---

Nominator's comments: May not be notable enough, but I think it's fairly significant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose on quality - article needs serious expansion to be main page ready and the articles barely been updated. Probably Support - this probably will receive substantial coverage in the coming hours and will be symbolic of the collapse of the Islamic State. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait @Curbon7. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Too many unknowns. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Until there is independent confirmation. The person making the claim is Erdogan. Y'know, the guy who is currently 2nd place in polls for next month's election. Also the guy who just a few months ago probably lied about the perpetrators of a bombing to push his own political interests. Yeah that guy. I also do recall false claims in 2017 that Russia killed Baghdadi. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also the third "caliph" killed in just over a year, only having been leader since late November. At some point, the significance of such a killing decreases. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't see anything within the article about the Turkish government being the perpetrators of the bombing. But I see your point, and I think it'd be best to wait on this story. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The BBC isn't reporting that he was killed, they are reporting that Turkey is claiming he was killed. Also, even if he has been killed, that is becoming a very common event and doesn't need a blurb - should be a recent death instead. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose although this is an important event, given that ISIS changes Caliphs so often, this kinda loses the ITN-notability. such as, if Saif Al-Adel was killed, it would be a big deal, because Al-Qaeda changes leadership once every 10 years. but if a ISIS leader is killed, it would still be some news, but not as important because, Per Curbon7, it is the third one to be killed in the past years. Oh, and just because Turkey claims they killed him, doesn't mean that they did. there have been false confirmations for kills before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bordering on disruptive.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who was it that was going to donate $5 to the WMF? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Change in the head of IS rarely results in changes in IS strategy. Article does little establish said individual's particular significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Naming I find it difficult to follow the names of these various leaders as they are so similar: Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurashi; Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, &c. It seems that these chaps also use noms-de-guerre of a similar sort which must add to the confusion. I'm not sure what we can do about that but the title of caliph should be used with care as this is implicitly a claim to be ruler of the entire Islamic world. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While "Caliph" is the official title of the ruler of IS, it doesn't have recognisition. It's a bit similar to if an extremist Christian group claimed the title 'Pope', so I see your point and I think we should use something else if this was to be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Reuters is reporting that this will happen imminently. As measured by assets, First Republic ($212.6 billion) was slightly larger than Silicon Valley Bank ($209.0 billion) whose collapse we posted last month. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait — Source provided says that the FDIC is preparing to put it under receivership. If it happens, weak oppose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak oppose - Silicon Valley Bank was more or less at the start of the crisis. I wouldn't consider another bank being taken into receivership isn't blurb worthy. However, I would absolutely support an ongoing for this. Estar8806 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support if it actually occurs - absolutely huge news and probably a harbinger for an upcoming economic collapse. However, it hasn't officially occurred yet, just merely being discussed by the FDIC. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose even if it happens, we've already covered the start of the crisis (which was only 2 banks large) This would possibly make it ongoing. --Masem (t) 02:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait WP:RSBREAKING with no statements on the record. Presumptuous to dismiss this together as "just another bank" without seeing the RSs first.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb per above, and Vehemently Oppose Ongoing per past discussion on many Ongoing items we have considered overtime where the event is nebulous in nature. A "banking crisis" does not have a defined start date or end date, so it would likely sit in Ongoing for an unreasonable period of time or almost instantly be removed after the updates concerning this failure trickle in, only to be nominated again when another bank fails. That would be a mess not worth getting into. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The broader story was already posted which would cover this; blurbing the same thing twice serves no purpose and ongoing has its own issues as pointed out by DarkSide. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Support if it actually gets FDIC'd, and if so, wait to see media coverage. Juxlos (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - Difficult to determine the impact, when the impact hasn't happened yet. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait to see the impact and closing this seems premature given the potential outcomes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We already posted the banking crisis. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggest closure This is a nomination for an event that has not yet taken place. Therefore at the time of writing, the proposed blurb and altblurb are falsehoods. I suggest that this item is closed. Chrisclear (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to see if this gets FDIC'd. I would support posting in the case that it does, but the article would need to be updated with precise details; it's not yet ready to post due to the event being a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. The hook should mention acquisition by J.P. Morgan. This is the second-biggest failure of a bank in U.S. history, so it's easily notable enough for ITN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, big problems ahead. Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to be that guy, but WP:POV, WP:ORIGINAL, and WP:CRYSTAL PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update the bank has been taken over by JPMorgan, in an even larger takeover than SVB. Wall Street Journal characterizes it as a failure, FYI. Juxlos (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most sources I see call it a delayed reaction to the SVB and other takeover in March, making this not a significantly new event. Masem (t) 12:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree - too late to post right now QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Would be helpful to add this to the existing link to the Russian invasion of Ukraine per previous discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - what he means is to modify Russian invasion of Ukraine's listing at ongoing to include a link to the timeline article by it. The end result would look like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)." - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We already have a article about the 2022 Russian Invasion in Ongoing, this is just a repost of something we already have. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Editor 5426387: The link would something like Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline). Interstellarity (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should probably clarify that in the "nominator's comments" section. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be helpful to add this...per previous discussion: Which previous discussion? Or specifically, why would it be helpful?—Bagumba (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - in the prior discussion, when Russian Invasion of Ukraine was put up for removal from ongoing, a key point made amongst certain editors who opposed was:

• How do we determine this? Yea, the article itself might not be getting updates but the timeline is getting both consistent and major updates. So do we base this off of the nominated article or the timeline article? - @Onegreatjoke
• Obviously the main article isn't for daily play-by-play updates; if it was, it'd be the largest page on the site, full of every minute detail of happenings in Bakhmut. This article is meant to be an overview of the conflict. The day-to-day operations are still routinely and constantly being updated at the innumerable forks. - @Curbon7
• Case of smaller, more specific subarticles getting updated while the large main article is not updated as substantially since its an overview. - @Hurricane Noah
• The war is still ongoing, and updates are still being made to articles within the topic area. - @Kurtis
• Given Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022–present) is being updated. Perhaps its necessary to add this link hidden under the phrase "(Timeline)" so that editors considering a drawn-out ongoing removal know to check the article likely to be updated. - @Masem

This is true. The slowdown in edit activity that @Interstellarity mentioned in his original nomination was largely the fault of the numerous content forks that absorbed up much of the war's coverage, rendering the central article a mere overview. However, a requirement for ongoing items is that they ought to be frequently updated, and said updates ought to be substantial. Although the original Russian invasion of Ukraine article still receives daily updates, the quantity has slowed and has largely been absorbed by the various timeline/fork articles as the users above pointed out. Considering that we're supposed to be focusing on more recent topics anyway, it feels correct to add the timeline article by the central article to highlight a more in-depth analysis of the war in the past few months rather than just merely having a summary of a whole year's worth of fighting. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a failure of the current Ongoing standards that we we don't consider an event's timeline equivalent to be sufficient with it's updates to keep an item in ITN. I get the whole "emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource" thing, but in reality, who doesn't know that already? The issue with an event like this is the page can only contain so much information before it must be split, and the reality is this phase of the war could continue for several years with heavy conflict, but eventually under current Ongoing standards the updates on the MAIN page with decrease to the point of marginal to where it is no longer Ongoing material. Sadly, prior discussion about considering child articles for Ongoing update standards was closed with consensus against such a change. I personally think such a case as this must be given exemption, but that's just me. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Opoose Don't clutter the main page for readers due to procedural ITN maintenenace issues w.r.t ongoing nominations.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How exactly would this clutter the main page? Ongoing already takes up two lines on ((In the News)) on the main page, thanks to the Sudan conflict. Are readers really gonna be fired up when they glance upon Russian invasion of Ukraine (timeline)? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding an extra link, where one suffices, as the timeline is already in that page. Don't hoist procedural issues onto the MP, placing a link there purely for ITNC !voters. —Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I looked through the latest timeline. Much of the content seems to be crystal balls as the typical entry is a prediction or promise by a politician or press release that something is going to happen. As the items are written in proseline fashion, there's no clear follow-up to tell us the actual result.

And there's the outright BS such as "Fu Cong, China's Ambassador to the European Union, explained in interviews that the recently declared "friendship with no limits" between Russia and China is actually "nothing but rhetoric"..." He may well be right but how can we tell? See the liar paradox... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support including a link to the Timeline page - Per @Knightoftheswords281. Perhaps even a link to a portal page, considering the sheer amount of articles on the topic, akin to how we blurbed the COVID-19 Pandemic? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While I understand the logic of this proposal (article updates), I don't think the timeline article is particularly useful to readers clicking through from the main page. If a reader is clicking on that link, they probably want to know what the current status in the war is, not a list of events starting last November (an apparently random choice of date). Leave the entry as it is. Modest Genius ^talk 12:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I periodically do exactly that (click on that link because I want to know what the current status in the war is) and it is absolutely not there. Try it for yourself. Where is significant fighting happening? Are there skirmishes happening all along the front lines, or is it relatively peaceful? I have no idea. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per rationale mentioned above. It would be nice if there were an article that both summarized the current events and provided historical context in the form of a timeline, however, that doesn't appear to exist . Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The main article already links to the timeline article. This information can be found is people want it. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Would just add too much unnecessary clutter to the main page when readers could easily click the ongoing article link and navigate to the associated subpages. Contrary to popular opinion, people generally aren't stupid (which is not to suggest that this proposal implies such an assumption on the part of Interstellarity, of course). Kurtis ^(talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Like boxing, strongman events seem neglected but so it goes. It's interesting to see a fresh new face win the event... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hooper's article is a stub and the contest's article primarily consists of tables with little prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Four sentences PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - currenly a Stub. If/when expanded, please ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on, man I actually like WSM, but you know this has a 0% chance of being posted. Unlike boxing- which I would be happy to see on ITN every now and then- WSM doesn't get spectators, doesn't get TV ratings, and doesn't get media coverage except as a curiosity. It's so unimportant that the event actually ended four days ago and it took any news outlets (the few that bothered to write an article, based on my news search) a couple of days to even notice. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this can somehow be expanded with secondarily-sourced prose, then I might be tempted to throw my support behind this as it would be an interesting topic that doesn't get much coverage on ITN usually. However, we have pretty regularly shot down beauty pageants on ITN, and so I find myself wondering if this would fall into the same category of novelty. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - On second thought, it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, especially given the lag of coverage that Kicking222 refers to. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  it's hard to see any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event - well, if you really believe that, than you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you want to make a less subjective significance standard, I counterpoint you to the new thread I made on WT:ITN today. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see why this is even a nomination, just because some guy got a title, doesn't make it important. His article is still a stub, and there is tons of problems to be fixed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did Curbon already do the deed? We found another occurrence of 5426387 doing something that isn't "Per above"! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you mean pay the $5, than I don't think so. However, he is indeed the reason why Editor isn't replying with per above anymore. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Editor not doing "Per above" anymore is great. Curbon refusing to pay his debt is disappointing. I propose from today onward every day he doesn't pay up, he has to pay another 5 dollars. I am joking, of course... unless... TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'm not sure if this is this is any officially recognized sport event. Alex-h (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This gets very little coverage in the media, so this is not something currently In The News. Often, as said by WaltClip, we shoot down beauty pageants pretty often, and I find these comparable. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - trivial. nableezy - 15:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above. Comparatively trivial with little media coverage. The Kip (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all this talk about lacking any sort of encyclopedic significance for this event, when we frequently post and the like dart championships that barely receive any major coverage. The whole "but those are WP:ITNR" argument doesn't cut it because you're basically saying that since the nombox is green instead of blue, its somehow more worthy of being posted to ITN. By the way, I'm not opposed to dart championships and the like being posted, but at least have some consistency. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty funny support, in that you provide zero reasons for supporting besides "we post darts". It obviously doesn't matter, since this will never be posted, but I did get a chuckle out of it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am open to posting non-ITNR sport events. However, I agree with the notion by TheBlueSkyClub that this is more akin to a beauty pageant, just with a lot more testosterone. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is a disaster. 95% of the article is just tables sourced to a single source, which itself has very little prose. Absolutely none of the actual prose in the body of the article (outside the lede) has any references, and the article as a whole could use with some more prose synopses of the individual events and of the championship as a whole. No way this is main page ready. --Jayron32 18:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Super cool science discovery. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—Does not appear notable enough for 'In the News'. Compusolus (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. this is great, but the result was reported last month, so the news is now stale. the finding was actually nominated last month too, but the nomination was closed without a consensus to post. dying (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Certainly a cool discovery but I'm afraid this was nominated a bit too late. Could be a great DYK factoid though if you expand it enough. The blurb would also need to be rephrased to something like "A new shape, a single prototile that never repeats in a grid known as "Einstein's Hat", has been discovered." — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll be back The main obstacle when this was first nominated was that the paper was waiting on peer review. This still seems to be the situation and so we're waiting for that ponderous process to conclude. Don't hold your breath... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per @Dying PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem with science blurbs is always the question of when to post, at discovery or at publication; ironically, in this very discussion there is disagreement on that. Problem also comes down to "sexy science" vs. science that is equally cool/important but not as flashy. Curbon7 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this was nominated when first reported a month ago. That nomination failed because the paper hadn't been peer-reviewed. Well it still hasn't got through peer review, so whatever we think of the importance it isn't suitable for posting yet. Re-nominate if/when the tiling has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Even the Guardian story linked above is from 3 April, so I don't know why you put this nomination in the 26 April section.) Modest Genius ^talk 12:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even with a peer review article, the WP article is lacking a quality I'd expect for general readership, pointing out how niche this concept is without a clear apication beyond affirming prior theory. --Masem (t) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a problem that got solved, big deal, did we post the last time this happened? No, not notable enough for ITN, and wasn't this already nominated before? Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Missing a lot of citations. Mooonswimmer 13:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, with regret I would've thought that Belafonte's article would be in a much better state than it is, but how it is now is a real shame for someone so important. It's missing a ton of citations and there's several orange section tags. I do hope work can be done on it so he can get on the Main Page. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doc Strange: Article's looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'm changing my vote to Support. Good work to the editors who got this article sourced. Neutral on blurb, as I often am. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb Day-O. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Article needs work but groundbreaking singer and notable activist. He was technically an EGOT through his honorary Oscar win. --38.106.246.204 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD once fixed, oppose blurb for now Rock Hall Hall of Famer, the man that brought Calypso to many people's attention, had one of the first LPs (albums) to sell a million copies, involved with USA for Africa and We Are the World. But, I don't think he's big enough for a blurb, unless the blurb has something mentioning a connection his HOF record, or mentions Calypso (album) somewhere in it. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He pretty much bankrolled much of Dr. King's work and actually held back his professional career (which was still transformative) to devote time to the civil rights movement. That certainly ticks the boxes for a blurb once the article's issues are corrected. rawmustard (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb pending the addition of citations where they're needed. An extremely iconic and influential music artist. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality as the guy who created the global calypso craze, he's probably the greatest calypso singer ever. However, the article will need a lot of work. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @NorthernFalcon: Article's looking good.

• Support blurb once fixed He had two distinguished careers, one in entertainment and one in politics at a critical moment for the civil rights movement. His work and death have made waves far outside the US. cart-Talk 16:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Before the discussion RD/blurb continues, the article has so many issues (sourcing, mainly) that it is not ready for any of the two. Fix the article first, then the discussion can continue in a meaningful way. --Tone 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think everyone agrees that the article is in need of additional citations before it is added to the main page, which means that the focus of the conversation has naturally diverted towards the element that isn't so clear-cut—whether it should receive a full blurb once ready, or just an RD mention. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kurtis: & @Tone:: Article has been significantly improved since death was reported. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Major figure across multiple fields. The Kip (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article is in really bad quality. Will support when fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onegreatjoke: Article is looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. if/when fixed, Oppose on quality for now. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite:: Article is looking good. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers :) Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb when fixed, also think its not that far off rn either. nableezy - 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Idk if its the impossibly high standard that Americans have to be considered significant here or what but Belafonte is significantly more than a transformative musician, and he was that, he was also a significant, maybe even instrumental, figure in the civil rights movement in the US. Bill Russell déjà vu tbh, but maybe its just that era of American history doesnt really register with international or younger audiences, but the I dont know who he is argument is a reason to click the link and try to find that out more than a reason to oppose here. nableezy - 09:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality, needs fixes to sourcing. When that is fixed, I would support RD only; blurbs are not rewards we grant extra important people, they are a means of conveying information. Merely noting that a person has died, without any elaboration on it, is what the RD link was created for. If we need to explain the manner of his death as unusual or bearing special explanation, then that is what a blurb is for. --Jayron32 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Originally I was going to jump on board the bandwagon and support a blurb based on the feedback given above, but as I think about it, I'm finding that Jayron32's argument is also persuasive. The "transformative" criteria on WP:ITNRD is just as subjective as any of our other significance criteria. He's tops in his field, but we've turned down plenty of people who are tops in their field. (If InedibleHulk were here, he'd be crowing "old man dies" just as he always had before.) But I can be swayed, and as one not familiar with his work, I'd sure like to know what makes him "greatest of the great" besides just "great". --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Never heard of him, which is my personal minimal requirement for a blurb. Sandstein 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...really? I had never heard of Desmond Tutu before he died, does that mean I should have opposed his nom? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an invalid reason, and no more arbitrary than the oft-touted "Thatcher/Mandela" standard. When the definition for "transformative figure" is as nebulous and open-ended as it is, anyone can have literally any reason for opposing a blurb, and it is no less valid than someone else's reason. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I'm considering shifting all deaths to RD, regardless of "sIgNiFiCaNcE," or at the very least all non heads-of-state deaths. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also am also opposed to a a blurb, but "I personally never heard of him, so fuck him" is an excessively parochial and self-aggrandizing metric for blurb RDs. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair interpretation of Sandstein's rationale. What he said was not intended to denigrate Belafonte or the impact that he has had within his field and beyond—he just opposes a blurb for someone who he hasn't heard of because, from his perspective, lack of familiarity means that the person being discussed can't be that famous. I disagree with his rationale, but I wouldn't classify it as "parochial and self-aggrandizing". Kurtis ^(talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is absolutely valid. Sandstein doesn't present it as a universal criterion that all editors, who haven't heard of him, should oppose a blurb but rather uses it as own indicator to support the vote. If someone else, who hasn't heard of someone, didn't oppose a blurb in the past is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb once all sourcing issues are addressed. Influential and widely honored performer and activist. Funcrunch (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb While it's true that he had a successful career and transformed calypso music, his overall contribution to music in the 20th century is not that influential. His notability is far from that of his contemporaries Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis or Charlie Parker. I also don't think that the honorary Oscar he won and his activism raise him to the level for a blurb (a honorary Oscar is a ceremonial award). More importantly, his death is barely front-page news (I had to scroll down a lot to find the news on the BBC.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/25/harry-belafonte-staggering-screen-career-sci-fi-love-triangle

  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/25/steve-mcqueen-hero-harry-belafonte-tarzan-12-years-a-slave Kirill C1 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked on The Guardian’s front page, and the news covers a minor corner on the bottom left. Thanks for helping me to confirm my initial observation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Using Sandstein’s “I haven’t heard of him” test, I’d call Belafonte more notable than Parker. I’ve heard of Belafonte & I’ve heard “Day-O”. I haven’t heard of Parker. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Me too BhamBoi (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, oppose blurb - thanks Jayron32 (talk · contribs) for saying what I was thinking. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://variety.com/2023/music/news/harry-belafonte-best-songs-1235594095/ Kirill C1 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, support RD When weighted against the points per Kiril. CoatCheck (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD article needs work, but pretty notable person who excelled in 2 fields. not sure if it belongs as a blurb, but definitely a important figure for RD. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Article looks in way better shape than it was when his death was first reported. Belafonte was top of his field and was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll hall of fame with a distinguished career. Nearly an EGOT winner too and an influencial civil rights activist with close connections with MLK. Blurb worthy in my opinion. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Great man in many ways, but it would be totally inconsistent to blurb him after all the other people of equal or greater merit we have ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD–finally, after ~8 hours of work, we finally managed to fix all the issues in the article! I might've caused a few errors; feel free to ping me if there's any! Tails Wx 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
• Support blurb with further improvements This is a bio that clearly demonstrates a legacy beyond just being a notable singer. This type of quality bio is what we want to feature. --Masem (t) 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in general, preference for blurb Article looks good for posting. I would agree that the distinguished legacy with regards to calypso and thus its influences makes this a clear candidate for a death blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Internationally notable and transformative figure through his music and activism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Colin Powell, the first black Secretary of State and major figure in both Gulf Wars didn’t get a blurb. Belafonte lived an amazing and noble life, but I don’t think he meets the high bar of a blurb. Thriley (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Stats Our readership is already reading the article regardless and there were 677,886 views yesterday. That seems typical for such stars who usually get about half a million views on the news of their death. For example, Barry Humphries peaked at 379,924 and Len Goodman at 491,046. To stand out, a superstar needs to go up an order of magnitude and get millions of views. See Famous deaths in 2022 for some comparative stats. Note that the similar case of Sidney Poitier was first run at RD and then got a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Blurbs are reserved for only a handful of highly important individuals. While Belafonte has no doubt achieved fame, he doesn't rise to that level when compared against similar figures that we haven't blurbed in the past.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, now that the article is improved, and soon please: people have read that he died and will wonder what Wikpedia is doing when coming with that "news" late. I'm neutral on a blurb that doesn't say much more than that he died. How about - for a compromise - have his picture, and not the face but the iconic lead image of him singing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• RD posted as quality improved. Discussion on blurb can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, support RD - Per @Knightoftheswords281 and @Jayron32 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb as it currently is "Singer, actor and activist". That encapsulates him perfectly and explains his historical significance to the "I've never heard of him" crowd and the "He's only a singer" crowd. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb He helped organize the March on Washington, was the 1st solo singer to make an album that sold 1,000,000 copies, was the black man to win an Emmy & the 1st black man to win a Tony. That seems notable enough for a blurb to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jayron32's consistency in applying a standard (albeit a personal one) for death blurbs needs to be appreciated and raises a question whether death blurbs (beyond unusual death ones) need to be done away with altogether due to a significantly higher back and forth and opposition and subjectivity than usual ITN noms. A clearer picture might emerge with an official RfC/consensus on this subject. Gotitbro (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the standard I apply is absolutely not a personal one. It's the standard I read at WP:ITNRD, which states, as part of a longer elaboration on what standards to apply, "if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." I merely was paraphrasing those instructions. I was not applying my own standard. I would never do that, at least, not where there are such well written standards already in place, which have been so for years. --Jayron32 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We blurbed Kumar, Shane Warne, Betty White, former Portugal,Philippine presidents Kirill C1 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Random thought, and I know it hasn't happened in awhile, but it doesn't seen likely, but maybe a Photo RD? The RD is already accepted, and could be middle ground for those that don't support a blurb. TheCorriynial (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no procedure for photo RD, and so it's even less likely you'll get an agreement for one of those. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'd expect a longer 'Legacy' section for someone who would be considered transformative enough to merit a blurb. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose largely per Walt. I won't act like I'm an expert on Belafonte, having not actually heard of him before now, but just gleaning what I can about him, we're talking about someone who was fairly notable for multiple things, but not largely notable for any of them. Ultimately, the civil rights accomplishments of Belafonte are his most notable, but the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past. That's nothing against Belafonte - it's just a matter of the standards we have for ITN deaths. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• the reality is we've passed over several more notable civil rights icons in the past, well, possibly, but maybe we should change that? nableezy - 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but I'm generally opposed to death blurbs for achievement in general, as evidenced by the discussion related to this topic some time back. Ergo, I'm certainly not starting this trend. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Influential civil rights activist, his album was the first million-selling LP by a single artist and he was the oldest inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (already depicts his impact in the music industry) and he was an EGOT (depicts his influence as an actor). Article is also in fantastic shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked ready for a blurb. There is a fairly clear consensus to do so, and most of the Opposes are "well we didn't post X, so why should we post Y?" Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unmarked because the marking rationale is false. There's only one vote opposing because we didn't post Colin Powell. Please first carefully read the discussion before taking action. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Remarked as Ready because Amakuru and HiLo48's rationale's were exactly the same without actually naming anyone (and there's also an "Oppose because I've never heard of him"). I won't revert again, but many of these rationales are really weak. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is rationale for blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/26/calypso-jazz-orchestral-ballads-the-astonishing-range-of-harry-belafonte

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/25/belafonte-is-gone-poitier-went-before-him-they-were-the-titans-who-uplifted-our-world

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/26/harry-belafonte-activism-civil-rights-movement Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for RD (obviously). I'm really not opposed to blurb, an EGOT winner and influential civil rights persona should satisfy blurb requirements. Estar8806 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb for the record. I had withheld judgment before actually !voting. For all the remarking about how excellent his legacy is, that section of his article is lacking, which tells me that his legacy is overstated and not transformative. I suggest people who are involved in the blurb discussion should not be trying to mark it as ready when the consensus is not unanimous. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Black Kite did not include a rationale at all in their vote. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe read more of the article, like Harry Belafonte § Political and humanitarian activism. nableezy - 23:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurb While an important figure, we have declined quite a few nominees for a blurb with a stronger claim to significance. I also note that there are still a few gaps in referencing before this can be posted to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ad Orientem, the article has already been posted to RD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Curbon7 I missed that. I am not going to advocate pulling it, but there are enough gaps that I would not have posted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, the page was untagged at the time of posting. The paragraph on the Smothers Brothers was partially sourced by its entry further down in his television works. —Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb looking at the article, I don't see how he was "transformative" in his field. Yes, he had a distinguished career as a musician and actor, and was significantly involved in the Civil Rights Movement. To me however, he falls short of the high bar we set for death blurbs. YD407OTZ (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, of course. But oppose blurb as he’s not notable for his death, and thus belongs at RD. BhamBoi (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment His death is documented in only one sentene, which is the minimum update for the death of any ordinary person. Looking back at recently posted death blurbs, there seems to be plenty of content (see Pelé for example). Is it really that no more content can be added regarding his death? Isn’t it possible to, at least, mention the commemorations around the world or provide some information on the funeral? I’m afraid that the quality of the blurb isn’t sufficient for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: It's happened! Or has it? According to The Guardian, it's already occurred, but most other sources say it hasn't. Either way, a point has to be made in that since @TheTigerKing's original nomination, the UN projection has moved from mid-year to the end of this month, or within the archival period of this nomination. The subject article has been updated, however, it seems to possibly be possibly jumping the gun and probably should be reverted. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 04:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the sources are in agreement. This is obviously significant enough news to merit a blurb, but we need to be 100% sure that it has actually happened before doing so. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe we should agree to post this at the end of the month? That looks to be the date when most sources agree India will have definitively surpassed China in population (otherwise we can post it sooner but I don't think it makes sense to delay posting this beyond the end of April). Flyingfishee (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait per this, "Population experts using previous data from the UN have projected India’s population would surpass China’s in April, but the global body’s latest report did not specify a date" (emphasis added). That source also states this will happen by the end of June, citing the UN State of World Population report. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending official confirmation This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The target bolded article List of countries and dependencies by population is an absolute mess of unverified data. The population figure in the table for India (and probably other countries as well) can not be found in the source provided. The date for India in the table is listed as 1 March 2023, whereas the date for China is 31 December 2022, so the table is not comparing "like for like". The dates in the table do not match the dates in the footnotes. The source for the India population figure is dated July 2020, and is woefully out of date. The 1 March 2023 date in the table for India does not match the July 2020 date of the projection in the original source. It appears likely that one or more editors are updating the population numbers in the table with little regard for providing a source and the date on which the population figure was extracted. Chrisclear (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It just seems like some sources have not had their access-dates updated with time, which doesn't appear to be a huge issue. DecafPotato (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, unfortunately it is not 'just' that simple. The issue you described is one of the many issues that I observed. As just one example, in the 2 hours since my previous comment, the table now has India at #2, with a new (lower) population figure, which is again, not in the source provided. It's difficult to take the table seriously when it's being "updated" like this with random unverified data multiple times a day. Chrisclear (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It feels like I've seen this headline 50 times in the last five years. As others have said, if we have official confirmation that India has overtaken China, I think it'd be notable enough to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For the same reason I opposed this last week. The target article currently says "China - 1,411,750,000, India - 1,392,329,000". We can't post an article that contradicts the blurb we are posting. --Jayron32 11:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even the Guardian article says "According to the UN’s projections, which are calculated through a variety of factors.." - in other words they don't actually know, they're sticking out a headline based on the UN's guess. In reality, even though the event has probably occurred, we won't have genuine knowledge on this until India does another census. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The nominated article is orange-tagged and states, "Because the compiled figures are not collected at the same time in every country, or at the same level of accuracy, the resulting numerical comparisons may create misleading conclusions." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing has significantly changed since the last nom for this to be posted. It still has not happened (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and no exact dates exist for such projections.

Also, there is a reason census figures are prioritized on enwiki, relying on projections is always problematic. If census figures are not immediate, we should tally projections from multiple agencies and wait till they are all on the same page, UNPF is not the only agency tracking pop figures. Gotitbro (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and close There is literally no way to verify this information, and sources don't agree on it. Also, why even nominate the article when you admit that the info might not be true? -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Probably the best time to post this would have been in the previous nomination when the announcement was made, because now that we've held ourselves to this standard of waiting until it actually happens, we have no way of ever being sure that we've officially crossed the threshold. So it's a moot exercise. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the page has not even been updated to say India has more people, and there is really no way to verify such thing because the news are saying different things. - Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]