent businessman. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll assume Rambling Man's complaint is a joke" - what complaint? what joke? I think you're not seeing things clearly enough Medeis. Perhaps take a break? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Acceptable under WP:ITND #1 as a major actor in post-Soviet Russian politics through his holdings. Might also fulfill #2 (once regarded as a very important Russian businessperson) --hydrox (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration of relations, with the backdrop of the Arab Spring, Obamas first state visit, and the Gaza Flotilla Raid all seem noteworthy. This also basically ends their Turkish official protest to the IDF raid. The update is good. --IP98 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news is that Israeil Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for the Gaza flotila raid, which indicates but doesn't fully mean that the relations between two countries are normalized. Both blurbs document a free interpretation of what has really happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Israel, at least. Yes, the big news that was first reported by most sources was that Netanyahu offered an official apology. It was later followed by official statements from Israeli and Turkish PMs' offices: on Turkey's part accepting the apology and announcement that an agreement had been reached on compensation, and on Israel's part declaring an agreement "to restore normal relations, including the return of ambassadors". The Washington Post article has all these details. --hydrox (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it seems like Israel has toned down its rhetoric: "It's not clear when and if such steps as fully normalizing relations and returning ambassadors to their posts will be taken. Earlier Israel had sent out a statement saying those steps had been agreed upon, but it later amended its statement by removing those points." CNN As this basically destroys this nomination I don't mind if its considered withdrawn by nominator unless someone can come up with a sensible blurb.. --hydrox (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Full support, whatever the results of Netanyahu's statements are, the event alone is significant for all countries in the Middle East and potential alliances. Egeymi (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:strong oppose minor blip in the light of IR. What does this mean? What has changed? has an ambassador been restored? If thats the case then the Italian marines' trial in India was more significanyt as threatening a rupture (in light of the "CHOPPERGATE"). These breaks, or threats thereof, are not that unusual. There was no breakageof ties. Its only in the respective ntional medias (im guess hebrew press) and even the explusion of us diplomats by Ven was more imp.Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, the ambassadors were actually recalled back in 2010, and remain so. Friday's reconciliation has been hailed as a major positive development, but the situation regarding ambassadors remains unclear. Yesterday, there were initially official Israeli reports about the return of ambassadors, but these were later redacted. --hydrox (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ive changed my mind, but perhaps we could link to an article about Obama's trip. He ven got applause for asking for people to see Palestinian plight. Thats a first by a US prez. (israel's strongest supporteR). So perhaps: "Obama makes a historic trip to the Middle East" or somehingLihaas (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't seem we or the press or the parties involved have a coherent take on what has actually changed other than a general attitude. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So what actually happened here? Was there just an apology? The article says that a statement to normalize relations was removed (something that FormerIP references in the comment immediately above this. SpencerT♦C05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: Arguably the most famous modern Nigerian and African author. Called the "Father of African literature". —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was originally going to make this a full blurb. However, very few details have been released about his death—simply stating that he died "after a brief illness." Although his death satisfies ITN death criteria #2, the rules also state that the article "must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death." Since we can't satisfy the 2nd part of the ITN/DC, I've simply kept this as a RD (which needs just a sentence or two). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually you who should be substantiating a claim, but since you insist: this is the closed discussion which called for implementation of RD. At no point was it agreed that the update requirement should be relaxed. "The point" was to prevent ITN from becoming "an obituary". The fact is that regardless of blurb or RD, the item is featured on the main page and the update must meet the minimum. If you feel otherwise, you're welcome to propose a change at WT:ITN, but the update requirement currently stands. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update Needed The article only has two new sentences as of this edit (three if you count "would prove to be his last publication" added as editorial synthesis--but I don't). μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been satisfied. An RD requires only a sentence or two. That's what differentiates it from a full blurb, which would require one paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few further quotations from the obituaries to show how Achebe is being remembered by major media. The update requirement should now be fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no agreement what so ever that RD noms had a lesser update requirement, or did not have to satisfy ITN/DC. The article is featured on the main page and the update requirement must be met. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it didn't have to meet one of the three criteria in ITN/DC. In fact, I pointed out how this death meets criteria #2. What I'm saying is the amount of prose required for an RD should be less. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point in having an RD section, would there? Same requirements necessitate the same publicity. By requiring exactly the same amount of prose, why would anyone choose an RD when they could nominate it in the ITN main section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The false belief that RD lessens the update or DC requirement comes up so often that it's kind of a canned response. Sorry. I do realize you indicated this nom passed ITN/DC #2, and I'm in full agreement. I support this nom for RD, but not the claim that a lesser update is acceptable. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no agreement what so ever that six sentences were required. Let's not invent "requirements" that are unwritten and not agreed upon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP98 seems to have miscounted, and the who tag was absurd--the reference quotes "a source close to the family". It is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, completely failed to count. Remove the who tag if you want, just shouldn't be there when the article goes up. Looks ready. Nice to have an FA at ITN. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD but oppose full blurb as the notability discussed here is overstated. Achebe is great with no doubt, but still not in the category of Márquez, Murakami, Eco, or Rushdie.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I am going to mark this ready. I think an admin should use discretion. It looks like there might not be consensus for a full blurb (see below) and I don't think that should prevent this going up now as RD only. It can always be promoted later. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for full blurb
Medeis stated that the nomination for a full blurb should not go in a separate section, but here. Not sure how to format this, so feel free to re-jigger if needed.
Nominator comment: Chinua Achebe is an acknowledged giant of African literature (NYT headline: "Chinua Achebe, African Literary Titan, Dies"). Currently the lead story on the New York Times website and the 2nd highest on the BBC (viewed from the US). As a bonus, Chinua Achebe is a Featured Article, and how often do we get one of those in ITN? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb RD was not implemented for "lesser noms", but rather to deal with the perceived flood of death noms which satisfied ITN/DC. This nom does satisfy ITN/DC and as such should be added to RD. The only full blurb deaths which have been posted recently are 2 sitting heads of state and 1 pope. In this case, Achebe is not in the same league. --IP98 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? He's certainly done more in his field than Zillur Rahman did in his. Achebe was the father/grandfather figure of the literature of an entire continent. Things Fall Apart is the most widely read book in modern African literature. Anthills of the Savannah is considered the most important African novel of the 1980s. An Image of Africa overturned the dominant view on Conrad's work. He received the Man Booker International Prize in 2007. He had a book last year which reopened the debate on the Nigerian Civil War. [5] He was clearly not a flash in the pan.
Zillur Rahman died in office, causing disruption in the 8th most populated country in the world. The death in office is what made it "blurb worthy". --IP98 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. A person with extraordinary achievements in the past, but where the death in itself ("short illness" at the age of 82) is not that extraordinary. Thus, this is for RD and not for the ITN list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the same principle would apply to older male has-beens such as George H. W. Bush or Jimmy Carter if a "short illness" finished them off at what would be the age of 88+ The best writers by their nature do not rush a book out every year, see Gabriel García Márquez, whom you might easily dismiss in the same way if you wished.
Support full blurb. Arguably the the most important writer in African literature in recent times, so meets ITN/DC#2. Before RD, this would have easily passed as a full blurb, and I've always understood the criteria to allow for those at the top of their field to be posted, regardless of how they died (for example, Neil Armstrong - posted as a full blurb - had coronary problems before his death, which wasn't really sudden). Another note is that this is a featured article that fully states his importance with plenty of references and solid prose. SpencerT♦C04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Armstrong died before the RD ticker was initiated. I believe that only Ravi Shankar, Hugo Chávez and currently Zillur Rahman have had a death blurb in the era of the ticker. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb: meeting ITN/DC is a requirement for going into the RD list, so is not relevant as an argument for upgrading to a blurb. The threshhold for converting that to a blurb is the level and breadth of news prominence that the death has generated, and in this case it has been very limited in coverage. I believe that the posting of Shankar and Rahman also fail such a test and should not have been given full blurbs. Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb he is the leading African literary figure on the global stage (in english anyways, and this is the end WP)Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least 42 people are killed and 84 injured after a reported suicide bombing at a Damascusmosque. Senior pro-government Sunni cleric Mohammed al-Buti is amongst those killed. (Reuters)
The suspect wanted in connection with the shooting death of prison chief Tom Clements in Colorado, is believed to be the man that was killed in a shootout with deputies in Montague County, Texas, United States. A deputy was seriously injured in the shootout. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Chinua Achebe is an acknowledged giant of African literature (NYT headline: "Chinua Achebe, African Literary Titan, Dies"). Currently the lead story on the New York Times website and the 2nd highest on the BBC (viewed from the US). As a bonus, Chinua Achebe is a Featured Article, and how often do we get one of those in ITN? --Khazar2 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with a different blurb and only once the article is updated. The list of updates is much larger than just the age of the universe. ESANergaal (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I understand, "pushing back the estimated age of the universe by 80-100 million years" is one possible interpretation of the data in the image, but professional telescope-botherers (aside from the authors) have not had a head start on the rest of us, so no such conclusions have been confidently made or assessed yet. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wan't actually opposing the nomination, just commenting on the wording of the blurb. In fact, I would give this a weak thumbs up. Formerip (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was one of the most famous sprinters in the 1970s and 1980s, an Olympic champion, and world-record holder in the 200 metres event for almost 17 years. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though probably futile. Gold at the 1980 games isn't especially significant, given the boycott. We gave Sarah Burke the sour face last year (I don't believe the actions of the past must always dictate the present, just FYI). Lastly, I'm not seeing how he passes the ITN/DC #2 requirement as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". What did he do for track and field? Sprinting? Anything? We can't go posting everyones favourtie athlete on ITN when they pass away. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing an Olympic champion and long-time world-record holder in athletics with someone in sport like freestyle skiing. I cannot realize how you can draw comparison between one of the most popular sports of all time and something that is barely called a sport. But we don't need to count votes with so much prejudices over the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're playing "guess the importance of this sport": It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing a multi-gold medal winner in a dangerous sport requiring a complex skill set with a one-time Olympic medal winner (in a nearly uncontested games) (with a handful of 'European' awards) in a mono-talent sport like running for 200m in a line. I cannot realize how you can draw a comparison between one of the most intense and dangerous sports in the world with something comparable to chasing after a bus. Luckily it's in the news and not what Kiril Simeonovski finds interesting. --IP98 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sport is popular if it is practiced, followed, broadcasted, and receives attention worldwide. The inclusion in ITN depends on whether the sport is popular and not if it's dangerous. Competition events in athletics are followed and broadcasted everywhere, while in freestyle skiing are not. Can you tell me some of the largest media reporting the halfpipe event in freestyle skiing on their pages and others that do not it with athletics? Can you tell me any country where athletics is not practiced and name some athletes from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and other African countries that compete in freestyle skiing. That's all from me. I don't have time to argue with someone who demonstrates either stubbornness or extraordinary lack of knowledge in sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about popularity then accusing me of gaming the rules? huh? I don't get it. I've asked for someone to explain how the nom passes ITN/DC #2 which is written as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try "held the world record in the 200 meters for 17 years". That would work for most people. Track records come and go (as I'm sure you know) so former world record holder who held the record for 17 years wouldn't constitute a "very important figure" to you? Maybe you have higher standards than the rest of the universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 17 years as holder of record in high profile Olympic discipline makes this a lot more than a guy who won a under-competitive medal. Kevin McE (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready Minimum update not met. I realize that my objection to this item not satisfying ITN/DC #2 has not gained consensus. --IP98 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once Again we have a two-day old nomination dying on the vine, because, although people are happy to nominate it and argue for it, adding a few referenced sentences to the article is too much to ask for. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Stop your whining and whinging. It's becoming a really boring drone. Fix it. If it's so simple, fix it. Or else, comment on something else, somewhere else, as your current style of commenting on the nominator not the article is becoming really, really tiresome. And in this case, it's really quite an obvious demonstration that your (and one or two others') interpretation of what should be accepted for a R.D. is way out of spec. This guy's article is entirely up to scratch, and he died of an unspecified disease, nothing more to say, but you reject it based on some arbitrary ruling. Use your imagination, be dynamic, stop being constrained by a set of fictional rules you seem to think exist. One or two sentences may be "questionable", but what else would you add to this article related to his death? Answer that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a highly notable athlete, one who held a world record for 17 years in track is clearly considered "a very important figure" in his profession. There's nothing more to add to the article as we have no more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, what more would you add? Stop whinging and whining and add three sentences yourself (although that's not actually required)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. The news is that he has died, and so his life and achievements are afforded attention, not he has died so the process of his death must be of interest. Demanding of an encyclopaedia expansion that is not present in news media is not reasonable. Readiness of the article is a subjective judgement, not a sentence count: by all means state that it seems insufficient to you, and explain what you consider to be missing, but don't claim some quantitative standard that is no part of established policy. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[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.
Nominator's comments: It appears that NASA chief Charles Bolden has had NASA's servers that supply technical information to the public shut down. This is important to the Wikipedia community because many citations for space related articles come from this website. They have been down since 3/20/13. Here is an example of a citation from the article International Space Station: International Space Station USOS Crew Quarters Development. GroveGuy (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a temporary response to security problems. Inconvenient for those who rely on it, yes, but not significant enough for ITN in my opinion. 'Organisation makes changes to website' just isn't enough, regardless of how big the organisation in question is. Modest Geniustalk15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Temporary? It's been five days. If you do a search in Wikipedia on "ntrs.nasa" you get 858 hits. That is 858 temporary dead links from Wikipedia into NASA. And this is just one way of linking into these servers. This article in the New York Times: Database Is Shut Down by NASA says this is an online repository of millions of journal articles. GroveGuy (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For news aimed at Wikipedia editors, try the Signpost. Your comments just make it sound even less important: 858 dead links on Wikipedia for 5 days? That's hardly encyclopaedic information that anyone will care about in 5 year's time. Certainly not suitable for ITN. Modest Geniustalk12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose He is certainly less guilty that Pistorious until proven otherwise--we should not be in the practice of identifying criminal charges until they have been proven and all appeals have been made. μηδείς (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of simple criminal charges. The list of people wanted by the ICC (an international body) is relatively short and they are wanted for the most serious accusations(war crimes charges). Additionally, this individual voluntarily surrendered himself for the purpose of going to the ICC; which also is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The surrender of a fugitive wanted by the ICC is a big deal, and only accusations of very serious crimes (genocide, war crimes etc.) are handled. Whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of waiting for a verdict, according to our article the ICC has only ever indicted 30 people, of which 15 have appeared before the court and just one convicted (which took six years). I don't think there's a problem with posting the surrender and the verdict if/when it arrives. Modest Geniustalk14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment According to the wiki pages, your British "Stephen King" has sold 42 million books (a nice total to be sure) compared to the real deal, who has sold more than 350 million. Has Herbert won any notable awards? (Addendum: I do see he has the OBE) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral obviously prolific, probably well known in his home country. Stick a paragraph in there covering how he passes ITN/DC #2 and one about his death and support is easy. --IP98 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dead on the Vine--still not updated more than three days after it was nominated. Maybe we should start giving out a special barnstar ("the rotten egg"?) for such nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult to know what else can be updated - no details of his death, apart from the fact he had actually died, have been made public. Black Kite (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am certainly not advocating that we make stuff up. If no one has commented on him in an obituary it probably argues against him being notable enough for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are not familiar with the guidelines? A minimum of five new referenced sentences is necessary for a death update, this has two as of this edit. Please don't mark it updated until it actually is. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe you could {{sofixit}} (have a read, note where it says: "When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes") rather than criticise editors with your ridiculous ideas (the "rotten egg"? Please....). For what it's worth, there are obit refs from The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Washington Post in there... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't "technically" meet the "death criterion"? How sad it's come to this. You win, I can't be bothered to fight with your "rule-based" approach. This is Wikipedia, and despite efforts to meet your "issues" you still argue, to point of pointlessness. Well done, you've beaten my effort. Hope you're happy with that. Just out of interest, your insistence on us posting a "diff" to prove your version of the criteria is met, where is that in the rules? And can you, in future, explicitly explain where the update fails the rules you're enforcing, e.g. one too few citations, one too few sentences, one too few vowels, one too few [insert made up criteria here]. Because right now, you're making a mockery of this system. I award you, Medeis, the first "rotten egg" barnstar, for all you seem to have achieved lately is to rot this forum. Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note thanks to all the editors who have actually worked to try to make this nomination work. Particularly Betty and Fergus. Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre Deligne 2013 Abel Prize
Article:Pierre Deligne (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Belgian mathematician Pierre Deligne wins the Abel Prize. (Post) Article needs updating 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.
Comment I went searching for free images at commons and other languages. The image at id. was deleted from en. for copyvio, and the image at bn. is fair use (at best, I can't read Bengali). Bummer. --IP98 (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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.
Comment I'm working on the update. Last time, it was only the 2009 WBC article that was posted, not the 2009 WBC Finals page. Doesn't mean we shouldn't follow that this time, just pointing it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have occasionally done that, but I don't think its fair to say we usually do. I think photos should normally be of something mentioned in the blurb. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use the standard phrasing please so we don't get the inevitable defeat/defeats complaints. Spell out MVP as the term is not widely understood. There's also no need to repeat the sport as it's in the name of the competition. So that would be:
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:
In the news toolbox_4K-AZ65_Antalya_Airport_June_18,_2016_(cropped).jpg)
