Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2017

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

April 30Edit

RD: SodimejoEdit

Article: Sodimejo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Claimed to have been the world's oldest person, with a residency card containing a birthdate of December 1870. (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Neutral — The article looks alright and is completely properly sourced, but it is very short. Surely, some more details of Sodimejo's long life could be added, or some more information on his age. There's a decent chance that this man was indeed the oldest man alive for a while, even if he was born thirty years later than he claims. It would be nice if there were some sections in this article, naturally expanding it and turning it into a C-class article. I still have difficulty grasping what level of quality is needed for RD, so I stay neutral on this for now. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - article quality is not there yet as it's not much more than a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Saeed KarimianEdit

Article: Saeed Karimian (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits: (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ueli SteckEdit

Article: Ueli Steck (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Article will need a one-paragraph section on his death (climbing accident). Also the "Climbing achievements" section is inconsistently referenced. There's no clear criteria which climbs make it to this list, and the best course of action would be to restructure this as "notable climbs" and remove many entries from this. Worth considering that Steck's own website lists only 16 climbs in its "acheivements" list, the earliest of which was in 2005. LukeSurl t c 15:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support One of the world's most famous climbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not about how famous he is, that's a given, it's about the quality of the article which is not adequate for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There's a lot to do before this can be on the Main Page. Aiken D 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've taken the bold step of removing the "Climbing achievements" section entirely (copied and pasted it to talk for reference), meaning that there shouldn't be any unreferenced statements in the article now and it should be ready to post. Stuck's major achievements are already discussed in prose in the career section. --LukeSurl t c 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted short but referenced, Stephen 23:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: 2016–17 Turkish purgesEdit

Article: 2016–17 Turkish purges (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Nominator's comments: This was suggested by multiple users in the section below so I am nominating it, seeing as the ongoing section is lacking at the moment. Over 130,000 public servants and judges have been sacked and/or imprisoned so far, and over 3,000 schools and charities closed. The story is making international press, and is bound to increase now that the referendum was passed. Laurdecl talk 04:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as long as there are updates. Everday day or so has a new round of arrests/suspensions.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe this will be in the news more. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Bit Crystal Balling, but ya, id agree.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support recurring theme and important. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I previously supported the internet block nom, but this covers the broader topic so would prefer this. Aiken D 09:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I support this in addition to a blurb about the Wikipedia block. --Fixuture (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Add it to the bit in there already about the recent referendum. Redundant on its own, the two things are linked. South Nashua (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per RM. Turkey appears to be traveling in a seriously regrettable direction politically (although there is an opposition). Sca (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Should add something on Internet censorship aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's not the purpose of Ongoing, we link to an article, and let that do the talking. I believe the Wikipedia block is mentioned in there, but the Ongoing aspect means it just links the article, not specific aspects of it therein. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted GoldenRing (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

April 29Edit

[Posted] RD: George GenykEdit

Article: George Genyk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Land Of 10

Nominator's comments: Article is properly sourced and open to any suggestions to improve it. Notable university and high school coach with rewarding career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support article is referenced and decent enough. Aiken D 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkish authorities block WikipediaEdit

No consensus. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:28, 1 May 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: Government censorship of Wikipedia#Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Developing story. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentatively oppose unless this is really something major. First, it's navel-gazing (Turkey has blocked other social media sites before, no reason to single out WP); second, it seems like following the cases of previous social media blocks that there's information on WP that isn't favorable to Turkey's government, and so they have blocked it to prevent its citizens from seeing it. Which is a minor event on the larger scale of the Turkey situation. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • (To point out that Turkey had blocked the Internet many many many times before so calling out WP's block is a drop in the bucket. ) --MASEM (t) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • As a comment, I do wonder if this is because of our current blurb about the last election result. No we should not react by changing it, just an observation. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Big news in Wikipedia circles, but not generally – although it's received fairly extensive coverage today (Saturday). If the Erdoğan regime were to somehow block Wiki permanently, that could be a blurb. Sca (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until at least we have an official response from Turkish opposition. This seems to be different from past transient bans of social networks (e.g. after arrest of MPs) and the statements I have been reading are reminiscent of the long-term YouTube ban unfortunately, and as such could potentially be notable. --GGT (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have re-opened this, since (1) the AfD has no delete votes, but an obvious consensus to move or merge, which means a target link will still exist, and (2) Since AfD's normally take a week at least, closing an ITN nomination for that reason amounts to an automatic veto, since the item will be stale/aged off during that period. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the article cannot be linked on the main page while it's at AfD. If it is closed early we can re-open the discussion. If you want to propose an alt blurb targeting a different article we can discuss that, but until the AfD is closed the current discussion is moot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is one of the top half-dozen visited websites worldwide, and a source of independent information being blocked by a newly empowered autocrat, who apparently sees access to the wensite as a threat. Some may object this is navelgazing, but wikipedia's popularity is objectively measurable, and the action here is by a government, not an in-house wikipedia initiative.
This is above the fold news in many aggregators and worldwide:
  1. Turkey blocks access to Wikipedia Reuters-5 hours ago
  2. Turkey blocks Wikipedia for not removing content hours ago
  3. Turkey blocks Wikipedia without court order or explanation The Independent-8 hours ago
  4. Turkey blocks Wikipedia under law designed to protect national ... The Guardian-5 hours ago
  5. Turkey blocks access to Wikipedia, alleging "smear campaign" CBS News-3 hours ago
  6. Turkish authorities block Wikipedia without giving reason Highly Cited-BBC News-6 hours ago
olding mine. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This event appears to be significant enough, with multiple major organisations reporting on it. Aiken D 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't remember us posting blurbs when some countries blocked the Internet period. This is a big deal for us Wikipedians, sure, but to the rest of the world? Not really. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support although I think Internet regulation in Turkey might be a more suitable article. Blocking social media is one thing, but if the Turkish regime starts blocking encyclopedias that contain "unfavourable" information, I think it's newsworthy. I don't think they'll be able to keep the ban in place for long, but that's another topic. Juliussasar (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support yes this is something major. Have we covered previous blocks by Turkey? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. In fact, I don't recall ever posting a censorship story at ITN, though my memory is far from infallible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news, although it's not yet clear how long the block will last. I changed the article to point to the target where the AfD seems to be leaning on merging. I think we have posted section links to ITN before? --hydrox (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - that we have not posted stories of censorship before does not mean that we should never start posting stories of censorship. If there is a precedent in which such a story was rejected, I would be more than happy to learn about it. This incident deprives a nation of 80 million people of its principal online source of knowledge, one of the websites with the highest traffic in the country, and has been covered by a multitude of international news outlets, as documented by Medeis. With a court order now in place, this could be a long-standing block. --GGT (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Turkey's government have prevented their population from the DYK section of the main page. Other governments should act accordingly. In all seriousness, this is a niche aspect to the Turkey story, just because "je suis Wikipedia", it doesn't mean undue weight should be given by this vessel to its own ban. It would be navel-gazing and bias and undue weight in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support significant development, major news coverage, it would not be undue weight. This is not "just big news for Wikipedians" but for all Internet users worldwide as well as Turkish citizens. --Fixuture (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    Not really, if they'd blocked Google, or YouTube, or Twitter, or something else which actually contains accurate and to-the-point communications with others, perhaps. So people in Turkey won't get to learn that on this day, in 1862, Union forces under David Farragut captured New Orleans, securing access into the Mississippi River. I'm not sure this is really important in the big scheme of things. Would it be the same if the Turkish Govt had blocked Britannica? If not, why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    There is no Turkish-language online equivalent of Britannica. There is simply no other website except for Wikipedia that delivers (ideally) sourced information on a broad range of topics, barring those that mirror Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean by the "grand scheme of things". Is it a requirement that everything we post should be of geopolitical importance or something? This is important news globally in terms of internet freedom, a topic worthy of consideration on its own. It matters when the access of an entire people to a key website and a key source of knowledge is inhibited, whether that knowledge is the capture of New Orleans, the symptoms and management of pancreatic cancer, an unbiased presentation of modern-day Turkish politics, or whatever. It is not navel gazing IMHO, as I would be all for the posting of a ban on YouTube or another major website in a major country. --GGT (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    You are suggesting Wikipedia contains no significant information or has no significant uses for Turkish Internet users. I do not agree. --Fixuture (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    Certainly not compared with Google, Twitter or YouTube. We can agree to disagree. It's pretty lame in any case, VPNs are designed for this, and the BBC confirmed earlier that it was simple enough to access Wikipedia that way, just like some people access Netflix illegally. I was banned from accessing my Amazon Prime library when I was in the United States, but it wasn't a big deal. Just like this. And in fact, as noted, there are shedloads of Wikipedia mirrors, so if the Turkish Govt really thought they'd be stopping people accessing the information that "only Wikipedia hosts" (and actually, there should be nothing on Wikipedia that isn't available and verifiable by reliable third-party sources!) then they're stupidly mistaken. This is a "in-name only" block. Pointless, stupid, vindictive, yes, but ITN-worthy? Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is NAVEL gazing over a relatively trivial event in the grand history of state censorship. I seriously doubt this will see anything resembling SUSTAINED coverage. There have been numerous other incidents involving government censorship, some far more egregious, and to the best of my recollection we have never posted any of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree and also just because there has been history of state censorship doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover current notable instances of such. And if it's the case that "there have been numerous other incidents involving government censorship" that we didn't cover we probably should have posted them as well hence this is no reason to not include this one. Also as a sidenote it would be ridicolous to include all sorts of trivial sports events and alike but not developments such as this one. --Fixuture (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support link to Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey. Generating a lot of news coverage and reports in other countries. In a way, it signals that Turkey has crossed a bright red line, and they are now on the same level as China and NK. I do not believe including this this is NAVEL, although I did !vote to merge the article. We can allow a little self-ref, every now and then. We're talking about information being censored from millions of people not being notable, yet obviously the London Marathon is. Laurdecl talk 23:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is part of wide-ranging censorship and political repression by the Turkish Government. We shouldn't single out Wikipedia just because this is Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This being "part of wide-ranging censorship and political repression" is imo no reason to not include this event: instead we should have included other events as well instead of all the trivial sports events. These are the events of significance. --Fixuture (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
What are you hoping to gain by badgering people whose views on this nomination differ from yours? Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
He responds once to what you said, partly agreeing with you, and you are being "badgered"? Laurdecl talk 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE This is clearly in the news. But far more importantly, if we are not prepared to use the weapon of publicity to defend ourselves when we are being censored, why should anybody else bother to try to defend us? By failing to use that weapon we will be encouraging further censorship of Wikipedia, and of other sources of relatively unbiased information. One of our main policies is Wikipedia is not censored - it is strange to see this in effect changed to "Wikipedia should stay silent when it is censored". At the risk of being criticized for violating Godwin's Law (all too often a dangerous absurdity in my view, but let's not go into that here), let me add that there's a well-known saying protesting against this kind of silence that goes 'First they came for the X, Y and Z, but I did not speak out because I was NOT an X, Y, or Z...' - but it now seems that some people here rather strangely seem to think that 'When they come for the X, Y and Z, it would be wicked NAVEL-GAZING and therefore WRONG of me to speak out if I am an X, Y, or Z (and all other X, Y and Z should similarly shut up too)'. As far as I am concerned that kind of 'logic' is simply and unnecessarily and outrageously offering practical support for every enemy of liberty on this planet.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • If this was perhaps the US gov't censoring Wikipedia (as a US-based company) to the point that WP content can't go past its servers, you may be right. But this is a gov't that has zero control over WP, and so they've just put blocks on their part of the Internet. This is not as grand a scope as this suggests. And WP is not the place to right great wrongs that is outside the country the system operates within. (SOPA is one thing that legitmiately threatened WP's ability to operate, this does not.) --MASEM (t) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
      • 1) Defending yourself when you are attacked is not some kind of quixotic attempt to 'right great wrongs' in general (just as it is not Navel-gazing either). Failure to defend yourself when attacked can often be a form of near-suicidal insanity. WP is the logical place for WP to defend itself when it is attacked.
      • 2) The Turkish government is NOT a government that has zero control over WP, it has fairly full control over all WP editors and readers in its country, and a huge proportion of humankind are in a similar position vis-a-vis their own fully or partly dictatorial governments (and indeed 'democratic-but-authoritarian' governments), and many have reason to fear that some day this may happen to them too, especially if this dangerous precedent remains inadequately challenged. It would be a grotesque example of WP:BIAS to behave in practice as if these huge numbers of mostly non-Westerners somehow didn't really matter.
      • 3) The Turkish government has specifically targeted WP rather than the Internet in general. (It also has some other targets, and our blurb can and should be amended to mention that).
      • 4) One of the most effective things WP and WMF can do to fight this is to give it as much publicity as possible, and that means putting it on our front page as part of our headlines.
      • 5) Many of our readers are understandably and rightly likely to want to see how we react to this attack on us. I fail to see how depriving them of this improves the encyclopedia (as we are supposed to try to do, per WP:IAR).
      • (Unfortunately life is too short to answer the infinite number of arguments that can be put forward for not properly defending yourself when attacked, etc, so I am probably going to have to fail to respond to any future such arguments - this failure does not mean that I think such arguments are sound).Tlhslobus (talk)
        • The WMF has already defended itself: it refused to take any action to remove the "offending" material. Second, the Turkish gov't has no control over the WMF, which is the only key entity related to Wikipedia's ownership. Editors and readers are not part of that. Third, as our articles have pointed out, Turkey's gov't has repeated temporarily blocked social media and other websites due to content they don't agree with or that they want the Turkish people to see. This is just one more event in that string of events. There are many many political problems around the Turkey situation that is much larger than their temporarily blockage of WP, this story is the quintessential example of sensational news on a slow news day that fails the WP:NOT#NEWS test, suffers from navel gazing (putting WP's interest on a pedestal), and really is being blown out of proportion. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As far as I can recall, we've never posted to ITN when Turkey has blocked Twitter or Facebook or Youtube, etc. Given that context, I do think it feels like NAVEL to choose to post about Wikipedia being blocked. To avoid the appearance of bias, stories about Wikipedia should be held to a very high threshold of significance, and I don't think we have that here. That said, I support the efforts of the WMF to speak out against this and fight against it, if possible. Dragons flight (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just because in practice we can't defend everybody else is no reason why we shouldn't defend ourselves. Defending yourself when you are attacked is NOT Navel-gazing. Claiming that it is, looks remarkably like Wikilawyering, and like failing to ignore rules that prevent you from improving the encyclopedia (in this case by preventing you from properly defending it when it is attacked by a semi-dictatorship) as required by WP:IAR, which implements one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia (Wikipedia has no firm rules. However unwittingly, in practice it also gives comfort and support to the attackers, and to those who may wish to imitate them in future. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
      • We should defend ourselves, as the WMF is apparently planning to do in Turkish courts, and as various people have already done via the press. However, there are appropriate ways to protest and challenge censorship and there are inappropriate ways to do so. To my way of thinking, ITN is not an appropriate venue for this kind of thing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a wider story here of the ongoing purge in Turkey, of which internet restrictions are a sub-story. Case in point, the BBC story today leads with the sacking of 4,000 officials, and the blocking of Wikipedia is given secondary status in that article. Perhaps 2016–17 Turkish purges should be nominated as an ongoing item?
Perhaps 2016–17 Turkish purges should be nominated as an ongoing item?
I'd support that in addition. Actually why isn't this featured already? This is very significant, gets a lot of media attention and is still ongoing. --Fixuture (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia using ITN to "defend" itself is a concept I strongly dislike, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies even when that wrong is against the Wikipedia project. While en:wiki has taken "political" action before in relation to the Protests against SOPA and PIPA, this was done after a broad and lengthy community-wide discussion, and was executed in such a way that didn't suggest the content of the encyclopedia had been adjusted for those campaigning ends. Neither of those essential criteria would be met in this case. --LukeSurl t c 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not using ITN to "defend" itself. That section is supposed to cover notable topics that are in the news such as this one. I'm really perplexed by how hard people here are looking the other way for the sake of it or apparently of fear of getting accussed of "NAVAL", "RIGHTGREATWRONGS" or whatever but continue to feature entirely insignficant sports events over and over. I guess shooting yourself in the foot is a virtue now here? --Fixuture (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
STRONG oppose as COI ongoing above is better. Also WP has been censored/blocked before in places like Egypt (?).Lihaas (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Viewed from a neutral, third party, "up in the sky looking down" point of view, Wikipedia could reasonably be seen as reporting on itself in a neutral, verifiable way. This particular event as risen in significance, as can be seen in multiple third party reporting sources. We also should note this in the larger context of events. Yet, it is significant in and of itself. Hires an editor (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose COI. Also seems to be in the same vein as the recent referendum, making it slightly redundant. South Nashua (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Turkey's blocking of Wikipedia is merely a symptom of its growing totalitarianism, and in the long run is not as newsworthy as the actually substantive actions they are taking to repress its people, such as the purges. WP:ITN also is not an advocacy channel for Wikipedia. I don't care what great wrongs people feel need to be righted. There are avenues for doing this and ITN is not one of them.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 • A day later, this story is pretty much off the radar. We may not like a government's policies when they affect WP, but that doesn't make them significant in the Big Scheme – and the implicit criticism of Wikipedia is best ignored. (I venture to say Wiki will still be around when Mr. Erdoğan is gone.) Anyhow, it's part of the larger picture of media censorship and repression in Turkey. Sca (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Sca You mean off the radar like Front Page of the NYTs off the radar? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
No longer on AP, BBC, Guardian and Reuters. I could support including a brief mention of it in the Turkish purges article nominated for ongoing above.Sca (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
BBC is here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a passing mention, nothing to support that this story is truly newsworthy. Now, the purges, that's a different story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose if only because this is just a tiny fraction of the ongoing Turkey story. We would not include Turkey blocking any old website, so it seems a little daft to include this one. — foxj 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Thslobus. A nominally democratic country, NATO member at that, and longtime EU aspirant does something only China has done so far (and AFAIK to a greater extent than China ... did they block all wikis? Or just tr and en? (China only blocks zhwiki in its entirety, and select articles from here like Falun Gong and {[1989 Tianmen Square protests]]) This cannot be compared to blocking a social network since unlike them, Wikipedia is not used to organize political action, it is used just for information. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Turkey is a big country, and this news is significant in light of current political events in the country. (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now we have 2016-17 Turkish purges in Ongoing, no reason to single this out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest close I think we have reached a point where an uninvolved editor could safely close this. Clearly we are not going to reach consensus one way or another on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose putting a blurb only about Wikipedia up, as if that's the biggest part of these purges. I agree with putting 2016–17 Turkish purges to ongoing, since this is part of a much wider story. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 1 May 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.

April 28Edit

[Posted] RD: Brazo de Oro (wrestler)Edit

Article: Brazo de Oro (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MedioTiempo published by MSN

Article updated

  MPJ-DK  21:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The year of birth is being discussed as 'dubious' - see article talk page. Aiken D 12:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes there are different dates in the various sources, some state 1960 (or 66 years) and others state 1959 (which on reflection matches other facts like his debut age, his brothers ages etc.) not sure how to deal with sources disagreeing??  MPJ-DK  12:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 1959 fits with all the other facts known about him and his brothers. I put 1959 in the article with a source.  MPJ-DK  12:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Date issue figured out, we think a 2009 typo in the article led to some obituaries using the wrong date - they use Wikipedia as a source apparently for the birth year.  MPJ-DK  16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decent article, and now the birth year issue has been dealt with I can support. Aiken D 16:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen

[Closed] Storming of Macedonian ParliamentEdit

No consensus to post. If new developments related to this item occur in the future, please renominate. SpencerT♦C 15:47, 2 May 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: 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protesters storm the Macedonian Parliament after leadership vote. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Despite having an election in 2016, no new government has been formed and have lead to daily protests across nation by supporters of the VMRO-DPMNE party. (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A little on the short side, but article is well-referenced. Aiken D 18:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Very weak support The article provides an absolute minimum amount of context so it is at least worth reading after clicking the link in the blurb, but it's very sparse. What is there is well referenced. It really needs some major expansion if possible, but it does provide something extra for the reader over the blurb. --Jayron32 18:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose despite it not being tagged as such, it's a stub, and half of it is "background", i.e. nothing to do with the event itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Pretty stubby all right, with no info on what effects this event may have – or presage. Sca (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong wait — I have no idea where this may be going, but I can definitely see this blowing up. Let's wait a day or three. ~Mable (chat) 21:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose I really want to take the same position as Jayron. As Maplestrip rightly says, it's unclear where this is going in terms of importance, but in my opinion this is borderline on importance already with strong grounds to believe it's going to get bigger. Therefore, given the stale-ness of the oldest blurbs, I'd ordinarily be supporting this. But given that the story is on the borderline, I can't also support an article which is quite clearly a stub, in a way that I might if the story were huge. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nearly two days after creation and it's still too stubby. Aiken D 12:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no idea. This could be big news. This could just be a flash in the pan. Who knows? Only way we will get an answer for sure is wait for further developments.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • weak support CERTAINLY notable (and less represented E. Europe) but its better for ongoing, IMO. Dunno repercussions, yet. Still no govt since election. Also the Speaker doesn't even have a WP Eng page.
    Montenegro's controverisa l NATO bid is also noteworthy since the slight minority are opposed and will challenge (albeit the globalists will win this round).Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 30 April 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.

April 27Edit

[Closed] Russian ship LimanEdit

Consensus says no. If anyone thinks that reopening this is likely to lead to a different outcome, they may of course do so. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 27 April 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: Russian ship Liman (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian intelligence ship Liman (sister ship Cheleken pictured) sinks in the Mediterranean Sea following a collision with a Togo-registered livestock carrier. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
 Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose ordinarily it could have been something but all rescued an no injuries. Doesn't account to much. (but nice para update)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I looked for this article earlier and it didn't exist, it does now, but only because it sank with zero casualties. It made the front page the BBC News website momentarily, with sexy talk like "spy ship" and "sank off the Syrian coast" but it pretty much amounts to nothing more than a maritime traffic accident where nothing actually happened that will have any long-term effect. I imagine the article should be taken to AFD in due course, as the WP:AIRCRASH folks are so keen to do when a military plane crashes in insignificant circumstances - it's a "meh" incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:SHIPS convention is that the vessel is notable. That there was no article before today is neither here nor there. As it's a Russian spy ship, there isn't going to be a lot of info in the public domain, but there is enough to show that the WP:GNG has been met. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • So you can justify the existence of the article but not the incident which is utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. The incident is far too minor for ITN. As noted above the ship is almost certainly notable, but the incident itself is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Alas, in the real world, a sinking ship from which everyone is rescued is of little note – unless of course they're all celebrities or pro sports stars. Sca (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this accidental sinking with no casualties. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 27 April 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.

[Posted] RD: Leo BaxendaleEdit

Article: Leo Baxendale (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

 LukeSurl t c 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose technically marked as a stub (three times) and most of the bibliography is either unlinked or redlinked without any references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's clearly not a stub any more, I'll remove those tags. Otherwise there's a fair few obits in the UK press that should help with improving the article. --LukeSurl t c 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sourcing some of the more obscure elements of the bibliography is going to be difficult - it's one of those cases where a Google will show enough blog posts, forum items and the like that you can be pretty confident the item is true, but there's nothing that's a proper WP:RS for citation. It's not uncommon for British artists working for D.C. Thompson to work on various titles during their time with the company, sometimes for short stints, sometimes for decades. As such a comprehensive referenced bibliography is both a daunting task and not necessarily a particularly useful one. Perhaps the biobliography should be a list of Baxendale's creations and "notable" stints on other titles. --LukeSurl t c 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    If we can't reliably source the items in the list, they should probably be moved to the talk page for further investigation, to allow this to be posted in quicker time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this should be ready now. I've switched "bibliography" (which would be an impossible to complete list) into "notable creations". A bit arbitrary what's in it -- it's essentially everything that gets mentioned in biography articles and obits -- but critically it means that everything in it can be sourced. --LukeSurl t c 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Up to scratch now. I've added a couple of quotations from the sources to give a flavour of his importance and influence, and those who have cleaned up and improved this article from how it looked earlier today (particularly LukeSurl) deserve a pat on the back for their work. The Rambling Man, how does it look to your keen eye now? BencherliteTalk 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support amazeballs, an article where people (person?) have (has?) cited all the works! Who knew that was possible?! I've tweaked a little, as is my want, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Country bias confirmed - Vinod Khanna has more sources and more coverage than this guy. I have also added multiple reliable sources. But this was posted before Vinod Khanna. I have given links from BBC, CNN, Washingonpost below. Now here is your popular link from TIME website. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    Not in the slightest. The absolute number of references, as I've had to point out to many people time and again, is not an indicator of absolute quality, indeed several items in the filmography remain unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    Who has actually created this WP:GA level rule for RD? What harm will happen to main page if Vinod Khanna is posted there as it is not a stub and those movies are not hoax. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    How do we know they aren't a hoax? --Jayron32 18:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"Google" the search engine website helps along with youtube which has full videos of those movies. Next every word, alphabet, punctuation marks should also be sourced along with space between words to pass ITNC RD. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No, please re-read WP:V, we need reliable sources to verify claims made in articles in Wikipedia. We don't "Google" it or tell our readers "Google it". We don't need to reference "word, alphabet, punctuation marks ... space between words" because they are non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. Appearances in unreferenced movies are likely to be challenged (as I've done here), so either provide the references, or don't. I expect YouTube is glad to see it's full of copyvios of Bollywood movies too. Marvellous stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just posted Vinod Khanna, but The Rambling Man is exactly right - there's no bias here, we hold every biography to the same standards. Baxendale's was sufficiently sourced before Khanna's. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vinod KhannaEdit

Article: Vinod Khanna (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, TIME,BBC, Washingtonpost, CNN, Variety, Telegraph

Nominator's comments: Influential and successful Indian film actor. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For every film to be sourced we need a filmography article separately. A superflop movie from the 1970s cannot have any reliable source other than IMDB, especially uncredited roles. I have added Rottentomatoes link which has filmography which is better than IMDB. By the way most movies are already mentioned in the sources already linked in the article. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Om Puri's death did not show up here, don't expect Vinod Khanna's either, ITN is shit now where they disregard the lesser known celebs from 3rd world country..--Stemoc 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, it's about article quality, not about the nationality of the individual. Om Puri's article is still tagged as needing more references, so I guess everyone disregarded the article itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone show some Wikipedia policy that Recent Death ITNC actor candidate, should have filmography sourced for every movie other than IMDB and Rottentomatoes(IMDB lists all movies but is not considered reliable)? Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, and WP:BLP is worth a read too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about ITNC nomination policy. I have sourced maximum movies. I will source more. Movies released after 2007 can be sourced as internet reviews are available. Old movies don't have internet reviews. Old successful movies can have sources but old flop movies can't have online sources, though they were reviewed in many paper newspapers which don't have online copy. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well WP:V prevails, if an item can't be verified by our readers, it's a {{ref improve}} time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to disagree with the idea that every line of a filmography needs to be sourced before an RD can be posted, where there is no specific issue as to the accuracy of the contents. What I have discovered in recent months is that there is an operational rationale for enforcing very strict referencing requirements for ITN and RD (and more recently OTD), which is that it motivates editors who want to see the item mainpaged quickly to improve the referencing very. The trade-off, of course, is in terms of timeliness, and in some items not getting mainpaged at all where the work doesn't get done, or done in time, plus the question whether if an editor spends three hours adding a footnote reference for every film (or book, or award, or whatever), he or she is spending that much less time on other mainspace work that might be more productive. In other words, I agree in principle that an item on the mainpage should have quality referencing, but I don't agree that each and every fact in the whole article needs to have a footnote before we can post to RD. It is also troubling that in many cases, to get articles to RD editors have simply removed the accuracy-undisputed-but-not-specifically-referenced content altogether. This would be fine if they then circled back and added the content with references later on, but too often the content is permanently lost. There are times when, at least for some reasonable period of time, an article section with a ref-improve tag is much more likely to lead ultimately to well-sourced content than a section altogether removed; query whether enforcing an "articles with a single section or sentence flagged as needing citations can't be mainpaged" rule leads more often to the former, or the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Well V allows editors to tag contentious items such as claimed film appearances (often in unlinked or red-linked articles, or not even mentioned in target articles) or claimed awards. If you want to change V or ITN guidelines to allow posting of maintenance tagged BLPs that's your call. People seem to be becoming upset that the ITN and OTD guidelines are finally being adhered to. Those people should either improve the articles to meet the criteria or work to change the criteria so we can post poor tagged articles to the Main Page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    The unspoken and somewhat question-begging assumption in that reply is that (for example) a lengthy article about a writer, including abundant well-sourced content, but concluding with a list of his or her books and articles that lacks a reference for each one, is a "poor" article by Wikipedia's overall standards. In the context of all the project's other challenges, I do not believe that to be so. Yours is a strong voice for improved referencing in various contexts and I respect that, but what I have not seen from you or a few others who make similar points is a considered response to my points about trade-offs and balancing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    I don't really see why we need any trade-offs or balance in a BLP, many folks have managed to suitably reference lists of works or films etc, they just make the effort, and everyone benefits. I see little point in degrading our standards because editors can't source things, especially when most of the items that need to be sourced are either red linked or not linked at all, and thus strongly fail WP:V. Of course, this is mildly ironic as I fought so hard to make sure that minority BLPs would be easily allowable onto the main page since we removed the "super notability" debates that usually would have precluded such individual's being featured in any case. All that's required now is a well referenced article. That's much easier than trying to convince a western audience of the super notability of an Indian actor (say) over one who appeared in the Fast and Furious franchise (who got a blurb, no less). I took many steps to make these postings easier, all that needs to happen now is interested editors should find sources for the BLPs before they are posted. And I will not change that approach. I've done it myself for various RDs, so would expect the same from others. After all, this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have spent too much time finding sources for filmography, to see that this article passes RD. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems to be in good enough shape but a few adjustments on the citations would be nice. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now in good shape thanks to User:Marvellous Spider Man. The subject has more coverage than some other recently posted subjects. WP:BIAS I guess. Pratyush (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment & advice: Spiderman and all other Bollywood regular editors: The concept that the filmography needs to be complete is itself flawed. Few years ago many, if not all, filmy articles had a subsection called "Selected filmography" and included only notable films. The ideas changed when the loose NFILM guideline made it possible for every film to have an article of its own. Thank to all fanboys, indian film articles multiplied like hell and consensus building within co-editors allowed poor references as RS. The race to have a separate Filmography article, use BH and such as sources in it,and make it an FL deteriorated the quality further. Long story short... Stop crying foul on other editors and buckle up... Easy way out would be to rename the section as "selected filmography" and get away with all non-notable films even if they have article but would hardly have a single RS on their page. Am not saying this "strategy" should be used everywhere; but Khanna has plenty films and not mentioning a few of those does not make his article incomplete in any sense. --- (Yours truely, ex-regular editor who got fed up with subpar Indian articles and the general tendency of regular Indian editors to concentrate on films more than other encyclopedic topics.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but it's easier said than done. I tried to remove some films, but the preview is disrupting the table. Now some editors might object, that unless I create a separate filmography article, I can't remove the less notable films. It wasn't very clever of you to comment this, after two support votes. I am not doing anything after making 100+ edits in Vinod Khanna 24 hours. The notability issue of "unknown" Indian actor is fixed with non-Indian sources TIME,BBC, Washingtonpost, CNN, Variety, Telegraph. And this is a nomination for ITNC RD not WP:GA. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Marvellous referencing work by Marvellous Spider Man.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there are still entries which don't even have Wikipedia articles which aren't referenced. Not good enough still. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have now referenced all the entries without a WP article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    Which I'm not going to object to, but the article still lacks references for several claims. But at least this will stop the complaints for the moment I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The main paragraph that was unsourced was trivia and actually was sourced via the filmography, so I've simply removed it. The main citation needed in te death paragraph I've sourced, and the final sentence there was, again, trivia so I've removed it. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And I've just copyedited it for tone, trivia and tense. Should be reasonably OK now. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you're doing a good job here, there are awards that are still unreferenced, but don't stress it. It's up there now, there's a growing swell of support for poorly referenced articles, as evidenced by Newyorkbrad, so perhaps we shouldn't even bother checking articles, like the German, French, Spanish Wikipedias do; so often Sca tells us that these items are readily posted on other Euro-Wikis, despite having little-to-no referencing. I wonder how many of the Euro-Wikis posted Vinod Khanna or Om Puri? Maybe we need an RFC to just post anything that's listed at ITNC regardless of quality or notability, just to keep that section ticking over and to overcome systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Why are you dragging me into this discussion, in which I played no part – vendetta?
As I said last week, "these supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant."
Again, stop sniping at me on this non-issue. Your comments on me here are gratuitous, mean-spirited and irrelevant. Sca (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm simply trying to ask if, as you note so often, we should be more like the Euro-wikis who post articles to the main page with clear referencing issues, just as the French Wikipedia has done (see below). Nothing vendetta/mean spirited etc about it, I'd encourage you to participate in further discussion over a new approach which could adopt to more rapidly post under-refenced BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
You're not getting my point. I occasionally (not "so often") mention postings on European WPs to illustrate that an event or issue is considered notable by informed observers in non-English-speaking Western (in the broad sense) countries. This has nothing to do with any change in referencing standards mooted on English Wiki. Sca (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
In this example, could you link me to the discussion on the French Wikipedia with such "informed observers" that came to a consensus that this should be posted? My French sucks, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of admins posting whatever they like. I'd be more than happy to wrong about that, of course. Do the other euro Wikis have such approaches where it appears that anyone with the mop can pick and choose items for their Wiki's main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I looked at too, that seems to be the same, an admin keen on films posted it with no discussion. The article is marginally better than the French one, yet sorely lacks references, without even being tagged as such. Is it just that runs ITN by consensus I wonder? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The internal workings of other Wikipedias are irrelevant to my point. Sca (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, they're vital. If it's just the decision of a random admin who happens to like the article, that's very different from "indicators of multinational informed opinion." But at least I've learnt something new about those Euro wikis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that your last word on the subject? Sca (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I was hoping with your linguistic skills you'd be able to confirm or deny my assertions that, at least for French and German Wikipedia, news items for RD appear to be hand-picked by individual admins with no consensus nor any discussion over article quality? That's how it appears to me, but my French/German isn't good enough to go looking for that confirmation. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Je ne parle pas Francais, except a few phrases. As far as German goes, I can read it quite well if it's not too abstract, but I've never pretended to be fluent and I'm not going to wade into any Auseinandersetzungen at German Wikipedia like some kind of linguistic carpetbagger. Try Zwerg Nase. – Sca (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's okay, it seems pretty clear that these Euro Wikis just pick and choose their RD based on nothing other than the personal preferences of admins at the time. It's helpful to know that so we no longer need to draw those decisions into our own decision-making process as it's obvious that it's completely insufficient, both in terms of acknowledgement of significance and quality. We're streets ahead on If we want to publish such things more rapidly, i.e. when sourcing is insufficient, we need an RFC to debate that. Right now, it seems perfectly clear that we shouldn't be referring to "whatever some other Wiki" has done because those other Wikis have no control over what is going onto their main page beside a single admin. From now on we can at least reject the notion that just because something has appeared on a, it's there for considered reasons. It's there because one individual at that has decided to post it. Which is absolutely fascinating, considering the amount of debate we'd have had over posting this individual in the past on, simply to establish "super notability". In the meantime, one single German Wikipedia admin can post any RD in any state to the German Wikipedia Main Page! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that your last word on the subject? Sca (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's your's! Now we can agree that referring to the Eu.Wikis for both quality and, importantly, notability, I'm done, so thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But you'll be glad to know that Selby winning the world snooker championship (Snookerweltmeisterschaft) is now on German Wiki's ITN, too.
Isn't that exciting? Sca (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's inaccurate to say that I support posting "poorly referenced articles" or "anything that's listed at ITNC regardless of quality or notability." What I've said and believe is that the referencing requirement doesn't necessarily require a reference for each and every statement or listed item, without exception, in the entire article. As this thread has run its course, I'll say no more for now, and I'm going to step away from ITN/C again for awhile; but if this disagreement comes up again in the future, it should be possible for you to disagree with my views without caricaturing them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • French Wikipedia has posted Vinod Khanna on their main page. --Marvellous Spider-Man 00:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the usual under-referenced state that the French Wikipedia community seem happy with. If we want that here, if we want to follow the Euro-Wikis by posting articles that aren't comprehensively referenced, let's start an RFC so we don't have this continual "surprise" at a need to thoroughly source BLPs which make unverifiable claims. And actually, it looks like beat them too it, despite all the issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The English Vinod Khanna is far better than the French fr:Vinod Khanna. As somebody said Wikipedia is for WP:READER. Check the recent page views of Vinod Khanna. It's far more than other RD pages. Editors try to fix less popular articles. Some niche articles become featured content while many popular sports bio, comic character, actors, classic literature, notable events are still under developed. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, a lot of really excellent work went into this nomination, and it blows the French effort out of the water, so congratulations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So Khanna did dishes and worked as Osho's gardener is sourced to a post-death web article by Rediff which does not even mention "garden". Indian newspapers and other sources are pretty much known for using Wikipedia itself as their source. This is BLP violation i would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ditto with the claim that his stay away from family at Osho's caused the divorce. Its referenced to post-death newspapers that dont necessarily fact check but publish in the moment of heat to gain readership clicks for them and their advertisers. The source used infact copies Wikipedia and writes: "He moved to Rajneeshpuram in the United States in 1982 and stayed there for five years. It is said that Khanna cleaned dishes and worked as Osho’s gardener at Rajneeshpuram while his family was back in India. Many say that this five year hiatus made him distant from his family and resulted in a divorce between him and his then wife Geetanjali." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That stuff was added post-posting, and has since been removed. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: No, this stuff was present even in the revision dated to 21 April, the last revision before his death on 27th when heavy editing started. But thanks for removing it now. (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

April 26Edit

[Closed] Evidence of hominid presence in Southern California 130,000 years agoEdit

Material is no longer in the article, and consensus that this speculative study is not something that should be posted on the main page. BencherliteTalk 13:24, 27 April 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: Settlement of the Americas (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Evidence of hominids in Southern California 130,000 years ago (Post)
News source(s): Nature, National Geographic

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That blurb isn't even a complete sentence.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And the evidence is also not complete. The National Geographic article I have linked above is very critical of the evidence. Basically, we got rocks that happen to have marks on them and happen to be in the right place that they may have been used as tools. Around are some mastodon bones that are broken. The rocks are big enough that only a humanoid could be strong enough to use them as tools. That is it. None of the other evidence that should be there is there. Like humanoid bones and actual tools made from the bones. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to the National Geographic article, "However, many of the world’s leading experts in American archaeology already have expressed some form of skepticism to the paper’s claims. Some have rejected it outright." Until this is verified as true, I see no reason to post. Andise1 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until this is a generally accepted claim. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No hominin remains have been found, H. sapiens is not believed to have left Africa before 70kya. This implies that some other human variety reached the Americas. The claim is hugely controversial and requires extraordinary evidence. Basically, a non-H. sapiens sapiens skeleton. That would be the biggest story in anthropology since the discovery of the Neanderthals. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I can attest that there still are homonids (C. sapiens) in California, especially around L.A. Sca (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The skepticism as given in the NatGeo article suggests this is definitely something to avoid posting until wider scientific acceptance is obtained, as it "breaks" several models of human development and the evidence is very weak. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While the evidence is not conclusive, otherwise the title in the articles would make that clear, the evidence about this possibility is sufficiently strong to merit further scientific investigation into the possibility that humans arrived in the Americas 130,000 years ago. This is why the article was published in Nature, you don't get published in that journal if you only have rigorously correct results, it also has to be of sufficient interest, otherwise you have to do with publishing your results in on of the specialized journals that focuses on only your own field. So, a Nature article is by itself evidence of news value. Finally to keep things into perspective, note that we went from a primitive Stone age society to putting a man on the Moon in just 10,000 years while Homo Sapiens has existed for 200,000 years. People like Newton, Einstein, Galileo etc. were also born 20,000 years ago, 80,000 years ago, 150,000 years ago and 200,000 years ago too. So, there is no good reason to think that some small group of people couldn't have gotten out of Africa 140,000 year ago and have made it to the Americas 10,000 years later. Crossing the Pacific is what the prehistoric Polynesians have managed to do in a matter of centuries. Count Iblis (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating this, Count Iblis, even though it's almost certainly going to be rejected. However you don't have to make it dependent on ancient Einsteins crossing the Pacific. As the National Geographic makes clear, there were several known species of early hominid in East Asia (not to mention quite likely plenty of others as yet undiscovered, since the known species have sometimes only been discovered at a single site, showing how easy it may be to miss many species entirely) that could have just walked across the Bering Strait when the sea was lower during an Ice Age, etc... As regards ancient sea-crossing, the National Geographic also points out (seemingly as scientific orthodoxy) that hominids had crossed the sea to Crete about 130,000 years ago. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm probably wasting my time given the number of opposes. But I still want to say that I think it should be in ITN, not despite it being controversial, but precisely because it is controversial (and the blurb should be amended to reflect this). The controversy makes it interesting and newsworthy (indeed the controversy IS the news), and putting it on ITN would be a service to our readers. If it were not controversial it would be boring and not newsworthy and putting it on ITN would not be a service to our readers. But I'm sure all sorts of policies can be quoted why we should not provide such a service to our readers, which is another reason why I'm probably wasting my time (but here is probably not the right place to discuss this and all the other things I and others hate about life as a Wikipedian). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to science we almost always(if not always) wait until a theory or claim is peer reviewed and/or generally accepted before it gets consensus to post at ITN- if it is later disproven, or not generally agreed to, then we don't look foolish. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is too speculative to be posted. As it is I'm even of half a mind to revert the edit adding this to the article [2], per WP:FRINGE. Banedon (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have Removed this garbage from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:22, 27 April 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.

[Posted] RD: Jonathan DemmeEdit

Article: Jonathan Demme (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NYT, Rolling Stone,, Le Figaro, El Pais, Deutsche Welle

Nominator's comments: Influential and successful film director. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Article has referencing issues, I've tagged what I noticed at a first read-through. --Jayron32 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work done on the referencing, good enough to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been improving some of the references in the Careers section and I think the article is of adequate quality for recognition; certainly he was a very influential director — winning an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs and with Philadelphia being both culturally significant and the film for which Tom Hanks scored his first Best Actor Oscar. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple unreferenced paragraphs, and the entire works section lacks a single reference. Stephen 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • With regard to the "Works" section, do you think any one of those entries is really contentious? Do you think a global source, such as IMDb, would be acceptable for that section, or are you asking for each individual item to be separately sourced? It would be useful if you could tag any paragraphs that you think need source(s). Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be reasonable that every entry was referenced, especially those that are not linked, or links that go to the generic TV show article. I'd always question why we need every single piece of work in an encyclopaedic summary. Stephen 11:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's 70 refs required, then. Would it be more reasonable to trim out the less notable items first? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A very important director of one of the all time classic films.Masterknighted (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Decent enough article on an influential film director. --Bagoto (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see my general comments on the Vinod Khanna nom above, which also apply here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. As User:Stephen has suggested, there may be a separate issue over whether we need to list absolutely everything, especially items which have no article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If somebody wants to add 70 separate sources (or even just a few, to share the burden), I wish them well. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's an odd suggestion to think that 70 separate sources would be needed, if this individual is so notable, most of these will be mentioned in one reliable source, and obits will always help with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Very sorry for thinking such an odd suggestion. I very stupidly said separate sources, when Stephen just said "every entry". Looking only at the populated cells it seems more like 93 separate entries will need to be sourced. But I see that User:Yorkshiresky is already well on the way to completing that and I applaud him for such quick and efficient work. I can't imagine anyone would be so churlish as to insist on a source for every item. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was trying to help you there, clearly you missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above I've added some refs to the works section. Hopefully this will allow the tag to be removed and it to be posted to RD. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment works that aren't even linked to a Wikipedia article: how does a reader verify them? I've asked for more refs in that section. The fallback position that some adopt is to rely on blue links, which is flawed because those blue-linked articles may have no RS verifying the involvement of this individual, and each article on Wikipedia should stand alone in referencing terms in any case. Right now this is not ready for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment As accurate encyclopedists or journalists what have you it is our job to post that which is deserving of coverage, attention and or further research if therein the article does not reach the level of quality it is the role of the constituent body of editors to edit it, rather than just criticizing it endlessly. It should be posted and then further raised up to a higher standard.. To demean the worth of a subject because the article isn't perfection ready is ridiculous. Silence of the Lambs is an influential movie of historic proportions, this is an Oscar winning director, it should be includedMasterknighted (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree. I don't see a clear division between "readers" and "editors" and I suspect many editors are not even aware that an article needs improvement until they see a link to it on the Main Page and are interested enough to go and read it. Apologies if this comment is considered off-topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been updated and well sourced for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert M. PirsigEdit

Nominator's comments: Author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceMartinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment A single CN tag (related to influences; could be scrubbed), but otherwise very nice. Zen is a cornerstone of NW Americana, and Pirsig's life was lived according to that philosophy. (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • There were other places that also needed cites. I tagged those. --Jayron32 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support His work Zen is a significant modern work, read by millions (and several generations). --SidP (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now while still tagged. --Bagoto (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once references are updated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The last remaining CN tag is still concerning influences. I don't think it greatly improves the article and deleting it would be just fine, but it might be sourced to the previous reference, which is an interview at NPR. I can't access it because it's not offered in a format I can play. (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have commented out, as they were originally in the infobox and not visible anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Looks up to snuff now. Thanks to everyone who pitched in. --Jayron32 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 25Edit

[Posted] China launches aircraft carrierEdit

Article: Type 001A aircraft carrier (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China launches its first domestically built aircraft carrier. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Aircraft carriers are fairly uncommon, so it seems significant to me that China has built their first one from the ground up, particularly as they have made no secret of their desire to expand their military presence globally. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Significant news. Alarming, in fact, considering recent territorial aggression. Article looks fine. --Bagoto (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question I do agree this is significant news, and the article seems ready to go. That said, this is the ceremonial launch, while commissioning is expected in 2019/2020. Is the ceremonial launch the right date to feature this? (I don't know, I can't remember a ship launch on ITN before). --MASEM (t) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Attached a "worries" clause after the clause on commissioning, around which I think is where the news is more than with the aircraft carrier itself, kind of like Hitler's threats at the launch of the Tirpitz being more the news than the Tirpitz itself. --Bagoto (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose the question is whether the building or the having is more significant. Personally I would say it's a larger leap to build a warship, especially one as complex as a carrier, then it is to operate one, numerous countries have purchased and operated carriers, much fewer have been the ones to build them. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support an interesting and notable achievement. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable achievement; I think now is the time to post as it is the construction itself that is significant; the deployment less so. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - There are 37 aircraft carriers in service now, and we're in the midst of a substantial naval buildup in several countries (see Aircraft_carrier#Future_of_aircraft_carriers). If we post this, what about the others? I say either post all of them (making this ITNR in the process), or post none. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems that there are two factors: China is major geopolitical/ military player and it's their first domestically built carrier. This would be equal to North Korea launching their first domestically built carrier, for example. Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per anything that directly contributes to the End Of The World is worthy of ITN. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per (most of) the above comments with a wry look at this similar nomination (the UK's latest aircraft carrier, where the publicity was for the naming ceremony not the launch, which happened a few days later without the same publicity and so didn't get posted...). HMS Prince of Wales is due to be launched this summer, incidentally. BencherliteTalk 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] WikitribuneEdit

consensus seems unlikely to develop to support posting this. Closing per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 14:26, 25 April 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: Wikitribune (talk, history)
Blurb: Jimmy Wales (pictured) announces the news service Wikitribune. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, FT
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be getting good coverage such as radio interviews on the BBC this morning. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from the newsworthiness (which seems weak - I mean, it's just "someone announces a startup"), I don't see how Wikipedia can have "Wikipedia founder does a thing" in the news section and not have it look like an advert. Smurrayinchester 08:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - on national BBC Radio news this morning. Article looks well sourced, but looks embarrassingly small for an ITN item. Not sure there is much more to say, however. Any international news coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smurrayinchester. How many startups are featured in some news outlet every day, and how many of those disappear into the mists of time? What about stuff like Citizendium, which got that initial publicity and then faded away? Rather than try to peer into the crystal ball of which new startups will be successful, I say we do nothing. Banedon (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from WP:NAVEL, the article quality is poor, I have not run into this from routine news outlets, and I question the encyclopedic character of the Nth fake-solution to the fake-crisis of Fake News. (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Would we cover this if it was a non-WMF-affiliated project? Likely yes, given the international coverage (there is coverage outside of the BBC and UK if you do a quick search) - so basing the argument against it on 'because Jimmy said it' seems rather petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Would we? Looking at other recent startups from famous techies, we didn't cover Elon Musk's Neuralink or the The Boring Company, which both got a lot of coverage (nor should we have, in my opinion). Smurrayinchester 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brian Everlasting: (ec)Merely being 'in the news' has never been sufficient to post something to In the News, as we are not a news ticker. We don't just parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PROMO and WP:NAVELGAZING. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support only if article reaches start class - It is being reported worldwide - Sherenk1 (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Being "in the news" is never sufficient for an ITN blurb. ITN looks for encyclopaedic events not pure news (which, ho-ho, can be posted at Wikinews...) ITN has not posted announcements of start-up companies no matter who the founder(s) might be, so to post this would be promotional and purely because of the involvement of Wales. There's no certainty that this crowd-funded plan will actually go ahead, let alone that it will make any difference to anything. BencherliteTalk 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec)Oppose as this doesn't seem particularly different from current news services. Article quality is poor. While not my primary concern, I think this would be seen as promotional and navel gazing even if it's not our intention. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it weren't Jimmy, we wouldn't be talking about this. While it's "in the news", just another startup announcement. -- KTC (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now that article expanded with citations from USA and Australia, showing it is of world wide interest as well as being a very novel idea. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above - not of sufficient circulation or interest to readers outside of Wikimedia. Sam Walton (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of its potential as a news service (who can tell) - it has just had a 5 minute dedication slot on the BBC 1 o'clock news. It is IN THE NEWS. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't need to be Wikimedia's shill, inadvertently or otherwise.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Navel gazing. Removing Wales or association with WMF and all other factors the same, and this is just a routine new business venture announcement which we do not post. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Everything posted here is "in the news" to some extent, it's clear that is not the sole factor. Posting this ordinary announcement would be the epitome of navel gazing. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm uncomfortable with the main page being perceived as promoting one of Mr Wales's side projects.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure navel-gazing. Jimmy Wales announces pet projects to great fanfare all the time, and they invariably vanish into obscurity soon afterwards when he gets bored. (Anyone remember Civilination, Wikia Search or Exactly.) ‑ Iridescent 14:23, 25 April 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.

April 24Edit

RD: Nicholas SandEdit

Article: Nicholas Sand (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]

Nominator's comments: Strange guy for sure, subject of the documentary "The Sunshine Makers". Fixuture (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs work, not merely to ensure that the orange-level tags are no longer justified but also to flesh out the article more - there's nothing about him after 1996, for instance, and "The Sunshine Makers" is included only as a "see also". The lack of coverage of his death in the news is probably a factor here since it will make it more difficult to give a sourced account of his life - a Google news search turns up nothing. BencherliteTalk 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bencherlite. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Kasinathuni ViswanathEdit

Stale, and article has been disrupted by sockpuppets. Could possibly be renominated for the ceremony on May 3 if article is OK by then. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 28 April 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.

Articles: Dadasaheb Phalke Award (talk, history) and Kasinathuni Viswanath (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Director Kasinathuni Viswanath (pictured) receives the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest award in Indian cinema. (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Chronicle Press Information Bureau, India

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: The award ceremony is on 3rd May. Not sure if it would be too late by then. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Articles seem in decent shape with no obvious errors. I reorganized one a tiny bit, but the text is well referenced and extensive. --Jayron32 12:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment All awards and all directing credits for Viswanath need sourcing; it is spotting in awards and absent in the latter (but reading through the prose, there's likely several sources that can be reused here). The award article list seems fine but we need to make sure the recipient is up to par per ITNR. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once the majority of the items in the #Awards section in Viswanath's article are properly sourced. Either way, things generally look good ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 20:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose awards and filmography unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. Is he technically the winner of the award as of this moment, or is it not until he takes possession of the award on May 3? 331dot (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • We generally post when the award's recipient is named, not when they necessarily take possession of it. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article's quality - The article resembles a fansite. A fair amount of work is needed before this gets to the main page. Vensatry (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no opinion of the director's work, but this is a government award. I am not aware that we post any government-sponsored awards, and I think this would be bad precedent--we don't publish royal, presidential, military or parliamentary awards. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    This is an ITNR item so we're judging the quality. And we do publish such awards, for example the Victoria Cross. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Its being an ITNR item, I'll assume there was an RfC adding it to the list? In any case, the Victoria Cross award seems sporadic and based on merit, not an annually established award in need of an awardee. My oppose stands. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    There was a discussion to add it to the list, as the ITNR listing links to. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Your assumption is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Horrible quality. And a certain User:Suvvisuvvi keeps reverting attempts of wikifying and removing peacocky terms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 26 April 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: Benjamin BarberEdit

Article: Benjamin Barber (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5], [6]

Nominator's comments: Top-level international consultant on participatory democracy as well as adviser on same to Bill Clinton and Howard Dean; author of the classic in democratic theory, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. --Bagoto (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23Edit

[Closed] 2017 French presidential election first roundEdit

Long established that the final result's what get posted. It can wait two weeks. -- KTC (talk) 09:25, 24 April 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: French presidential election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen win first and second place, respectively in the first round of the French presidential election, the first time in the history of the French Fifth Republic that neither the mainstream left nor right candidates advanced to the second round. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News (for the "first time" blurb), The Guardian (for the election results)
Nominator's comments: As noted, this is the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic that neither of the two runoff candidates belonged to the two major established political parties. This election is historical for this reason. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the elections are evidently not over (ending on 7 May), suggest ongoing until then, when we can switch to a blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for second round in 2 weeks per ITNR. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for final resolts. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for the second round. While this is definitely "in the news", it makes more sense to post this only once.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait We usually only post final results. EternalNomad (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for the second round/election of a new president; doesn't make sense to post twice to ITN. Mélencron (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait (it is only two weeks until the runoff, although I'm not totally opposed to posting something now as regardless of the result, it's clearly a huge realignment). The blurb made no sense (of course the runoff candidates made the second round, that's what runoff means) so I have rewritten it. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we'll post the result, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 24 April 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: František RajtoralEdit

Article: František Rajtoral (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Czech footballer František Rajtoral is found dead at his home in Gaziantep,Turkey in an apparent suicide.
News source(s): Daily Sabah, BBC

Nominator's comments: Top level national footballer who committed suicide. EternalNomad (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Are there any further sources that give more of an indication of cause of death? Aiken D 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only and currently weak oppose that based on lack of article quality, barely above stub although what's there seems referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Decent article. --Yogwi21 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article is goood. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment no, the article is neither decent or goood. It's just above a stub and I'm not seeing where some of Rajtoral's career is actually referenced. Did anyone check the sources for this BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely more than a stub, as TRM says, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include speculation about why he committed suicide, even if it is sourced (is Fanatik reliable?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 London MarathonEdit

Article: 2017 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany wins the women's and Daniel Wanjiru the men's race. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru (pictured) win the women's and men's races respectively.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru (pictured) win the elite races, while David Weir and Manuela Schär win the wheelchair races.
News source(s): Guardian

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R event. Article is in its infancy. Keitany's performance was a record for a women's race without running alongside male pacemakers (which offers a slight advantage apparently) but this is probably too complicated to feature in the blurb. LukeSurl t c 15:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - irrelevant, insignificant, happens annually, almost no content in the article and it would be ridicolous to feature an aimless run in London but not a march by predominantly scientists in cities worldwide upon which millions of lives and the life-quality of billions could depend. --Fixuture (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose hardly noteworthy, and article is barely more than a stub. Aiken D 16:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR and much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Change to support now the article is a reasonable length. Aiken D 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As it's a stub. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Admin note this is on WP:ITN/R so the only two things that are relevant to discuss here are (1) Whether the item is in the news. (2) The quality of the article. All other comments will be ignored and may be hatted. If you want to discuss the notability of the event then make a formal proposal at WT:ITN/R.Lugnuts Your comment above is bordering on being racially offensive, please retract it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've changed is - I guess you don't watch Live at the Apollo or read Viz. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. I would expect an article at least as complete at the 2016 marathon. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's got a few sentences on what is actually an incredibly tedious event, but ITNR nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; generic yearly event. Not globally noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - pretty much up to standard now. Comments regarding noteworthiness are irrelevant as this is ITN/R. Also - there are free images to replace Sergio Garcia at last! Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ideally the article (not the blurb) should report the wheelchair races but this shouldn't preclude posting in the current state. --LukeSurl t c 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is OK to post. Event is ITN/R. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go, but Mary Jepkosgei Keitany should be linked in the blurb to avoid an unnecessary redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, both the men's and women's wheelchair winners are notable. Shouldn't they be in the blurb too? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    We didn't post the wheelchair winners last year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I imagine that would make the blurb a little too long, like trying to add the doubles and wheelchair winners at WImbledon into a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Gosh, how tedious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Do you want me to get an interaction ban Martinevans123? Or should we just go back to ignoring each other after your shitty take on people suffering from strokes? Your continual "last words" are not funny and not needed. I had hoped that you'd stopped following my every edit but as you haven't, I suppose I'll have to make such a request, which is a shame, a drama, a timesink, but nothing you're unaccustomed with. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Not quite sure what "my shitty take on people suffering from strokes" is all about. But not sure this is quite the right venue for such a discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    You know exactly what that means, and if you continue to follow me and respond to everything or anything I edit, I'll make a formal request at AN for you to stop. Your attempts at humour have been the conclusion of many discussions, somehow you always end up somewhere where I'm editing, it's all a bit creepy, so please either stop, or I'll ask for it to be actioned formally. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's complete nonsense. Ask away, if you wish. Could someone non-involved hat this diversion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course, add a suggested blurb at WP:ERRORS and it's bound to be give due consideration, based on its content and the posting user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was thinking it would make the blurb too long, but then I thought - do we really need to specify men's and women's races? It's fairly obvious. So I've added an ALT2 above which includes the wheelchair results. (Unfortunately Manuela Schär's article is a bit poor, but...) Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, Rightly or wrongly, the wheelchair races don't get the attention of the able bodied races. I don't think they should be in the blurb- I could see not listing any specific races as a compromise, though it doesn't help readers learn anything beyond this occurring.331dot (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Whew! Another European sporting contest, just in time. Far more news coverage than a March for Science (and a far better article as well) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@CosmicAdventure: As you are no doubt aware, this is ITNR so this comment is unnecessary. I'm sorry a nomination you felt merited posting has not yet gained consensus to do so; you have made your point, please move on. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone just post this, please? I'll do it myself if I have to, but that's not ideal since I commented. It's ITNR and not controversial. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted on behalf of User:Stephen [7]. I used ALT1 - if any other admin thinks ALT2 is superior please feel free to fix that. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22Edit

[Posted] RD: Erin MoranEdit

Nominator's comments: Well known actress from 70s mega-sitcom Rhodesisland (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose unreferenced filmography. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails for notability. The reason she was evicted from her trailer park last year speaks to her fame. She died young and her riches to rags story feeds the tabloids but shouldn't grace Wikipedia's page. It's not news, it's rubbernecks looking at a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Notability is not a criterion for RD. We judge solely on article quality.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This DHeyward guy has some sort of personal issue with how deaths are covered. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that her death has received widespread coverage is an indication of notability. Article quality is the main criterion and the unreferenced filmography is the main hurdle at this stage. I sometimes wonder whether this section is more trouble than its worth. Notable film or TV appearances will be mentioned in the main article. Oppose at this stage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • A filmography for an actress is a required element for any bio, just as a discography for a musician. But these do need sourcing (even if pushed off to a separate page) and it is a shame that most editors do not bother sourcing this as they go along. (Even if this was moved to a separate page, that's sweeping the problem under the rug). --MASEM (t) 23:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note article has been tidied up, discussion on talk page of the article. Should now meet the criteria for main page/RD inclusion. Support. MurielMary (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Embarrassing enough that a barely known wrestler in Rosey has stayed in the In The News box for as long as he has. Her notability is significantly stronger. Fronticla (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs Attention @The Rambling Man: TRM, would you mind assessing her page again? Rhodesisland (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support well I suppose one way of resolving the unreferenced filmography was to remove it altogether, no real issues with what remains, so marking as good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it meets the standard, ready to go. - Christian Roess (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] March for ScienceEdit

Consensus against adding to ITN. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:59, 24 April 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: March for Science (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On Earth Day, 22 April, a series of rallies and marches − the March for Science − are being held in Washington, D.C. and more than 600 cities across the world calling for evidence-based policy and government acceptance of the scientific opinion on climate change. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Scientists in the United States conduct a series of marches and rallies in Washington, D.C. and international locations in support of evidence-based policy and government acceptance of the scientific opinion on climate change.
News source(s): [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
Nominator's comments: Plenty of worldwide news coverage, a historic precedent and of significance, relevant not just to the US but worldwide, well written article. Fixuture (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've suggested a second blurb. Any ideas for numbers of participants/turnout? (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – No-brainer in my opinion, just need to settle on a blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose we haven't posted the Venezuela protests which are claimed into the millions, and yes, it's clearly got some coverage in certain parts of the world, and the article isn't too shabby, but my issue is with the actual lasting impact of this. I'm not convinced this is really meaningful or impactful. Yes, that means I should probably AFD it, which of course would result in keep but I'm still unclear as to if this is as significant as is being proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see my comment below Brian Everlasting's post. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose based on precedence set at ITN. The Women's March was barely posted and that had marches in the millions across the world. The Venezuela protests were not posted. This approaches the significance of neither.--WaltCip (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see my comment below Brian Everlasting's post. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ↑ What he said. This doesn't remotely approach the scale of major demonstrations, there's no indication that it's having or will have any impact, and nothing noteworthy appears to have taken place at it. ‑ Iridescent 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment last news story on ITV tonight just before the sport. Not a great sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Climate change is the most significant issue facing humans in the 21st century. The March for Science is an important step to bring attention to the matter on earth day. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I too think that this should be considered in addition to numbers of participants and known concrete impacts. The Women's March getting "barely posted" and the Venezuela protests not getting posted is a good point though. In addition to the high and worldwide significance of the issue adressed by the movement as well as their impact I think one should also consider the novelty and uniqueness of it and that there's protests in Venezuela every few years / continuous turmoil/tension.
Another point is that if we don't include this event in the In the news section we really need to heighten the bar for inclusions: e.g. no more irrelevant, insignificant sport events. --Fixuture (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fixture: how are sports events at all comparable to political protests? Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Both are candidates for the In the news section. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
They're not competing against each other. Assess each nomination / event by its own merits. -- KTC (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Seeing it in the news since yesterday + science + worldwide protests - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article quality sufficient for main page.--Jayron32 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a good quality article and a genuine worldwide story. I don't see how not posting the Venezuela protests sets a precedent- let's do this case by case. I supported the Venezuela nomination and I support this.Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; none of the events seems to have drawn more than tens of thousands of people individually, which is not terribly impressive in my opinion considering the size of the US and the cities they happened in--there are sports celebrations that far outstrip those numbers, so in terms of size this is nothing special, and I don't think it's likely to have much of an impact on anything at all. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
But one can't just look at the number of attendees - please also recognize that sports events are something entirely different than sociopolitical events and that it appears current society has drastically more citizens attending the former than the latter, that most of these attendees are scientists, that this protest was done in synchronization with many different cities worldwide in a unique way, etc. etc. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose why not call it the march for goodness and light? It is a politico-fiscal exercise, pure and simple. Science will do just fine without stormtroopers. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Science may do fine but its context of, usage by and integration into society might not. I do not think that you understand what this is about and/or misapprehend it. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No, the reasons are: plenty of worldwide news coverage, a historic precedent and of high significance, relevant not just to the US but worldwide, well written article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Science isn't built on marches. In fact, if you need a march to convince people about your "science," it's probably not science. No notable achievement or outcome from this "march" is apparent. It didn't even have any "March for Darwin" Marcher of the Year awards nominations. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about the science itself but about the integration and use by society. If you need a march to convince people about science something is dramatically wrong with those people and/or your socioeconomic system and/or decision makers. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe if it has some impact, or something occurred during this event, or even, if it lasted for a longer time it would make sense to post. I would rather not see ITN get filled with marches every few months. It's not like all of these social media marches are going to stop any time soon. (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that the scale of potential impact which might affect billions of lives is already enough even if they don't have any impact at all, also from the website it seems they're active for a whole week (even though probably not by additional marches). Would you rather see this section get filled with sports events every few days then? I don't think they occur too often. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like your standard slow news day for the Sunday snowflake tree-hugging do-gooders. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No point at all. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In posting this dross on the frontpage? Agreed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPA.--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - please continue to comment. How is an irrelevant, insignificant, annual aimless run at London (see nomination above) more In the news-worthy than a unique march by predominantly scientists in cities of many different countries worldwide upon which millions of lives and the life-quality of billions could depend? Even German Wikipedia has it featured now. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support very nice article about a topic which is "In the news". Long term impact and "global significance" are not requirements for ITN. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is primarily a politically-driven march - it's clear that people fear Trump's administration has put people in place of key science policy that question/reject human-caused global warming, and no question that scientists want to make sure that their opinions on the matter are heard, using Earth Day as the most appropriate venue for this point. That said, that was also part of the reason that we had the Woman's March back in Jan, to voice their disagreement with the administration. However, this was at a much much smaller scale compared to that. We need to be aware that anything anti-Trump is going to gain intense coverage by media sources, and we aren't going to be able to feature everything about that. The Woman's March was unprecedented in scale, this march far far less. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So much of what we post is "self generated bother" from sports to protests to bombings, FWIW consider that this item is "In the news" and the article is pretty good. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There's probably stuff we could post daily from US politics due to the bitterness against the current adminstration, based on massive worldwide media coverage and quality articles. However, we recognize that bias and are going to avoid posting every single thing that could quality, lest we be called out for American bias. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your made up rule actually helps fight bias, but hopefully the admins will continue to ignore it as irrelevant nonsense that's harmful to the project. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It's how we handle WP:RECENTISM with respect to over-exhaustive news coverage of topics from US/UK and other English regions. Yes, we want to push to include more non-English stories, but we also handle bias by avoiding too much coverage from where we have clearly over-extended coverage. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
While I did !vote oppose, I'd just like to point out that there's no U.S. stories currently on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We've discussed this before for ITN, but we should never consider the "geographic" spread of current blurbs in deciding stories (we can't control the news, nor can we force the news to happen in unrepresented places). It's the long-term trends we want to make sure don't show the US/UK/English-speaking world bias. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Per @The Rambling Man:, the Venezuelan protests were pulled from the news despite estimates of 6 million people protesting (about 20% of the Venezuela's population). The sources I even placed in March for Science article about "millions" protesting even seems far fetched given the reported numbers in worldwide cities. Keep in mind, the March for Science was a global protest while the Mother of All Marches was a national protest, yet it still drew less numbers even as a supposed "global" movement. It seems like it might have a lasting effect due to the issues surrounding climate change and the presidency, but the numbers don't appear to be behind it. It didn't live up to the hype of the 2017 Women's March either, which was reported in many sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:9CFE:DFAC:EF0B:E8B3 (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the reasons you have for your views? Simple "support" votes are discouraged(and this isn't a vote anyway). 331dot (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose when the alternative blurb begins with "Scientists in the United States", it's a strong sign it is internal to only one of the world's ~200 countries, and of possible bias. True, there were some international marches, but virtually all the other marches are in the Europe. Besides, they're protesting against the scientific policy of one country. That one country is the world's biggest scientific power, yes, but science has other political things to worry about such as this or this. Ultimately, this is too regional for something as universal as science to be featured. [User:Banedon|Banedon]] (talk) 01:41, 24 April 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.

[Posted to RD] Michele ScarponiEdit

Article: Michele Scarponi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian cyclist Michele Scarponi , the winner of Giro d'Italia, dies at the age of 37 after a traffic collision during training . (Post)
News source(s): BBC Eurosport

 EugεnS¡m¡on 09:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. While he's not by any stretch a household name, for a professional cyclist to be struck and killed by a motor vehicle while cycling is vanishingly rare, and the article is in good shape and well-referenced. Besides, the only other sports-related story in ITN is two weeks old and decidedly stale. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb he was an active top cyclist. The incident is horrible - a tragedy in road cycling world. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is mainly an unreferenced list of his career placings in various cycling events. Not only is it not referenced but it highlights the fact that his career section (in prose) is very weak indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds. The career section needs more citations (one place explicitly marked), clarification (ditto) and turning from proseline into proper prose. Also per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - rare event, headline news - how often do such high profile deaths happen? Abovesky (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well known to cycling fans, possibly some sports fans and Italians. The Rambling Man and Thryduulf, I've referenced the entire career section and I may improve it shortly. BaldBoris 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, though I do weakly support a blurb here for the unexpected death of a predominately known figure. Per TRM, the prose is for the most part mirroring the stats, and gives no real good impression of why he was a great rider and anything outside the cycling career. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD Only We've gotten too loose with death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Giro winner, article is in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Oppose blurb Sad news, but this person is not in the very top tier of their field or an iconic figure which is the generally accepted standard for death blurbs for non-ITNR figures. Beyond which I agree with Muboshgu's assessment that we have been getting a little too casual about using ITN for obit-blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb, per Muboshgu and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting as RD since the consensus is at least for that. The references seem fine to me now. --Tone 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21Edit

[Posted] Taliban attackEdit

Article: 2017 Camp Shaheen attack (talk, history)
Blurb: A Taliban attack on an Afghan army base leaves more than 100 soldiers dead or injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A Taliban attack on an Afghan National Army base kills at least 140 unarmed soldiers.
News source(s): ABC, CNN, Reuters

Nominator's comments: I don't normally nominate attack (as in death and destruction) articles because you know, it is sad. But this is a sizable loss in an ongoing war. Fuebaey (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. One of the largest incidents in Afghanistan in recent years. (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "ongoing war". I'm reminded of last week, when over 100 civilians were killed in the Syrian civil war. This incident managed to get a blurb because the target were civilians and it happened during a ceasefire. Despite this, it still got a lot of opposes. I believe the incident described here is less impactful. ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a second article about event.--Jenda H. (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have clarification over that "100 killed or injured". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me clarify some reasons in support of posting:
    1. The attack was against unarmed soldiers, as many of them were praying at a mosque or eating lunch.
    2. The attack involved the use of rocket launchers.
    3. The event was the single deadliest incident in recent years, assuming that the figure of 140+ killed is correct. The only well-documented incidents in the War in Afghanistan since 2001 with a higher death toll (excluding Taliban and/or ISIL-K deaths, and excluding battles that lasted longer than one week) are as follows:
  • This makes Saturday's attack the deadliest bombing in Afghanistan since the war began.
4. The attack was deadlier than the July 2016 Kabul bombing against Hazara Shia civilians, killing 80+ people, which we posted.
5. The attack is directly comparable to the 2014 Peshawar school massacre against The Army Public School in which 141 unarmed Pakistan Army staff and recruits were killed. That attack was the deadliest in Pakistan's history, and we of course posted that one.
6. It is front page news on BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, and many others. Xinhua (the official Chinese government news network) is reporting on its English site that at least 135 Afghan Army members have been killed, not injured.
I would wait until it becomes clear that there is a confirmation that over 140 on the side of the Afghan Army were indeed killed, and that this count does not include the injured. If this is the case, I stand by my decision to support. (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
TIME reports that over 130 are killed, and over 80 injured, according to unnamed Afghan officials. A death toll of 100+ is confirmed. (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
If this is correct, the blurb and the article should be updated. If your claim of them being unarmed and at prayer is correct, that should be included and cited. You can argue as strongly as you like, one way or another, but you are also capable of fixing up the article according. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
207.107.x.x here. The TIME source states,

Gen. Mohammad Radmanish, deputy spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the militants entered the base in Balkh province using two military vehicles and attacked army personnel inside the compound's mosque.
"Two suicide bombers detonated their vests full of explosive inside the mosque of the army corps while everyone was busy with Friday prayers," he said
Waziri said there were 10 attackers, including the two who carried out the suicide attacks. Eight others were killed in a gun battle with soldiers.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the assault in an email sent to media. (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maplestrip. Casualties of war.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the ITV news report I just overheard said 140 people had been killed, so that makes this completely newsworthy, but I'd like to see some reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable due to the number of casualties - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - significant mass casualty event. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per IP. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - still attracting major coverage and death toll is exceptionally high. Article is short but OK.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, notable as it received wide coverage in leading newspapers and Wikipedia's standards shouldn't be any different/insensitive. Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ugo EhioguEdit

Article: Ugo Ehiogu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Prominent former footballer, who has died unusually young. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - almost there, a couple of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Working on it... The problem when someone dies unexpectedly is that newspapers don't (I presume) have obituaries ready to print, and so they turn to the internet and likely Wikipedia, so there's a danger of circular referencing if we rely too much on those obituaries without doing extra checks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we're pretty much there with the references, The Rambling Man. Could you take another look and let me know if anything still stands out as problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not the most in depth article I have seen but it appears to be decently sourced and I think covers the subject adequately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. The minor issues have been sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 20Edit

[Closed] RD: Cuba Gooding, Sr.Edit

Older than the oldest RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 27 April 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: Cuba Gooding Sr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Billboard)
Credits: (talk) 20:16, 21 April 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.

[Closed] Jehovah's Witnesses banned in RussiaEdit

Consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk)
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.

 Jenda H. (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most countries regulate religions, up to and including bannings. As the bold link demonstrates, Russia is not even the fifth country to ban the Witnesses, and there's a long list of other countries which have taken some sort of action against them. Perhaps that is unjust, but it is certainly not unfair considering the sorts of sanctions that many other religions face in virtually every other country on Earth. (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose As religious persecution goes this is pretty low intensity and alas is not uncommon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Much smaller scale, and as IP .104 points out, not the first country to do so. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article on the French Wikipedia says it's a "cult."Zigzig20s (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unsurprising that Russia would take such a view, given their similar treatment of government opponents. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 April 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.

[Closed] US prepares charges to seek arrest of Julian AssangeEdit

No consensus will develop until something tangible happens. Stephen 00:51, 21 April 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.

Articles: Julian Assange (talk, history) and WikiLeaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US prepares charges to seek arrest of Julian Assange (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Both articles need updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose good faith nom but this is crystal balling and speculation at best. If and when it happens we can revisit the topic, though even then I would point out that our usual practice is to post the outcomes of major criminal cases, not arrests.
  • Oppose I'd support if they had him in custody. This is sabre rattling. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:CRYSTAL. Also potentially "fake news," since the POTUS "loves Wikileaks".Zigzig20s (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until he is arrested. We have posted unusual and notable arrests (El Chapo, I believe) 331dot (talk) 00:50, 21 April 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.

[Closed] Paris shootingEdit

No consensus. Stephen 00:08, 21 April 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: 2017 shooting of Paris police officers (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting kills a/two police officer(s) and the assailant in Paris, France. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Some sources are saying one officer killed, others two. I know we don't usually post such a low casualty event but the election is this weekend and the attack is apparently a terrorist one, which could have a major impact. EternalNomad (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose they saw it coming, they did something about it, sadly one policeman died, but it's not even close to the Westminster attack which was borderline these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very unusual on the world-renowned Champs-Élysées and a few days before the first round of the presidential election.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • What does this have to do with the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Some suggest Le Pen is more likely to win if there are major terrorist attacks days before the election, before she keeps saying that most terrorists wouldn't be French residents/citizens if she were president.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion. And hers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't have an "opinion"--lots of analysts say that. I don't have time right now to look for RS. Anyway, I was answering your question--it's not off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – That it's Paris, and a policeman, notwithstanding, this story is being overplayed. Sadly, one death does not a major story make nowadays – irrespective of which group of psychopathic imbecils claims responsibility. Sca (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM/Sca. It could have been a lot worse but it was also a lone wolf situation, and is going overplayed due to all the recent events in Europe of late. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Attacks like these are becoming more common in Europe, this one doesn't stand out. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 20 April 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.

[Pulled] Venezuelan protestsEdit

Articles: 2014-17 Venezuelan protests (talk, history) and Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three people are killed as at least 1.2 million Venezuelans march in anti-government protests. (Post)
News source(s): [13] [14] [15]

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Target article could also be 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis. Don't know what to use as the blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Support: The day's protest, which involved up to over one million Venezuelans, was the largest in the country's history, has resulted in nearly half of the deaths of this year's protests and over half of the year's arrests. It is the culmination of this year's protests so far, so I created a separate section for it titled "Mother of All Protests", its popular name. If we believe it is notable for its own article, I can make it.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, I have tried to add a blurb. Also sourcing seems very good at both target article, but agree the "Mother of all protests" section is the one to highlght. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - according to the article, it is the largest protest in Venezuelan history, which seems very worth posting to me. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - wouldn't recommend 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis as the target though, because that has already featured at ITN recently.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull per ERRORS, it appears it's more like thousands rather than millions, the French do better than that on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment on proposed pull: At the very least, "hundreds of thousands protested". The mathematician gave a more detailed number than most media outlets which just stated that "hundreds of thousands" protested. Oh, and his numbers were just for Caracas, meaning that the other cities throughout the country which filled the streets also possibly make his number higher.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The story, as supported, is not correct. Pull, return here for more discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Pulled per errors. We need to get this figured out before we put it back up. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ks0stm please replace the last ITN and add the image back while this is discussed, the main page is now lop-sided and odd-looking without an image at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Will do momentarily; I thought it looked fine, but maybe my perception of lopsided is just a bit off. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
5 to 6 items in ITN normally, not four. And one picture almost always. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Now just remove the last RD which is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ks0stm last RD to be removed please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Mathematics professor Ricardo Rios of Central University in Caracas is the only one giving such high numbers. He has a twitter account here and doesn't seem neutral. Nobody else is willing to give precise numbers and just say hundred of thousands. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add this back with the "hundreds of thousands" number? I just think it was pulled for the wrong reason since someone said it was only thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources, such as those used in the nomination template, go as far as "tens of thousands". That's where we should stay if we believe this is actually notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
And if it is only tens of thousands - of the scope that has been happening over the last few years, this event thus seems overblown only because three people died from it. That "Mother of all protests" claim seems to have been grossly exaggerated at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Reuters, Al-Jazeera (from the nom), NBC, and The Atlantic all say "hundreds of thousands." The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: It's hundreds of thousands and up to millions if we want to use the one mathematician. See the other sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose CNN's headline is "Hundreds again march...". That's not hundreds of thousands; just hundreds. As the situation seems to be one of protracted turmoil with many ramifications, it seems best to avoid trying to single out some particular aspect. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson:That was today's protests (20 April 2017).--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was a mistake, best to forget about it and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You made the mistake. It wasn't thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Pardon? I said it wasn't 1.2 million as posted to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's hundreds of thousands: Check your sources people.[1][2][3]--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Note that the BBC and The Guardian sources provided in the nomination still say "tens of thousands". So yes, I did check my sources, person! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please provide the sources. They may also be outdated. If not, 5 6 say hundreds of thousands (See above) while the 2 you say tens of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I already said, they were the sources that supported the nomination. In any case, it's not 1.2 million, so the impact is massively reduced, the pull was good, the posting was wrong, and we're where we should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • NYTimes also has it at "thousands". If it were 100,000+ , I would expect both BBC and NYTimes to be more accurate to that. (Also, when I wrote that blurb, the BBC article said 1.2 M, but it clearly has since been updated to tens-of-thousands.) --MASEM (t) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Reuters, Al-Jazeera, NBC News, Huffington Post, NPR, PBS, France24, Foreign Policy and even Venezuela's ally the Iranian government PressTV said it was hundreds of thousands but you want to rely on two sources. Why?--ZiaLater (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it appears that this is not the "mother of all protests" by any measure, and that this turmoil has been ongoing for some years, a blurb would be inappropriate, perhaps an ongoing nomination is better, especially since the target article is a "timeline" rather than a decent article about one specific event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, thousands of hundreds, millions... Do reporters bother to fact-check their sources anymore?--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess not. But the consensus seems to be hundreds of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the point is that no-one knows. It's all speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not. Even NPR states "By several media accounts, hundreds of thousands of anti-Maduro demonstrators flooded city streets to protest". But in the world of fake news, I can see why people are skeptical. I'm surprised there's not a shortage of tinfoil due to people making hats.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello: @Banedon:, @Pawnkingthree:, @Ks0stm: Your thoughts? This discussion is going nowhere.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@WaltCip: It's not so much reporters not fact-checking, it's more that crowd counting is notoriously difficult and estimates can vary wildly - even from reliable sources. The 1.2 million figure is obviously an outlier but equally the "tens of thousands" may well be too conservative. I think it's reasonable to say "estimated in the hundreds of thousands." If consensus is against re-posting I would definitely support adding it to the Ongoing section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Now here's a big one. "Meganálisis estimated 2.5 million mobilized in Caracas and 6 million in the interior, after quantifying the routes that were filled, as well as the duration of the opposition walks". Semana also states that 2.5 million protested in Caracas.[1] The 2.5 million is also reported by Radio France Internationale [1].--ZiaLater (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Created article: See Mother of All Protests.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reiterate support - I think 'thousands' (i.e. from 1,000 to 10,000) is likely too low. Simply looking at the image from the New York Times article [16] for example shows there are more than one thousand protesters in that particular protest, and this was a nation-wide protest. The CNN article cited by Andrew D, which gives only "hundreds", is obviously because it covered protests on Thursday, not Wednesday like the others. This should be between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. TRM's comparison with France is not fair, since France has twice the population of Venezuela. Also 1) this has been ongoing for a while and 2) it dominates local news. I still support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    PS the reasons for not featuring this strike me as uncharacteristically poor. They seem entirely based on the fact that this was posted with an inaccurate blurb. But that is not a reason not to repost this - it simply means the blurb should be fixed (e.g. via ZiaLater's suggestion below) before reposting. In the meantime all the standard arguments for posting it are there: it's widely reported in international media, it dominates local headlines (probably as much as an election), even the article quality is fine. If this isn't posted, I call WP:BIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reiterate support - Don't place a number in the blurb at all. State something like "widespread protests throughout Venezuela resulted in three deaths".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • OPPOSE I'll oppose any process where the nominator and updater feel like they get a vote. That's clearly not unbiased at all. LordAtlas (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      I'm going to have to cite WP:NPA at this. Banedon (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      If an item has been pulled, surely the nominator and updater have a right to say whether they agree, or if they feel it should be re-posted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Reiterate oppose the blurb, the target article, the refs etc, all don't add up to what has subsequently been claimed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We know absolutely nothing about this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think you used the wrong pronoun there. Some people have read the sources, and therefore know something about this. In English, the first person singular pronoun is "I", and should be used when refering only to one's self. Since people who are not you, but are still part of the discussion here, do know something about this "We" is the wrong word choice here. Also, I'm not sure opposition based on one's own personal un-willingness to learn things by reading the source text is going to carry much weight, but thanks for sharing! --Jayron32 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    Then you tell me how many people protested.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    Hundreds of thousands to millions, according to the majority of reliable sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    I may not know that, but I do know many other things. I will not insult you by quoting the entire article, but there's two full screens worth of cited text at Mother of All Protests. I know all of those things. That's something more than "absolutely nothing". And hey, if you read it, then you'll know more than absolutely nothing. Your statement will then be entirely wrong (and not just half wrong).. --Jayron32 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If the problem is the number of protestors, can we just post this without the number? Several people above note that as an option. We have some well-referenced articles (maybe even the new Mother of All Protests article, maybe the timeline article) and this is clearly being covered by the media. If there's contention about the exact count, lets leave the number out. --Jayron32 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    I can agree with that. No matter the number, there were a ton of people protesting (that top part of the freeway was full for miles as well) and it sparked many other protests that are now occurring in the country. Miraflores Palace actually turned on its anti-air systems last night for the first time in a long time, which was strange.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: At least 12 people were killed last night during riots according to The New York Times (a day after the "Mother of All Marches".)--ZiaLater (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel there is a news story here, but with the type of reporting we've had over the last 24hrs on this, its unclear what it should be. The protests since the "Mother" have seen be to an escalation with more violence than the past, and there seems to be other factors (such as the gov't seizing the GM plant and basically forcing the company to leave the country [17]. It doesn't feel like ongoing (since these have been ongoing for years), but I can't pinpoint a news story here. So perhaps an ongoing for at least a week for the protests? --MASEM (t) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Masem: Possibly. I may work on a 2017 protest article soon here that you can link to. Until then, we could use the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests article. Articles surrounding the protests in Venezuela should get an overhaul within the next few days/weeks.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for Ongoing as per The Rambling Man, using 2017 Venezuelan Protests article. --Bagoto (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for Ongoing. Venezuela has also decided to pull out of the Organization of American States because the international organization criticized its government. BBC. 30 dead in the protests so far. Getting bigger all the time. --Pudeo (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 19Edit

16th Lux Style AwardsEdit

Article: 16th Lux Style Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Actor In Law wins Best Film at the Lux Style Awards. (Post)
News source(s): FHM DAWN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The premier awards of the world's sixth most populous country. I know it won't be posted because of systemic bias. But it should be posted same as Oscars, BAFTA, Cannes and FilmFare. mfarazbaig 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose The Oscars and the BAFTAs, in contrast to the premier awards of the world's sixth most populous country, are awards that 1) are focused on films, 2) involve films mostly in the world's premier lingua franca and distributed in many parts of the world, and 3) have entries, even sections (like "Critical reception and television ratings"), in their Wikipedia articles that illustrate how highly regarded these awards are in their countries of origin and in the world that follow the films these awards follow. Having said that, my weak oppose could easily be transformed into a weak support and later support---if it's not too late---if . . . here goes the systemic bias . . . the article on the 2017 Lux Style Awards could get some grammar fix and, above all, illustrate to our global readership how many Pakistanis watched the awards show on TV and how the Pakistani media regarded it, and, also, if the article on the top-winning Pakistani film could provide an internal link for the currency in its box office section and, ideally but not necessarily, provide the film budget as well, just so our readership would have an idea of how big that film really was. --Bagoto (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bagoto prior to rambling about systemic bias. Also, stale as can be. If it were important, it would have been nominated when it happened. LordAtlas (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Frankly, by your logic we should post everything from China and India just because. LordAtlas (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Taking back my rambling on systemic bias, that was aiming to correct nominator's impression of some "systemic bias", with suggestions for improving his candidate's chances of inclusion. Realizing I forgot to consider the requisite of global importance. --Bagoto (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment And this would have had a better chance at inclusion here: --Bagoto (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Aaron HernandezEdit

Strong consensus against a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 19 April 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: Aaron Hernandez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Aaron Hernandez is found dead in his prison cell. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, BBC, not much international coverage admittedly

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Found hanged in his prison cell, then pronounced dead an hour later. Former NFL tight end who played for the New England Patriots; cut from the team after being charged with murder. He was serving his life prison sentence at the time he committed suicide. Certainly an unexpected way to go, but I'm aware of the general attitude towards sports on ITN, and so I'll nominate this just as an RD for now. A blurb can be added later if a consensus demands it. WaltCip (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Bulk of article is well referenced, an occasional non-contentious bit of text here or there could use a better cite, but it's comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Not to stop anyone from fixing those few minor issues, but nothing here looks like it should keep it off of the main page, from my point of view. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support reasonably decent article. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see one CN tag floating in the current version but it's otherwise there for posting. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Adding that I Oppose blurb. This is not a legendary athlete (at least, his "legacy" is not really much from his performance on the field), and as noted below, suicides in prison are not unheard of. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is probably on the edge of being blurbworthy. It is front page news on the BBC and Guardian websites in the UK, as well as all major outlets in the US. Seems to be a reasonably major story.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Suicides in prison are a relatively common occurrence, and his team never won a Superbowl with him on it, so not really a national icon. I don't think being one of the hundreds of Patriots players (as well as other NFL players) pushes him over the threshold for a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This is certainly more blurb worthy than an old person dying. @EternalNomad:, who said this was a suicide?[18] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I'm inclined to agree with Masem, most of his notoriety comes from the murders, and I wouldn't really say he's a "legendary murderer" or whatever. Also, his lawyer going whaaaaaaaa? doesn't change the fact that this was very likely a common prison suicide. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, unless consensus to post his acquittal as well. Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths are (or should be) reserved for globally known or influential figures. A criminal who played pro sport for a couple of years doesn't come anywhere close to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 19 April 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.

[Closed] "Facebook killer" found deadEdit

Consensus very much against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 19 April 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: Facebook (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Steve Stevens, called the Facebook killer, is found dead two days after broadcasting murder on Facebook. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits: (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Domestic crime only popularized by the shocking posting of the murder on Facebook. Sensationist news. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Also this would absolutely need a separate article from Facebook to be even considered. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think his name was Stephens. Abductive (reasoning) 03:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ill assume good faith but this is obviously a no. This is pretty much the definition of something trivial. LordAtlas (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trivial.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:01, 19 April 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.

April 18Edit

[Closed] Snap UK general election announcedEdit

consensus is to wait until results are in --Jayron32 18:23, 18 April 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: Next United Kingdom general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May announces an early general election to be held on 8 June 2017 in a surprising announcement. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, CNN, The Guardian
 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, consensus is to only post election results, not buildup. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. We'll post the results if the article is in good shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Under normal circumstances, an announced election would not be listed here, but this announcement is very surprising, as the media outlets I've provided show. The massive media coverage and the shock of the announcement are sufficient to including this on the main page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: The election is surprising, and not routine, as other elections are. This is what makes it different from a scheduled election, the news story is about the shock and unexpectedness. This is of international significance, with media coverage to back it up. This makes it significant for the main page. In contrast, a routine scheduled election that people have known about and scheduled for years (eg the scheduled 2020 one) is not news - per se; news is new developments. This fact that this story is new sets this story aside from the others. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The 2015 general election is the only election in British history that's been "scheduled for years", and that was purely an artefact of the 2010 coalition agreement. The only surprising thing about this election is that it wasn't called on Cameron's resignation but was instead delayed a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. It isn't even certain to happen (just very likely) as May has to get parliamentary consent. Also per Abductive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, despite being a politically-engaged Brit myself. The announcement was surprising, but the point that it merits an ITN blurb is when the results arrive, not now. It's only six weeks away (assuming May gets the votes she needs tomorrow - note that currently the PM cannot actually call an election, just ask the House of Commons to vote for one), and there's really no reason why anyone outside the UK should care until the election actually happens. Modest Genius talk 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regardless of whether or not it actually is surprising or newsworthy, it's not the position nor purpose of ITN to editorialize, and accordingly I suggest omitting "surprising" from the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Relable sources have described it as "surprising" or "shocking," including the ones I linked. I'm simply stating what the RSs stated. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
We still need to not be sensationalist for WP and our blurbs. Here, at least, the notion of what a "snap election" is implies it was unexpected so we certainly don't need "surprising" here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose now As noted, this is only a proposal and needs approval by Parliament to move forward. If that approval does happen to pave for the snap election, that then might be appropriate to post. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as-is – Announcement of a vote for an election, not the actual election itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - let's just wait six weeks and then post the results.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 18 April 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.

[Closed] ISIS and al-Qaeda allianceEdit

let's wait until wait until results are in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 April 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.

Articles: ISIS (talk, history) and al-Qaeda (talk, history)
Blurb: ISIS seeks an alliance with al-Qaeda. (Post)
News source(s):
Nominator's comments: Major turning point, they used to be bitter enemies. (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only source is a single, mostly speculative article, which contains a single one-line quote from a minor official. There's no there there. --Jayron32 16:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Seeking" an alliance vs. "obtaining" an alliance. I am seeking millions of dollars in the lottery this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What is this, Diplomacy?--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 18 April 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.

[Closed] Remove Battle of Mosul from OngoingEdit

This is about to roll off the ITN page. There is no consensus to remove this at present. BencherliteTalk 09:33, 25 April 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: Battle of Mosul (2016–17) (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: This has been in Ongoing for weeks (months?), and while it is being updated regularly and the battle is not concluded, I do not see it at all in most news sources and the story has seeming moved on to other fronts. When I dig, the news reports that I do find concern events which fall far below the notability threshold. For what reason should this ongoing-yet-unreported article remain on the front page?
  • Pull - No longer newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How often is it being updated? Abductive (reasoning) 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a paragraph per day of solid and well-referenced text being added to this article. It's really a fantastic document, and as long as it is still growing, I see no reason to pull it. It is still continuously being updated, and is still a current event. "My newsfeed doesn't cover it" is a rather subjective view of the matter; and indeed the major source of systemic bias everyone complains about, as we base our decisions solely on our personal perspective on the world, which reflects our editorship and readership. Instead, we finally have an article on the main page which is outstanding, and still being updated. I say keep it there. --Jayron32 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Jayron32. My initial reaction was to pull, but it is an ongoing situation, it is consistently in the news – buried at times but consistently there – and as stated the article development is good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. I will comment that I think having day-by-day updated might be a bit too much close to PROSELINE for the article, but it is still being updated and still in the news if not buried in Western papers. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per above. I would love to see Syria and Yemen war added to ongoing but I guess those are not being updated? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
When nominated, people point out that the Syria article is long and overwrought (much like this one) and rife with NPOV issues which are seemingly intractable. The Yemen article is tagged for update since last month, with the last update being on 14 April concerning happenings in March. As nominator, I concede that Battle of Mosul at least is getting updates and is even handed, but I still think it should be pulled. Take a look at the recent updates. They're tactical minutiae. Take a look at the news. On CNN, a human interest piece about what the war means for their own reports, buried; on BBC, <3 minute shakycam footage, buried; on NY Times, nothing; on WaPo, nothing; on LA Times, nothing; Le Mond and El Pais, nothing. On Der Speigel there's an article from 14 April which asserts that the battle is over and what's left is to re-establish education for kids(?). (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd bet people in Mosul are fairly aware of its presence in the News there... --Jayron32 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove with respect to Jayron32, the article is being updated daily with the grim timeline of an ongoing battle. The section is "In the news", not "ongoing crisis", and for better or worse, the Battle of Mosul is not currently "In the news" (at least without searching for it). Two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove I'm not seeing Mosul featuring "in the news" on my major news outlets. It may be updated, but it's not actually in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 22 April 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.

April 17Edit

[Posted] RD: RoseyEdit

Article: Rosey (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sun, The Independent

Nominator's comments: WWE wrestler, GA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Allan HoldsworthEdit

Article: Allan Holdsworth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety Billboard Pitchfork

Nominator's comments: One of the most accomplished progressive rock and jazz fusion guitarists of all time. Known for his work with groups including Soft Machine, Gong, U.K., Bruford, Nucleus, Tempest and his own extensive solo career. Theburlybush (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment A couple of unsourced paragraphs, and the tenses need fixing. I'll see what I can do with that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, a few of us have done quite a bit with it, though any further sourcing for the odd uncontentious sentence would be good. Support. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, pending sourcing of the couple of paragraphs. I'll see if I can help too. An enduring giant of jazz fusion and a great innovator. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. RD's don't get blurbs, even though the description is spot on.
  • Support A hugely important musician. Manning (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 16Edit

[Posted] Turkey referendumEdit

Article: Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Turkey votes in favour of changing the parliamentary system of government to an executive presidency in a constitutional referendum (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Development for Turkey, results will impact its relationship with EU Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support importance. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while the referendum is hyped by the media, the real impact is rather limited, even with a yes vote. Abovesky (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
A yes vote will likely end their chances of joining the EU as the current administration support policies diametrically opposed to EU policies(like the death penalty). That isn't small potatoes - and any nation changing their governmental structure is likely significant. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You know that Turkey's chances of joining the EU are nil, since quite some time? Abovesky (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
And this would completely finish them off, if the yes side wins. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support importance as per StillWaitingForConnection. --LukeSurl t c 10:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per current article quality and importance. I may be biased because I live in the Netherlands, which will be impacted by the result of this referendum as well. Seems like of very clear importance, however. ~Mable (chat) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support quality and notability, blurb will need review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per importance. Apparently 'Yes' vote leads in the referendum. --Saqib (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • BBC reporting yes result: [19] GoldenRing (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very important global event. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pending update Also I see a couple para without any sourcing in them which should be fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggest "Turkey votes narrowly in favor of...." Sca (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
We didn't do that for Brexit (similar proportions). I suspect that if we had it would have been seen as a political comment questioning the validity of the result. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the officially reported result of 51.4% - 48.6%, I fail to see how "narrowly" is anything other than factual, or how its use could be considered POV. Sca (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support somewhat surprised this isn't ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I was seriously considering posting this based on the level of supports, but on examining the article I am seeing significant gaps in referencing. As an Admin I can't post this in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added multiple CN tags to two sections. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that we do not post articles with serious issues to the main page. This has always been understood as including a requirement that any candidate articles are well sourced. I have tagged the two sections for ref improve. Once that is taken care of, absent some other issue that I may have missed, I think we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: I added sources to your CN tag. There was one paragraph, however, that I couldn't find sources for. The language was pretty generic so I'd assume it'll be really hard to find sources for that paragraph. So I removed it. Let me know if you need any other assistance. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty significant news. Brexit, Trump, and now this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very significant geopolitically. (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I was making a final check before posting this, and was about to, but the "Results" section is entirely empty. The article is rock solid otherwise, very extensive and well referenced, but we need something done about the "Results" Section before this goes live. --Jayron32 13:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Just curious, why does the Result section need to be filled out anyways? I think that table provides more than enough information regarding the results. I don't think we can go into too much analysis (if that's what you're looking for) since it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I didn't say it had to be filled out. I said that posting an article with an empty section was an issue. There's more than one way to skin that cat. If you want to comment out the blank tables until such time as they can be filled in, and leave a prose synopsis of preliminary results instead, that would work too. I'm not posting an article with giant empty tables though. --Jayron32 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I strongly agree that we need to wait until the Results-section is properly filled out. ~Mable (chat) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
According to AP, "The state-run Anadolu Agency said the 'yes' side stood at 51.4 percent of the vote, while the 'no' vote saw 48.6 percent support." Ditto BBC. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ironically this is one those times where I think blanking out the breakdown of results just to ensure this gets posted is a good idea. I imagine that it could take days for this data to be formalised, yet the overall result has been announced, job done. I would suggest a practical approach here, comment out the intricate detailed results, post the story, improve the article post-election. Jayron has covered that. Mablestrip has it 100% wrong, it'll take too long, and this won't be ITN. Post the "result" not the "intricate detail". After all, we had to wait a few days to get all of the US election results sanctioned and referenced, but we didn't fail to post Trump did we? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done [20][21]. Maybe someone will want to update the other columns. (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem: Our executive president article is in pretty poor shape, I don't think we should be wiki-linking to it from the top of the main page right now, thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    I've unlinked it for now, any admin may feel free to revert without consultation if you think it is what is best for the readers. — xaosflux Talk 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The link prior is no better. I have started a broader discussion here. Fuebaey (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

April 15Edit

[Posted] 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombingEdit

Article: 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A car bomb terrorist attack near a convoy of buses carrying civilian evacuees from al-Fu'ah and Kafriya kills more than 100 people including 39 kids (Post)
News source(s): [22]

Nominator's comments: The attack was not a usual one because it was amid an agreement brokered by Qatar and Iran for the evacuation of Fu'ah and Kafriya in exchange for the evacuation of residents and rebels in Zabadani and Madaya. 39 children were among the killed people Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is an explosion in a war zone. Could you better explain why it should be singled out for posting to ITN? Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    the question was answered as the "nominator comment".Saff V. (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good faith nom, but sadly not unusual either in terms of where it happened, or number of casualties. Suicide bombings with >100 casualties aren't an everyday occurrence, but they're not particularly unusual. ‑ Iridescent 12:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Is the killing of the women and hungry children usual event?Saff V. (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    I suspect you already know that the answer to that is "yes", given that the conflict in Syria is characterised by indiscriminate attacks on civilians by both sides. It's tragic that something like this is so commonplace as not to be newsworthy, but "bombing in Syria" falls into the same category as "mass shooting in the US", where unless there's something especially out of the ordinary about any given event our default position is not to feature it. ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to support in principle, in light of the Pope singling this incident out in today's Urbi et Orbi message which will give this particular attack greatly increased prominence compared to others, including among people who don't normally take an interest in the Syrian civil war. Only "in principle", as the article needs quite a bit of cleanup. ‑ Iridescent 12:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A tragic event, but not unusual for a war zone. The Pope likely mentioned it since it just happened, but that doesn't change the nature of this event. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    331dot: Is massacre of civilians, i.e. non-belligerents, most of them women and children amid the talks usual? --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Such numbers of civilian deaths is notable, regardless of the warzone, since they were not belligerents and especially since the Syrian Civil War is not an Ongoing item. Besides, Khan Shaykhun chemical attack was posted. Brandmeistertalk 14:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Brandmeister. – Sca (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I would not call this a usual event specially that it happened amid the agreements between the governments and rebels. --Mhhossein talk 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to improvement. High-casualty attacks targeting civilians are, unfortunately, not unusual for this civil war. What is unusual is such a high-casualty attack on civilians being evacuated as part of the "four towns" deal negotiated between opposing sides in the conflict and (some of) their international backers (Iran and Qatar, specifically). However, the article is far from beign ready to post in its current state. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral on whether it should be posted, but if it is please use "children" rather than "kids" in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support big story within a big conflict. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on principle but oppose on quality. I agree with others that these being attacked on evacuating civilians is not normal in a war, and thus appropriate to post. but the article is woefully short on details that explain why these civilians were being evacuating. A paragraph to explain that there was an agreed-on evacuation of civilians from the area and the attack was against the convey evacuating them is necessary to give context. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted – Civilian target makes this more notable (read: atrocious) than it would be otherwise. There's just enough content in the article for it to be posted. Other admins: feel free to tweak posted blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb - add image?] Emma MoranoEdit

Article: Emma Morano (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Emma Morano, the last person living person born before 1900, dies at the age of 117. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 1800s, dies at the age of 117.

Nominator's comments: Oldest living person, also the last living person born before 1900. The article is in a good shape. Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb given that she derives notability from oldest being the oldest person, and given that the blurb would be slightly more interesting than comparable "oldest people die" blurbs. Have proposed one. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have corrected the blurb. 1900 is in the 19th century and there are still people alive born in that year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, prefer altblurb II (the article on the century is also titled 19th century). The death of the last person born in the 19th century is an extraordinary event that deserves to be commemorated. --Tataral (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Except that as I just pointed out, she is NOT the last person born in the 19th century. Violet Brown was born in March 1900.Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Definitely: it is surprisingly common to see these mistakes. I have removed the incorrect blurb to avoid confusion. (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources consider her the last person to have been born in the 19th century.[23][24][25] I don't think a person born in 1900 would be commonly considered to have been born in the 19th century as the term is usually used by reliable sources. For example, the current century/millennium is overwhelmingly considered to have begun on 1 January 2000, while only "purists" claim it only began a year later, as the article New Millennium notes. For our purposes, based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century. --Tataral (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The examples you give are sloppy journalism. It is a very common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. We cannot put "19th century" in the blurb when our our own article begins, "The 19th century (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1900)..." Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes groups that should know better do stupid things. We aren't going to repeat them here. The article you linked to is quite dreadful: look at 3rd millennium or similar articles for proper examples. I have removed the incorrect blurb: please do not add it again. Edit: you can also check MOS:CENTURY. (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Do not change blurb alternatives that people have commented on, thereby misrepresenting their comments. Add your own blurb alternatives after the existing ones. --Tataral (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No, we are going to remove blurbs that are wrong or misleading: we are not here to waste other people's time. (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only I don't find this to be significant enough for a blurb. Talk of the "end of an era" is over the top cruft on the part of Wiki editors and journalists alike. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only Arbitrary set point about the last known living person born in the 19th century, given the problems we have had with blurbs lately. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only. Very old person dies of natural causes is not blurb worthy. If they were significantly the oldest person ever then there might be some justification for a blurb, or if they were notable for reasons other than being old, then a blurb might be appropriate but I see neither here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Request RD posting now with further discussion on blurb - article seems there quality wise so no reason to delay RD. Premature to judge on whether a consensus for a blurb will emerge or not. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt An event that comes once a century. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this is headline news worldwide, precisely because she was the last born in the 1800s. It's more than just a run-of-the-mill olddar person death. For people who lived when there were many such this is a seminal moment. Please don't say 19th century, though. It absolutely is not that.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only. "Elderly person dies of natural causes" is exactly what RD was intended for. ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Also note that this is the last person known to have been born before 1900. A random person born somewhere on Earth at that time would have a rather low probability of having a verifiable birth certificate such that in the event that person would survive till today, we could verify that this person was indeed born before 1900. So, statistically it's rather unlikely that there are now no longer any persons alive who were born before 1900. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only. Not the last person born in the 19th century (based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century - guh?). Even then I wouldn't support a blurb, it's just an old person dying. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. This isn't notable because it is the oldest person dying(which isn't typically received well here) it is notable because this was the last person from the 1800s(though not the 19th century, as stated). Unlike just being the oldest, this is a notable benchmark. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • It's an arbitrary cut point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Arbitrary so far as it's based on the calendar used by most of this planet's population and indicates a loss of connection to a period in history. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Still arbitrary. Something like "last WW2 veteran" is concrete and meaningful. This woman was alive for about 40 days of the 1800s. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
          • Doesn't matter if it's 40 days, it's still 1800s. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
            • But it still doesn't matter because "1899" is just a number without any greater meaning. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD for the time being whilsut discussion continues on whether to post a blurb. (I don't have any strong feelings either way, personally). Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb When Kimura died he got a full blurb. If Morano had been a man the blurb would've been posted at least 6 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Jiroemon Kimura was the oldest verified man ever, which is significantly different to this case. I'm also not sure exactly when the recent deaths section began, but it is possible that Kimura's death in 2013 predated it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, trivia. Abductive (reasoning) 06:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, deserves to be on the main page. Article is in a very good shape. - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb ALT3, which is correct. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think everyone reading alt1 would understand that 1800s means the century and not the decade. She cannot be 207 to 217 years old (1809-2017). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ALT3 – This edges on DYK-style quirkiness, but I believe enough people worldwide have a strong interest in this kind of news for it to be worth a proper blurb. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Although the notability of Morano's death does primarily lie with the fact that she was the last known person born in the 1800s, she is also remarkable among the category of supercentenarians. She was the fifth oldest person ever, and the oldest person to have lived during the 21st century. It is exceedingly rare to achieve the age of 117 (she was the sixth), and she is the first person ever to have passed the title of 'oldest living person' to another 117 year old, Violet Brown. Brown's birthday was in March; the past month has been only the second time in history that there have been two living peopled aged 117 or older (this last occurred in 1992/93). As to Morano herself, besides her longevity records, she is also notable in that she maintained her health and faculties until the end. She was still living in her own apartment when she died, and not a retirement facility.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a lot of information, but none of it boils down to "very old person died of natural causes, other very old people still alive." I remain entirely unconvinced that this is blurb worthy. She wasn't the oldest person ever, so that's a strike against notability. Being the last person from an arbitrary time period and being the oldest person in another arbitrary time period is not notability either (just arbitrary). The next-oldest person being the same arbitrary age (only when the precision is 1 year) is also not notability but coincidence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Somewhat trivial. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb - it is "somewhat trivial" but it's also a general interest story that's likely to be interesting to everyone, everywhere around the world. Banedon (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – As last born in 19th C., Emma is a milestone, and her article is well illustrated with pix of her at (apparently) age 1 and at age 117, as well as several others. (Lake Maggiore must be a very healthful place.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
PS: She's on the main pages of at least nine European Wikis. Sca (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
She's on the mainpage of the English Wiki too. As RD, as it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, don't compare us to the other Euro-Wikis, they're junkyards of BLP violations. Why Sca continues to refer to them as a comparison of what is and what isn't posted is bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
These supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant. You've expressed your view many times. I request that we agree to disagree and drop the issue. Sca (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb per consensus (appx 2:1 in favor). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ad Orientem: Consensus is not determined by counting noses but by assessing the arguments presented. I'm not at all sure how you could do that and say there is consensus in favour of a blurb? I know I'm biased here, but I'd put it in the grey area between no consensus and consensus against - most support votes have not attempted to address the points against. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf As I read the arguments the opposes boil down to "this is trivial" and the supports argue that it is significant news from the perspective of history and has received extensive news coverage. I think ignoring a 2:1 majority would demand an exceptional policy or guideline based rational which in this case does not exist. Both sides are essentially looking at the same thing and seeing different levels of importance which is unfortunately highly subjective. FTR my own opinion leans a bit towards oppose, but not strongly. It seems like a good human interest story to me but clearly most of the participating editors disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the new approach for RDs that assure posting (as long as quality is there), and many many recent cases of questionable blurbs that were posted, blurbs about people's deaths should be more than a majority, it should approach near unanimous approval (ignoring the "i don't like it"-type opposes). RD can be assured being posted, so it's not about not covering a person's death, but dedicating a blurb line to it requires a much higher approval bar for it, which this didn't meet. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is an opinion. And for the record it sounds like a good idea, but at present it doesn't exist in any guideline or policy that I am aware of. I do not believe that my prerogative as an Admin extends to rejecting a solid consensus without some policy/guideline position to cite. If you want to suggest this as an amendment to our existing guidelines, I believe that would make for an interesting discussion. But at the moment what we have is a strong (if not overwhelming) consensus, and for now that is all I have to go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding image for Morano as the one of Garcia has been up for several days now, and there are a few pics of Morano on her article page to choose from. MurielMary (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] April the giraffe gives birthEdit

Closed per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:18, 15 April 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: April (giraffe) (talk, history)
Blurb: April the giraffe gives birth. (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Nominator's comments: Such a cute story! It's making the news and social media everywhere. WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good faith nomination but this is really not ITN material. --Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
On what grounds?--WaltCip (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kardashians also make the "news" and social media. They're of similar significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was a case of an near extinct species, with less than a dozen left, this might be something, but no. We don't run "feel good" stories even if they are widely covered. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose good faith nomination, but this is ridiculous. Honestly the article looks like a good candidate for AfD as it fails NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and massively fails the WP:10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I realise I'm sticking my neck out here. But surely at least preferable to the MOAG (Mother Of All Giraffes)?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it rare for giraffes to give birth in captivity? I don't see much reason to post this otherwise.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, shucks. nonsense on stilts again? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have implicit significance thresholds and it's obvious this doesn't make the grade. --LukeSurl t c 20:37, 15 April 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: Mashal KhanEdit

Article: Mashal Khan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, DW, Al Jazeera, Reuters

Nominator's comments: This is late nomination but this murder of a student over allegations of posting blasphemous content online is getting enormous press coverage from across the world so I wonder if this could be a possible RD candidate here? Saqib (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The death was on 13 April, and it was first reported on that date so this nomination should probably be moved to that section. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD The article could do with a copyedit by a native speaker (I don't have time) as some of the grammar is a little off ("he was then throw from..."), but the main objection is that the article is really about the incident not about the person (there is barely a full sentence of biography unrelated to his death), so if it were to be featured I think it would be better as a blurb than as an RD item. I'm undecided whether I'd support a blurb or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD per WP:IAR. Article's creation appears to be as a result of the incident itself rather than any notability of the person involved.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I've requested the page be moved to Death of Mashal Khan. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Now that the page move has gone ahead I don't think this is a suitable RD candidate - article is about the event not the person.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 14Edit

Syria evacuationsEdit

Article: 2015 Zabadani cease-fire agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thousands people were evacuated from besieged towns of Zabadani, Madaya, Fouaa and Kefraya according to agreement brokered by Qatar and Iran. (Post)
News source(s): (Al Jazeera English), (BBC), ABC news,(DW), (The Guardian), (Press TV) ect..

 Jenda H. (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose, by definition, a ceasefire is something not happening. Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm confused, the article is about a ceasefire, yet the blurb is all about it not being observed. The article doesn't seem to cover that at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One line in the whole article. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Close or Pull - 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing is sadly more relevant now. --Jenda H. (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 13Edit

RD: Robert TaylorEdit

Article: Robert Taylor (computer scientist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There's a few gaps in sourcing but it's not too far away from being at ITN quality. MASEM (t) 18:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Article fairly decent for RD. --Bagoto (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I added all remaining reference for the Awards section. (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there anything specifically holding this nom back? A single, autobiographical interview is used as source for large parts of the article (ref. 12). A spot check reveals that it supports the few points that I looked into (early life, some quotes). Seems to be a very good article for an impactful individual. (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RD: Dan RooneyEdit

Article: Dan Rooney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today

Nominator's comments: Football, politics, legacy. Thechased (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[Reopened] US MOAB bombing in AfghanistanEdit

Article: April 2017 Nangarhar airstrike (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US detonates the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, the largest non-nuclear bomb in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. Marking the first time the bomb has been used in combat. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, the largest non-nuclear bomb, is used for the first time as part of the War in Afghanistan.
Alternative blurb II: ​The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, the largest non-nuclear bomb utilized in combat to-date, is used for the first time as part of the War in Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC, Telegraph, CNN

Nominator's comments: Breaking news of the MOAB bomb (nicknamed 'mother of all bombs') being used in combat in Afghanistan. This is the first time such a large non-nuclear bomb has been used in such a manner and could mark the beginning of more bombings. Since it is so recent, I expect stories to develop and perhaps even an article dedicated to this single event due to the severity of it. Yet, it is a big event and should be reported on the main page. User:Ravivyas16 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Essentially Pentagon military propaganda.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, I am smiling as I type, but that's like saying the mailman's brought a delivery when he drives through your door. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what purpose does declaring that you just dropped the so-called "world's largest non-nuclear bomb" in combat serve?--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Just after you've admitted to yet another friendly fire incident..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
And on the heels of threatening North Korea with warships.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose interesting piece of trivia, better suited for a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the magnitude suggests this is a big attack, and certainly something more then Pentagon propaganda. Mar4d (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's the first time this bomb was used. This is pretty big news. Trump's not messing around. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment curious how this news broke just hours after the April 2017 Tabqa air raid was reported... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is the world's most powerful detonation of a conventional weapon, and the first of its kind. If we dropped the next level up it would unquestionably be on the Main Page; I have to think this (and any other use of the Big Blu arsenal) holds close enough notability to be mentioned as well. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • According to The Guardian a larger bomb (the GBU-57) exists, but remains unused in war. Blurb needs to be careful to be accurate. --LukeSurl t c 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Apologies. As the news was so recent, the blurb may have lacked accuracy. The argument still stands though, it is the largest of its kind ever used in combat. It brings with it a set of implications that paint a very bleak picture of the Afghan conflict, alongside other current conflicts ending soon. It is also the first large scale weapon used in a long time, possibly since the Cold War. It is a very important event that is sure to have consequences in American domestic, as well as International affairs. --User:Ravivyas16 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia, FOAB is four times larger... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support First, TRM the claim is that's it's the biggest ever used. But also, it's a first, and has a pre-standing article. It's on the front page of overy website in the world. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not reading that in either blurb I'm afraid, maybe it's an ENGVAR thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    I wasn't gathering that it was the largest used either, so I've suggested a more accurate blurb to clarify this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as propaganda, for now. Unless a high-priority target was killed, or there's massive backlash for the use of this weapon, there's nothing particularly notable about a bomb being dropped during a war. It was used to collapse a tunnel complex to "maintain the [United States'] momentum" as far as I can tell. The "largest non-nuclear bomb ever used" line makes for great headlines though and the media is having a field day with it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A widely covered development in warfare/weapons, with a decent article. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Take that, tree-huggers! Holding hands and forming drum circles doesn't work. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
PROJECTILE, n. The final arbiter in international disputes. – Ambrose BierceSca (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. It's notable as a thermobaric bomb but the size as "largest non-nuclear bomb ever used" is silly. The cruise missile strike earlier this week had the cruise missiles in a holding pattern until they could be detonated simultaneously. It was 60,000 pounds total (1,000 lbs each). Even the weight is not clear as ordnance is often expressed as TNT equivalent for comparison purposes. It's not really a big event and it's use can be both psychological as well as tactical. It's not an escalation as it's about the explosive equivalent of 10 iron dumb bombs which isn't newsworthy. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - could be persuaded either way here. Would be interested in the explosive power compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nukes nowadays are orders of magnitude more powerful), can see the argument that this is effectively the largest weapon that could be launched without causing a world war, ending a world war, or ending civilisation. On the other hand, there's the argument that this is just an arbitrary threshold and that we've known for at least 14 years that this weapon was available and was simply a bigger version of what already existed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • For comparison, the MOAB is 10 tons. The atomic bomb dropped on Japan was 20,000 tons. Modern hydrogen bombs are 20,000,000 tons of equivalent TNT or more. What makes the MOAB interesting is the percussive effect of having the fuel-air mixture ignite all at once as a detonation and the effect it has on confined spaces like tunnels as the pressure wave moves through it. They are used for a particular purpose like the Daisy cutter used in Vietnam. It too is a large single explosive second to the MOAB in conventional munitions. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Wait at least until results are independently reported. Re "the largest non-nuclear bomb," as TRM notes above, our own article says Russia claims to have a much bigger – or at least 'better' – bomb (of course). Sca (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In what respect do the sources used above not amount to the claim being "independently reported"? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, reporting has been based on official sources. For example, AP, the MOANA (Mother of All News Agencies), attributes it thus: "Pentagon officials said." Sca (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the blurb(s) should be changed to describe the bomb as the most powerful non-nuclear device in the U.S. arsenal, or something to that effect, as most sources don't say it's the largest/most powerful such bomb in the world. E.g. Wired says "The GBU-43, known as Moab—short for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or, colloquially, Mother of All Bombs—is the largest non-nuclear, non-penetrating bomb in the US arsenal." [26] Also, are oppose !voters here expecting us to believe that the Pentagon might fabricate an attack like this? Everymorning (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    No, I personally expect the Pentagon to release this information to dwarf the friendly fire attack in Syria's coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the Pentagon dropped the MOAB. The issue is that the "largest non-nuclear, non-penetrating bomb in the US arsenal" is good for being scarily worded but it's a bit like being the largest dog in the toy group. The Mk-82 dumb iron bomb is 1 ton. The MOAB is 10 tons. If the Pentagon said they dropped 10 bombs from F/A-18's, no one would blink. By contrast, the atomic bomb dropped on Japan is 20,000 tons and the hydrogen bombs 20,000,000 tons. Comparing the MOAB to a nuclear weapon is silly and the purpose is along "shock and awe" propaganda by trying to impress fear that something has changed when in fact it hasn't. Tactically, it was the right weapon for caves; strategically the press release is intended to intimidate rather than inform. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment interestingly the BBC report here notes that not only is it not the largest in the US arsenal, nor anywhere near the largest in the world, it's only a mere 30% larger than the BLU-82, several of which were used decades ago. So it's an incremental change which is truly insignificant in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – because the blurb is inaccurate, and because it lacks clarity and specificity. Even the nominator admits (quote) "the blurb may have lacked accuracy." Also, I don't find the target article especially helpful in clarifying how or why this is the "largest non-nuclear" bomb ever used? What metric is being used to make that determination? And who decided that this is the "scale" that should be used, instead of another metric? Where are the dependable and useful citations, in the article itself, confirming these things? Christian Roess (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is US action going on to combat IS forces in Afghanistan they just happened to pull a larger weapon off the rack for this one type. Given the questions related to its superlative-ness, I don't think this is really appropriate ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hatted IP trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support because I support ISIS. Show the world how evil US is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine air strike, which happened to use a very large bomb - possibly for PR purposes. This event probably isn't notable in isolation, much less worthy of appearing on the front page. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Somebody droppoed a bomb in Afghanistan; hardly the least common of occurences. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I accept the way this discussion is going but stating this device is just "a bomb" would be like calling the Mona Lisa just "a painting". This is no ordinary bomb. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no substantive evidence on what sort of impact this device has other than it's just a very big bomb. If, as mentioned above, it was used against a high-profile target, or its use resulted in many hundreds of civilian or military casualties, that might be newsworthy. As it is, the Pentagon declaring that it just used a very big bomb serves no other purpose than as a McNamara-esque military press release.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition we risk running into "benchmarkitis". Historically, ITN has declined stories that state that the Dow Jones Industrial Average or Hang Seng Index or other market indicators have hit record highs. Relatively speaking, this new bomb is just another benchmark. I would not put it past the military to develop, test, and use an even bigger bomb in the not-so-distant future. Would we post that? Similarly, would we post the development of new fighter jets or hydrogen bombs? There needs to be some sanity here.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know. It depends on the news coverage. I guess we should tell the media all of this and that they made a mistake in running this as a top news story. I think posting would help readers learn more about it, which is one of the purposes of ITN. However, I concede it probably will not be. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I like to think that the purpose of ITN is to provide a level of oversight on the day-to-day media news cycle, and not to just post everything the private news corps spew out.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between copying what the media does (which we should not do) and responding to what readers might be interested in due to what they see in the media, especially when there is a decent article on the subject. I do appreciate your views on this matter. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My concern is specifically comparing this conventional bomb with nuclear weapons. I've already found errors in the news as they try to pump up the size of it. One fact box had the MOAB at 10 tons and the WWII atomic bombs at 15 tons. That underestimates the atomic bomb by 3 orders of magnitude and apparently missed the "kilo" in front (20,000 tons). Comparing the MOAB to nuclear weapons creates a gross misconception about its yield. I don't mind including the strike as a news item but we should not perpetuate a comparison to nuclear weapons. They aren't close. --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, not even close to the atomic weapons used in 1945 let alone the weapons currently held in the US arsenal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Changing vote because death toll of 36 – ostensibly all members of so-called IS – is prominently reported by most mainstream news outlets (AP, BBC, NYT, Guardian and Spiegel among them). Even though they quote either U.S. or Afghani official statements, such widespread coverage qualifies the topic for ITN. Sca (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: because it's YUGE and because it may signal a resumption of major U.S. military activities in Afghanistan. pbp 20:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The attack was a continuation of long-running US activities in the country. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, 2017 in Afghanistan indicates that there was no "resumption", merely a continuation. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Shame This is the third largest wartime explosin in world history, and the largest in 70 years. It has been headline news worldwide since it occured, yet we have no direct link to it on our front page. The opposition is entirely (a bomb is compared with a missive) and an entire disservice to our readers. Post this immediately. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not the third largest explosion in world history. Not even close. Many ships in WWII sunk when a bomb hit their magazine. Any ammo dump has more explosives and plenty have been destroyed during war. The cruise missile attack earlier this week had 3x more explosives than the MOAB. --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Problem is, news outlets who are propaganda mongering aren't reporting the actual truth or fact behind this. It's easy to get carried away with "big bomb!" but realistically, it's not actually of much encyclopedic value even if it was the third biggest explosion in wartime (which we know it's not). This is just another big bang. Bombs go off all the time, around the world, killing many more than this MOAB, with much less force. Who cares about this one just because it's got a sexy name and it's American? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
If it were British, would that be different? Sca (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If it were British, it wouldn't even be noticed—it's multiple orders of magnitude behind the largest British non-nuclear military explosion (3200t), which itself doesn't even get its own article. Despite the US military's hype, this is really not a big deal—as has already been pointed out above, this wasn't even the biggest explosion this week. ‑ Iridescent 00:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Re-Opening discussion per a request on my talk page. I remain highly skeptical about the likelihood of reaching consensus but the number of estimated casualties has risen sharply and this remains rather prominently "In the News." So let's give it another day and see if any consensus can be reached. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 • In my view, continuing to exclude the 2017 Nangarhar airstrike from ITN is not reasonable when it remains a prominent topic on mainstream news outlets and the death toll, according to Afghani officials, has risen to more than 90. Sca (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose per RM and Nick-D. Being prominent on mainstream news is not the same as meeting our requirements here at ITN. -- Shudde talk 15:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since I haven't actually done so explicitly and someone has seen fit to re-open this. This is not a big deal but just the Pentagon trying to make it sound like they're doing more than they are—as already pointed out, this is not even the biggest US bombing this week, let alone in history. On a brief skim of assorted non-US news sites, this is not on the front page of any of them—even TASS, which usually wastes no time in seizing any opportunity to paint the US as warmongers who massively overreact militarily, is ignoring it. ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention RT. – Sca (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This single event is important in that it is an act of aggression and a symbol of American dominance [27], and its consequences [28]. In addition, the death toll has also risen to a significant amount [29], including international Daesh members [30]. Also, it seems quite hypocritical for ITN to show the imprisonment of an Indian in Pakistan, which just supports the already sour relationship between the two nations (and isn't that significant of a news story since it mainly concerns two countries), yet we are debating this large event that not only affects the USA and Afghanistan, but as aforementioned, leads to an international discourse.- User:Ravivyas16

 • Here's another example. Sca (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: This has received major media attention from pretty much every outlet, and the death toll is now believed to be 94 -- a large number.[31] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed: Posted to RD] Sheila Abdus-SalaamEdit

Posted to RD; no consensus for blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 16 April 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: Sheila Abdus-Salaam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: New York Supreme Court judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam is found dead in the Hudson River. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not Opposed to blurb, given the nature of the death, and not the name itself will inform more readers.
  • Not Opposed to blurb per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD / Oppose blurb for now. If this turns out to be something other than an accident or suicide I may reconsider my opposition to a blurb but right now no one really knows. I don't think she is sufficiently important to justify a blurb otherwise. Note that we are discussing a state judge, not Federal or US Supreme Court justice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb just for the avoidance of doubt. Initial reports show no indication at all of foul play, so while it's tragic, it's just one of those things. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD / Oppose blurb per Ad Orientem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD. Blurb discussion may continue if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Associate judge seems like a minor role to me?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
She was on the highest court in the state of New York, the New York Court of Appeals (the proposed blurb links, wrongly, to the New York Supreme Court which is, confusingly, the trial court level in that state). It's not minor, but it's still only state level and not federal level.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a possible AFD to me. Not even a full judge, an associate judge apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Judges of the highest courts of states are considered notable. And all the judges of the New York Court of Appeals, other than the Chief Judge, have the title "Associate Judge"; describing her as "[n]ot even a full judge" would be inaccurate and inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: AFD? Really? Ignoring any specific guidelines, there are enough references in the article for the article to pass GNG. pbp 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I usually lean towards a blurb where the circumstances of death are a bigger story than the notability of the deceased. But for me this doesn't extend to cases where some of the most plausible causes, whilst tragic, are not out of the ordinary. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest support for blurb notable. (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb On what level does this even compare to Bowie or Mandela? People want to claim notability due to race and perceived religion? LordAtlas (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Local politician, apparently no foul play according to reports. While a sad case, countless local politicians and even MP's die around the world, and it is simply impractical to post them all. EternalNomad (talk) 06:14, 14 April 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.

April 12Edit

RD: Charlie MurphyEdit

Article: Charlie Murphy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [32][33]

Nominator's comments: He's with Rick James and Prince now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support No obvious issues with the article. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose typically lazy article about actor, filmography unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only one reference in the entire filmography section. Reach Out to the Truth 14:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 11Edit

2017 Tabqa air raidEdit

Article: April 2017 Tabqa air raid (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A United States led coalition airstrike intended to kill ISIS soldiers kills 18 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Airstrike intended for an ISIS fighting area which ended up killing 18 Syrian Democratic Forces members (who are on the side of the US). The reports of the airstrike just came out today but it happened on April 11. Andise1 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stub (although not marked as one), and in all honesty, I'd be surprised if this can sustain its own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Tragically, this friendly fire incident amounts to one line in a larger encyclopedia article on the Syrian conflict, and somebody might be able to make three sentences out of it in a multi-volume series on the Syrian Civil War. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: J. GeilsEdit

Article: J. Geils (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC

 —MBlaze Lightning T 11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support article seems ready to go in terms of sourcing and update. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. Gaps in coverage or insufficient depth. Article is very brief on his career as a member of the The J. Geils Band; is it possible to incorporate some information from that article? For example, the first 10 years of the band is covered in a single sentence in his biography, while there's four paragraphs in the Band article covering that. While it's not that the info should be copy-pasted, surely there is more to say about Geils than the 4 sentences currently there along the lines of "band founded. has music in X, Y and Z genres. has number 1 album. band has drama and breaks up." SpencerT♦C 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree: per WP:SS, I don't expect to see a big huge discourse on the Band on the page about the person. If the band did have any notable achievements, those should be summarized here, but they didn't. Could there be more about him overall? Sure, but it's not gaps of information missing, just short and wouldn't immediately pass any GA standards, but fine for RD. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I did a little tidying up of the article's organization and added a few additional references. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 15:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until maintenance tag addressed and dab category of German Americans is resolved. I'm okay with the depth of coverage to a degree, a lot more is covered in the band article I suppose. It's above start class, so would scrape by. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    I've expanded the lead and removed the category. Is there anything else you think could be done in short order? --Jayron32 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nah, shove it up there, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is on the short side but seems adequate for ITN.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Malala YousafzaiEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:15, 12 April 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: Malala Yousafzai (talk, history)
Blurb: Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai (pictured) becomes the youngest person ever to be named a United Nations Messenger of Peace. (Post)
News source(s): BBC TIME Sydney Morning Herald Hindustan Times Khaleej Times Times of Oman

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The development gained wide international news coverage. mfarazbaig 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although this individual is notable in her own right, we do not tend to post U.N. Messengers of Peace on ITN; as an honorary role it does not seem to have a great deal of widespread notability.--WaltCip (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Walt. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good for her but the event is not notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Walt. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not an important post. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 12 April 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.

[Re-opened and re-closed] United Airlines Flight IncidentEdit

Closing for a second time. Still no consensus to post --Jayron32 14:57, 12 April 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: United Express Flight 3411 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Parent company United Airlines suffers a major drop in its share price following the fallout of an incident on board United Express Flight 3411 (aircraft pictured) (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: This has just blown up with news and opinions being provided worldwide Sherenk1 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: with respect, that is not a reason to oppose. Sure, it won't be posted whilst the AfD discussion is running. If the article is not deleted via AfD, then it is considered on the merits of the event, article quality etc. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
But it is a valid reason for WP:ITNRD? That seems to be contradictory.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Snow close. No, no, no, no, god no.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like this event may have lasting significance after all, and the AFD is trending towards a fairly decisive keep. So I think we may need to revisit this nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Would still say oppose. I mean, what the blurb be? "Airport police injure a man removing him from an overbooked plane"? If we did what the German Wikipedia does, and had a few links to articles about more minor but interesting news stories, this would be a nice fit there, but as it stands I don't see how this can be posted. Smurrayinchester 12:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly in this context it makes sense for it to be ongoing, since the incident is now only part of the news - the global reaction and PR damage control are what is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major PR disaster for United and Oscar Munoz. In the news worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Presumably not that one. But hang on Mj, no need to get too upset about it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
LOL, of course, it's Oscar Muñoz (executive). Mjroots (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We're giving into media sensationalism that feeds well on stories of large commercial entities getting their comeuppance against the average joe. Yes, there are several questions that United needs to address, this isn't going to disappear for them quickly, but until new FAA regulations are passed that significantly alter how airlines are allowed to overbook (Which is the most likely result), there's nothing here, and even that endpoint is not ITN-worthy posting. This is the type of news we (WP) need to avoid per RECENTISM and absolutely should not be on the front page. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Masem. Aside from that article still being under AfD procedurally, I don't recall posting price changes after any incident, let alone this one. They got what they deserved, but this better suits Financial Times or Investopedia. If there were more significant consequences, like court rulings, then maybe. Brandmeistertalk 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not of much significance. A guy was yanked off a plane and it was understandably a bad look for the company. Not really an ITN-worthy event. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Minimal if any lasting impact. Better suited for DYK. SpencerT♦C 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That would make for a rather questionable DYK posting. "Did you know that on United Express Flight 3411, a doctor was savagely beaten by Chicago Police for refusing to vacate an overbooked flight?"--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@WaltCip: the Chicago Police were not involved. It was the Chicago Department of Aviation Police. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a few people are talking about it over here (in the US) but it's just one of those things. I like the DYK idea, although sympathise with Walt's example hook, I'm sure a different, less questionable hook could be derived... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Another over-hyped story of little significance, except perhaps for UAL stock. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 12 April 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.

April 10Edit

Chechnya concentration campsEdit

Article: Gay concentration camps in Chechnya (talk, history)
Blurb: A violent crackdown on homosexuality in Chechnya sees at least 3 killed and 100 imprisoned. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Human rights groups report Chechnya has imprisoned over 100 gay men in a concentration camp.
News source(s): BBC, IB Times, NZ Herald

Nominator's comments: Reports of arrests have been gradually developing for a month, but the tipping point for Western media - the discovery of the concentration camp - was on 10 April. Per the NZ Herald and other papers, it's the first concentration camp system for homosexuality since the Holocaust. Amnesty, who I guess would be the more reliable source, prefers the wording "secret detention site" to "concentration camp". This may be splitting hairs, but I'll rewrite the blurb. Smurrayinchester 10:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also become an issue in the 2017 French presidential election, with Jean-Luc Melenchon, Benoit Hamon and Emmanuel Macron criticising Chechnya for it. Time to create a separate artice?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Now also condemned by Boris Johnson, the UK Foreign Secretary...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 3 deaths in a protest like this, alas, is no longer news in this world. Brandmeistertalk 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with a protest, it's police and security forces rounding up and arresting men and sending them to a torture camp. Smurrayinchester 13:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The event appears to have happened in March when these people were imprisoned, the "news" only being a larger reporting of it. This would make this stale. However, I would be open if the protests planned for April 11 were large enough in scale to be a blurb something like "Protests against the Chechnian imprisonment and torture of over 100 LBGT men are held in X, Y, and Z. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Amnesty International isn’t able to independently verify the allegations made by Novaya Gazeta" would be the deal breaker for me. My bar for inclusion tends to include multiple references rather than claims made by one newspaper (and the rest of the media using it as a sole source). Fuebaey (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • There are multiple sources (article cites Human Rights Watch and Russian LGBT Network). According to the US State Dept "there have been numerous credible reports indicating the detention of at least 100 men on the basis of their sexual orientation". Smurrayinchester 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Technically, two. Even if you were to take those initial reports (4 April and 1 April), like Masem said, it is stale. That it is blowing up now unfortunately shows how slow Western media is in non-native English speaking countries. I'll also take note that the political response is somewhat muted; we have general condemnation of sexual discrimination and calls for investigations, but not an outcry like in the Syrian scenario last week or even the United Airlines flight a few days ago. Fuebaey (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Amnesty International started a petition on their website.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support coverage is rather scattered but I'd guess that's because of western bias (per Fuebaey), not lack of significance. Still only weak support though, since the coverage only quotes activists, implying that the ordinary Chechens don't care (wouldn't be surprising, given attitudes towards LGBT in Chechenya). Banedon (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There are multiple quality sources now covering this story and the resultant protests. Persecutions in a concentration camp on the borders of Europe have to be slightly more important than the regular reoccurrence of a golf tournament. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the article indicates that this news story was "confirmed" by the US on 7 April, six days ago, rendering this almost stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The reactions are not stale, so we could simply change the blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well yes, that's apparent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This is an ongoing story as opposed to the Stockholm and Syrian airbase attacks both of which are more than a week old. Let's post it now. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well if that's what you believe, we have Ongoing for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
A blurb seems appropriate. Here's another article about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We don't need a new blurb, and we don't reset the clock on existing blurbs just because another story is published. This was reported on 7 April, i.e. a week ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's in the news worldwide, with protests and reactions everywhere. If the policy works against us, we need to be strategic and make it work for our readers.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I know how ITN works, thanks. This isn't in the news in the same way that, say, the MOAB, is. It's off the mainstream by a long way. It may come back, or you may wish to nominate this as ongoing, but as a blurb, it's stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Please look up "Chechnya" on Google News.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I realise you disagree, thanks for your advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Topical and currently making news. El_C 04:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Still in the news. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment a new blurb is needed, this stuff was reported on 1 April. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Reporting is being silenced [34] which is affecting news reports regarding the situation in Chechnya. Considering this has been an ongoing story since April 1 or before, the situation has not concluded other than Putin and Chechian denials. Gmcbjames (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There issues with Talk:Gay concentration camps in Chechnya#Rename, The article is incomplete based on references available and provided.Djflem (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arnold ClarkEdit

Article: Arnold Clark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Britain's first billionaire car dealer Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose seems to be an issue over the use of primary sources (and a few dead ones) that needs to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    Still one reasonably important claim unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Thanks for checking over the article again. I have clarified some of the descriptions and made sure the claim that was tagged is now sourced. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    You're welcome, now we're good to go, I support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec) Article is fairly under-developed, except for the substantial but somewhat spammy section about his company that relies heavily (exclusively?) on primary sources. No biography info between 1959 and 2008 is jarring to say the least. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment - interesting character, but as mentioned no biographical information for half a century. Would support if expanded. Support, I think this is OK to go now. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    I have cleaned the article up. I changed the material about his company to be based on reliable sources, removed the primary sources that were in his biography and expanded details of his earlier life. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It's still not going to win any awards, but recent improvements have brought it up to an acceptable level for main page posting. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kulbhushan YadavEdit

Article: Kulbhushan Yadav (talk, history)
Blurb: Pakistan sentences Indian 'spy' Kulbhushan Yadav to death for operating terrorism ring. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Pakistan sentences former Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Yadav to death for espionage and sabotage.
News source(s): NY Times BBC

The Hindu IBTimes Al Jazeera Huffington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major development resulting in tense relations between the two nuclear armed neighbors, with wide international coverage. mfarazbaig 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's likely that this sentence will not be carried out, what with the related international disaster that would create, but this does have substantial news coverage and the article is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above Sherenk1 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely noteworthy enough. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose first political act of many. May reconsider if there are serious diplomatic repercussions, like the last Syrian story or the NK-Malaysian spat. Fuebaey (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support has continued to generate news, days after the sentencing. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

April 9Edit

[Posted] RD: John Clarke (satirist)Edit

Article: John Clarke (satirist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC

 —MBlaze Lightning T 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose far too much of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note Referencing has improved since yesterday but still lacking for filmography and books. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - All the films and books look referenced now, and I've removed the redlinks. --dmmaus (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support referencing is much better now, just overlinked Stevenson, and linked to a redirect too... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed those issues. --dmmaus (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Good work with the references. SpencerT♦C 11:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carme ChacónEdit

Article: Carme Chacón (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Spanish politician, minister of defence 2008-11. Died of a heart problem aged 46. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose off the bat as the death is not even referenced. The rest is mostly there, one or two other refs missing and some tense problems to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The mention of her death doesn't cite a soorce, which is a major problem. Plus I see a cn tag. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I've addressed all those issues: the death is now sourced to the Guardian article above, one claim has been removed as I couldn't find a source, and all other {{cn}} tags have been sourced. I also did a copyedit. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --Bagoto (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the claim that she suffered from " dextrocardia and a third-degree atrioventricular block." doesn't appear to be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That was added by an IP editor just before your comment. The same IP has now provided a Spanish-language source; I don't speak Spanish so can't check, but have no reason to doubt it. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually it was there when I reviewed the article the first time around. The source used is an interview with her in which she says she has "heart upside down, complete atrial and ventricular block". Whether that translates into "dextrocardia and a third-degree atrioventricular block" I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure what we're waiting for here. All the concerns raised were addressed 36 hours ago. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    Well edits made since my last comment here have significantly improved the concerns, that wasn't 36 hours ago, so the good news is that this is now good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    This has been good to go for many hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] MastersEdit

Article: 2017 Masters Tournament (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Sergio García (pictured) defeats Justin Rose in a playoff to win the Masters Tournament. (Post)
News source(s): Fox Sports, The Independent, SMH

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

Nominator's comments: Last round needs a referenced summary. Image might be a bit dated. Fuebaey (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article seems ready to go. Swordman97 talk to me 01:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs updating to reflect the fact the tournament has concluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As of now, article is sufficiently updated and the problems TRM may have seen look to have been resolved. --Jayron32 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The tables should have row and column headers per MOS:DTAB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Think this one's ready. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Olivier AwardsEdit

Article: 2017 Laurence Olivier Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Harry Potter and the Cursed Child wins best new play and Groundhog Day wins best new musical at the Olivier Awards. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, Hollywood Reporter, Variety

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

Nominator's comments: Reiterating what I wrote last year - I don't think the British equivalent of the Tonys have ever been posted at ITN, but it is on the recurring list anyhow. The play/musical articles are somewhat decent but the awards article is pretty bare bones at the moment; could do with a ceremony summary and references. Fuebaey (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment may wish to include in blurb that Cursed won record number of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It has been nominated before, but the problem is that the article does not get a significant update beyond identifying the winners. We do expect some type of prose around the awarding show (host, any special ceremonies/etc.) and any commentary leading into the awards. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah it's not presently in shape to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Palm Sunday Church BombingsEdit

Article: 2017 Palm Sunday church bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 41 people are killed and 136 injured when two Coptic Orthodox churches are attacked on Palm Sunday by suicide bombers in Egypt. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times and pretty much every major news service.

Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack on Christian churches on Palm Sunday. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Article is sufficient with enough details at this point. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Receiving international coverage; article could use some minor copyediting (and working on that) but for the most part it's in good shape; deadliest day for Christians in Egypt in many years. SpencerT♦C 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above and the numbers are high even for that region. Brandmeistertalk 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – per previous. (See 'talk' note re recent-event template.) Sca (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Normally I would not post my own nomination but as there is no opposition I am treating this as a non-controversial edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    Wow, and you even waited for more than one hour (1h6m!), before you posted your own nomination. Standards are really going down. Abovesky (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    It is oddly fast, but I have no protest. This attack is, of course, much more significant than what happened in Stockholm last week, and the article looks good already. ~Mable (chat) 15:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't bother supporting because it seemed superfluous. This was a fine posting, the article was in shape and the consensus is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    The posting was fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem: I've gotten dinged for WP:INVOLVED here before. I might not post your own nomination again lest you suffer a similar fate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem: the circumstances under which The ed17 has been "dinged" are very different, your actions are beyond dispute and you have nothing to be concerned about. You have not abused your position, many others have, many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment state of emergency was declared. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    If you're looking to modify the blurb, ERRORS is the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 8Edit

Grand NationalEdit

Article: 2017 Grand National (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, One For Arthur wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s): Fox Sports, Reuters, The Scotsman

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

Nominator's comments: Tables and race summary require citations. Fuebaey (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Per MOS:DTAB, it would also be nice to see row headers in the tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    Done, but what's more important is the missing SPs and the trainer/jockey names should sort by surname, i.e. using the {{sortname}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    That and sources in the unreferenced sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: FishmanEdit

Article: Fishman (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Mexican sports site MedioTiempo

Article updated

  MPJ-DK  03:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Real name: José Ángel Nájera Sánchez, not sure if the main page should use real name or common name??

[Posted] RD: Brian MatthewEdit

Article: Brian Matthew (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mirror

Article updated

 —MBlaze Lightning T 13:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been updated now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's hard to imagine the BBC making a bigger faux pas after the recent controversy over Matthew's tenure. Sorry to soapbox. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is why people accuse reliable sources of being fake news.--WaltCip (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, although this seems to have been a genuine mistake. All media outlets can make mistakes, even "really popular" ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - reopened now death has occurred, above in italics copied from earlier discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Significantly unsourced and not ready for posting. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see 5-6 whole paragraphs with no sources at all?  MPJ-DK  03:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — The referencing issues have been dealt with. —MBlaze Lightning T 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ready to me. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 7Edit

[Posted] RD: Peter IsaacsonEdit

Article: Peter Isaacson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Age

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article in very good class and appears to be a very prominent publisher --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support good to go, the article is a GA and deservedly so, and has been suitably updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Marthe GosteliEdit

Closed, older than oldest posted RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:20, 13 April 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.

Nominator's comments: Swiss suffragist, died aged 99. C-class article. MurielMary (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support brief article, almost well referenced, two of the "selected works" have no citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 8 April 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.

[Closed] RD: David GoveEdit

Closed, older than oldest posted RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:20, 13 April 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 Gove (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Pittsburgh WPXI TMZ
Nominator's comments: Former hockey player as well as coach of the Pittsburgh Penguin's ECHL affiliate, Wilkes-Barre Scranton Penguins. Andise1 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this stage. Article is largely classified as a stub although I have just reclassified it as a start according to Wikiproject biography assessment standards. Career statistics and bio sections currently unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not the strongest bio I've ever read and a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 8 April 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.

[Posted] RD: Glenn O'BrienEdit

Article: Glenn O'Brien (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Art News, Vogue

Nominator's comments: Notable figure to Andy Warhol's The Factory, fashion figure and journalist for GQ Magazine and The Rolling Stone --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose some references required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good for this influential voice in contemporary music, arts, and culture.--Bagoto (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A little short but basically looks decent to me. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been good to go for quite some time now (19 hours) so could we post this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(Closed) Neil GorsuchEdit

Enough has been said. No consensus, chiefly opposed. Brandmeistertalk 13:18, 9 April 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: Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the US Supreme Court to replace the seat held by Antonin Scalia. (Post)
News source(s): [36]
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, end of major confirmation battle in Senate. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, Gorsuch's article is fine, but perhaps we should link Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination (which has to be updated but is otherwise close). I do ask to others if the blurb should mention the "nuclear option" that the Senate GOPs had to use to end the Dem's filibuster as that was a point of contention in the news before. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the resolution of this domestic political issue and suggest SNOW close. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I might be a little more receptive to a blurb about the end of the filibuster for nominations, though the Senate has always been able to conduct its business as it sees fit. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, way too US centric. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sir Joseph: From above: "Please don't 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." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It was never a battle and was always going to end in the nuclear option.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we can't be getting down to this level of detail in one country's politics. ---LukeSurl t c 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The conservatives now gain a Supreme Court majority after the longest vacancy in it's 227+ year history (14 months). If the Democrats won the Court's majority would've switched from 5-to-4 right wing to 5-to-4 left wing and would stay left wing for a generation if enough of the older justices die or retire before the Democrats next lose power in the government. Is that enough? You decide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Supreme Court confirmations are relatively infrequent (none at all from 1994 to 2005 for example) and this was an unusual one with the 14 month gap since Scalia's death and the failed Merrick Garland nomination hanging over it the whole time. Yes it's one country's politics but Gorsuch will be there for decades and will have a huge impact on the Court's future direction. I would also favour mentioning the "nuclear option" in the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning support due to the fact that the nuclear option was actually used. This explicitly should not set a precident for either contentious congressional votes or future Supreme Court nominations. But I'm leaning the way I am given how political and far-reaching the US Supreme court is. I'm leaning that way given that this officially ends the principle of bipartisanship on an issue where said approach was obviously appropriate. This is probably the second most significant appointment to any office in the United States in the past eight years, behind only the changing of the Presidency. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - given the rather unusual circumstances and the long-term ramifications. Abovesky (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question If this is posted, which would be contrary to precedent at ITN, are we only going to be posting US Supreme Court appointments or do other countries with Supreme Courts get theirs mentioned here as well? I smell one the project's favorite institutional biases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Well said.331dot (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
And what about ITN's pro-UK bias? Am curious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I see far more complaints about a US bias. Either way I await your nominations of non UK/US events. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit of a red herring? Anyway, "[Closed] [Posted] 163rd Boat Race and 72nd Women's Boat Race" below (tangent: can't link due to the brackets, if there's an easy workaround to that I'd be interested in learning it), will be posted four times, posted as a stub, etc etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at but my point was simply that whether there is a US bias or a UK bias or a China bias or a Vulcan bias, the solution is to work on articles in underrepresented areas and nominate them. If we post nominations to the US Supreme Court, it would be difficult to explain why we shouldn't post nominations to Andorra's Supreme Court(or equivalent). 331dot (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I dunno... I'm not all that strongly in favor of posting, but this is a rare enough and influential enough event that it wouldn't be totally unjustified. It's a front page headline on every international outlet I've viewed today. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • A different reference point: I just woke up here in Australia, scanned every story on the front page of ABC News, and then came to Wikipedia. First I saw about this news was right here on this page. (edit) He's not even buried in the "World News" section. Searching, the last story the ABC News website ran on Gorsuch was back on 1 February, and the last story on Gorsuch on any ABC site (Radio National) was 4 days ago. --dmmaus (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Well how about that? :) Like I said, not too keen on posting, just don't think it's a SNOW situation like others have suggested. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Update for completeness: The story has just appeared on the (Australian) ABC News site. It took them several hours to pick up the story though. --dmmaus (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Yes, this SCOTUS nom veered from the norm significantly, but I don't think the significance of it is such that would become ITN material. The judicial filibuster was already done away with for other federal judicial nominees, and McConnell had threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would you support this if it happened in Nauru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see where you're going with this but you can't really believe that's a fair comparison. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason I support this is that this officially means that the United States now has a supreme court judiciary subservient to and influenced by its legislators. Yes, in practise that's been the case for at least 16 years, but now it's official. To answer your question I wouldn't support this if it happened in the United States again. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per Pawnkingthree. It's big news. "Too US-centric" and similar reasoning carries little weight, in my view. Jusdafax 01:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - US news, does not impact the world. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sherenk1: From above: "Please don't 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."331dot (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree and Jusdafax. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose local appointment, we don't post such positions in any other country in the world, why has the US suddenly become unique in this way? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Calling a 320-million nation "local" seems a stretch, and as 331dot notes above, doesn't jibe with the guideline for comments above. Also another reason you don't see it happen with other countries is because most other countries don't have a judicial branch with the power of the U.S.' pbp 13:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I understand that this isn't simply a judicial appointmen, but effectively an important political one - but on the other hand we almost certainly wouldn't post the appointment of a new secretary of State, or Defence Secretary, etc. so I don't really see why this is much different. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well this is a lifetime appointment for one thing. The Secretary of State won't be there for the next 30 years.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not the head of state. Banedon (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems important. pbp 13:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem important. (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not important. Again, we are not USApedia. I don't believe that we can apply "Please don't 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." to US articles but not French articles. (For example, when Bernard Cazeneuve became the Prime Minister of France, we did not post it.) We are not Animal Farm.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zigzig20s: From the UK, why should I care about Bernard Cazeneuve? He's going to have no impact on my life here, and he's going to be history in 6 months anyway. On the other hand, as a Supreme Court justice, Gorsuch could be handing down decisions for another 30 years, and those decisions will have an impact, that will go round the world. Decisions on the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, States' rights, etc etc shape the norms and frameworks of American society, in a much more constitutionally-focussed system; and those changes in U.S. society in turn affect the norms for other societies all round the world. So yes, particularly with the court so finely balanced, and so many of the more liberal justices surely not that far now from the end of their terms, Gorsuch rather than Garland, and the manner in which it was done, is a huge deal -- much more so than Bernard Cazeneuve rather than Manuel Valls (who?); probably more significant than Macron rather than Hollande. Jheald (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No. The UK is not a colony of the US. It has no impact outside the US. Foreign policy does, which is why the presidency matters. But not the Supreme Court.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: If that's what you think, you're naive. Dream on. No country is an island, not even France. Jheald (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This one Supreme Court justice is irrelevant to the rest of the world. Perhaps ALEC isn't, because they prepare norms and regulations for products sold by US companies around the world. But this one guy is irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zigzig20s: From above: "Please don't 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." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I explained why that is irrelevant. Animal Farm re: Cazeneuve. Sorry, there appears to be no consensus to post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Don't apologize. I opposed this item, but for the right reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Domestic politics should not be world news, except when head of state or government changes or with national elections or such. Surely WP has a policy to that effect somewhere? If not, precedent will do. --Gerrit CUTEDH 15:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: - normally not in favour of posting such articles but this one covers event that are of international importance concerning US stance.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - as somebody from outside the U.S., this is important. The ideological balance of the Supreme Court regularly and significantly affects the social, legal, business and political environment in the United States -- consider e.g. the effect of the Citizens United ruling on U.S. politics -- which has knock-on impacts in all those areas across the world. Jheald (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
What? How does Citizens United have any impact on foreign nations?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
They can now spend money to influence US elections...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes and this has zero impact on the rest of the world. Citizens United is another US-centric topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It may have no immediate direct effect, but keep in mind the US's place in current politics, the current situation around the new President, and the fact that the current pending legal challenge against his immigration order (among other pending decisions) will be now heard by a court that has a majority that lean the same way. It's not a direct effect, and a few steps removed, but it is not isolated as suggested here. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
That's still extremely US-centric. If the US does not want certain kinds of immigrants, they will be welcome in other countries. The globe will not stop spinning. One judge on the Supreme Court of the US is a tiny, irrelevant detail in world affairs.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The big issue with Citizens United was that it significantly re-wrote the balance of power between the grass-roots and the rich and the super-rich in US politics. If you think that has no impact on the world, or even no impact on US foreign policy, you're a fool. Jheald (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. It has no impact on foreign policy--US presidents always do what the rich want. They don't need Citizens United for it.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I urge those supporting this to consider that if this is posted, ITN will get ripped to shreds with accusations of US bias, more than we are already. We all know we wouldn't post this for most any other nation. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • By liberals.

    The accusations of anti-conservative bias are generally both louder, and easier to back up, than accusations of bias towards the US relative to other Western countries and regions. Accusations of Wikipedia systemic bias against countries not considered part of the Anglosphere or with close connections to countries that are - whether we post this or not would make zero difference to that. The two areas where there have been accusations of bias towards the United States are sport (where there unquestionably is a naked, explicit bias) and killings (where substantial progress has been made). On politics we're actually pretty good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. The backstory of the Gorsuch confirmation is bizarre, and the ramifications for American domestic politics are huge. As for accusations of bias, if a supreme court appointment to another country was as controversial as this one and did get news coverage as a result, it should also go to ITN. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The election of President Trump has had worldwide implications, yes. The appointment of a Supreme Court justice does not. Frankly the nomination was not controversial; that was hyped up by the US media. Every country does this.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It was one of the most controversial nominations ever thanks to the unprecedented circumstances of the Garland fight. That is not media hype, that is a fact, one of the reasons why this should be posted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
And if this was USApedia, I would agree. It is not. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
What's this childinesh about USApedia. If you are unable to discuss this nomination without silly name calling, then kindly go somewhere else. Ridiculous. Abovesky (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is of little international significance. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Time to close this At this point I think this is a textbook case of No Consensus and despite all the back and forth I see no reasonable likelihood of that changing. I'm INVOLVED so I can't do it, but someone should close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A minor appointment to those in the Congo; only made slightly interesting by right of the previous incumbent. — O Fortuna velut luna 13:13, 9 April 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.

[Posted] 2017 Stockholm attackEdit

Article: 2017 Stockholm attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A stolen truck is driven through crowds and into a department store in downtown Stockholm, killing four and injuring fifteen others. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, happened in a country which is not internationally involved. Article still developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Terrorism in Sweden with deaths are so rare. Islamic state does it again... --BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - Very little is known, even if this is an attack or not (such tragedies can be accidents). There's nothing to judge yet. Smurrayinchester 14:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - Will still likely be appropriate to post (the truck was stolen so this definitely appeared to be an act of malice), they have arrested the suspect, so wait for details. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait but should be posted when we have enough info. This is too soon yet. --cart-Talk 14:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm beginning to wonder if we're rewarding terrorism by publicizing attacks like this one. Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Collapsing trolling. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support Hah! See? Trump was right after all. (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Or maybe the terrorist(s) got the idea from Trump... cart-Talk 16:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, you can believe the FAKE NEWS if you want. (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Would both of you show some respect for the victims, rather than bring Trump into this? --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's especially notable since it's Sweden. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. Not enough known at this point to even write a blurb it seems. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems comparable to the attacks in London and Berlin that occurred over the past year. We include those in ITN, so this should be counted too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. Too little is known to post yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article vehicle-ramming attack makes depressing reading. Will the frequency of such attacks, most of which appear to be lone-wolf terrorism not specifically co-ordinated by organisations like Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, but inspired by them (an important distinction), eventually warrant not featuring them on ITN? I agree with Sca's comment above: "I'm beginning to wonder if we're rewarding terrorism by publicizing attacks like this one". It would be good if the Wikipedia (ITN) community took a stand (even if largely symbolic) and drew a line somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I very much doubt, even if these are only lone-wolf attacks, that they are being done to make sure that WP gets an ITN entry on them. The media on its own is doing enough of the job to publicize this, WP's actions are a drop in the bucket. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I just wanted to raise the question. But upon reflection I must admit my instincts (as an ex-journalist) go against any kind of prohibition on topics or stories. However, this attack seems comparatively less noteworthy than some of the other acts of violence we've been compelled to include lately. Leaning toward oppose on that basis. Sca (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I do agree if we start seeing a string of copy-cat attacks that are not directly attributable to terrorism, then we should not keep posting every single one (the same logic why we avoid posting every mass shooting in the US). --MASEM (t) 16:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. And BTW, I see Wiki ITN as a not insignificant player in the cybermedia world, since so many people, sadly, get their 'news' from non-news sources nowadays. At least some standards govern what they see on ITN. Sca (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
To answer Masem, any such stand would be (as I said) largely symbolic. Of course ITN not featuring such attacks wouldn't have a significant effect. But if everyone who thinks they are insignificant did nothing, then nothing would ever change. Doing something just because everyone else does it is not a reason to carry on publicising such attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, and oppose unless the death toll rises. This attack, though tragic, pales in comparison to the Westmister attack. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
We should however consider the context here. There have been numerous deadly terrorist attacks in London in recent history, committed at least by the likes of al-Qaeda and IRA. In Stockholm and more generally in Sweden and the Nordics there have no major international terrorist incidents so far, so this incident could have more drastic effects on security in the region. --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You know what? Oppose. Four deaths and nine seriously injured is, of course, very tragic, but it is not an unheard of number. The comment made above by Carcharoth about vehicle rammings being lone-wolf attacks inspired by larger organizations rather than organized by such organizations is what got me over the line. Honestly, there's not much interesting content to be found in this story. Of course, Sweden is not a common target of these kinds of attacks, so it's only a weak oppose, but it's an oppose nonetheless. ~Mable (chat) 21:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless demonstrated to have been an operation carried out by an international terrorist group. Lone wolf attacks of this type are becoming too common to justify posting each one. The Westminster attack was different as that was a specific attempt to strike at the heart of Government - I would not have supported a random, untargetted lone-wolf attack in outer London. If on the other hand this was an organised terrorist attack by an organised international group (such as, but not necessarily, ISIS), then as the first one of its kind to take place in Sweden it merits posting even if it was a random target. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support because of the rarity of the incident in Sweden. If these attacks start to become very common (like the U.S. shootings), then we can when the time comes on whether or not we should be post every time they occur. But so far the trend is barely starting if anything so this is notable right now. ComputerJA () 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-support Right call to post this. The opposition seems to mostly derive from the victim count, but given that this was the first attack of its type in Sweden it's a major regional event. --hydrox (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Does this mean that a second such attack with similar circumstances, say, two years from now, will not be posted? ~Mable (chat) 22:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Do you have a magical ball Maplestrip? Otherwise I suggest we leave the future alone.BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
      • It's very clear, from the supporter's rationales themselves, that this only got support because of its rarity in Sweden. I presume that an attack of similar scale in Sweden, at a nonspecific target, would not be posted if it were to happen again. But then again, it would surely be nominated, and from there you never know. A lot can change for the better in two years. A lot can change for the worse in two years. And a lot can change in general in two years, without it being clear whether the change was good, bad or somewhere in between. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Of course. I'm simply worried the result of today's ITN decisions will be used incorrectly in tomorrow's ITN discussions. ~Mable (chat) 15:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] ETA disarmamentEdit

Article: ETA (separatist group) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Basque separatist militant group ETA announces that it has disarmed. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Basque separatist militant group ETA disarms itself.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Basque separatist militant group ETA disarms itself.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: ETA were probably Europe's most notorious terrorist group after the IRA, and their disarmament draws a line under decades of violence (per the BBC: "it will be an historic moment which marks the end of the last insurgency in Europe."). Official "disarmament day" (when they want people to rally in support of disarmament, and when the weapons inspectors will inform France of the location of ETA's remaining weapons caches) is tomorrow, but the letter released announcing that they have given up all their weapons and explosives came out today. Smurrayinchester 07:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. A notable step in the dispute there. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Rare news of steps toward peace. Article looks well-written and well-sourced. Although the official date of disarmament will actually be tomorrow. Maybe should be added to article introduction. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support highly notable event, both symbolically and practically. The ETA article is a little messy, but it's probably OK. Maybe wait till tomorrow when the weapons are physically surrendered? --LukeSurl t c 11:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until Saturday. I don't believe in pedantry for pedantry's sake. But the top line of the source used for this story specifically states that ETA "warns that its enemies might still block the process". Not surprising language, but good reason not to treat this as a done deal until the action is taken. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until Saturday, support only if it actually takes place Sherenk1 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep calm and wait until Saturday.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that the ETA article is lacking in references in many, many places (not all of them tagged, but some have been tagged for years) and an article in this condition should not go onto ITN as a bold link. If there was a spin-off article, along the lines of ETA's 2006 ceasefire declaration, then that might be the better target. BencherliteTalk 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed those. I thought 164 different sources was quite respectable. But I agree, that might be a better route. Not that improvements should not be made to the main article, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It's odd why people think that a simple count of references means that an article is appropriately referenced. That line of "defence" is meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a "line of defence". It was offered as an explanation. Has anyone decided which would be the better article to link? The official announcement has now been made. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The story was featured as a main item in tonight's BBC Weekend News. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The article is orange tagged right now, but ironically, it wouldn't be if it weren't so comprehensive. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we have to accept that an article as long and as comprehensive as ETA is unlikely to be brought to the rigorous standards we demand for other nominations (especially biographies of the recently deceased). The article top "refimprove" tag here is so nonspecific as to be useless to editors on an article of this length. We should instead consider if the areas of the article that need more citations are significant and/or relevant enough to this news item to preclude posting. --LukeSurl t c 12:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we ought to insist that anything that appears linked In The News is a Good Article? But not sure who would have the commitment, tenacity and expertise to perform such a mind-numbingly thankless and onerous task. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. ETA has made the news worldwide for decades and is (one of the) last domestic armed insurgent groups in Western Europe, where such insurgencies are rare. Highly newsworthy, matters on a timescale of decades. --Gerrit CUTEDH 15:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now that it's clear that disarmament has taken place without further incident. On article quality it's my experience that we are more picky on non-ITNR items, where there's an argument that the opposite should be the case. Regardless, the issue seems to be with placing, rather than prescence, of sourcing, and the sourcing for the part of the story we're concerned with is fine. I would therefore suggest that we bold the redirect ETA disarmament and direct the reader to the suitable quality part (which is longer than a lot of articles we post), and have ETA as an unbolded link. A bit unorthodox but squares the circle for the time being whilst giving us time to consider our general approach for such large and controversial articles which unexpectedly reach ITN in future. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Given that the bolded target undoubtedly meets our standards even if there are quibbles about the ETA article itself. Smurrayinchester 07:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a specific section. This is a compromise we've made before with long articles, IIRC. (The alternative would be splitting the section out into its own article, a pointless bit of bureaucratic busywork that wouldn't help readers at all.) Smurrayinchester 12:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 7th April American missile strikes in SyriaEdit


  • Wait This is probably going to get posted. But as of right now it's a stub and we have little in the form of solid information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait This should replace the current blurb on the chemical attack , if it is posted, but without knowing the damage, it's far too early to consider. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Also why is this a separate article? It's part of the chemcial weapon attacks, given the reasoning for firing them. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Different place, different time, different victims, perpetrators and weapons. There's certainly a thread running between them, but that's just how continuity works. This reaction will have its own, much different reaction section; we can't treat a deadly missile barrage in the same way we treat a press release of sympathy, condemnation and the like. Smooshing it into the same blurb makes sense, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Meld into existing ITN fact, and bump it to the #1 slot This is a bigger deal than Tim Berners-Lee winning some award. pbp 02:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's still April 6 everywhere in the US. Syrian time? Nohomersryan (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Nohomersryan: It's done by UTC time. KSFT (t|c) 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
      • It's done by local time. And, yes, it's Apr. 7 in Syria. -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support after reaching start class, also support merging it with ITN of chemical attack blurb - Top news. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per pbp. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and bump to top, notable development. Mélencron (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and bump to top, here here. Philip Terry Graham 04:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and bump to top, very notable development. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as rumors are swirling around in the Muslim world about Mahdi. (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Per first attack without huge negotiations before.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted merged blurb BencherliteTalk 07:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the blurb note how many people the strike killed, the gas killed, both or neither? I'd say neither, but both is good, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 6Edit