Open main menu

Wikipedia β

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

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

Martin Truex Jr. in 2015
Martin Truex Jr.

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

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

Please do not...Edit

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


SuggestionsEdit

November 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 21

November 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 20
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Terry GlennEdit

Article: Terry Glenn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN,USA Today, NFL
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 GCG (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support No major issues. I think it meets our generally applied standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Della ReeseEdit

Article: Della Reese (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: Thechased (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Thechased (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Exceptionally poor referencing. This is going to take some work to get it up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 1I/ʻOumuamua detectionEdit

Article: 1I/ʻOumuamua (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is detected to be travelling at an interstellar speed of 26.32 km/s (58,900 mph).
Alternative blurb: ​The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is characterized.
News source(s): Phys.org, BBC, The Guardian, Ars Technica
Nominator: Radagast (talk • give credit)

 Radagast (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Either stale or incomplete. The last information in the article is dated October 26. --Jayron32 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    As a note, and to reply to several comments below, I have no problem with posting this so long as the article itself makes it clear why it is in the news now. I'm not particularly opposed to posting major scientific discoveries, it is just that the text of this article makes no effort to indicate why now is why it is in the news. --Jayron32 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    The key reason it appears to be in the news now is the publication of the Nature paper that documents observations. I mention this only because it was also in the news a few days ago, for the selection of the Hawaiian name (but that's not the point of the ITN/C here), so that people searching for newsworthiness and finding these older stories, they should be aware that was a different facet; this ITNC appears to be slotted in the right place. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but where does the article text say that? What you tell me, here, on this page makes no bit of difference. What you write, in the text of the article itself, is all that matters. --Jayron32 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, absolutely. I don't see the Nature article sourced, or even the references published today acknowledging that publication. That has to be in first. I just want to be clear that in this discussion outside of article quality, today is the right day for this, and just caution those looking into the proper date to be aware of other news-worthy milestones that are not the same as this date (publication of studies in a reliable scientific journal). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I have just added in the BBC article published today, and the Nature letter to the article (under "Observations") as to explain why today was important. I do note that the pre-published this 10 Nov, so conclusions by it seemingly were already discussed in various scientific circles, but today's the day that Nature publicly published it. This should now be ready to go. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This was actually nominated back in October, the consensus then was to wait until more is known (e.g. a paper is published). The interstellar status seems much clearer now, however, the question is what new happened recently? --Tone 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article needs updating first. The problem last time was that many properties were still unknown and there wasn't a peer-reviewed paper. However, one was just published in Nature today. I think this is ITN-worthy, but the article will need updating to reflect the newly-published results (such as the unusual shape) and properly cite the paper, as well as the existing (non-peer-reviewed) MPECs, preprints and research notes. The blurb will need to be crafted to indicate that the results were just published, as there were various interim announcements a few weeks ago. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to minimal coverage (at the moment) on the finding. Kirliator (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Confirmation of this is an amazing event. (orbital parameters get more refined the longer an object had been observed of course, it had to move before you can see the shape of its orbit) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that with the Nature paper, we should use the blurb that was originally presented in Oct, this being that studies have identified this as first known extra-solar system asteroid to be detected/measured. The speed in the current blurb has little to do with this. Alternatively, the focus I'm seeing that the object has an extremely enlongated shape is possibly something to focus on. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's elongated cause it's an alien spacecraft.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
At least we have the whales to save us then. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment while I like the enthusiasm of this discovery (and would normally support this kind of nomination), the main problem is that posting a blurb that was initially created more than a month ago is technically stale as Jaycon32 initially stated. Although I do not necessarily oppose the current nomination, I agree with several of the above users that the content of the blurb should be updated before it can be posted to ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OP Comment - I was unaware of the October listing (I don't frequent this page). If anyone wants to offer an alternative blurb, please feel free. Radagast (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - to call this stale is another way of calling the ITN system broken. Back in October when there was more news coverage, some editors argued for waiting on the grounds that no peer reviewed paper had been published yet (or similar). Now there has been such a paper (+ several more preprints), the item is no longer in the news, so now the argument is that it is stale. If we accept this kind of reasoning the only way to feature this is to have a peer reviewed paper being written, reviewed and published within ~7 days - a pipe dream. I suggest an alt blurb saying it's been characterized, since what's so unique about this is not just the interstellar speed (its trajectory is another unique thing, for example). Banedon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support Alt1. --Tone 21:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose no major news network is covering this, likely because they don’t give a hoot about it. 2600:1015:B121:C116:89AD:9FC5:411B:DD59 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It has just been reported in the last few hours, and I found BBC and Guardian articles rather easily. It's being covered. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Difficult to ascertain intent here, but it is noteworthy that this strongest oppose originates from a IP SPA with only a solitary edit. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • First extrasolar object in solar system (or within 4 light years/25,000,000,000,000 miles actually) That's important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable scientific discovery; this isn't stale. It takes time to properly report and confirm these discoveries. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alt blurb that’s more like it. Good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this is significant scientific news. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment please fix the referencing errors before this is posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs fixed, posting. --Tone 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. What clinches it for me is the bizarre shape. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support while this object very likely is an asteroid, seeing as this is the first interstellar object to enter the Solar System an be described by astronomers. This is a major astronomy milestone, despite the opposition. SamaranEmerald (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Elizabeth IIEdit

Strong opposition against posting on grounds of newsworthiness. If her highness finds her way here though, congratulations to her and Philip. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Elizabeth II (talk, history)
Blurb: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip celebrate their Platinum wedding anniversary the longest marriage in the history of the British monarchy
News source(s): Express, The Telegraph
Article needs updating

 81.158.74.1 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, meaningless anniversary. The place for anniversaries is WP:OTD, not ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree, correct place is WP:OTD. But not sure why you see it as "meaningless". Are you arguing that all anniversaries are meaningless? Even if you see it that way, it certainly is in the news in UK. Not many of those other OTD items are on TV and radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Meaningless in the sense that it has no impact or wider significance. If there was some kind of mass event or demonstration to mark the occasion, that could in principle raise a simple anniversary to an ITN story. But there isn't. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I see. Well they get some nice stamps. But I agree we're not seeing jubilant throngs on the streets of The Mall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose outside of what we usually cover here; routine aniversaries can be covered at OTD instead. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Support and republican sentiments be damned. Oppose - Not newsworthy per se.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Awesome news, but not worth posting. The article doesn't even mention this event, unlike her Sapphire Jubilee. ~Mable (chat) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Alas this just doesn't rise to the level of warranting mention on the main page. That said it is marvelous news. Many (more) years to the happy couple! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose royal trivia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

November 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Law and crime
Sports

[Posted] 2017 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championshipEdit

Article: 2017 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series (talk, history)
Blurb: Martin Truex Jr. (pictured) wins the NASCAR Cup Series championship.
News source(s): MRN, USA Today
Nominator: Dough4872 (talk • give credit)
Updater: A.lanzetta (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: WWEFan1926 (talk • give credit) and Dough4872 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 Dough4872 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support This is what one of these articles should look like before main page posting. Sufficient prose summary of the entire season, including week-by-week synopses, everything well referenced. This lacks for nothing. Good stuff. --Jayron32 15:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto. An exemplary article for sport event. Do we have some guideline whether to include the sponsor name? (Monster energy) --Tone 15:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - article is ready for posting. Remove brand names from the title though - users will know the event well enough, and if they don't that is what links are for. We don't exist to promote energy drinks. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I also agree with Stormy Clouds, for brevity of front page posting, the sponsor's name is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No need for the sponsor's name. --LukeSurl t c 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed series sponsor from blurb. Dough4872 17:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I too commend the authors for detailed prose on each race, which more than makes up from the list- & table-heavy rest of the article. The sponsor's name is indeed unnecessary. Looks good to go. Modest Genius talk 18:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. Feel free to update the photo. --Tone 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RD Jana NovotnáEdit

Article: Jana Novotná (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jyotir97 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose with regret. Too much of the latter part of the article is unreferenced, and the "personal life" section is a single sentence noting her death. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the minute, as there is too much unsourced content. Paging Megalibrarygirl for cleanup. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. Well that's obvious really, per RD rules. A part of me thinks this might even be blurbworthy, because she was young, a grand slam winner, and (for me at least) it was a bit unexpected. Probably not quite noteworthy enough, but putting that out there anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy to source it. I'll work on it today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Good job, Megalibrarygirl. It could use a couple more refs in the few lines above 'Later years and death', but it's probably time for a re-review. --PFHLai (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Charles MansonEdit

consensus seems unlikely to develop to convert this to a blurb. It's been running either side of 50/50 depending on when one counts, which simply isn't the necessary agreement to make it a blurb. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Charles Manson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American serial killer Charles Manson dies at the age of 83.
News source(s): Variety New York Daily News
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Infamous serial killer who was the leader of the Manson family. Added both a blurb as well as RD since I feel this could go either way. Andise1 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Strongly support blurb - very notable, infamous figure. Article high quality. 1779Days (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • As of now, the article isn't updated to say he died. Only the first sentence and infobox are updated, no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs Update, but Leaning Support RD, as Muboshgu states, above, the article, although in good quality, has not been updated to reflect Manson's death. Once a decent update is made, then I think its good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I was too quick and hasty to support the blurb, as much as I admit I would do so, I find it too simple at the moment to consider support, I'll only support the RD for now. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, because it says nothing the readership doesn't already know or can't get from the RD listing. His infamy does not change the consensus that unsurprising deaths of old people don't get blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't change that consensus, but consensus has also been to post blurbs of those who are at the top of their field. Manson was arguably so. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't get your line of thinking here. His death is unsurprising, so it doesn't warrant a blurb? There are plenty of cases in which quite "unsurprising deaths" still more than warrant a blurb. Master of Time (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Support blurb Pending update to reflect death Manson was a infamous figure in America's history and has gained notoriety status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RB, oppose blurb - There's nothing special about a person dying at an old age, nor is the death having an influence on the world ala Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie. RD is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb As happy as I am that this monster is gone, other than to the families of his victims, I don't think he had a huge impact in any field (whatever that may be), and we all knew he was old and ill. RD should be enough. EternalNomad (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
He was tops in the field of crime, or notorious is the best way to put it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article appears to be in fairly good shape (B-class) and well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment What the fuck kind of logic did I read in some comments? It's not surprising that he died, so we shouldn't post it? I forgot the part where we were supposed to surprise our readers of shocking deaths, and not inform them of someone who is particularly notable dying. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Ironically Mandela and Thatcher are older then him and would fit that too, people just see blurbs as rewarding and they do not want to reward Manson. GuzzyG (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb An especially notable death (I don't receive news alerts about deaths very frequently, and I did in this case). Well-sourced, good-quality article. For those of us who were around back then, this is pretty significant news, given the extensive coverage of his murders at that time. Davey2116 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb I do not see why everyone is so against posting a blurb regarding one of, if not the most notorious serial killer of modern American history. This is worthy for a blurb on the ITN bulletin. Kirliator (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. To claim he does not have a field (crime/criminal) that he was highly "significant" in is false. This was a internationally known and reported on figure, objectively he'd get a blurb if he was in any other field. Thus, objectively he gets a blurb, personal moral standing is not a requirement. GuzzyG (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Highly significant criminal, part of US history. Worthy a blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Death of probably the most notorious criminal in recent history merits a blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb Old criminal dies in prison. News at 11. Nothing notable about the death. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Except for who it was. Manson was not a garden variety thief or thug. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing special about the death. By your logic all RD's would be worth a blurb as they are all notable because of who died. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No, as some people are more notable than others. RD was created in part to get rid of arguments over notability for every single death that was nominated. It wasn't meant to affect the few deaths of extremely transforming figures or those who are at the tip top of their field who might merit blurbs. Manson was extremely notorious in his field (crime) and is an important part of US history. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well don't argue his RD deserves a blurb because of who he is then. But since you mentioned 'transforming figures or those at the tip top of their field' Manson was well down the list of transforming figures in the world of serial killing. Being neither particularly innovative in the method, nor the numbers. Both prior and post Manson many other killers have been more successful in much more imaginative ways. The only reason Manson is not a footnote is because his targets included the rich and famous. So if you are seriously arguing Manson deserves a blurb because he is a (quoting from WP:ITN directly now) "major transformative world leaders in their field" then you seen many serial killer articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate this conversation but it seems we will have to disagree about the merits of this nomination. If there are other serial killers who merit posting I await their nominations. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS what oher serial killers do to get to ITN are irrelevant. We are discussing Manson.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I quoted directly the part of WP:ITN that is relevant to bumping an RD to a Blurb. If you can explain how Manson is a "major transformative world leader(s) in their field" without comparing him to others in his field, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Highly notorious, but looked at objectively his significance and influence is not at the very level that warrants a blurb. Neljack (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems we have a consensus for RD but not yet for a blurb (I am inclined against the blurb myself). Posting. RD for now. --Tone 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment front page on the BBC, [1] Sydney Morning Herald [2] and the New York Times, [3] how an American serial killer/cult leader from the 60s gets this level of coverage now and is listed more prominently on these news websites then the Zimbabwe coup, speaks volumes, i get that he is a bad person but bad people get blurbs too. Blame the media. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Being on the front page of international papers is not a good metric - yesterday for all purposes was an otherwise slow news day, so the most interesting stories bubble up to the top. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for blurb. If the orange idiots daily tweet storm pushing him off the front page, then that's the end of it. Media coverage is a key consideration for "blurbworthiness" to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, one of the most infamous criminals of all time, and the worldwide media coverage of his death reflects this fact. Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Merely killing people is not a blurb-worthy enterprise.--WaltCip (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb. Nowhere near the world-changing impact required for a blurb. Way below the bar of Mandela, Thatcher etc. I'm amazed that anyone's even suggesting a blurb here. RD is sufficient. Modest Genius talk 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb "Who is the most notable/famous living X in the world?" For any simple value of X, the death of this person gets a blurb. GCG (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as someone who has been infamously linked to 1960s counter-culture, and who was sentenced to death 45 years ago, it's been a long time coming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per OID - absolutely not a "major transformative world leader in their field" as the criteria demands.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is fine. Manson was just your garden variety spree killer who happened to get a lot of press because one of his victims was famous. There are some infamous killers that I might support a blurb for. But not this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Notorious, yes. Globally important? Absolutely not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb death blurbs should be reserved for when the death becomes its own story, beyond an obituary, based on the response to the death. This doesn't seem to be meeting the Bowie/Mandela threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb What are this person's "accomplishments" and how is his death of old age at 83 noteworthy in and of itself? μηδείς (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I find the opposition’s reasoning both cliche and underdeveloped. This is an infamous serial killer we are dealing with, one of the most evil men of modern times. There is nothing wrong with posting this as a blurb. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Still closed. If you have something useful to add, you can re-open it.
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.

  • Not a comment either way, and mere happenstance given the closure of the discussion, but the news of Manson's hospitalisation was sufficient to place him within the top 10 of last week's Top 25 Report. If ITN exists to make it easier for readers to find items which are in the news, it is perhaps inadvisable to not ponder the discussion further. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The same argument holds for putting his image in the infobox, in case any admins are wondering about that. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic comment Obviously it is much more important to have a blurb about who won some car race than the death of one of the worst villains of the 20th century. Neutron (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

RD: Mel TillisEdit

Article: Mel Tillis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Country music legend

  • Support when ready obvious shoe-in, but article is largely unsourced and most of his fans will not be in our editor demographic. I refrained from posting this nom myself when I saw the article's state. My parents adored him, but they were born in the '30's. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all indiviudals with articles are a "shoo in" if their article is up to scratch. This article is far from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pancho SeguraEdit

Article: Pancho Segura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support A refreshingly solid article that is well sourced. My only quibble, and it is not a big deal, is that there seems to be a bit of name dropping in the lead paragraph of the retirement section. I'd suggest trimming that down. But all in all I think it's good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD David CassidyEdit

We normally reserve RD nominations for people who are actually dead. Reopen if/when the organ failure is fatal. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: David Cassidy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator and updater: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, article needs further updating and other work. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

But, and I hate doing this post-closure, should Mr Cassidy ever shuffle off the mortal coil, his article will still need a load of work before it's suitable for the main page. So anyone actually interested in him should start that process sooner rather than later, to avoid disappointment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 18
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Gillian RoltonEdit

Article: Gillian Rolton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4][5][6][7]
Nominator and updater: Hawkeye7 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Aussiesportlibrarian (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Olympian. Rode her horse Peppermint Grove to win a gold medal at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics with a broken collar bone, three busted ribs and a punctured lung. Article is still rated a stub, but Aussiesportlibrarian and I have expanded it. It is still short, but is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support article updated and well-referenced JennyOz (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 01:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Azzedine AlaïaEdit

Article: Azzedine Alaïa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Azzedine Alaïa: Popular Tunisian couturier dies aged 77". BBC News. November 18, 2017. Retrieved November 19, 2017. ; Pithers, Ellie (November 18, 2017). "Fashion World Mourns The Death Of Azzedine Alaïa". Vogue. Retrieved November 19, 2017. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Tunisian fashion designer. There is unreferenced content at present--let's try to fix it together! Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Naim SüleymanoğluEdit

Article: Naim Süleymanoğlu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: Sa.vakilian (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: former Olympic athlete --Seyyed(t-c) 07:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of paragraphs and two personal records that need extra citations, otherwise a good article. --Tone 13:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not close yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Youssouf OuédraogoEdit

Article: Youssouf Ouédraogo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Voa Afrique
Nominator: PootisHeavy (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Former prime minister of Burkina Faso --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Referencing issues and the article needs some serious copy editing. It appears that parts of his political biography are repeated verbatim in two different sections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now well referenced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose no details of his death. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: Just added it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but I would still like to see the copy-editing issues raised by Ad Orientem addressed. There is a lot of repetition in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the non-English references should have their language (French mostly) denoted but otherwise it's ok, beside the comment above (!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Malcolm YoungEdit

Article: Malcolm Young (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Nominator: Compy90 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder and guitarist of AC/DC – Compy90 (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Poor referencing and two orange tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Will reconsider if quality improves. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above, but no issue if the article is improved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until quality improves. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now referencing has improved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Copy Edit much of the article has to be changed to simple past or pluperfect tenses, it's simply not ready, but an obvious shoe-in once problems are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment So we're clear, "Lil Peep" got this same scrutiny, but Malcolm Young is coming up short, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.58.47 (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Commented Out I have commented out a huge section of text that apparently details every piece of equipment Young ever used. The section was not only unreffed by morbidly obese. This can probably be posted now after a quick review for style and tense, but is past my bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Check for Copy I removed a lot of the problematic stuff by outcommenting, but the article should be checked by someone familiar with the subject (I know nothing about AC/DC) for accuracy and proper tense and grammar, then mark it ready here so it can get posted ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now, nice work Medeis. That equipment section added nothing. Refs could be a little better, but not a show stopper, nothing contentious anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Quality issues seem to have been fixed. Props to Medeis for taking the lead on that for doing so. --Jayron32 14:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Keystone Pipeline oil spillEdit

Consensus against posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Keystone Pipeline (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A leak in the Keystone Pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
News source(s): CBS News, Washington Post, AP
Nominator: 109.154.90.243 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Environmental disaster in very controversial project 109.154.90.243 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note. This leak is in the existing pipeline and not its controversial relative, the proposed Keystone XL. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this doesn't appear to be getting all that much attention. Also the article gives only a few sentences to the incident. Not enough there to put this on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – for now at least. Coverage indicates it's unlikely to have much effect on the issue. Sca (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support this popped up at the top of my news feed yesterday. The article is pretty good, but the coverage of the incident is minimal. Not much more to say than "it happened, cleaning up now" --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose the article has no issues, but the coverage on major news networks in the U.S. is notably minimal. On the news sources that it does get coverage on, it is usually not the top news story. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is 795 cubic meters, less than 1/3 the volume of an olympic pool, and such small spills are an unfortunate concomitant of construction. Presumably there will be a fine and cleanup and life will go on as normal. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Compared with something like Exxon Valdez this is quite tiny - that lost 10.8 million US gallons. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While a notable spill, its nowhere close to a major environmental disaster. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose while 210,000 gallons is a large number in terms of gallons spilled, it is relatively small compared to other notable spills (e.g. the one mentioned above). Kirliator (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

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

November 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

RD: Flawless SabrinaEdit

Article: Flawless Sabrina (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): International Business Times
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Drag queen and activist, article looks good. EternalNomad (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – Article is a bit weak, but everything looks sourced and the article consists of prose. No issues keeping this from reaching the front page ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] San Juan submarineEdit

Article: ARA San Juan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan goes missing in the South Atlantic, with 44 crew aboard.
News source(s): ABC, BBC, Reuters
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The emergency was formally upgraded to a "search and rescue" yesterday local time, so could be the right time for this. Brandmeistertalk 09:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait until they believe that something worse happened to the sub than merely a loss of communications, which is the official position at the moment. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative support - should be posted once declared a loss. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per 331. Premature until fate known. Sca (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait per above. I spent a long time in the Navy and if a ship goes missing for this length of time it's all but certain something bad has happened. But until we know more there just isn't enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until fate is revealed, will likely support the nomination if so. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Support, waited long enough, good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - waiting makes it seem like if the sub is found, it is somehow a less worthy item. I find that silly. On the other hand, if this is to be posted regardless of what the fate of the sub is, then why not post it now? Banedon (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm with Banedon. It's dominated the news all weekend. Article is short, but good enough. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not just the sub still missing, but the international co-operation to support search efforts, including HMS Protector and elite RN rescue team. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's a global story now and will likely remain so whatever the fate of the submarine is. The article could do with a bit of work though. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Story continues to expand. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this clearly has sufficient support for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until the whereabouts are known or sufficient time elapses for the Argentines to make a declaration of death. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
⇒ Still not ITN-worthy. Bits and pieces continue to crop up, but the vessel's whereabouts remains unknown. Until it's found, this remains a developing story. Sca (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You're both missing the point, this has sufficient community consensus now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rikard WolffEdit

Article: Rikard Wolff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9],[10], [11]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

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

  • Weak Support The filmography is mostly unreferenced, but otherwise the article looks OK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    I have referenced the section now. Can add more sources if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • General question: I have never seen a ref on a header before, but there's one on the discography section in this article. Shouldn't there be some other format? μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    You are right. I have changed the format.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (I still wonder if there is a more economical way to do that with a template?) μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Tongan general electionEdit

Article: Tongan general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Tongan general election, the Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands, led by Prime Minister ʻAkilisi Pōhiva wins a majority.
News source(s): Matangi Tonga
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Article may need expansion but is updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Question. Is this news anywhere other than Tonga? Even ITNR nominations must be shown to be in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes.[12] [13] Neljack (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Neljack: Thanks for that. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Article looks a bit short right now. Add a bit of prose and I'd support it. ~Mable (chat) 16:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was a snap election held as a political manoeuvre, not a regular election, and the party in power retained the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It's still a general election, just like the last UK one, which was also held for political reasons. If you want to exempt such elections from ITNR, I await your proposal. Until then, this still merits posting. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. General elections for any country should be ITN/R. As for it being a snap poll, they are quite common in countries without fixed terms. In the past year, we have had snap polls in the UK and Japan both of which have been covered. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Capitalistroadster: General elections are ITNR for all sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a huge deal to me one-way or the other, but this was not a snap election chosen to gauge support for a new policy, but in effect a vote-of-no-confidence which the opposition lost. I could see posting this if it weren't a pro-forma affirmation of the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The real news behind this would-be ITNR entry is a people's re-election, or affirmation, as you say, of a (Prime) Minister and other Assemblymen dismissed by the King for being a threat to the Kingship, in a recall election initiated by the same King. Bagoto (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support article is bare minimum. If the PM was trying to claim powers, then a background section ought be added. Elections are ITN/R so we don't end up in endless bickering about whose elections are important. Hurts nothing to post this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections

Cambodia National Rescue PartyEdit

Articles: Cambodia National Rescue Party (talk, history) and Kem Sokha (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Cambodia National Rescue Party led by Kem Sokha is disolved by the Cambodian Supreme Court.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article has some organization issues, WP:LEAD and WP:SS recommends that an article's lead should summarize while the body should elaborate; and this article seems to turn that upside down; most of the good information is only in the lead, and not expanded on in the body at all. Still, the information is all there, it's well referenced, and this is being covered by news sources. Secondly, referencing in the article outside of the specific recent news is spotty and not well developed, many sections have either no sources, or have an unclear relationship between the sources and the text. It would need some work to be main-page ready. It's not awful, but someone who is knowledgeable about the subject has some work to do.--Jayron32 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, anti-democratic moves are common in undeveloped nations. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle: I think this deserves in principle to be in ITN per WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDWIDE. This is a very important development for Cambodian democracy, far more important than 5 Australian Parliamentarians losing their seats because of dual nationality which we posted recently. And anti-democratic moves may be common in underdeveloped nations, but then elections are common in Western Nations and we still automatically report on most of them (subject only to quality) per ITNR. Similarly terrorist outrages are common throughout the world, but we still routinely post them at ITN. And so on. Put another way, if the main opposition party were outlawed in a Western nation we would almost certainly deem it notable enough to post, so claiming it should be ignored because it's not a Western nation seems like a classic instance of systemic bias. (And incidentally I'm not sure that there's anything particularly common about outlawing the main opposition party in 3rd world countries - I strongly suspect that it's actually a lot rarer than most of the elections and terrorist outrages that we routinely post). I'm not sure about whether the articles meet our quality standards, though they seem surprisingly good relative to most of our articles on such 3rd world topics, and I'm a bit concerned that demanding the same standards for such articles as for articles on, say, British or American politics, is itself a form of systemic bias.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I oppose this primarily because it doesn't seem to be a big news story, but I agree with Abductive that this is not uncommon. A western democracy outlawing a political party would indeed be posted, not due to bias, but because it is very unusual(and highly illegal). A dictator or oppressive government silencing opposition to their rule is hardly unique or unusual. Elections worldwide are able to be posted, not just those of western countries(even elections widely believed to be rigged or unfair in other countries are often nominated and posted), because the makeup of governments are often a worldwide and national concern. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anyone who's been following the news from this part of the world will recognise this as the largest political development in Cambodia of the past few years. Hun Sen's crackdown on the opposition has been ongoing for several months. The court decision was preceded by the forced closure of a major newspaper and an amendment to the party law anticipating the dissolution. All this really deserves a separate article to itself, along the lines of 2015–2017 Cambodian political crackdown. That we have only a woefully inadequate article on the party to base the ITN item upon reflects precisely on Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    PS Alternatively, it could be incorporated into Cambodian general election, 2018, which already briefly covers the series of events. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Though I would support based on the impact of the news, I simply don't believe the article is of sufficient quality. It has no prose outside of its lead section, and consists almost entirely out of lists. If the article were improved, I would definitely change my !vote. ~Mable (chat) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality I think the dissolution of a major party in any country is ITN-worthy, even in dictatorships or repressive regimes. (The only "major" party of North Korea is the Workers Party itself, and a dissolution of the party would undoubtedly be the #1 headline worldwide.) In this case the dissolution of the party is a major development in the crackdown of opposition. EternalNomad (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it time to close this per WP:SNOW? While I supported it 'in principle', there has been no unqualified support by anybody, due partly to inadequate quality which seems very unlikely to be fixed (and there has been no support for my tentative suggestion that we should perhaps consider lowering our standards for such 3rd world topics to avoid systemic bias). And there is also quite a lot of opposition on notability grounds too, so that even in the unlikely event of quality issues being overcome there would seemingly still be no consensus for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What's the Target Article? I can't even judge this as nominated, although am a possible support vote, having seen coverage of this in admittedly unintersted-in-Cambodia-in-general American press. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    The two target articles are clearly and explicitly noted in the template, "Cambodia National Rescue Party" and "Kem Sokha". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I guess that's why they are both bolded. Do you also write reading glass prescriptions? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I just stick to reading the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 15
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Lil PeepEdit

Article: Lil Peep (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Amakuru (talk • give credit)

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

  • Support Article quality is sufficient for main page. --Jayron32 12:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Just tried to clean-up the death section, which contained unsourced and poorly-sourced speculation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The discography section needs a source somewhere, otherwise it looks ok. --Tone 18:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has the sourcing good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Lean support. Only quibble is the sourcing of the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a couple cites needed. I've added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Copy edit needed I corrected two present-tense problems, then saw the awkward "in his time alive". The article needs clean up, but I am not the one for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready as of this diff, I have commented out discography not already reffed in text, as well as comment on relation with mother, checked and did very minor copy editting and removed ref tags. Is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Sale of Salvator mundiEdit

Article: Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (talk, history)
Blurb: Salvator Mundi (pictured), attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, sells at auction for US$450.3 million, a new record for an artwork.
News source(s): The New York Times, CNN
Nominator: Daniel Case (talk • give credit)
Updater: 90.184.31.178 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Wim Kostrowicki (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Buyer hasn't been identified yet, but that's secondary to the importance of this Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
And this would get Mugabe's puss off the page ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Needs expansion There are only a couple of sentences dealing with the sale. If that's the reason for putting this on the main page we need to beef that up. Otherwise I support in principal. [I hope that whoever just dropped $450M on that gets their big tax cut for Christmas. Society really needs to support billionaire art collectors.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in Pinciple, but needs expansion, been talking about this in my Art History courses lately. However the section dealing with this is somewhat lacking as the User above states, it needs some work before the ITN can be posted. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Suggest blurb should also link to List_of_most_expensive_paintings. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Should indeed also link to List of most expensive paintings, as suggested. ~Mable (chat) 08:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
post support obviously notable record and "minority topic" for arts.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Support it's already been expanded considerable in the past two days, notably with images and sources, but text too. Good choice. Coldcreation (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'étatEdit

Article: 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: Zimbabwe National Army troops seize control of Harare amidst a military takeover of the country.
News source(s): Guardian live feed Al Jazeera, AP, DPA
Nominator and updater: Patar knight (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Military takeover of Harare, which seems successful. They do not classify their actions as a coup, but it de facto is, since they seem to be in control and have allegedly secured the president. Altblurbs are welcome. A new name might be required for the page as well. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Leaning support, lets wait for a few hours on the news cycle to get confirmation from Western media. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, uncertainty is high. Is it a coup? Is it succeeding? Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Even if it's an attempt, we did post 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt anyway. Brandmeistertalk 08:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • This is a bit more unusual than Turkey, as (at the time of writing) the military are vehemently denying that this is any kind of coup or that there's been any change of government. Something noteworthy has obviously happened, but until we know what we shouldn't be posting it. ‑ Iridescent 08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Well the BBC are reporting whatever it is seems to be successful - so 'attempt' is probably out. It wouldn't surprise me if Grace will turn up dead within a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support big deal, and Mugabe's own party have confirmed his detainment. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Mugabe held sway since 1987, one of the longest presidency, this for sure is not small news, more coverage and analyses are surely underway  — Ammarpad (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Big breaking story, article in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is fine, the story is developing but the blurb is accurate at the moment. --Tone 10:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
blurb change deceptive to say the country as the article does not mention beyond Harare and no idea of loyalists elsewhere will take some stand. (In principle, support though)Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you propose a specific wording you'd like to see? WP:ERRORS may also be a better place to suggest changes to blurbs rather than here. But either way, you'll need to propose a specific blurb you'd like to see replace this one. --Jayron32 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 • Zimbabwe National Army troops seize control of Harare and place President Robert Mugabe under house arrest.
Sca (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that Mugabe should definitely be mentioned.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Not only is that proposed blurb ungrammatical, it also fails to include a bold link to the target article! Modest Genius talk 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear 'Genius', it is not ungrammatical (unless you're referring to some usage peculiar to British English). Of course the blurb would include a link to the article; I was merely proposing phrasing. I agree with Only (below) that Harare shouldn't be separately linked. Sca (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Proper grammar in any standard dialect of English would prefer the word "and" instead of the comma in your proposed blurb. Your usage is only standard in headlinese.--Jayron32 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Fine w/me – pls see ed'd blurb above. Sca (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but now we're picking sides in the "He said-she said" thing; the Military has explicitly said that Mugabe is NOT under arrest, while others have said he IS under house arrest. The article itself hedges as well, or at least doesn't make it clear. It states only that Jacob Zuma has said that Mugabe is under house arrest. That is, the article never says "Mugabe was placed under house arrest". The article says "Someone else says that Mugabe was placed under house arrest" and those are NOT the same thing. The second statement of fact is insufficient to assume the first. I can say the sky is red, and that does not make it so. We would need reliable, independent sources to confirm his house arrest, and for the article to cite those sources and make an unambigious statement thereof. Without all of that, we can't force the blurb to make claims that the article, as yet, does not. --Jayron32 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In a story datelined HARARE (filed about 20:30), AP says "Zimbabwe’s military was in control of the capital and ... was holding President Robert Mugabe and his wife under house arrest." – Sca (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

See also DPA (English): "President Robert Mugabe... was under house arrest in the capital Harare after the military took control, plunging the country into political turmoil." – Sca (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That's all fine, but it wasn't in the article at the time I raised my objection. Now that the situation has changed, it doesn't look like a problem. --Jayron32 12:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
unblue Harare and link 'seize control'? "While seizing control of Harare, Zimbabwe National Army troops confine Robert Mugabe to his home." - its also unclear if he is under house arrest or protection. The ZNA has been clear its targeting people around him, not him itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, Mugabe isn't remotely the world's longest-serving head of state; I don't know where you've got that idea from. He's not even the longest-serving current head of state in Africa; Paul Biya and Theodoro Obiang have both been in office for five years longer than Mugabe. If only there were some kind of website where you could look these things up ‑ Iridescent 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict, pfui!) See List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
He's not the longest serving but at 93, he is the oldest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Guess I mis-remembered a phrase from AP. Sca (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Footnote: Reports on two evening news shows seen here in the U.S. said Mugabe was under house arrest. Sca (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes the BBC have updated since my comment above as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs updating - discussion at WP:MPE please. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like he's about to resign... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
...or maybe not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed "needs updating" from the header here as, contrary to expectations, Mugabe didn't resign today. --LukeSurl t c 21:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like he's just lit the fuse over there. The fact that he has been sacked by his party is still a fact that could warrant bumping up. But I see that the thread at WP:ERRORS suggesting that has now been deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 November 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake
    • Thousands of Iranians are forced to spend a second night outdoors in near-freezing temperatures after an earthquake hit the country's western border with Iraq. (BBC)
Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Hou ZongbinEdit

Article: Hou Zongbin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sina News, The Paper, Phoenix News
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Zanhe (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Relies on foreign language sources but that is acceptable. I’m assuming that Sina is a reliable source? Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Sina is a major Chinese news site. I've also added a few others. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

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

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