Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 21 March 2022

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

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

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

Tibet earthquake aftermath A 7.1-magnitude earthquake (aftermath pictured) hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as prime minister of Canada. Luke Littler wins the PDC World Darts Championship. A spree shooter in Cetinje, Montenegro, kills 12 people and injures 4 others. Romania and Bulgaria become full members of the Schengen Area. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Ágnes Keleti Ripken Wayne Osmond The Vivienne Tariana Turia Tom Johnson Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

March 21

(Ready) China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Developing story Davey2116 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait – Article still in the process of development. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 09:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait there is need to expand this article Support (Clearly is notable event and they are already expand) HurricaneEdgar 09:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - from on site footage there are unlikely to be survivors. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Modified blurb for now. There should be 132 people on board, according to latest news. Sun8908 _Talk 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait – Many Details are not yet known. We need to wait for more info. My condolences to the victims and people involved.PatrickChiao (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support because over 100 people were killed, so it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait - Information is still uncertain. It has been reported that all 133 people have died. (PenangLion (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC))
• Support article has structure and os well-referenced. Almost certainly no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Over 100 people killed; notable enough, and the article is in good shape. RIP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 12:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support Clearly will be posted but lets get those CN tags cleared up and make sure they have confirmed the deaths. --Masem (t) 12:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support I have seen the last-seconds footage of the flight. It was basically a vertical drop. Hardly would there be any survivors. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not ready The article lacks information on the outcome of the crash, that is, how many passengers survived and how many were killed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Kiril Simeonovski: This should tell you all you need to know. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Article now states presumed no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reuters quotes unnamed "media" saying "there was no sign of survivors." – Sca (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, claim of it being largest disaster is unsourced (and I assume unverifiable, until actual death numbers are released). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Wait - one claim unsourced, that is, about the aircraft being based in Kunming. GeraldWL 12:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Support ITN-wise, looks good. GeraldWL 13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Once death toll is confirmed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Article looks good now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – Major aviation disaster. Casualties confirmed. Article looks good, hopefully would be expanded further. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Image in this nomination should be updated to the one in the article infobox. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Or the better one on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree, either of those is way better than the image in this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Talk page image would be a better option. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Adriana Hoffmann

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga

• Nominated by Dunutubble (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: He was the former Prime Minister of Mali, which means this is a notable death. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 20

(Closed) 2022 Pakistani political crises

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.

• Nominated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)

• Wait There is said to be a vote that might happen around March 28, but until that happens, this is a speculative story. --Masem (t) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait too soon, but obviously blurb if the leader of 150 million people is ousted. The fact that his British equivalent has been holding on for months now despite similar opposition means that I can't support mere speculation. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait per WP:CRYSTAL. HurricaneEdgar 17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait until something actually happens. If something happens in future, remominate it then with an NPOV blurb suggestion (the current blurb is massively POV, everything after the "due to" is unencyclopedic opinions). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait If a vote of no confidence is successful (which is what will raise it to ITN) there will likely be a change in the head of government which will be WP:ITNR on its own and both can be tackled in a single blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait if the no confidence motion is successful then post but it would be WP:CRYSTAL if posted now.  Hamza Ali Shah  21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March 19

RD: Shahabuddin Ahmed

• Updated by Vinegarymass911 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: President of Bangladesh (1990-1991, 1996-2001). Needs more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose needs more sources and also some more text i.e. what did he actually do as President for 6 years? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 18

RD: John Clayton (sportswriter)

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Bloom6132: Some citations needed for his years (1975?) and role at Steel City Sports, and the nature of his work on radio networks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bagumba: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 1915 Çanakkale Bridge

• Nominated by Joseph (talk · give credit)

 Joseph (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment could you provide any reliable source for verifiable? HurricaneEdgar 09:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have added some English sources. Also, there are lots of news if you search in Turkish "çanakkale 1915 köprüsü". Joseph (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support Length is huge for bridges, but the article is short and several sentences are stuck in the past tense. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle but article needs an update, mostly for tense changes (everything says "will be"). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC
• Support (by suspension cables) Tenses corrected. Is much longer than the Rialto Bridge, apparently! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. This is clearly a notable event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Proposing altblurb 2, Support altblurb 2 5.44.170.26 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Alt2 looks good, slightly tweaked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support alt3 if the problems in the article are dealt with, then I don’t see why we can’t post this.  Hamza Ali Shah  13:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support alt2 in principle although the article *does* need some work. Article has been improved. Keep posted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do tell. Or do do, even. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose until improved. The article is missing expected coverage such as planning and construction history. Construction started in 2017, and surely in planning and development long before that, and yet its history starts at 2020? In my mind, this doesn't meet the minimally comprehensive requirement. When that's sorted, I'd support alt2. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle this is important enough for ITN, and the article is (almost) fully sourced, but reading the article it does feel incomplete. Hopefully it will get cleaned up in the next 12-24 hours and then posted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Alt 2 The article is sparse but there are no massive issues. A massive infrastructural achievement with wide RS coverage. BSMRD (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please add more REFs. There are still a couple of {cn} tags in this article. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've just gone in and cleared the CN tags. Article could still use more actual content, but everything in it is now sourced. BSMRD (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Posted. The concerns above have been addressed. Sandstein 07:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Have they? There's multiple remarks about length issues. Half of the blurb isn't even IN the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Young

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Up until his death, he was Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support article is in decent shape. Much higher-profile than most U.S. Representatives; but probably not quite up to the level of deserving a blurb. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Elli. Article in good condition, although I could see an argument being made for a blurb. That'd probably be shot down, though. Also worth mentioning he was the longest incumbent House rep, serving since 1973. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 02:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've also taken the opportunity to add some more sources. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This would definitely never make a blurb. Outside of his eccentricities and half-century tenure, he was not an especially prominent or well-known figure in politics, and his death really doesn't have ramifications considering there's an election this year (and it will probably not be that competitive). Nohomersryan (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    This whole "blurb" or "not a blurb" thing has jumped the shark. Do we all remember when Bowie died and it was a major cultural moment in and of itself? Or when Mandela died and the world stopped to honor him? Those are blurbable deaths. Young was a rapscallion with longevity. I'd never suggest this for a blurb, and I nominated it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    For me, a casual Bowie fan and guy who only knew Mandela's claim to fame in a nutshell, no. I remember other deaths feeling like that, one of which (off the top of my head) was blurbed. All entirely subjective, but yes, I'd put anyone I'd previously seen or read about over Don Young on the major figure list (I didn't even know his position existed). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    • The long tenures of Young and Ted Stevens certainly had long-term detrimental effects on Alaska's political depth chart. However, suggesting that this election won't be competitive is perhaps a little clueless, as this event changes everything. The filing deadline for the primary and general elections is June 1, plus there will be a special election at approximately the same time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support The generation of politicians who began their careers in the 1960s slowly but surely dying off. Article looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Per above. Against a blurb though, Don Young is not really known to anyone other than American political buffs outside of the US. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Problem: There is not a single footnote in #Committee assignments. #Caucus memberships needs more footnotes, too. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These are facts though. Are they likely to be WP:CHALLENGED? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    • A list of bullet-points with no context? When did he join which committee? Is that list complete? No clue how to verify. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: As is too often the case with key members of the U.S Congress, the article gives far too much weight to controversies and political positions, and to more recent events of a rather lengthy political career, at the expense of being a balanced biography (article has been tagged with {{Recentism}} for almost a year). Believing that sourcing committee assignments is problematic is actually evidence of the need to change our approach to sourcing; the encyclopedia is already too much a reflection of what people found lying around the web today and not a reflection of the best possible sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  RadioKAOS,WP:ITNCRIT asks for (1) updated content, (2) significance (which is moot for RDs of living organisms), and (3) article quality. In (3), it says that it should be minimally comprehensive ... not omitting any major items. Is this lacking any major items that keeps it from being minimally comprehensive? No. RECENTISM is a discussion point for WP:GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Recentism is certainly a mark against quality, which is what we are here to judge. That said, it's only one mark that should be weighed against other elements that may favor it. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that some commenters at ITN/C take the "quality check" way too far. This is an article with 36kb of prose and over 200 unique inline citations. "Fully comprehensive"? Perhaps not. Minimally? Absolutely. If anyone can point out a "major item" that is missing, I'll recant my criticism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  This article still needs to meet BLP, and the UNDUE focus on controversy is a mark against quality. (This is sadly representative of many political articles today, editors want to make them laundry lists of every negative element they can find). We're not expecting GA quality, but we are expecting something far better than this. --Masem (t) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  What UNDUE focus on controversy? I see KAOS's comment about it, but what in this article isn't due? I'm giving it a closer look and so far the only thing I've found is this nonsense from crackpots. At least at GAN, the reviewer will state what they think is UNDUE rather than just throw up a non-actionable comment like that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  The "Political positions" section should be not be breaking down the issues to that level of detail or without support of more third-party sources. Citing voting records to identify issues/positions is not really a good way to build this out because it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not which is UNDUE. eg positions including Trump and Biden make little sense. --Masem (t) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  positions including Trump and Biden make little sense welcome to American politics in the 21st century, where support or opposition to Trump and Biden are political positions. Sadly, Don Young congratulating Biden on his victory on November 7, 2020 is noteworthy to include. Otherwise, this is still way too vague for "feedback" and is not actionable. Again, I ask, "what UNDUE focus on controversy?" You say it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not without showing how you actually see that happening in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  All that is around the "righting great wrongs" attitude that permeates politically-heated articles; it is not an approach we'd normally take for a neutral, dispassionate approach for a topic and reflects the RECENTISM tag that the article is labeled with. And its been discussed broadly at other boards about how political position sections should avoid reliance on voting records since that creates original research and UNDUE focus. That's all concrete issues that should have been fixed before posting. --Masem (t) 20:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  All you are saying here is that "politically-heated articles" have POV problems, which generally is true, but you are not identifying any POV problems from Young's article. Nobody has identified even a single instance of primary sources based on roll call votes being used to RGW or otherwise violate neutrality. There may be more focus on recent events in this article than older events, but nobody has said that the early career is less than minimally comprehensive as required by WP:ITNCRIT. This is ITN/C, it isn't GAN. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is getting off-topic but I will keep it brief: using primary sources like news reports, voting records or press releases from the politician, absent support from secondary coverage (Which is used throughout this article) is similar to using public records on BLPs; it allows editors to cherry pick which issues they want to include and focus on for the politician, and just because the politician may vote against a certain bill doesn't necessarily mean they take a negative position on the bill's topic. Its a mess of NPOV and NOR (see for example Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage). Now, when a politician's positions are covered by secondary sources and specific positions on bills are explained, that's fine. It's posted, I think it should have been fixed more, but its not worth the time to force a pull to be fixed, but it worth it to remember that NPOV and NOR is part of our expectations for quality for main page featured articles. --Masem (t) 04:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Even if most or all ITN participants have chosen not to listen, I've been coming here for years and pointing out that "Why, it looks pretty and happens to have citation tags in all the right places" and/or trying to frame everything solely in terms of the mere presence or absence of citations ≠ "article quality". This began in earnest in 2018 when an article was posted whose sourcing was heavily weighted towards the subject's personal recollections of his career (read: no fact checking going on there). Obviously, some of you are unconcerned about the disparity between the impact of this project area by virtue of the links to the main page and the fact that it's yet another walled garden reflecting the mindset of a miniscule portion of the community. Constantly invoking "our peculiar POV was ratified in a RfC, so bugger off" as a shield only makes things worse. Is such scrutiny what you mean by taking the quality check way too far? Sounds like some people just can't handle scrutiny when it gets in the way of what they want. Anyway, you're really looking for more issues to address? First, there appears to be nearly 200 photos of Young on Commons covering a variety of activities. Why are the photos currently in the article so heavily weighted towards ones of him with U.S. presidents? Second, why does the article have an "Elections" section in prose at one end of the article and an "Electoral history" at the other end, consisting solely of a table? As the table fails to cover all of his elections, it's merely a rehashing of the previous section. Standalone electoral history lists exist for a reason. Regarding his electoral efforts in general, as a source, Our Campaigns is pure garbage when you look at the plethora of high-quality sources that routinely cover U.S. federal elections. Obviously, we have editors out there who are very determined to keep pushing this "source" down everyone's throats. These are concerns which should have been addressed before nominating the article, as a previous comment referred to, as for the most part they've persisted in the article for years. The article's talk page looks pretty quiet to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  RadioKAOS, and yet you didn't make specific actionable points until just now. All you did was suggest that Young's article somehow didn't meet WP:ITNCRIT because of reasons. Please show me where your comments on the photos and the way the electoral history is handled are covered by ITNCRIT. Please show me how Our Campaigns, which has accurate election info, fails WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support While the noted concerns are valid, this is clearly sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support RD per above. The article isn't perfect, but it is good enough for ITN. And when the likes of John McCain and Harry Reid are debated for a blurb, Don Young will obviously not get a blurb. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Solid article and well sourced. Minor reservations (see above) notwithstanding, this is more than adequate for RD. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Ks0stm 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is an orange-tagged article posted??? --Masem (t) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    I don't see an orange tag? I see a yellow clean up. That's not an automatic impediment to posting, though it is subject to administrator discretion.- Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, to me that looked like an orange tag but it is a yellow one (per WP:TC) --Masem (t) 21:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chaim Kanievsky

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article, updated with details of death --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm ready to post now, but I'll wait for others to confirm it's good to go. El_C 17:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Sourced. Can't read Hebrew, but I assume the article is ok. Grimes2 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Posted. Thanks, Grimes2. Yes, confirming about the Hebrew. El_C 18:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Gombe

• Nominated by HurricaneEdgar (talk · give credit)
• Created by Gekkotan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by StopBoi (talk · give credit)

 HurricaneEdgar 01:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Significant weather event with tragic loss of life. Article appears to be in good shape and of adequate length for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It peaked a week ago (e.g. 11 March) and so seems rather stale already. And it doesn't seem to have generated much coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The article is clearly on the ITN. Gombe is notable storm, and is has caused many death in Mozambique similar Cyclone Kenneth. HurricaneEdgar 09:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is clearly a notable storm with major consequences from an underrepresented part of the world. Also, the article is in good shape and ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Notable weather event, well-written article, significant casualties. Melmann 10:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose storm during storm season does storm things. Death toll is irrelevant, and this year already Batsirai killed more. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Batsirai was posted during the storm season in the same way as we regularly post the tropical storms hitting the Caribbean during the storm season in the northern hemisphere. So, nothing wrong in posting this as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: This is not a competition for the deadliest storm. ITN features weather events all the time, and given how wide coverage in WP:RSes is and how well the article is written, it'd be unfortunate if we failed to feature this story. Melmann 11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose it's stale, as the main event happened a week ago. Lots of the sources listed are the same Agence France-Presse report posted in different places, which wouldn't meet a definition of wide coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A week ago means this is still less stale than 3 of 4 items currently listed on ITN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.187 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the storm has already dissipated so I think the blurb should say that information and not incorrectly state that it made landfall not too long ago.  Hamza Ali Shah  12:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

   Done I change the blurb. HurricaneEdgar 12:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – Stale. Comment – Landfall was March 9. However, I concede there was some follow-up coverage March 17-18 of the extent of casualties. Nevertheless, ITN worthiness seems debatable at this pt. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That was 5 days after the death of Shane Warne, which is still shown on ITN today. --205.189.58.86 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • We don't post things based on the staleness of items already on ITN, we do it based on the merit of the article. And this article is not in the news worthy at this time. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Is the death of Warne, or anybody, worthy to stay on ITN for two weeks? --205.189.58.86 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support and please drop this "stale" crusade. The one week standard applies to "singular events" which a hurricane clearly is not. Even if we did erroneously consider it a singular event occurring on the 9th, rejecting an event that occurred more recently then 75% of the current blurbs because a guideline requires it is WP:BURO. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Ridiculous to judge the staleness of a hurricane based on when it first makes landfall, for what ought to be obvious reasons; the impact of a storm tends to become known well after the actual weather event. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support especially because of the death toll (now at 62). Not to mention that the extent and severity of its impacts only became known around a week after its landfall in Mozambique. For instance, this article, which reported that Gombe's death toll has risen to 53, was only published yesterday. Vida0007 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support For the usual reasons. Solidly high death toll, overall impacts seem sufficient for posting. Not stale enough to render unworthy of posting for this reason alone. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. It's not that stale; it's still the second item on ITN, and taking that into consideration the consensus seems to be enough to post. Ks0stm 01:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

March 17

RD: Dru C. Gladney

• Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 2600:387:f:4912::6 (talk · give credit) and Miamistill (talk · give credit)

 {{u|Sdkb}}  18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose More references required. (The article could do with being organized into sections, too.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sectioning added and citation needed tags addressed. {{u|Sdkb}}  04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I will support now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Oksana Shvets

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
• Created by Thriley (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Highly merited actress, killed in war in Kyiv - we don't know much about her, - there's a long list of stage roles in Ukrainian but unfamiliar plays and unfamiliar directors for readers in English. She'd stand for many killed without article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Sourced. Prose size (text only): 1703 characters (288 words) "readable prose size" This article meets exactly the minimum requirements for a RD article, not more. Grimes2 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Too brief IMO; standalone articles should have a minimum of 3 fleshed out paragraphs outside of the introduction. This has 2 and a sentence. Spencer 01:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I explained that we don't know much, and that we could expand by theatre plays nobody knows here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's slightly short at the moment but IMO this is weighed up by good quality, and she was clearly a notable actor. Yakikaki (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Christopher Alexander

• Nominated by Elekhh (talk · give credit)

 — ELEKHH 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• needs sources Similar to the Pritzker Prize nom from a few days ago. Joofjoof (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Is similar in the sense that unspecified sources are requested. There are 50 references and no contested text. WP:RS is clear that "Misplaced Pages requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Maybe if you would indicate specifically with an inline tag where you disagree with the content then someone could add more sources to your satisfaction. Some time ago Misplaced Pages used to be a collaborative project. --ELEKHH 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  There are multiple paragraphs with no citations at all. At the very least, every paragraph needs an inline citation. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I know this is the established WP ideology. What I'm saying is that I see no significant content that is likely to be contested, and that this quantitative requirement for the number of citations to be >= number of paragraphs has no academic merit. In practice it favours short-termism, that is minor news with broad media coverage now will easily produce short and fully cited articles about tomorrow's nobodies, as opposed to subjects with huge impact over many decades, based on a vast body of literature. --ELEKHH 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  You are the nominator, you presumably wish to get it posted. It will not be with multiple paragraphs lacking inline citations. For a BLP, that's not good enough. I could pepper the article with citation needed tags if you really want me to, but for example, The Nature of Order is " Alexander's most comprehensive and elaborate work." Says who? A Pattern Language "has been especially influential in software engineering where patterns have been used to document collective knowledge in the field." A citation is needed to show its influence.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is useful, so please 'pepper', in the tasty, not the 'over-peppered' sense. I've been away from wiki-editing for a few years, and am concerned how the presumption of pursuit of self-interest has intensified. I nominated the article because I hope it can broaden readers' understanding of things that matter, rather than just feed the hunger for (well referenced) trivia. --ELEKHH 13:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Pierre Demailly

• Updated and nominated by MarkH21 (talk · give credit)

 — MarkH₂₁ 08:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Seems to be a solid article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Wira Gardiner

• Nominated by MurielMary (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article, updated with details of death MurielMary (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Solid article. Grimes2 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Could use some more details and dates for his work in public service and his writing career. Joofjoof (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What specifically are you expecting/looking for? All his publications are listed with dates and citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Detention of Mark Bernstein

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.

• Nominated by 205.56.181.195 (talk · give credit)

• Would be contained as part of the ongoing invasion story. --Masem (t) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As someone who knows Mark personally and spent time discussing interesting topics with him, I'll refrain from voting on this nomination and just note that the biggest absurdity in his case is that he was detained by a security service of one country (Belarus) for allegedly violating a law of another country (Russia).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I note that this is a brand new article and am unconvinced that Bernstein is notable outside BLP1E. I am pretty sure that we would not have created an article for an editor of, say, Reddit - so this is Misplaced Pages navel-gazing and certainly doesn't rise to the level of an ITN nomination. It's worth a sentence in the relevant article on the invasion, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I'm of the opinion that we should consider ignoring normal rules of ITN and highlight this story, as it involves detention of one of our fellow community members for the very act of editing Misplaced Pages. Front page has a lot of visibility, and while I'm under no illusion that Putin's lackeys would care about what we have to say, we should still highlight it as a form of protest. Arbitrary detention such as this will have a chilling effect on ruwiki and will ultimately hurt the community's ability to fulfil the objective of this project. Melmann 13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously WP:BLP1E sent it to AFD where it'll be speedy kept because "Rooooooosha" but still had to try. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose many journalists have been detained, and we shouldn't be prioritising this person due to their connection to this project. Whilst I think the article about the detention is okay, it's not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per Melmann. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Agree we can't make a big deal out of this, per WP:Navel-gazing. However, this user sent a short msg of support to our colleague (although his 'talk' isn't active). – Sca (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: The arrest apparently occurred four or five days ago and hasn't been covered by main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — (edit conflict)

• Oppose per above. Subject does not pass GNG and the article is a naked exercise in WP:RGW. Suggest close as it cannot be posted while it is at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sandstein and Melmann: Off-topic but can you guide me to where can I find coverage of the Ukraine War + Wikip(m)edia incidents here on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

• Nominated by 86.53.241.98 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Long running diplomatic incident between UK and Iran. Blurb needs work, article in pretty good shape. 86.53.241.98 (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Front page in all UK newpapers, article looks good. Suggested altblurb. Mkwia (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Certainly one of biggest news stories in the UK today. Also appears to have been reported on by american, German and French papers. I think the altblurb looks most up to date. Llewee (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle though "1971 arms deal dispute" section of the article is orange tagged as needing an update (and probably a trimming down, keeping only the bits directly relevant to Zaghari-Ratcliffe). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While it is good news that she is now back home, there is nothing special (at least from the wikipedia article) about her release, she served her sentence and was let go. Chaosquo (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Chaosquo Her sentence had previously been extended and she's believed to have been released for political reasons. Llewee (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  She didn't serve her sentence, her sentence kept on being increased, and then she was somewhat suddenly released when political tensions got better between UK and Iran. This is not a routine occurrence at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's why I said "from the wikipedia article", the irregularities should the reflected in the article. Also the "Imprisonment" section is just a big proseline.Chaosquo (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Chaosquo, There is a separate section with more details now. Llewee (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This deal seems to have been a bundle in which Zaghari-Ratcliffe was just part of the package. What about Anoosheh Ashoori and the Chieftain tank deal? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Barring any rationale of her sudden release, this doesn't seem to be a major earth-shifting story. --Masem (t) 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  It has been long running, high-profile and unusual, what with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson blundering by describing her as training journalists, and her husband staging a 21-day hunger strike on the steps of the Foreign Office.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support This has been receiving widespread coverage in reliable sources and the article looks fine. A story our readers are likely to be searching for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Long ongoing story with a good ending, and a good article to boot. Lugnuts 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - as noted, Anoosheh Ashoori was also released, and while all this is terrific news for the families and so on, I don't see it as having an earth-shattering long-term effect on anything. It's in the headlines, sure, but more as a human-interest story and this is a classic case of saying we're not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• The boycott of Russia is causing a thawing of relations with other oil-producers like Iran and Venezuela. Zaghari-Ratcliffe is just a pawn in the Great Game. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• As opposed to the profound earth-shattering consequences of The Power of the Dog winning an award? Llewee (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – Although fairly widely covered wednesday, especially in the UK, this particular release doesn't appear to pack the impact wallop requisite to ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not quite notable person; not quite significant event. STSC (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – This was quite a significant news item (quite possibly even bigger than the BAFTAs which is in the ITN), but I also understand the reasons of those who are opposing it. Anyway, if this gets approved, it should also include Anoosheh Ashoori. The blurb should go like this: "Anoosheh Ashoori and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe return to the United Kingdom after being imprisoned in Iran on spying charges." Vida0007 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• While Morad Tahbaz is locked up again. See The left behind.... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Good news, but I'm not sure this is impactful enough to be in ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't see an ITN significance here (though how this affects future Iran United Kingdom relations is to be observed). Gotitbro (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

March 16

(Posted) RD: Ralph Terry

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Grimes2. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The 1965-1967 coverage looks a bit short for individual sections - could we combine it (or is this a convention?) Joofjoof (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted after merging the short sections into one "Later career (1975-1967)" sectioon. --PFHLai (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Pfeiffer

• Created and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: four time world freestyle biking champion and four time European champion. Abishe (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Sourced, long enough. Good work. Grimes2 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Merri Dee

• Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)

 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!

• The final paragraph in the Early life and education section does not have any footnotes/sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Fukushima earthquake

• Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit)

 {{u|Sdkb}}  17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait for the copyvio revdel and any news of casualties. Also, is that trench image the best there is? It looks like (and almost certainly is) an MS Paint red wiggly line on a map, very amateurish. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly when you compare it to the source identified in the image. - Floydian  _¢ 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  A suitably labelled version of File:Japan Trench.jpg would be a lot better - I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Replaced. Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait per Kingsif. Let's see how this turns out; we all know the consensus when it comes to natural disasters... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose -- seems to have no notable impact beyond intermittent interruptions in power to Tokyo, despite how powerful the earthquake was. -- Rockstone 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Per the article, "There was a 37% chance that damage from the earthquake would result in losses of US$10–100 million; the likelihood for damages to fall within US$100 million to 1 billion was 30%." If that holds up, that seems significant to me, but I'm fine waiting a bit to let more information come out. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}  21:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wait and see what the impact is. Right now, the confirmed impact isn't enough to be ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Article now states four dead and 194 injured per infobox, no update on financial damage except for estimates above. 9 (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – 7.3 magnitude earthquake would be classified as major natural disaster. STSC (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support with death/injury count (AltBlurb provided to reflect) --Masem (t) 01:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support We should focus on the things that happened rather than the things which might have but didn't. For example, here's an impressive report on its earthquake light – a poorly understood phenomenon. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support looks important enough for ITN now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Not very widely covered at this pt. Tsunami alert cancelled early Thurs. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, It is a major earthquake,also article needs more information death, injuries... . Alex-h (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is a pretty significant earthquake, and had some notable effects in some areas. It also had a higher casualty count (both fatalities and injuries) than the Fukushima and Miyagi earthquakes last year. Vida0007 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment -- I still don't see how this is notable enough for ITN. Would we post a hurricane that did the same amount of damage? Only one death, per the article can be directly attributable to the earthquake; the rest seem to be related to heart attacks and such. I suppose consensus appears to be against me, but I really do not think that this should be posted. It doesn't even seem to be big news in Japan anymore. -- Rockstone 06:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We haven't posted similar hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones etc. where no major loss of life was apparent, the blurb here gives the same impression (regardless of the earthquake's intensity). Gotitbro (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Consensus, while not unanimous, leans in favor of posting; article is in good condition and thoroughly explains impact. Spencer 01:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugene Parker

• Nominated by Modest Genius (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Solar physicist. Died on 15 March but announced on 16 March. The article is brief but meets our minimum requirements. A few of the awards need references, I'm working on them. All referenced now. Modest Genius 15:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Grimes2 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Education (B.S., Ph.D., Utah) could need a reference, but I think the article is ok now. Grimes2 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Notable academic person, article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Alex-h. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Ks0stm 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) European sandstorm

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.

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Vida0007 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Barring any serious death or damage, but this seems like something that a DYK could be pulled from. --Masem (t) 14:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now same here. Right now, it is more qualified for a DYK rather than an ITN, unless significant damage has occurred because of it. Vida0007 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose until the storm, become notable unless if they are reported dead or damage on the storm. HurricaneEdgar 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose despite me having to use my windscreen washers (catastrophe!) this barely rises to local notability let alone something I'd expect to see in the top 1000 news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose not ITN-worthy. For comparison, way less notable than Storm Eunice, which wasn't posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, Not notable for ITN Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

March 15

(Posted) RD: Dennis González

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Length at 400+ words Y Deployment of Footnotes Y Formatting Y. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• SUPPORT PER PFHLai. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Potvin

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Pritzker Prize

• Nominated by Alanscottwalker (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: needs citations help (French and German readers/writers/researchers attention could be special help, too) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a very long and well-written article, which unfortunately strays wildly from the subject for paragraphs and paragraphs, and is almost entirely unsourced. It could be improved, but I have little optimism for that being timely with the extent of improvements needed. Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, if you see room for cuts to address what you see as straying, would you just do the cuts? That's less to cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• The material should be split, not deleted, but splitting out without references will lead to deletion. I am not invested enough to act as steward for a draft while sources are found. Where the splits should be made, summaries should also be left at the Kéré article, which requires some level of knowledge of the subject and some creativity. So, no, I can't. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is an important news item, and culture is under-represented in ITN. There are plenty of reliable sources and we also have good images. The text is a bit lengthy and repetitive and can be edited down. I don't see the need to split-out articles. --ELEKHH 04:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose on Quality - per Kingsif. Section after section without a source at time of writing, like nominator indicates, this needs a lot of citation work before it can proceed. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources are cited if there are entire sections without a single one. Best of luck to any and all willing contributors, I hope it can be cleaned up before the nom cycles out. If it can't make it in time, DYK might be a worthwhile pursuit when it finally does meet quality standards. Canadianerk (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

None of the text is unreliable, is just not a good encyclopaedic style, probably by someone who's first language is not English. References back it all up - just need to be inserted. I did what I had time for. If there is none around to improve further that just will be a reflection of the extremely poor representation of architecture on Misplaced Pages, and the lack of care for the built environment we live in. -- ELEKHH 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality way too much detail for a biography article. It has entire sections for every building created in Gando- this should be cut to just a summary, as a biography on a person shouldn't have the entire history of a primary school for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Just a note on ways of improvement, creating splits is not required, but moving unneeded or unsourced to the article's talk page can happen (as long as it's not unsourced biog material.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Hide the mess in the closet 'till mom's not looking" isn't really a way around article improvements. If you want to legitimately dump text somewhere else to get this onto the main page, make a userspace draft with actual intentions to eventually move text to the village article/create an article on the school complex and summarise the info at Kéré's article. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your bad faith is ridiculous nonsense. 'Editing-out' is regularly article improvement, and it can be one of the hardest things editors do. Actual editing, often means removal. There is also no requirement for any article to keep unsourced or "wildly" off-topic content in an article, per Misplaced Pages policy, it is subject to immediate removal because such removal is an improvement. As for 'getting-it-on-the-main page', everyone here already knows this topic is capable of being edited to get to the main page (that is why it is ITNR) and there is certainly no requirement to create off-topic drafts in doing so.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Your insistence is ridiculous nonsense. As other editors have noted, too, most of the bio is actually information about a village and buildings in it. That information belongs elsewhere, but do you know where it doesn't belong? Sitting on the bio's talkpage of all places just so someone can rush their article to "clean" without putting in effort to actually improve it. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  You're not making sense. I am fine with removing that content, feel free to remove it at any time. That is what article improvement is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Then let me be clearer: you said that the off-topic information did not need to be split but should instead be moved to the talkpage/edited out (with the implication that it would either perish there or be reinstated when the article comes off the main page). That is not a viable solution; it does not actually improve the article, nor does it improve the articles where the information should appear, it just makes the bio seem cleaned-up enough to get on the main page. I suggested that if you really don't want to work on splitting out information and writing subject-relevant summaries in a timely fashion, you could move the information to a draft and work on doing those things over a longer period of time. I am fairly certain Joseph said the same. Basically: your suggestion to hide (or remove rather than split) unsourced and off-topic text, whatever your intention with that plan, is not a good one. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, you made poor assumptions. Moving content to talk pages that does not fit in the article is regularly a mode of article improvement. There is no implication that it would be added back into the article, nor in that form. It's been moved because it does not belong in the article, and certainly not in that state. Or it can now or later be used elsewhere in the pedia, when someone finds it is useful. What is an obvious bad plan is splitting of unsourced content into a new article, that goes against basic policy and makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• That information belongs elsewhere, so it shouldn't be left in the biographical article, as that makes no sense. None of the information would be out of place at Gando, Burkina Faso, which has images of lots of the buildings anyway, so that seems like the most sensible place to put it (and therefore preserve it). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Are you replying to me? I said, removal is the way to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker: I generally agree with your comments here, and would add the caveat that most of the material to be removed relates to the village of Gando, Burkina Faso, and could better be moved to that article's talk page for future sourcing and development. BD2412 T 04:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Yes, indeed (although there are also things other than Gando to deal with). I wish I had the focus and drive to do it at the moment but I have not been able to muster it, and the mostly useless, and worse, stuff above has not helped. It is a bit ironic that were the article a stub to begin, the blank slate likely would have been filled in relatively quickly to get to ITN. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Broad international apeal to important cultural news on high profile architecture award. Text needs refinement, reframing on subject, and more secondary sources . . . but splitting is unnecessary. Certainly a plus that it has quality images, an essential ingreadient for content about visual art and architecture. Cedar777 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• As the event is WP:ITNR, the only relevant criteria is article quality. And this article's quality is poor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election, Serdar Berdimuhamedow

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.

• Nominated by HurricaneEdgar (talk · give credit)

• Weak support The article has everything that is required in an election article but with a very basic content. If someone could expand the results and reactions sections it would be great. Also, I think it would be interesting to mention in the blurb that he succeeds his father, dictator since fifteen years ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support the alternative blurb. Article's quality is minimally sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• IAR Oppose I don't think we should be promoting the sham election of a dictatorship on the Main Page. "All legal parties currently support the government"? Come on.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• However true it may be that all legal parties support the government, the Agrarian Party of Turkmenistan fielded a presidential candidate. Also, we've posted sham elections with similar outcome in the past (e.g. Kazakhstan, Nicaragua etc.), so there's nothing wrong in including this one as well (you would have probably made a stronger argument had it been a one-candidate or a one-party election).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Pawnkingthree: How about posting this with a blurb which makes it clear that the elections were not free and fair? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that no concerns have been raised regarding irregularities in the election, so it's more accurate to say that it was non-competitive rather than non-free or non-fair. To put it simply, people in Turkmenistan are used to live with the political system and no-one outside of the country really cares about it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the article does make clear that this was a non-free election, and the blurb should show this too. Also, the article lead is too short (and ignores the fact that this was a non-free election), article is quite short and only has minimal aftermath section (which again makes no mention of the fact that this was a non-free election). This POV shouldn't be permitted on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We've been through this before, it's not Misplaced Pages's place or ITN's place to editorialize on whether we think the election was free and fair or not. Elections are ITN/R and the blurb should simply state who won the election.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article itself says the election was not free and fair so clearly that "editorializing" will prevent it from being posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's an unreferenced claim that no elections in Turkmenistan have been free and fair with no specific details about this election. Furthermore, there are no reports of concerns raised regarding electoral irregularities in the media. You should present reliable sources which point out to instances of potential candidates being arrested or banned from running, intimidation of voters, vote buying and other methods of vote-rigging to claim that this really was a non-free or non-fair election. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Added multiple sources calling it a sham on the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I will continue to, on principle, oppose sham elections from being posted on ITN. Truth in reporting is not editorializing.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support once blurb is edited to show that the election was not free nor fair. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support based on the significance of the event, but I Oppose the current suggested blurbs. I think it is fundamentally misleading to present this using the same wording we use for genuine elections when RS do not present it in that way. This piece from the guardian for example, describes the election as being an event responsible for paving the way for hereditary succession in one of the world’s most tightly controlled countries. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as nominator and per Amakuru. HurricaneEdgar 17:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Your support is already assumed based on being the nominator. You do not need to !vote a second time. WaltCip-(talk) 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support but put the word "election" in quotes. Daikido (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I added second blurb because some source refer his father and dictator as strongman leader. ; HurricaneEdgar 23:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 00:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm dismayed to see a sham election in a dictatorship on the front page. This is not significant news, and should fail ITNCRIT as it's neither remarkable, nor novel. It's standard rubber-stamping procedure in a non-democratic regime. Jr8825 • Talk 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that there's literally one sentence about this claim in the article, that would be UNDUE to force into the blurb statement, in addition to not being in line with the need for neutral blurb statements. --Masem (t) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting Comment While I share other editors’ concerns about the state of democracy and human rights in Turkmenistan, it seems strange to claim that this particular election is not newsworthy. I might be inclined to agree if this election simply saw Gurbanguly’s “re-election,” but the fact that it signifies the transfer of power to Serdar makes it noteworthy as a change in Head of State. I do think the blurb should probably mention that Serdar is the current president’s son. Part of what makes this story significant is that it is the first dynastic transfer of power in modern Central Asia. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Added potential altblurb noting that the election was neither free nor fair. -- Rockstone 09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting Comment as per Wizardoftheyear, it would be useful to include that the elected president succeeds his father, this is useful context for the reader. -LukeSurl 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • it make better add the the son of Turkmenistan leader's Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow because some news site mention this. HurricaneEdgar 10:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Information from this place is not reliable. For example, they also claim to have had zero COVID cases because they have "a long history of suppressing data and a long history of punishing people who expose the truth". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  _{no, i'd bet that we should move there. seems pretty safe, along with the "democratic peoples republic" of korea and tanzania. /s} Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 11:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Pulled. Post-posting comments make clear(er) that there is currently no consensus to post this item, or at least not without a more informative blurb. Sandstein 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I support posting it making it clear the election was not fair nor democratic. Bedivere (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Past consensus on numerous election blurbs when it is "known" that the election wasn't fair is that we post the blurb without any commentary on the validity of the election, regardless of what editors suggest during ITNC. The ITN box is not the place for that they of dispute, but it should be spelled out on the body of the article. This was an improper pull. --Masem (t) 13:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: Why do you think the pull is improper? I don't see why a past discussion/consensus on wording for a certain type of event (a discussion I'd be keen to revisit, admittedly) should overrule a plurality of editors here who are concerned about this particular blurb? Jr8825 • Talk 14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Past practice is not binding here. The consensus in this discussion is to have a more explantory blurb, if indeed as Sandstein notes there is consensus to post at all, which is dubious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is a different issue here compared to posting 'sham' elections: with no reliable information about electoral processes in Turkmenistan, it looks like editors are arguing we can't even really be sure an election properly happened (rather than some internal changing of the guard or simple accession). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that then wouldn't make it ITN/R and the options to add more information or not post on lack of notability for this power exchange arise. Kingsif (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The RSes I'm seeing (nytimes, cnn, etc) all seem to accept an election happened, though the do quote the results out of the country's election commission, rather straight out as fact. I can't see that being the limiting factor. --Masem (t) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose pull. We've always posted elections for "dubious" elections in the past, and we don't editorialize in the hook. Please reinstate, this is ITN/R and objections on significance are not valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• IAR Oppose while I acknowledge prior discussions on this matter, guidance does not trump policy. The word "elect" means choice or selection in both fact and general perception. To describe the process as an "election" is thus non-neutral, as it suggests legitimacy. A neutral solution is to post the succession instead, where no comment is needed. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• I do have a general question about, like, are articles posted about similar events usually this short? I'm not all that familiar with this type of item so I have no idea what "minimally comprehensive" looks like for it and, currently, it strikes me as like not meeting the minimally comprehensive requirement. This obviously will not assuage most of the opposes on the basis of the wording, but like.... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment let's have a discussion about ITN/R including authoritarian regimes at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news#Proposed revision to ITN/R elections – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure why adding some sort of qualifier to the blurb is so controversial. The majority of RS headline the article with some sort of qualifier about him being the son of the previous autrocratic ruler. I don't think adding something like that to the blurb goes against WP:NEUTRAL.  Bait30   18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually required by WP:NEUTRAL. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's unnecessasry commentary that appears to be trying to right great wrongs. The article can go in to explain that the election may seem fraudulent, but ITN's purpose is definitely not to even engage in such commentary in the first place. --Masem (t) 04:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Attempting to nuance elections would lead to all sorts of cans of worms that we don't need to deal with. Would the 2000 US presidential eleciton have been similarly nuanced due to the court halting the count and all that stuff? What about other cases where opposition alleges fraud? A bald statement of the result across the board, for all countries, is the only way to guarantee that we ensure equal neutral treatment without needing to get into arguments and what-ifs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think reporting something as stated in a consensus of RS is RGW. In fact it's not just merely stated, but it's included in the headlines. It's not like it's some fringe idea.  Bait30   19:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support "Blurb" Some places have "free and fair" elections and the rest don't, but they're all still kinds of elections. The ones that concern top executive seats are R, nevermind RGW. The losing candidates aren't complaining and the citizens aren't revolting, this seems like a peaceful transition of power, boring but typically very blurbworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Repost Article is good quality and the discussion I opened on ITN/R seems to be developing the consensus that we should still post sham presidential elections. IAR says if a rule gets in the way of "improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages", ignore it. De-incentivizing editors from working on articles about sham presidential elections probably accomplishes the opposite of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Repost, per above, I completely agree with Amakuru. BastianMAT (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @Sandstein: there seems to be a consensus that we should re-post this, and the current trend in the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Proposed_revision_to_ITN/R_elections is that the previous convention and ITN/R treatment of such elections is not to be amended at this time. Please could you reinstate it?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, because I have also commented in that discussion, I think that another admin should make the call as to whether there is now consensus to post this item. To me, it seems that opinions here remain divided on this issue. As to my own opinion, I oppose (re-)posting the item because I believe that because sham elections in nondemocratic countries do not change the actual power structure of the country, they are substantially less newsworthy than real elections. (Yes, media still cover them, but we at ITN must make our own editorial decisions about what we consider important.) Sandstein 14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit taken aback by the premature push to treat the outcome of the discussion at Talk:ITN as determined, when it has been open less than 24hrs. The best discussions can often swing in different directions as arguments are made and preceding discussion is considered. There's a lot I'd personally like to say on the inaccuracy/inappropriateness of presuming non-democratic elections are significant events - and the normative irresponsibility of us treating them at face value – but I need time to sit down and write up my argument/views. Jr8825 • Talk 14:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not taking the outcome of that discussion as determined, but until such time as it is determined, then we abide by our current convention and rules, which is (per precedence) that ITN/R applies in this instance and that the blurb should be minimal and factual. If the WT:ITN discussion were heading to a snow close to amend the rules, then that would be different, but it isn't so the rules apply. And @Sandstein:, I think as the admin who removed the item from ITN in the first place it should be you to reverse it, since it is fairly clear that the posting is indeed supported by the consensus here in this discussion. With your admin hat on, not with your hat as a contributor to the discussion, you should reverse your action and restore the prior state which was that the item was posted. If anyone else does it, they run the risk of being accused of WP:WHEEL. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I hereby absolve any other admin from any WHEEL-related charges. As a person who has now offered an opinion on the merits, I should not be taking any more administrative decisions with respect to this matter. Sandstein 15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I still have a concern over whether this article actually meets minimum comprehensiveness per the general criteria. "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page." This article is mostly table with less than 500 words including the lede and only about 290 outside of the lede and background section. This feels really under-baked especially for an item that has caused enough excitement to be pulled. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose reposting – No on-again off-again editing by committee, please. Let's leave things as they are – particularly considering the reported nature of this, um, election? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support and re-post. The article is brief but in good order, opposes based on it being a "sham" election have no standing as there is no criteria to disqualify such things and should be disregarded. As such, the original consensus to post this ITN/R item is valid. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there’s some debate over whether there was an original consensus. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

When you disregard the invalid opposes due to it being a "sham" election as there is no such criteria then the consensus is easily in favor of posting. The item is ITN/R the only threshold is quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

At the time that this was posted 3 people opposed posting this completely, 4 people supported posting but had varying levels of issues with the blurb and 3 people including the nominator supported the item as written. I have no idea how that discussion could possibly have been read as consensus to post the item in the originally proposed format. While you may disagree with the opposers there are legitimate discussions to be had about the newsworthiness of "elections" where the result is already known in advance and how a blurb describing such an event should be written. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Because this is still covered by ITN/R. As it says in the template above, 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How does being on ITNR address the fact that at the point this was posted over half the people who supported posting felt that the blurb needed editing or changing? ITNR only addresses the significance part of the criteria, it doesn't give an excuse to ignore all other feedback and issues raised, hence the lack of consensus to post the item in the originally proposed format. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Because WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE and their opposes were invalid for the criteria as the item is WP:ITNR and as Muboshgu pointed out a contradiction to Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not... #5. If the WP:ITN criteria really exist and this whole thing isn't just a WP:SOAPBOX for POV warriors then it absolutely needs to go back up with the standard election blurb. Our credibility is diminished not posting this. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, how is opposing the blurb related to the ITNR criteria? The ITNR criteria do not specify that a particular blurb has to be used, they only show that the even is assumed to be significant enough to post. The opposition to the blurb do not seem to be based in WP:SOAPBOX type arguments but rather on the basis of how this event is described by other news media and in the article. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Only two of the post-posting opposes mentioned the blurb, and opposition to the blurb is not opposition to posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So as soon as an item is posted all the feedback left before posting is suddenly irrelevant? I also don't see how you can treat the blurb and the posting as two unrelated things, how on earth are you supposed to post something if people oppose the proposed blurbs? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose due to quality, this is a realy thin article for an election (probably because it wasn't really an election), but if we are going to post it, why not use Alt3 or Alt4? Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I guess it's acceptable to post in two days when he formally takes over, but let's not pretend he was elected fair and square. Calidum 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't we post it when the elections actually occur, not when they take office? DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  We do indeed. I have no idea what's going on here, but I see absolutely no reason why this is still being withheld. The majority here are in favour, and the rules say we post it. But hey ho.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  By my count, there are 9 supports for a plain blurb, 3 supports with qualification of it being a sham, and 10 opposed. That's 9-13 against a plain blurb. I think we could get majority support for a qualified blurb, but it's hard to say where everyone would fall. Also, ITNR is a guideline, not a rule. The rules say we follow consensus, and there is clearly no consensus here. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support First for my opinion regarding the debate that has been opened in Talk page. Second because the quality of the article is sufficient. Third, because it's not necessary to wait for him to take office to be included in MP: the elections are ITNR. And fourthly, because I don't think that the pull, as Amakuru says, was appropriate. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (and support pulling); the article, supported by reliable sources, makes it clear that this an election only in the loosest sense of the word. Indeed, I doubt much of our readership would recognise it as an election at all. In any case, our blurb should reflect what the sources are saying, and they not calling this "election" an exercise in democracy. SN54129 13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Serdar Berdimuhamedow has take office, so i change the blurb per the reliable source. ; ; ; HurricaneEdgar 09:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can we have a blurb that does not mention the election on MainPage?

• ALT5: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured) succeeds his father Gurbanguly and takes office as president of Turkmenistan.

--PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

IMHO it's not ideal because the election remains ITNR, but it's a compromise that's better than nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a dealbreaker for me, no standalone oomph, 100% dependent on the standard exception for elections. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Considering the above discussions, the elections page is not getting onto ITN, despite ITNR. So I thought perhaps we can treat the new president's wikibio as a new and separate ITN nom in ALT5. --PFHLai (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's reasonable, I get it. Just not the strongest candidate, either by article greatness or deep analysis. Mostly just AP copies and sheep dog diplomacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I can post ALT5 on MainPage if there are support votes! posted here. Shall we? --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 14

(Posted) RD: Pervis Spann

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Brickleym (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - fully sourced, seems fine to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Solid article. No issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 03:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mina Swaminathan

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Indian researcher. I have not had a chance to work the article yet. If someone wants to join-in and lend a hand, jump straight-in! Ktin (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not Ready Article is largely unsourced. Will reconsider on improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Four {cn} tags still remaining. Please add more REFs. -PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Scott Hall

• Nominated by KingOfAllThings (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: WWE Hall of Famer. Known also as Razor Ramon. What a legend. RIP. KingOfAllThings 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Seems pretty close. There are a handful of sections with no citations (e.g. Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2005, 2007–2008)). GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  "NWATNA" needs a hyphen in the middle, too. Support pending touchup. I'd wanted to get this blurbworthily persuasive in time, but I forgot. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's a bit more than a little cleanup. I've added some citation needed tags, but some of the article needs lots of citations to cover what is being said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle once article is cleaned up. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support once all the CN tags have been addressed. There's also zero sourcing for the "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2005, 2007–2008)" and the "Return to the WWC (2007)" sections. Lugnuts 19:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. There goes a bit of my childhood. Thank you Razor Ramon. Go well. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Outstanding citation needed tags.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• There are at least 7 {cn} tags and two {unreferenced section} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this will get posted with the issues it has even though it deserves to be. Whether or not it does RIP a legend. KingOfAllThings 03:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  It deserved a nomination, and had a fair shot at meeting the usual requirements, you did a good thing. Failure to post doesn't reflect poorly on his work or life, anyway, there's a much broader fundamental gap between professional wrestling and encyclopedia writing at play here, not even Inoki or Foley or Darsow are immune. Even if it was covered with the same basic respect politics, weather and sports get and written in exquisite Bockwinkelian, text and public domain stills are only going to explain so much about a career as action-oriented as these. No slight on the public services Misplaced Pages does adequately provide the English-reading world, but admit it, the important thing here is YouTube remembers plenty. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

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 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:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/europe/iran-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-released.html?searchResultPosition=1
2. https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-britin-nach-langer-haft-in-iran-in-grossbritannien-gelandet-a-9c32321f-5cda-4a07-91c3-086a06802c7f
3. https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/une-irano-britannique-detenue-en-iran-depuis-2016-en-route-pour-le-royaume-uni-20220316

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions
• Current events