Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2017

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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.

Contents

February 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 28

RD: Mostafa El-AbbadiEdit

Article: Mostafa El-Abbadi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT obit
Nominator: The ed17 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Died in mid-Feb, just being reported by the NYT now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This needs to be filed on the 28th, the date of the NYTtimes report. That is the earlier report of his death, so it's not stale, but it was listed back on the 28th. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: While sourced, article is simply too brief and limited in scope. SpencerT♦C 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Leekfrith torcsEdit

Closing this, we won't get a consensus to pull. --Tone 12:05, 1 March 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: Leekfrith torcs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Leekfrith torcs, believed to be the oldest Iron Age gold jewellery found in Britain, are revealed to the public for the first time
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-39113201
Nominator: Pigsonthewing (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Significant archaeological find; also visually appealing. Described as a "unique find of international importance" by the British Museum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "in Great Britain", ergo oppose. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "of international importance", ergo support.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - ^Boi you got roasted^ UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per above and article appears to be sufficiently cited. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why do we even bother having the "don't complain about single country events" rule if no one ever follows it?--WaltCip (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, cool stuff. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We could have posted (or at least nominated) its discovery instead, which per article was in December 2016. Brandmeistertalk 19:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Would we have known anything about the artifacts when they were discovered? Presumably, it took some time for experts to work out their age and provenance. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly, two blokes found a trove late last year, it wasn't until today that it really became notable. Just like when notification of a death is delayed, we deal with the real news of it (and this) when it's really in the news. And that's now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable historical find; the article states this has international significance. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let me try to put this in perspective, since it seems to be lacking here:

All those voting support can they explain why is this item notable to ITN beyond being reported by the English-speaking news outlets from the UK? The item was discovered 2 months ago, but now it gets a publicity stunt to attract visitors, and isn't actually archeologically relevant. "of international significance", "unique find" and "truly historic" for tourism indeed. @Pawnkingthree, UNSC Luke 1021, Juliancolton, and 331dot: Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Nergaal: - Just because one thing is older doesn't mean this thing is any less notable to the world. Besides, these other things have all been on display for a while. This is just coming out, and it's over 2000 years old. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Your own opinion Nergaal is just that, your own opinion. This is being widely reported, globally, as significant. It doesn't diminish the significance of all those worldly goods you've listed, but this is ITN and this is in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Check [1] and [2] first before expressing strong opinions. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I've already expressed my opinion, as you have many, many times. I think we get your perspective, and hopefully by now you get ours'. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Nergaal: - The blurb is not wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not the country of Britain. Also, half of the examples you have specified were uncovered and displayed before ITN or even Wikipedia existed. I don't see the relevancy to the discussion at hand. You can't call it discrimination to not include something if it was discovered back in 1902. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unique find and truly historic. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "truly historic"? Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • (ec)The article has a quote stating that "This unique find is of international importance." It's starting to appear in the news elsewhere; US, India, Ireland. It's also not like we post an overabundance of treasure/archaeological finds here. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Indeed, what do you mean by "What do you mean by"? It's all there, in reliable sources. If you don't like it, that's a different thing altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • If you had any idea about the subject of how "truly historic" this is, you would have known that the oldest bronze age (not iron age like this one) artifact found in the British isles is more than a millenium older. Read Bush Barrow. This news is just "look, a millennium later we discovered new iron, not bronze age jewelry in Britain". Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
          • No, I'm following reliable sources. Are you? Or are you just offering us your opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
            • You mean, you actually know the distinction between bronze age jewelry and iron age jewelry? Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
              • I think we're talking past each other now, so this ends here for me. I'm going by reliable sources, you're going by .... your opinion? Goodbye! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support unique find indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that this is a blatant case of US/British centrism. Less than half a year ago, the The World’s Oldest Gold Artifact May Have Just Been Discovered from 4,600 BC and nobody jumped to create an article even though it was in the news. Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why was the "ready" mark removed from this item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Nergaal has added a quaint alt blurb which somehow tries to relate this find to Bronze age jewellery, to whit: ... and some 1,500 after the oldest Bronze age gold jewelry... (sic). I suggest we stick with the main blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • You mean stick to the intentionally misleading blurb instead of the accurate one? Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • No, he means use the accurate blurb instead of the pointy one. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • No pointy alt blurbs, please. I've removed the alt blurb that no one, including Nergaal, think should be on the main page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • You mean it's ok to post sensationalized oldest artifacts from the iron age, when older, bronze age are known from the same area? Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes! If reliable sources are used and consensus exists! You already know that stuff Nergaal!!!!! If you don't like it, there are other projects you could work on! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
          • No, I mean exactly what I said, no more, no less, which I expressed in simple English words. Stop trying to draw me into the dispute, I've no opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Dude, you just said "truly historic" without even bothering to open Gold working in the Bronze Age British Isles. You vote against events that have over 20 million viewers but you quantify it as "truly historic" when 2 blokes finding out some gold that is more than a millennium less old than the previous find. You don't see any lack of objectivity here? Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
                • You can't possibly be talking to me, I assume the threading is messed up. Perhaps you weren't talking to me the first time, either? if so, ignore my comment above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
              • Reliable sources and consensus are against you. Stop it now because you're becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to point out that 'jewelry' is spelled properly. I'm striking the sic for the sake of clarity. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not what it was there for. And it's not "spelled properly" (sic) in Brit Eng. Stop trying to fix things you don't understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)***'Jewelry' is spelled correctly in American English, just going to say. Can you explain why the [sic] was present then? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, as is "spelled", but this isn't an American topic. Read the alt blurb again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this is now being filibustered (or at least there's a poor attempt to do so ongoing); it's been ready to go for some time, trustworthy admin, please action the posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus. Unmarked as ready. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:9F (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see how one person delaying the ITN process through filibustering can be considered 'no consesus' rather than 'disrupting a clear "support"' UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The blurb is actively misleading. If you say something's the oldest Iron Age jewellery found in Great Britain", it'll be read as "the oldest jewellery found in Great Britain, which happens to date to the Iron Age". —Cryptic 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    So when the BBC say "Two friends have unearthed jewellery which could be the oldest Iron Age gold discovered in Britain.", they're wrong, misleading, what? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    And actually, I think you're talking bunk, while English is rich with possibilities for many interpretations, your assertion is somewhat flamboyant and derogatory to our audience who I believe can read English as well as the BBC can write it in most cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe wrong, maybe misleading, maybe misled, maybe just selling clicks. I don't know and neither do you. That doesn't mean we have to use their misleading wording too. —Cryptic 21:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think I know how to read English and the blurb, and the BBC, are not misleading anyone. If someone misinterprets the blurb, or the BBC, it's their own misinterpretation. We use reliable sources here, and the BBC is one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Cryptic: - I speak American English and I can understand it perfectly fine. I don't see what the problem with it is. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. A significant find indeed. ZettaComposer (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Requesting Post - by an uninvolved administrator. The consensus is clearly in favor of posting and the only reason it hasn't already is because of filibustering by Nergaal. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Finally. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Can we use the image with this, which shows the actual objects, in preference to the current ITN image, which is an artist's impression? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, the image needs to be protected, and that can usually happen within fifteen minutes of getting it listed at Krinklebot's page. Admin instructions are pretty easy to follow in this regard. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • In fact, checking on Commons and Kriklebot's page, the image is already good to go. Needs a trustworthy admin to switch the image (and the (pictured), alt text etc) whenever convenient! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • In fact, this stuff just happens while I type! Done, hurrah! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment I would not ask this to be pulled, but this clearly better suited as a DYK, given the opposes above and that it is really not that significant a find relative to the whole of human discoveries. It's very much clear a DYK as the oldest finds in England. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not the oldest, not even when further restricted from Great Britain to England. There's more than a dozen such listed at List of Bronze Age hoards in Great Britain, for example. —Cryptic 22:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Eh, this story is far too interesting to be condemned to the esoteric, sleep-inducing no-man's land that is DYK. Consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of posting so I'm not sure why a couple opposes would mean it's not suitable for ITN. Moving on, something I hadn't noticed until just now is that "revealed for the first time" may be redundant - thoughts on just "revealed"? – Juliancolton | Talk 23:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm just going to point out that this was posted in 4 hours from proposing it. The ITNR on Oscars below took 3 hours. This discovery took months to be announced to the public but we can't wait hours to have an involved discussion. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, I tend to agree with User:Masem that this item is a little weak. But my main concern here at ITN is to try to prevent the posting of scientifically false crap. So I'm willing to let this one slide. Abductive (reasoning) 23:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose and pull - the fact that the blurb says "... found in Britain" (emphasis mine) is great reason to pull this. Logically, there is also oldest iron-age gold hoards in every other country in the world. I see no reason to single out Britain. Banedon (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that we seem to get calls to pull the blurb on everything that isn't a boring ITN/R item or a suicide bombing. Let's try to make ITN a little more engaging and not less, please. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    I beg to differ. If we did not have significance controls then every nomination that meets the quality standards would be postable (see the RD reform), and that is something we have agreed we don't want [3]. I am in favour of pulling this blurb not because it isn't a boring ITN/R item or a suicide bombing, but because it is at best only nationally significant, and there are 196 countries in the world. If you want to promote more non-ITNR non-suicide bombing items onto ITN, there are a few nominations in the threads below this one. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Just because something happens in one place doesn't mean it's only notable in that place. A history curator at the British Museum (which is to say, someone who actually knows what they're talking about) called the discovery important on an international scale. The story is being reported by the Archaeological Institute of America who use the "international importance" quote in their headline, which suggests that wasn't just an offhand remark by an overzealous British patriot. Even if it's not of superlative significance, it's still significant - lots of items we post aren't about the absolute oldest or deadliest or biggest. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    The curator of the British Museum is of course going to hype his own artifacts. You'll note that the archeology.org site puts "international importance" in inverted commas, implying they are using that as a direct quote and do not necessarily stand by it. The idea of "international importance" is also context-dependent, e.g. if a new archeological find changes the history of Ireland as we know it in the 15th century, and is of interest only to Irish people and historians, one could still claim it to be of "international importance" since Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland currently (but it was in the 15th century). The grand total of countries affected would be two, but that's still international by definition. Banedon (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    If you disagree with the expert at the British Museum, or question their motives, feel free not to include this story in your newspaper or website- or take it up with the reliable sources that have included this. If we refused to post things that were only relevant to one nation(assuming we disagree with the expert at the British Museum) very little would be posted here.(which is why we warn against single-country based objections) Part of our mission is to inform and educate readers. I learned something I wasn't aware of before and found it interesting. I don't see the big deal here. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    I had to re-read what you wrote to be sure of what I'm seeing. You wrote "If you disagree with the expert at the British Museum, or question their motives, feel free ... to take it up with the reliable sources that have included this", which is incredible because it's as though you've never worked with WP:RS before. Here's a comparable example: George Foreman says Floyd Mayweather is better than Muhammad Ali - do you seriously think that means an edit to Floyd Mayweather to say that he's better than Muhammad Ali (citing George Foreman) is justified, and that if you disagree with it, "feel free to take it up with reliable sources"?? All the sources on this topic I've seen cite precisely one expert who calls the discovery of "international significance", when other articles on big discoveries quote many more experts. See e.g. the Trappist-1 discovery, to which news articles quote from involved and uninvolved scientists. If there's anything I learned from this nomination, it's that the bias on ITN is very real. Banedon (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    So you believe that the "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" should have "unless it's from the UK" added? 331dot (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    No. If anything, you should be the one supporting that line, since I am opposing this nomination. I know you'll say something like "but I'm not from the UK". It doesn't matter. Collectively on ITN, we are showing pro-UK bias. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    I await your nomination of a similar event in another country with similar coverage and importance, I would be happy to support it. The way to address bias is to work in underrepresented areas, not suppress stories from represented areas. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Your waiting is over then, since a couple of the nominations in the threads below this are mine ... and I note that you have not commented on them, even though they've been around for a while. Too late since Stephen closed them already. Oh well. Banedon (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support happy to see "in the news" posting things that are actually in the news. My thinking aligns with Juliancolton. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing this. I don't see what can be gained by further discussion and debate about this item that gained consensus. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. If as much effort went into finding and improving new news items as goes into complaining when people don't get their way once an item is posted, Wikipedia would be a much richer place for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We have an excellent picture to go with the item. This also nicely complements the current FA – Viking metal :) Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 1 March 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.

February 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 27

[Posted] RD: Alex YoungEdit

Article: Alex Young (footballer, born 1937) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (talk • give credit)

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article could do with some expansion, and what is there is woefully under-referenced. For someone who played 13+years of top-flight football, that such a career could be summed up in about 12 lines of text seems very inadequate. And there are direct quotes and events from his biography (what little there is) that we have no idea where they come from. The quality is inadequate for the main page. --Jayron32 19:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed, the fact it has a template and an entry in the infobox claiming he was manager of Glentoran yet no coverage at all in the article is symptomatic of the gaps in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I (and another editor) have sourced everything in the article, including the Glentoran managership. Yes, it could do with expansion, but that's irrelevant to ITN because the article adequately summarises his life. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Still not changing my vote, because it does not adequately summarise his life. If you expand it to an adequate summary, I would do so. The article is too poor a quality to post on the main page because large amounts of information about his life and career is missing. Gaps in coverage are a quality issue. --Jayron32 12:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What "gaps in coverage" would you like to be filled? It summarises his career and the highlights of it. Anything else would be simply a list of appearances and goals per season, which is hardly encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Goodness. I can pull up articles on 50 footballers whose lead section is longer than this article is in its entirely. They aren't bloated, they're comprehensive. Now, I wouldn't think we're aiming for something as long as Lionel Messi's article is, but if this entire person's verifiable life history can fit on a postcard, why even have a Wikipedia article. It doesn't summarize so much as it hits a few random life points. --Jayron32 03:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per the now improved article. BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — Article is much improved and of sufficient quality to post. —MBlaze Lightning T 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there are two templates at the bottom of the article, the Hearts HoF and something called "Gwladys Street's Hall of Fame", neither are even mentioned in the prose, let alone referenced. It's still a little lightweight for a career of such duration too. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, lightweight but referenced. Stephen 01:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

February 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 26

[Posted] 89th Academy AwardsEdit

Article: 89th Academy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Moonlight wins Best Picture at the Academy Awards.
Alternative blurb: ​After some initial confusion, Moonlight wins Best Picture at the Academy Awards
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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: All but a few awards left. Will adjust blurb depending on which wins best picture MASEM (t) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Needs some prose on the whole Warren Beatty thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — Worth mentioning the mix-up or no? Aria1561 (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I think required. It's what people are already talking about, so the article isn't comprehensive without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It's there. I think it's good? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I f we are going to mention the "Oscar Mix-Up", make sure not to put the blame on Mr. Beatty because it was a mix-up behind the scenes involving the individual giving the wrong envelope to Beatty. Worth mentioning the mix-up though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The mix up should be in the article but it should not be in the blurb here. That was just a production thing. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree, don't mention the mix-up in the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that I've had a chance to look, the article on Moonlight is not in bad shape (eg : no glaring sourcing issues, reasonably complete, updated with win), so I would suggest we could bold this as the second article. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In principle I'm relaxed about whether the mix-up is mentioned in the blurb, though I think a blurb that actually mentioned La La Land would distract from the two articles which should be wikilinked. I therefore don't see how we could do it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb could mention that this is the first time in the history of the Academy Awards that a mistake has been made in announcing any award (Just like the first time someone with no prior government experience has been elected president, the first time a Super Bowl went into overtime ... there is clearly a pattern here, but a pattern of what? Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of unbelievable news stories. Which is just as well, because not believing the news is coincidentally becoming somewhat of a trend for people of all political persuasions (though they differ on which news they don't believe). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Whereas the Super Bowl going into overtime does have a significant effect on the result of ongoing game and thus the first time it happened was reasonable to include since it would naturally flow, trying to fit this mix-up would be very awkward (particularly since La La Land would have to be mentioned). It is better to serve as a DYK than ITN for that part. --MASEM (t) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added an alt-blurb. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. No point in mentioning the announcement mess, I will go with the standard blurb we've been using for a while. --Tone 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Tone: where are the "standard blurbs" for this (that include the and such-and-such wins x) part you added in for La La Land? — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    86th, 87th, 88th. Stephen 05:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gerald KaufmanEdit

Article: Gerald Kaufman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sky News
Nominator: Rcsprinter123 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)

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

 Rcsprinter123 (notify) 00:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose not quite there with the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Provisional support I have added sources or trimmed out unreferenced content; the only possibly problematic area now is the "Criticism of Israel" section; while this subject matter is nominally well-referenced because of its contentiousness, I'm not certain all the sources are that great. For example, what makes middle-east-online.com a reliable source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The sourcing is good enough at this point in my view. Neljack (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there's a {{cn}} in the main body and the list of publications is bereft of references, and that's quite important because only David Frost is credited with authoring the first book on that list... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: there's a {{cn}} in the main body - not any more, there isn't :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Just those publications then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Aha, they've disappeared too... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because they were unsourced and the main ones are covered in the prose (with sources) now Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joseph WapnerEdit

Article: Joseph Wapner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Huffington Post, CNN, USA Today
Nominator: Challenger l (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Judge Wapner, part of my region's history as well as TV history Challenger l (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: Article in good shape and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I do not believe sufficient time has passed during which efforts should be made to claim that there's fair use of that non-free image, uploaded seemingly minutes after this individual died. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I would lean to agree on this, but I would note that as a publicly recognized figure, a non-free of when he looked as he mostly appeared to the public would be reasonably appropriate after time has passed. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, quite, and as a publicly recognised figure, it should be possible to obtain a free image. Where is the evidence of attempts to do so? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I've been doing what I can to find a decent replacement image - but have been finding "free" images that are covered with watermarks, or unwatermarked images with unclear sources, thus far. I may simply reach out to the People's Court through their website, or their network's website, and all else failing, contacting his alma mater for that matter. Challenger l (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready assuming the image issue is all that's holding this up, as it has been removed. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, article tweaked, oppose struck. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 10:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Daytona 500Edit

No consensus. Stephen 10:37, 1 March 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: 2017 Daytona 500 (talk, history) and Kurt Busch (talk, history)
Blurb: Kurt Busch wins the 2017 Daytona 500 in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series.
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Kurt Busch wins the Daytona 500.
News source(s): MRN USA Today
Nominator: Dough4872 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The biggest and most prestigious event in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series. Dough4872 01:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Motorsport is already overrepresented in ITNR with seven events per year, more than any other sport and matched only by film awards. That's a very high bar to including additional non-ITNR ones, and there was nothing special about this race this year to overcome it. Oppose. —Cryptic 01:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm finding it hard to disagree with Cryptic here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this; we don't post Major League Baseball's Opening Day, or the NFL's Kickoff game. This has been brought up before; the end of the season is what is posted, as the result of the whole contest(the Cup) is more notable than its first game from an encyclopedic standpoint. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Only to comment (this is not a !vote) - we have posted Daytona in 2013, 2015, and 2016, and did not post in other years since ~2011 (though it was nominated). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 February 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: Bill PaxtonEdit

Article: Bill Paxton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, People
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)

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

 JuneGloom07 Talk 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support I actually was filling this out myself, but then I saw this. Notable actor, but I feel like there could be more citations. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    I resolved the only {{cite}} tag in the article. — xaosflux Talk 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's not perfect, but it's fully cited. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The TV appearances and the Awards need sourcing. (Fortunately we have his filmography via TCM and avoids the IMDB issue). --MASEM (t) 18:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, notable actor. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose television appearances (some of which aren't even blue-linked) and awards absolutely require inline references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Television is done plus the awards that I could find not using IMDB. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    IMDB is not a reliable source, so every use of that will need to be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Hence why I did not use them as a source and the other places it is used there are other sources already in the article for that information. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then it can removed altogether, something we should be focused on doing for such BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support We can be sure that thousands of people are already reading this article. Andrew D. (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    How that means the article complies with BLP is beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Over half this article is a tabled filmography and one whole section is orange-tagged - needs work. Challenger l (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be currently of sufficient quality for the main page. Seems to have been improved (sourcing no longer IMDB, no sections missing sources, etc.) since many of the above objections. --Jayron32 22:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Article has been improved, updated and sourced for good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment good to go, excellent work on the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --MASEM (t) 06:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that NYT was curiously careful in its report of the death. Looking into the details, it seems that all the media has to go on is the statement from the family and a TMZ exclusive. This is significant for the date of the death, which seems to rest upon TMZ's unattributed statement that they were told he died on Saturday. From discussion on the article's talk page, TMZ is not normally considered reliable here. Does it become reliable when the rest of the media repeat it? Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Broadly speaking, yes, sort of. When reliable sources repeat material from less-than-reliable sources, there is an implied judgment by the reliable source that the details that they are repeating are reasonably well-established even if the original source might not generally be reliable. In most cases, information widely reported by reliable sources will merit inclusion even if the details originated somewhere sleazy. However, in specific cases, the merits of including any particular piece of information is ultimately a matter for talk page discussions and consensus. Dragons flight (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    To add to Dragons Flight's comment, TMZ is trashy on gossip about celebs and the like, but when it comes to obits, they usually take it with every ounce of seriousness - they try to confirm before posting. In any other situation, avoid TMZ like the plague, but its generally okay on obits. It is far better than nearly all major RSes reiterate the TMZ bit themselves so that it leaves no question. (However, it is it rarely the case that TMZ is the only entity reporting on the death of a celeb, so we rarely have to worry about relying on TMZ 100% for such things). --MASEM (t) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Operation Radd-ul-FasaadEdit

No consensus. Stephen 10:36, 1 March 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: Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Express Tribune, Dawn
Nominator and updater: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

 mfarazbaig 17:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As there is no statement of when this operation would "end" with a broad mission statement, this is not really suitable for ongoing. Perhaps the announcement of the initiative as an ITN would be fine but that would then have to be considered on the 22nd. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All of the news sources covering this operation are Pakistan-based. It seems to be a domestic thing in Pakistan that doesn't really affect the rest of the world. I don't feel this is of interest of English-speaking readers, but I could be wrong. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    "Please do not ... 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." Banedon (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    " Less than 8% of the Pakistani population speak English" (Pakistani English) - That being said, I don't feel it is of interest to the large majority of our English speaking audience. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    While "domestic thing in Pakistan" is not a valid argument, it is valid to state that this is not widely covered outside of Pakistan. I am skeptical of "not of interest to English speakers" as an argument due to systemic bias issues. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per Masem, and I'll support a blurb based on the events of 22 Feb. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Nominated it [4]. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. For an ongoing article, there's really not much here. I see two events since the launch of the operation. Also, article suffers from generally poor writing (WP:PROSELINE issues). If this were expanded and a more natural narrative written, and if it were to continue to have regular (approximately) daily updates with additional information, I'd switch to support. --Jayron32 14:08, 27 February 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.

February 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 25

[Posted] RD: Elli NorkettEdit

Article: Elli Norkett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, The Independent
Nominator: Miyagawa (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Young Welsh women's international rugby union player, killed yesterday in a car crash in South Wales. Article created today as a result of her death; I'd previously created articles for several of her teammates, but had been leaving those with only a handful of caps till a later date when there might have been more sourcing available. Sadly her death means that there is no sufficient sourcing. Miyagawa (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as good as it's going to be for now. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as completness and sourcing for as fast as this article was made is better than most RDs and taking TRM's !vote into account. --MASEM (t) 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Neil FingletonEdit

Article: Neil Fingleton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5], [6]
Nominator: Rhodesisland (talk • give credit)

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

 Rhodesisland (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 24

[Closed] CloudbleedEdit

No consensus. Stephen
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: Cloudbleed (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Cloud-computing service Cloudflare reports a buffer overflow software bug has leaked private information that may be cached on search engines.
News source(s): NYTimes, BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Right now, the amount of potential damage is unknown, as it requires actually having the sites that operate cloudflare spend time and effort to see what got cached. It does not seem to have too many security experts freaked out, but they are issuing warnings for password changes, among other steps. This could be nothing, it could be something, and while WP should not be worried about PSAs or the like, treating this as ITN makes s a lot of sense. MASEM (t) 01:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support; less widespread than Heartbleed (i.e., as provider of CDN/DNS services only), which was also posted to ITN. Mélencron (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the nomination. This is nothing. Until it stop being nothing and then the story can be updated accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems extremely minor. I saw barely any coverage outside of one-off items. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a fairly major incident, in that it affects a large variation of services (among which OKCupid, an online dating website that should have a large amount of personal data, and Patreon, which is effectively a banking app). It's still unclear how impactful the actual leak may have been, though. More importantly, the Wikipedia article still seems of fairly low quality, creating more questions than answers. I can imagine the article being expanded in the next two days to the point where it gives an appropriate amount of information on the issue, but until then I would agree with the opposition. ~Mable (chat) 15:03, 27 February 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] Al-Bab captured by Free Syrian ArmyEdit

Articles: Al-Bab (talk, history) and Battle of al-Bab (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Battle of al-Bab is over, Turkish backed FSA captures the city from ISIL.
Alternative blurb: ​The Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army captures Al-Bab from ISIL.
News source(s): [7]
Nominator: Kavas (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Al Bab is an important city in Northern Syria. It was recently captured by Turkish backed Free Syrian Army. Now, ISIL has lost a major stronghold in Syria. Kavas (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, the article is extensive and cited. --Tone 09:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment is it just me or is the infobox longer than the article? Banedon (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Possibly, but the prose in the article is long enough. --Jayron32 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient. Per WP:LEAD that could (and should) be expanded a bit to give a bit more of a synopsis of the article. But the body is solid, well referenced, and extensive. --Jayron32 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Added a more grammatical altblurb. GoldenRing (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article is of very good quality, no issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Leila de Lima arrestedEdit

No consensus. Stephen 10:31, 1 March 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: Leila de Lima (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Philippine government critic Leila de Lima is arrested on drug trafficking charges
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: PatTag2659 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Leila de Lima is the most prominent government critic of Duterte's drug war. On the one hand, this is "just" an arrest - not a conviction. On the other, this is a powerful sign coming from the government that dissent re the drug war is not tolerated, and if she proceeds to mysteriously disappear, there would never be a more natural time to post this. As with most of my nominations I'm floating the idea to see if ITN prefers to wait for a more blurb-worthy event happening soon, or posting now and then amending the blurb as the inevitable nation-wide drama unfolds (or neither; the article is heavily tagged as of time of nomination). Banedon (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be one thing if this was a well-established leader of a drug cartel, and they finally captured and arrested them. This is certainly not the case here, and as per BLPCRIME, the arrest is definitely not sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    A comment on that: I think for most people this story is less about Leila de Lima, but rather about the Philippine government. Leila herself for example is likely to prefer more, not less, publicity for her arrest. Banedon (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither a support or an oppose, but the Philippine government has jailed political opponents before. De Lima herself had previously pursued cases against then senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla, and former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, among others, and had them jailed. Estrada and Revilla are still incarcerated, and if the plans are to be followed, De Lima's cell is to be adjacent to those two's. –HTD 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Duterte fans, foes in mass Manila rallies Banedon (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:05, 25 February 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.

February 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 23

[Posted] RD: Alan ColmesEdit

Article: Alan Colmes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes Dies at Age 66". 23 Feb 2017. Retrieved 23 Feb 2017.
Nominator: Brianga (talk • give credit)

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

 Brianga (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Much of the "career" section does not make it clear from which reliable sources the information on his various jobs has come from. If that were fixed, this could be posted. --Jayron32 15:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    Change to support per recent improvements. Thanks to @Fuzheado: for doing the bulk of the referencing work. --Jayron32 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The saner half of Hannity & Colmes. As per Jayron, however, it needs to be brought up to par.--WaltCip (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced and good enough for a nice posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, one or two outstanding unsourced statements but they're not particularly contentious claims. Good enough to post I think. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Eating 800 grams of fruits and vegetables a day keeps the undertaker awayEdit

no consensus to post --Jayron32 15:21, 23 February 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: Vegetable (talk, history) and Fruit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eating 800 grams of fruits and vegetables a day keeps the undertaker away
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

 Count Iblis (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose assume this is a joke nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - this is well known. If posted anyway, it should give the exact numbers ("eating 800 grams of fruits and vegetables a day increases life expectancy by ______ years"). Banedon (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, Forever Young - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    Which updates to which articles are you in support of? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As total nonsense. The expression 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away,' and variants thereof, goes back to the Siege of Harfleur, or thereabouts. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is literally vital information and it's in the news. The story complies well with WP:MEDRS as the main source is a review of nearly 100 studies. We should link to 5 A Day as the main point is to double that number. Myself, my score is currently 1 as I just got up and have started with an orange. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    Another article with no update or relationship to this news story. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    I have just updated the 5 A Day article and will continue to do more today. Andrew D. (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then you'll need a new (and encyclopaedic) blurb to target that article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I very much appreciate the humorous style of the blurb, but it simply has to give more information than this. This headline looks like downright nonsense, and would probably work well for a newspaper, but not for the style of news blurbs Wikipedia is known for. That, and I have a hard time imagining dietary news like this being blurb-worthy. ~Mable (chat) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's a report on common sense. The more fruit and veg you eat, the healthier you are likely to be. It's been known for millennia. This report simply confirms common sense but has the other side effects of increasing the stress on those families who can't afford to buy ten portions of fruit/veg a day. The report is a bit like saying "if you don't run across roads without looking, you will reduce your chances of being hit by a car". Common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't entirely agree. I haven't read the sources, but I could definitely imagine that this kind of research could pressure governments and such things. Regardless, it's definitely not big news that this is the case. The news would be that such a report came out, and I can't really call that big news at all. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    What don't you agree with? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW this joke nomination. --LukeSurl t c 09:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Only managed 799 grams today. Guess that's the end of ol' Lugnuts. RIP. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Yeah I raided your fruitbowl :p Rest In Peaches! ;) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Important news in the medical field, backed up by BBC article. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure whether this was seriously meant but health recommendations are generally only news in the country they are made, or possibly closely related countries. I don't know how much attention this is getting in the UK but we don't want a story every time a country repeats known advice or puts a new spin on it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Okay, I'll humor this. This is covered widely and is notable, and we don't get much of a chance to post health news on Wikipedia. WaltCip (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not use popular press to support medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm happy to support especially important stories even if boring and especially entertaining stories even if trivial. This story is neither newsworthy nor particularly engaging. I'm not well-versed in the medical literature, and I recognize that the findings of this study may have some sort of significance that I'm not fully able to appreciate, but even if that's the case then it's not of broad enough interest to post IMO. Telling people that "if you eat healthy, you're more likely to be healthy" is likely to elicit this sort of response from most of our readers. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It may be "news" but it is clearly not the type of news that ITN handles. If there was a case where, say, some newly chemical in an apple was found through recent published studies to be of great medical benefit, that might be something, but this is just yet a variation on how important fruits and vegatables are to a proper diet which has been known for decades. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 February 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.

February 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 22

[Closed] Operation Radd-ul-FasaadEdit

No consensus. Stephen 10:27, 1 March 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: Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After a series of attacks by the terrorist group Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, the Pakistani Army launches Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad
News source(s): See article, e.g. [9]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article too weak, looks like this should really be "ongoing" if its truly notable in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, I suggested that ongoing would be inappropriate because of the broad and vague goals of this operation that doesn't have a clear end or timeline to the end. Announcing the start of this operation as a regular ITNC would have seemed more appropriate to me. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 February 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: Ion CroitoruEdit

Article: Ion Croitoru (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10] [11]
Nominator: GaryColemanFan (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Professional wrestler for multiple organizations, including WWF, and notorious for multiple arrests for serious crimes GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • It's a GA so in good shape, but there's a couple of sentences that lack a reference, probably where they've been added to the end of a paragraph. There's also a broken named reference. When fixed this will be good to post. Stephen 02:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe this has been dealt with. I deleted two unsourced statements and provided a source for the other, and a bot repaired the broken reference. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Earth-sized planets found orbiting nearby starEdit

Article: TRAPPIST-1 (talk, history)
Blurb: Astronomers announce the discovery of seven Earth-sized planets near TRAPPIST-1 that may harbor alien life.
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers announce that the star TRAPPIST-1 hosts seven exoplanets, some orbiting in its habitable zone
News source(s): NYT Time Atlantic Quartz Guardian, more
Nominator: The ed17 (talk • give credit)

 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: three planets in this system were already known, and there's no indication whatsoever of life, so the blurb is misleading. I've added an alternative. Modest Genius talk 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Question: did we feature the original discovery of planets b, c & d in 2016? I can't find anything in the archive. Modest Genius talk 18:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support news is kinda slow, and 7 Earth-sized planets, 3 of which in the habitable zone is a bit ridiculous. Solar System has only 4 and 3. Nergaal (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support such a high number of earth-sized planets orbiting around the same star is extremely unusual.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support contingent on the fact that it's "ultra-cool". It's all over my news feeds, and it's of genuine interest to our readers. Article isn't great, but it'll do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Whoa the article calls it "ultra-cool" in the first sentence? I thought that kind of wording is frowned upon :) HaEr48 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This discovery is undoubtedly one of the most exciting events of our time, in my opinion. Kurtis (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It will be largely forgotten in a couple of weeks. This is because there is no chance of any life. When they discover an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star that will be exciting. Abductive (reasoning) 05:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

[Pulled] Pull U.S. immigration suspension from OngoingEdit

Article: Executive Order 13769 (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk)

 Smurrayinchester 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The order is suspended, has been for two weeks, and courts refused to lift the suspension. The government is drafting a new order, but that hasn't arrived yet. There are no developments and this story is now stale. Smurrayinchester 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Not news at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I would like to point out that this was added to Ongoing without a nomination here at ITN/C. When I brought this up at ERRORS I was told that doing so was at the discretion of admins. Perhaps that is fine for overwhelmingly supported noms, but this one was far from that when proposed as a blurb.128.214.163.208 (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    And yet it stayed on ongoing for a few weeks with not a single complaint from any of our readers. Stephen 00:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's not really in the news anymore. Can be reinstated if it flares up again. Banedon (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for putting up the template - I didn't realize there was a "remove" option. Smurrayinchester 08:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kenneth ArrowEdit

Older than oldest RD on main page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 28 February 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: Kenneth Arrow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: Mélencron (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately I can't find any news sources yet covering this, but news of his passing is percolating among economists. Mélencron (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Please name, I'll try to fix. Ken Arrow was one of the most influential social scientists of the 20th century. It would be a shame if he's not on RD. --bender235 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Take the "Endogenous-growth theory" section for example. Not one ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Added some. --bender235 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's often a problem that when people say 'for example' only that specific case gets fixed. Have a look at the sentences and paragraphs throughout the article that make claims and yet lack a citation. That's what needs fixing. Stephen 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Overall the article is good and well sourced, but the subsection "Arrow's impossibility theorem" could use more sourcing. Other than that I think it's a go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 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.

February 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 21

[Posted] RD: Jeanne Martin CisséEdit

Article: Jeanne Martin Cissé (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Freland, François-Xavier (February 22, 2017). "La Guinée endeuillée par la disparition de Jeanne Martin Cissé, figure de l'indépendance et des droits des femmes". Jeune Afrique. Retrieved February 22, 2017.; "Guinée : décès de Jeanne Martin Cissé (Présidence de la République)". Guinée Matin. February 21, 2017. |access-date= requires |url= (help) ; "Côte d'Ivoire-International/ Décès de Jeanne Martin Cissé, figure de l'autonomie et des droits des femmes". Agence Ivoirienne de Presse. February 22, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Guinean women's rights advocate, minister, diplomat. Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Soyuz-U retiredEdit

Articles: Soyuz-U (talk, history) and Progress MS-05 (talk, history)
Blurb: Soyuz-U, longest serving orbital rocket, was launched to its last mission.
News source(s): (NASA), (TASS), (RT), (Christian Science Monitor)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

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: Longest serving orbital rocket with 43 years in service, 786 missions and 97.2% success rate. Jenda H. (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – Can a rocket "serve" – ?? Seems a case of anthropomorphism. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Taken from the USS Intrepid (CV-11) - "In her second career, she served mainly in the Atlantic, but also participated in the Vietnam War" - I think if a ship can serve then a spacecraft can as well. Besides, anthropomorphism is common in vehicles, which is why a ship or shuttle is referred to as 'she'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Soyuz rockets aren't being retired, it's just that the Soyuz-U variant has been phased out in favour of the Soyuz-FG and the Soyuz-2, both of which have been in service for over a decade. I'm therefore not convinced that this is a particularly noteworthy event, and the blurb would confuse readers. It might be worthwhile if the Soyuz-U article was good, but it's not much above start-class. Soyuz (rocket family) is better, but that isn't being retired. Modest Genius talk 18:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. In reviewing the articles about the rockets the FG seems to be an improved version of the U variant, while the Soyuz-2 is a different type altogether. It might be notable when the FG is retired (seems that it will be soon); not sure about this version- though I don't wish to stand in the way of posting this. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at R-7_(rocket_family) shows that there have been 765 successful launches and 22 failures. Comparison_of_orbital_launchers_families shows that excepting Soyuz no other entire family of rockets has done that. And among Soyuz, it is the leading class also. Nergaal (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Most of the article's content is unreferenced. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Desmond ConnellEdit

Older than oldest listed RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 28 February 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: Desmond Connell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Irish Times
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (talk • give credit)

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose insufficiently referenced, and in this case, that's very important. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    The article is pretty well-referenced now. —MBlaze Lightning T 12:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It is much improved, and the only reference problem is ref 16 (dead link, "The lies...") which is used in the most contentious part of the article. On the condition that this is resolved, support.128.214.163.237 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Recovered from archive.org. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a single CN tagged sentence which is repeated verbatim on many other websites, but not on any RS that I can find and sounds suspiciously like OR. There are sources for Connell and Benedict's common council meetings, so adding one of those and removing the "close to" phrasing might suffice. The chronology in the last section is confused and some rather weighty stuff is unreferenced. I don't think these problems are insurmountable, but I also don't think the current state is suitable or that contentious content could be simply removed for the sake of posting to RD.128.214.163.208 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the article is certainly important enough that it should be featured, but I'm still seeing a number of grammatical errors, and also some weasel words and issues with sourcing. "failure to adequately address" is not something we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support reiterated. I fixed a new redlink, and every assertion appears to have a suitable reference. The language mentioned above comes directly from the legalese in this case, and given the weightiness of the matter I think its best to use that language instead of trying to come up with something else.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 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: Steve Hewlett (journalist)Edit

Article: Steve Hewlett (journalist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (talk • give credit)

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 08:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support good to go, but should be posted under 20 Feb, not 21 Feb. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Charsadda suicide bombingEdit

Article: 2017 Charsadda suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An attack at a sessions court in Charsadda, Pakistan, kills 7 people and injures at least 20 others.
News source(s): Dawn, Express Tribune
Nominator and updater: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The attack by 3 suicide bombers was averted by LEA personnel from turning into a major catastrophe. mfarazbaig 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support a reasonable article but I'm not sure it's really "in the news" in a big way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose since it's superseded by the 22 Feb nomination I'm about to make. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 20

[Posted] RD: Vitaly ChurkinEdit

Article: Vitaly Churkin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): PTV
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Sitting UN ambassador on a high-profile (ermanent USCI) posting to die in office is pretty notable. Perhaps even blurb? Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb upon improvement The article is a bit undersourced, but I think the death of a sitting representative of a world power to the UN is worth a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb under all circumstances unless the death is an assassination or in some other way remarkable, this is just RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only unless Trump or Putin had him assassinated. Totally agree with TRM on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Barring the assassination angle, ambassadors even to the UN don't hold that much political power that their sudden death even while at the job is not news-breaking. Article seems okay for posting. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only ... unless, etc. Sca (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only unless there are more interesting developments. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb & at least RD second Russian ambassador to die in office in the last couple months. 45.116.233.12 (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Third, and it is odd. I beeive it was Greece or something.Lihaas (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Assassination of Andrei Karlov & Kyriakos Amiridis. 45.116.232.49 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I have resolved the last two CN tags, and they are awaiting review.128.214.163.249 (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Done. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The article has since been loaded up with material that puts an odd amount of weight on Churkin's interactions with US Rep Power. This seems myopic and UNDUE, and the phrasing is also confusing. It seems to be referring to content not actually in the article, and it has been CN tagged to boot.128.214.163.228 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed undue Syrian stuff by now. Brandmeistertalk 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • posted --Jayron32 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Famine in South SudanEdit

Article: 2017 South Sudan famine (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations declare famine in South Sudan.
Nominator: Wnt (talk • give credit)

 Tone 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The UN has officially declared a 2017 South Sudan famine. This is the first official famine (rather than a warning of potential famine) in six years - not Yemen, Boko Haram, nor Somalia actually were declared famines. It emerged from a standardized process, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification as part of its normal updating, so this is as objective and apolitical an assessment as can be had. I understand that Wikipedia has a problem with the timing of slow events but if there is any one moment where they reach genuine newsworthiness then this is that moment. And how can the deaths of thousands of people not be newsworthy? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I added the nomination template. Support when the article gets some more work (I see editing is ongoing). --Tone 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the articles needs expanding more on the background. I can't believe this was just suddenly the case, and while the famine 6 years ago is mentioned, I think there needs to be more discussion of the order of the events that get from there to now. But I do think this is an ITN story once that is in place. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I had a prior commitment, but I can get back to this soon. I know there's a lot more to add to the article. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I see expansion happening enough to get the basics down, provide an article backbone for any new editors, but room to grow. Support. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Defiantly notable, and the official declaration gives a clear, datable, story to feature on ITN. --LukeSurl t c 23:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support after expansion - Sherenk1 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Banedon (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Kasaï-Central clashes (2016–present)Edit

No consensus to post to ongoing, not in the news and no significant activity. Stephen 23:12, 21 February 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: Kasaï-Central clashes (2016–present) (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Reactions from the UN (MONUSCO) and the Pope. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not true. I've added a lot. And the event is still unfolding (ongoing)...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The last event noted when i reviewed the article was 14 February. That's six days. Two flare-ups in six months is not really an "ongoing" issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The video story I've just added was published on 18 February. Also to be honest it's happening in the middle of nowhere, which probably explains the lack of instant breaking news by the hour.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Well unless it's regularly updated it's no use at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing The article is very short, and there's very little regularly updated information. As noted by TRM, the last significant event happened almost a week ago, the last event of ANY kind is a reaction statement from February 16. If the article could be greatly expanded, and if it could be shown that events were happening rapidly by daily updates to the article, I'd change to support. --Jayron32 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not really being "in the news". This is the first I'd heard of this, and the sourcing on the article itself is pretty narrow: a few Reuters sources, but then the Vatican, niche African-oriented press and RFI. RS's sure, but this isn't the broad sampling of sources I would expect from a highly-notable event of world-wide import.128.214.163.237 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should dismiss the African or francophone press. There should be no supremacy of US media at ITN.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thats 100% true. So use the continuous reports in the Francophone press to update the article daily with ongoing information, and when the article is sufficiently in depth AND we can see that it is being updated regularly, we'll all vote support. --Jayron32 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added reactions from the MAEDI and the USDS.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not at all dismissing non-US press, and that's a very creative reading of my objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.163.249 (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It's still not any events. When you have continuous coverage of the conflict itself, and not just random reactions to it, you may have something. So far, nothing in the actual conflict since February 14th has been added to the article. That's not really a current event, ongoing or otherwise. --Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. While it is ongoing, would a blurb make more sense?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The United States Department of State, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development, and the Pope condemn the violence and use of child soldiers in the Kasaï-Central clashes?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not newsworthy. These organisations and individuals condemn stuff all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, reliable third-party sources think it is newsworthy.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course, they have to print something. I clearly meant not newsworthy in regard to this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think this is not newsworthy? I'm just curious. The US media care more about the Milo gossip; very sad.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not seeing it in any news outlets today, yesterday etc that I read regularly, the major events are spread well apart and nothing actually seems to be "ongoing", the use of child soldiers is not exclusive to this conflict, the condemnations are "by numbers" (take a look at any of the suicide bombing articles, condemnations aplenty). It's not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The articles in Voice of America, the Catholic Herald, Le Monde and La Croix were all published yesterday.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes? I've made my position clear, leave it now, focus on others. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Another comment/update. Just to let you know: I have added more info about another incident on February 18, and a reference from The New York Times.Zigzig20s (talk)
    Thanks, it was three days ago and looks incredibly insignificant on a global news scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Since you asked me to "focus on others" earlier, could you please do the same thing? We know--you don't like this nomination--we get it--please follow your own advice. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
No, this was a new update, so I'm just confirming that it's not of any note. It's not about "liking" a nomination, it's about due and careful consideration as to whether it rises to the notability level of the main page of Wikipedia. And an office being "ransacked" does not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 21 February 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] Russia recognizes passports from Ukrainian separatistsEdit

No consensus to post, consensus in favour of highlighting an article with a suitable update. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 February 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: No article specified
Blurb: ​Russia recognizes passports from Ukrainian separatists
News source(s): [12] [13]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is the same action that Russia used as justification for intervening in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I think Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) is the most suitable article for this, but 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and War in Donbass are also plausible. As of time of writing none of the articles are updated. If anyone has other suggestions for other target articles / blurb feel free to suggest. Banedon (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there enough to this new development to create a separate article?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all sorts of countries recognise all sorts of passports from all sorts of places. Maybe a DYK hook? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Neo-Soviets gonna neo-Soviet. Don't see how this rises to the level of ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article. What's the point of making such a nomination?128.214.163.237 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    There are two approaches to ITN nominations. The first is "I've just written a great article, you should feature it". The other is "this could be something, what do you think?". If it isn't obvious enough, I'm a believer of the second kind of nomination. Banedon (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel that nominating an event without an article is like telling a friend something without any context or any way to read more. It's absolutely useless to tell somebody something without giving some kind of context and allowing them to read more. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Moot - No article.--WaltCip (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if we had a target article, this seems more on paperwork rather than anything groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there's no article to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 20 February 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] Daniel Craig now second longest serving James BondEdit

WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 19:19, 20 February 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: Daniel Craig (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Daniel Craig is now the second longest serving James Bond
News source(s): [14] [15] [16]
Nominator: TheSandDoctor (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I thought that this might be worthy of a news blurb as the James Bond franchise is fairly notable as is Daniel Craig and several news agencies/websites (including CTV Television Network) have covered this development. TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SNOW close Good faith nomination, but this is trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 20 February 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.

February 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 19

February 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 18

[Posted] RD: Dan VickermanEdit

Article: Daniel Vickerman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Guardian
Nominator: MBlaze Lightning (talk • give credit)

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support can't see anything major at a quick glance here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Comment the vast majority of the WP:RS refer to him as "Dan Vickerman" rather than "Daniel Vickerman" so it's worth considering a page move too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

[Needs attention] RD: Clyde StubblefieldEdit

Article: Clyde Stubblefield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone .com
Nominator: Jusdafax (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Drummer for James Brown, article well referenced with the exception of the discography. Suggest forking that off to a separate article if that is an issue that prevents listing. Jusdafax 23:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is Allmusic.com a reliable source?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Brianga (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I sourced the discography section (lead sentence at top of the section). Allmusic and Discogs are reliable for basic credits. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – If we're supposed to be judging this on article quality, here's a few things:
    • The lead section can be called an indiscriminate collection of information far more than it can be called a capsule of a biography. Based on my experiences working in public radio and dealing with that audience face-to-face, it's entirely possible that many folks know of Stubblefield from his appearances on Whad'Ya Know? and aren't very familiar with James Brown, and would look at that lead section and consider it to be a bunch of trivia. It's incongruous and smells of haphazardly slapping content together to have a lead which reads more like a James Brown WP:COATRACK than about anything having to do with Stubblefield, all the while the infobox photo is from a Whad'Ya Know? program but the article contains only one mention of the program and his association with it about halfway down.
    • Speaking of which, such mention is minimal to the point of being irrelevant. Not mentioned in the article, but mentioned in the program's article is the fact that Stubblefield only appeared on the program when they did "road shows" and didn't appear on the programs recorded in Madison, which is something I never quite understood considering that he lived in Madison.
    • The career section starts with mentioning his birth and childhood, which is typically found in a separate section from one discussing a subject's career. I know that's a common tactic on the part of editors who work on biographies in various fields. Believing that we don't need to mention anything about a musician's life if it has to do with their life but has nothing to do with music makes us appear to be hopelessly one-dimensional. I didn't read the comment, but noticed that someone used the term "one-trick pony" in addressing a recent concern of mine. They ought to take a good look at content like this before casting such aspersions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
About the quality: The first sentence in each paragraph of the lead is on point. News sources are calling him James Brown's Funky Drummer and a highly sampled uncredited musician [17]. About his role in the radio program: I can't find much on it, but if you have sources then feel free to add it. The article is not GA quality, but it is well sourced, and it is a decent reflection of the sources. (disclosure: I updated the article a couple of years ago and have kept an eye on it since) Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I updated the article and rewrote the lead. Most of the discography and the instructional video section are sourced in the body of the article anyway, but the lead sentence in the discography section refs it entirely. I think the article is in good shape. Bammesk (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually this version of the article is scored GA by ores [18]. Bammesk (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As nominator. I second Bammesk's assement. Since article quality is supposed to be the sole factor of judgement, I will add a [Needs attention] to the top. Jusdafax 05:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

RD: Norma McCorveyEdit

Article: Norma McCorvey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Plaintiff of landmark Roe v. Wade case. EternalNomad (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Was just coming here to nominate, but needs some more sourcing at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs some work with an emphasis on referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - In my judgment, which is based on a very cursory review of the article, it really only needs a couple more sources here and there, as well as one to replace this opinion piece. They won't take long to be added. Kurtis (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Alright, so I've moved some sources around and named a couple pre-existing ones that referenced the uncited claims; I've also removed the opinion piece reference, which leaves a total of three citations where there were once four.[19] Does the article look any better? Are these changes sufficient for an RD posting? Kurtis (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, references could use some work, but I think it's good enough for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some very contentious claims are unreferenced. Stephen 00:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    I've been working for some time at finding reliable sources to rectify this problem, but the job is actually tougher than I had anticipated. For instance, the specific institutions to which she had allegedly been sent are extremely difficult to locate in much of the publicly available documentation regarding her life, and some of it may have be taken from Wikipedia in the first place. I'm considering changing my support to an oppose if providing adequate referencing proves to be impossible in the short-term. Kurtis (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Omar Abdel-RahmanEdit

Article: Omar Abdel-Rahman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: ​Islamic militant Omar Abdel-Rahman, former leader of al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, dies in prison aged 78.
Alternative blurb II: ​Islamic militant Omar Abdel-Rahman, former leader of al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, dies in a United States prison aged 78.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is B-quality, a few citation needed tabs but nothing that can't be fixed. His group al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya was responsible for the deaths of nearly 1,000 people, and he also gave the fatwa supporting the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. I think his notoriety and the fact that he died in a US prison may be blurb-worthy. EternalNomad (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The mujaheddin and legacy sections are both completely unsourced, which would obviously be a prerequisite to posting. As for thoughts on a blurb, I think it's a borderline case – before about 1995 he was probably higher profile than Bin Laden, so certainly understand why this was chosen as a topic of discussion. On the other hand, the circumstances of death were unremarkable and for obvious reasons he has been somewhat overshadowed within his... field... over the past 15 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is fine once the sourcing issues that StillWaiting identified. It would be one thing if he was killed while there was a manhunt for him, but he was captured, tried, and sentenced, effectively closing the book on the attack; his death while in prison is unremarkable. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, not called for in this case. A few more citations are needed before RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support for RD only after citiation fixed - Notable Sherenk1 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD; his death is unremarkable and we're not talking about someone whose baseline significance matches that of, say, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A blurb would be overdoing it. But an RD mention is more than warranted, once the legacy and mujaheddin sections have adequate referencing. Kurtis (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article fails to explain why he was not given the death penalty. Perhaps if we can understand that, an RD would make sense. Right now it looks elliptic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per StillWaiting; old convicted terrorist dying in prison doesn't warrant a blurb; not tops in 'field' either. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb and I don't know how possible it will be to cite the stuff in the aforementioned sections. Unless a genuine past-contemporary source is found, RS<->WP reinforcement probably means that those sections are from tweets or some armchair jihadist's synth. The Stewart conviction should have a real source, at least in the court's documentation. Is there a possibility to get this guy's picture up when this goes to RD? Ol' Rockabilly Santa Claus looking sheik.128.214.163.237 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 17

[Posted] RD: Robert H. MichelEdit

Article: Robert H. Michel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been well sourced as Michel served as House Minority Leader (setting record for serving the longest period) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Looks well-referenced and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – The article title appears to be yet another example of someone else's naming conventions taking precedence over our own. I've always heard him commonly described as "Robert Michel" or usually "Bob Michel", not "Robert H. Michel". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    Was in a hurry to finish up and get out the door and wasn't quite finished. Breaking the article into so many sections that are mostly devoid of detail makes the disparity between our coverage of certain portions of his life and coverage of certain other portions of his life all the more obvious, suggesting that we're defining "article quality" in strictly superficial terms. One of the passages from his early life caught my attention: "From 1949 to 1956, he worked as an administrative assistant to U.S. Representative Harold Velde". It would appear to me that we call them "congressional aides" if they worked for a member of Congress at certain points in history, but by other job titles if they served at certain other points in history. How does that make sense? If I made my living by panhandling on the street, but described it to a newspaper reporter in more fanciful terms and they published my description at face value, does that mean that we're obligated to follow suit if it came down to that? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RD: Nicole BassEdit

Article: Nicole Bass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Daily Mail, USA Today
Nominator: Sterngleek (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

 Sterngleek (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 16

RD: Dick BrunaEdit

Article: Dick Bruna (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: He created Miffy. Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I see about three standalone sentences (two in bio, 1 in influence) that are unsourced that need sourcing, but appear to be statements that should be relatively easy to find sources for. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Zealandia proposed as New (8th) ContinentEdit

Withdrawn per WP:SNOW.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:42, 17 February 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: Zealandia (continent) (talk, history)
Blurb: The Geological Society of America publishes a report stating that Zealandia is a geological continent, rather than a microcontinent or continental fragment.
Alternative blurb: The Geological Society of America publishes a paper proposing that Zealandia is a geological continent, rather than a microcontinent or continental fragment.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists propose that Zealandia is a geological continent, rather than a microcontinent or continental fragment.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian, Telegraph
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A new 8th continent seems like less-than-once-a-century news (though it's mostly submerged, except for New Zealand and New Caledonia). At first glance, the article seems in decent enough shape, though I'll let others decide that. I assume this nom's problem will be that it's still only one paper, albeit a potentially momentous one. I'll let others argue whether that's notable enough for ITN, but I think the question deserves to be at least asked, so this nom asks it. In reply to 'It's just a proposal', I agree, but the serious proposal that there is a newly discovered continent here on Earth is the biggest and most surprising news that I've heard in a very long time (far more surprising to me than Brexit or Trump's election), and something I would have called 'impossible' yesterday, whereas by the time it gets 'accepted' or 'rejected' by the rest of science, if it ever does, it will be almost boring almost non-news, at least to me. Incidentally the blurb is the wording currently in the article. The altblurb with 'paper proposing' is my 'weaker' wording, just in case the article's wording is 'too strong' (I don't know whether it is or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - I'd support this, but only after it gains consensus among scientists. Banedon (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. I agree with Bandeon; I wouldn't support a mere proposal(which essentially is just the opinion of those making it) until it is more widely accepted. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zealandia has been known about for years - the Zealandia Zealandia (continent) article has existed since 2006. This is not a discovery, rather another part of the discussion on the technical definition of what Zealandia/a "continent" is. --LukeSurl t c 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is Zealandia (continent). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been known about for years by experts. Like probably 90 to 99% of non-experts, it's complete news to me, and I want to hear more about it, because it's a proposed new continent that's in the News headlines. And I expect the same is true of many other readers. And facilitating such readers is what ITN is supposed to be about.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait per above. If affirmed/assigned that way, absolutely an ITN story. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zealandia is not new, and nor is the idea that it is a continent. This is just improved evidence and a proposal to adopt the name. There is no official body which rules on the use of the term 'continent'. Maybe other scientists will start using that term, maybe they won't. In the former case it will be a gradual process due to continued accumulation of data, not this one paper, in the latter case there's no story. Modest Genius talk 15:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, just because the paper is in a GSA journal, that doesn't mean that the GSA agrees with it or has anything to do with the proposal. It's inappropriate to identify them with it. Modest Geniustalk 15:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If so, we can always take GSA out of the blurb. I've added an altblurb2 to that effect. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • By your logic, we'll quite likely end up with a new continent without ever mentioning it in ITN. ITN is not about what's news to scientists, but about what's news to our readers, and this is news to our readers because the news media have decided to make it news to them.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems that this is simply one organization publishing a paper developing already well-established findings. Not news. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If one is going to count geological continents, the proposed Zealandia would be the 7th not the 8th. Eurasia is a single geological continent. Dragons flight (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
8th is from newspaper (Telegraph, I think) and not in blurb, partly for that reason.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yawn New Zealanders have continent envy. Next. GoldenRing (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Big wow. Sca (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a new find; it's been known for years. The discussion is trivial because nothing actually happened and probably won't. It's not like we actually discovered a giant new continent with millions of native people; this is small and underwater, like a lot of submerged land. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:38, 17 February 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: Jannis KounellisEdit

Article: Jannis Kounellis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [20][21]
Nominator: Fram (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Recent death, article seems reasonably well sourced already but may need some expansion and care Fram (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment There's no update reflecting his death in the article, and the list of the exhibitions that he was a part of and where his works are now needs sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've made a minor addition regarding his death (not much to be said about it, old man dies is sad but not unexpected news), and added a lot of sourced exhibitions and sources to already mentioned ones. Many remain unsourced though, and I currently don't have the time to source these one by one. Hopefully someone else will go for it, or the unsourced ones can be removed for now (though at least a few of the Arte Povera ones need to be included and sourced). Fram (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No awards section, no major coverage, despite "Gradually, Kounellis introduced new materials, such as propane torches, smoke, coal, meat, ground coffee, lead, and found wooden objects into his installations" no evidence of importance or influence on an ITN level. Again, being in a local or specialist newspaper doesn't mean your passing is "in the news". μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The relevant page you are looking for if you do not believe the subject qualifies for RD is WP:AFD. Ciao. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hilarious, I don't think The Guardian (where he is described as "Pioneer of the arte povera movement" no less), Le Figaro, even super cute and always cheerful American rag Star Tribune managed to cover this news are "local or specialist newspaper[s]", unless I suppose the UK, France and Minnesota are "local" and newspapers with circulations in their millions/(hundreds of thousands, thanks Star!) are "specialist"..... Oh, hold on, that pesky German Berliner Zeitung seems to have noted it, and .... wait a minute, is that Das Spiegel jumping on the bandwagon along with those other parochial local pamphlets such as Deutsche Welle, El Pais and La Nazione. Whatever next, an American college basketball coach? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Excise contentious sections and post, or close' To my eye, the sourcing does not seem to be so bad as to prevent posting. The unsourced sections mentioned above deal with the content of Kounellis' production, which would be made obvious by a simple look at a picture. However, the article is not significantly improved by these unsourced bits, so I wouldn't be against just excising them for the sake of getting the article up. If we're going to let a few phrases describing an exhibit prevent an RD from gracing the front page for a few days, perhaps its better to just get rid of them. I know RD no longer takes notability into account, but this person really does seem to be a large figure in his field.128.214.163.237 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh? I mean really, meh? TRM gives sources, which is great, and mad props for that. But meh. And basketball coach? WTF!?!!? (Personal attack removed) μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    And I'm sure everyone takes everything you say seriously, especially the unfounded personal attacks. Do carry on. No, hold on, I think you're trying to assert that "Americans" is an actual "race" innit?! Nope. If you wish to attempt to attack me personally, do try harder. As your "race" would say, "you don't KNOW ME". I'm actual a Labradoodle. Labragoogle it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Organic compounds on CeresEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:53, 21 February 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: Ceres (dwarf planet) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists report the detection of aliphatic organic compounds on dwarf planet Ceres.
News source(s): Science, LA Times
Nominator: Bender235 (talk • give credit)

 bender235 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support The cautionary note here is because they used spectrographic methods, rather than more direct analysis, it's not proof. They are right that there is very little else that could give off the spectroscopic signals at those frequencies - but there are non-organic things that do, but they've obviously tried to eliminate anything outside of organic materials by other means. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but article not updated. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. So these are not tholins? Abductive (reasoning) 03:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose significance is abundantly unclear, not updated so it's actually impossible to form a realistic opinion other than to reject the nomination out of hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Organic compounds are found on every body in the solar system excpt Mercury, unless I am wrong. And if I am wrong, it proves my point, dinna? μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, the significant element here is that the organic compounds were formed on Ceres itself, it points to the interesting possiblity that life may have originated on proto-planets like Ceres. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Life could not possibly originate on Ceres, sorry. The Sun was cooler in the past. Certainly such WP:OR is not a reason to post. Abductive (reasoning) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • How did the planets form? It all started with small objects growing larger via accretion that then collided to form larger and larger objects. At the later stages of this processes there were hundreds of proto-planets that collided with each other forming the planets as we know them today. It has been argued that Earth got its water as a result of an influx of icy proto-planets from the outer solar system that ended up becoming part of the Earth's interior. It is now know that the Earth's interior does indeed contain vastly more water that in all the Earth's oceans. This water from the interior made its way to the Earth's surface via outgassing. Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Plenty of frozen salty water on Ceres, but no energy source means no life. You could not engineer a bacterium that could survive on Ceres, let alone arise their. One still needs a primordial soup. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The interior of even asteroids is known to have been molten not long after they formed due to the decay of Iron-60. So, When Ceres formed you would have had not only the heat from it's formation but also heat from radioactive decay from Iron-60 decay. Today, it's frozen, although I'm not sure about the interior. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the passage of a few days shows that this story didn't have legs. Organic compounds abound in the solar system, and nobody here or in the scientific community has made a case for why this finding is at all interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 02:22, 21 February 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] Sehwan suicide bombingEdit

Article: 2017 Sehwan suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing at a shrine in Sehwan, Pakistan, kills at least 50 70 people and injures more than 100.
News source(s): Dawn, huffingtonpost, BBC, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Saqib (talk • give credit)

 Saqib (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, bigger incident than the one in Lahore unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, while it looks like most of the critical details are in place, I'd just give this a few hours for more info to settle, but it otherwise seems ready at this point. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Toll reaches 72, according to Reuters. Others say [22] 70. – Sca (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support huge attack. Article is just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted boldly based added support from TRM and Sca. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Masem:: death toll increased to 88 and injuries to 350. Could the blurb be updated ?--Saqib (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 15

[Posted] RD: Stuart McLeanEdit

Article: Stuart McLean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: Nohomersryan (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article seems to be in fair shape, but someone more knowledgeable than me should have a look. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The bibliography should include the ISBN numbers (for sourcing) and the discrography needs some type of equivalent sourcing. --MASEM (t) 05:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose bibliography/discography basically unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose bibliography and discography need citations. MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that bibliographies and discographies do not commonly have citations in the main Wikipedia article, eg Doris Lessing, David Bowie, George Michael. All three of these people have been featured on the main page within the past few months. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Doesn't make it right, and in most of those cases, all items within the discogs/bibliographies either had articles or ISBNs. That's not the case here. How does our reader verify the existence of these? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Where were your comments on this when George Michael was being discussed? And no -- they don't all have ISBNs or articles. In fact, none of Doris Lessing's have ISBNs on the main page, and only about a third of them have articles. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Other stuff exists, sure. I can't police it all, much as I'd like to stop problematic articles getting rushed onto the main page. Better for you to spend this time fixing the article rather than berating me for not catching all the problems on the main page. And answer the exam question, which is rooted in core Wikipedia policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as an amusing note, I would not myself have suggested or supported Stuart McLean as an RD, and that despite knowing more about him than the name. (Nice guy btw. Nothing like me.) I only spoke up because you *did* originally speak up about the George Michael blurb, repeatedly (to strongly support the blurb, in fact, even to the point of suggesting any lack of support might be because George Michael was not American) -- so it is scarcely a matter of "police it all", but of specifically policing an article you actively supported for an ITN blurb. ("Policing" -- another interesting word for a once and would-be future administrator.) Interestingly, you never once mentioned lack of references in the discography in your multiple comments there. We can learn our own biases from our inconsistencies, or we can hide behind quoting policy. Your choice. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Just as an amusing rebuttal, as Masem points out, Michael's discog contained bluelinks and most, if not all, were covered in the prose with inline citations. You need to try harder if you want to be actually amusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
And of course, what really is amusing is that Michael's entire discog was forked out to this page which... oh... just happens to be a featured list with inline citations for every single thing he ever did as a musical artist. Now please, try to think of something constructive to do around here as we've wasted enough time already on this baseless (and tasteless) tattle. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
And for the avoidance of doubt, my first comment at Michael was "Support blurb unexpected death of a "pop icon", easily outweighs people like Paul Walker" which was after the blurb was posted. Do you get that? Subsequent posts reminded Wikipedia that we had summarily posted Paul Walker for a blurb despite him being a B-list American actor. American users had set the bar so sufficiently low with that post, that it was super easy to promote Michael and Princess Leia and her mother to full blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Lessing probably needs them regardless, but for Bowie and Michael, the fact that they made those albums or went on those tours are sourced in the lengthy prose section of the bio, and they are also all blue-links to notable articles. In this case, more than half the works are unlinked, and likely not notable, and there's no significant discussion of each work in the bio prose. So an ISBN or reference to affirm the book/album was made and they authored is necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment bibliography/discography now referenced. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Great shape for posting! Good job on the improvements! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as article is in good shape. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] PSLV-C37Edit

Article: PSLV-C37 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​With PSLV-C37, Indian Space Research Organisation successfully launches a record 104 satellites.
Alternative blurb: India’s space agency launched a record 104 satellites in one go from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikota using a four stage PSLV-C37, nearly tripling the previous record.
News source(s): Indian Express
Nominator: Dharmadhyaksha (talk • give credit)
Updater: Vivvt (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: MBlaze Lightning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The highest record so far has been of 37 satellites by Russia in 2014 followed by USA's 29. I suppose the topic would be news-worthy in either of the cases of its success or failure. With success, this will be a word record of launching 104 satellites in a go which surpasses the previous record by a huge margin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No news source currently. When are we expecting to determine whether this will be a success or failure?--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It happened, it was a success, I've included one source. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Notable enough for ITN. Article could do with a bit more reaction detail, the views section - currently giving one person's negative option of the project - needs to be expanded. --LukeSurl t c 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivia. 45.116.233.45 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs expansion. Also the blurb should clarify what record it has broken. Feel free to refer to how The New York Times phrased it - "India’s space agency launched a flock of 104 satellites into space over the course of 18 minutes on Wednesday, nearly tripling the previous record for single-day satellite launches...". Morningstar1814 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Whilst an impressive feat, it doesn't really seem to have any implications. Any space agency or private launch company could do this if it filled a single rocket with CubeSats. This just shows that ISRO has a lot of contracts for microsatellite launches. Other than breaking a trivial record it's unclear what (if anything) the implications are. I've struggled to find any media interest outside India, and the article is pretty basic (e.g. no indication of what the payload satellite are even designed to do). Modest Genius talk 17:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • In addition to the NYT article above, here's the Washington Post. There seems to be interest outside of India. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
LaLa Land has no implications whatsoever... Any film could win 5 awards and 5 awards is no record either. This is atleast better than the current lead blurb of a gossip magazine. Plus, this is an actual record. But yes, i agree that more expansion should happen. 117.222.8.10 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, given what the ITNR criteria are for manned space missions, I think importance wise this unmanned feat cuts the mustard. $15m to successfully launch 104 satellites borders on economical, which is perhaps more significant than the record itself. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it's made clear what the capabilities of these 104 satellites are. It's not covered in the article as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • CommentPlenty of sources.Sca (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    Then add them to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this is an ITN-caliber story that only hinges on article quality. It's a pretty big deal for India to be making waves in the spaceflight industry. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm working on expanding it. —MBlaze Lightning T 03:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Article has been expanded. —MBlaze Lightning T 15:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support after expansion - Notable - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Noteworthy, interesting, in the news across the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The article is good quality, interesting, and in the news. Mamyles (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mamyles: Could you please let us know what could be improved? - Vivvt (Talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per StillWaitingForConnection. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 14

[Closed] TrianguleneEdit

Clear consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 16 February 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: Non-Kekulé molecule (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists successfully synthesize triangulene, the simplest Non-Kekulé polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon, for the first time
News source(s): [23] [24] [25]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Ping @EdChem: for expert opinion on this. Banedon (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but the article needs updating with this and some improvements (eg the lead figure only has 3 "captions" but there's 4 figures. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Care to explain how come the article you linked to says, "After unsuccessful attempts by Erich Clar in 1953, trioxytriangulene was synthesized by Richard J. Bushby in 1995, and kinetically stabilized triangulene by Kazuhiro Nakasuji in 2001"? Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I like to see science stories on ITN, but this seems a fairly minor advance of interest only to specialists. I'm just not seeing anything to raise this above the sort of typical scientific development announced every week. We don't have an article on triangulene and the section linked in the nomination is barely related to it. If there was a high-quality article I might be swayed, but we have nothing and it doesn't seem worth quickly developing one. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too specialized for the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds at present - The eminently relevant question raised by Abductive above is still unanswered after over 12 hours. Of course even if it were answered I doubt if it deserves posting on notability grounds. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this be closed per WP:SNOW], or is it too early to do so? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    No, it's time. Getting a lot of snow lately, time of year I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    I'm of opinion this should wait for expert input (*cough Edchem*). I will say though, I'm finding Modest Genius's arguments persuasive, especially since updating the article is not easy. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 15 February 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 blurb] [Posted RD] Kim Jong-namEdit

Article: Kim Jong-nam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Assassins kill Kim Jong-nam, the son and former designated successor to North Korea's Kim Jong-il in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Alternative blurb: Kim Jong-un's half-brother Kim Jong-nam is killed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
News source(s): Guardian BBC NYT
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Exiled elder brother of North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. There are unconfirmed reports that he was assassinated by North Korean agents. Article is basic but seems okay. Nominating for RD only; even if the rumours are true I don't think there's enough in the way of implications for a blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I would seriously consider this for a blurb. But we can post to RD prior to forming a consensus on that one way or the other. At the moment, seems adequate for a RD post. If going for a blurb, the death section would need to be expanded. --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is good, and this is most likely an assassination. (Also, may I just note that the reason this guy isn't leader of North Korea is because he got caught by Japanese authorities trying to sneak into Disneyland.) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many unreferenced claims in this BLP for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you put {{cn}} tags where you think the issues are? --LukeSurl t c 14:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just find any of the unreferenced sentences. There are many. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have tagged each section that needs work. Especially problematic are direct quotes without citations (each direct quote must have a direct cite to where it is from) and statements like "It was verified later on..." which does not cite WHERE it was verified... --Jayron32 14:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added references in the tagged sections where they were needed. --LukeSurl t c 15:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RDblurb. Unless it's proven to be an assassination, I don't think this deserves a blurb since he never took power. From a quick glance, it looks like everything is sourced in the article except the date of Kim Jong-un's ascension, which is an uncontroversial fact and would be sourced in that article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • NYT and other sources are now reporting that it's confirmed as an assasination. I would support a full blurb in this case and have added it to the nom ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with thanks to LukeSurl's work in adding references. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post blurb - Assassinations are a big deal, especially when North Korea commits one outside of the country, at a public place, an airport nonetheless, on an exiled North Korean, who is a brother of the dictator Kim Jong Un II. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for a blurb until this is more widely reported as an "assassination". Most sources I have seen indicate the situation is not entirely clear yet(although The Guardian link above claims the US and South Korean governments believe Kim to have been killed by DPRK agents). 331dot (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb unless this is definitely ruled as an assassination targeting him. Yes, a duck test suggests it was, I don't question that, but they have not completed the investigation. (Was he purposely the target, and was the attack with the liquid meant to kill him or just harm him?) Let's not rush to call it an assassination and put it as a blurb until we have better confirmation. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - reported as assassination by NYT [26], citing a South Korean news channel, and as murder by BBC [27]. -Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose blurb more or less per Masem. On balance of probability I believe this was an assassination, however the people who would need to say this for it to be justifiable to post a blurb of some description – either the Malaysian police, or a relevant Government, to whom we could attribute the claim – are not doing so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The only reason I don't think this should be posted is because no major player has reacted (like sanctions or any declaration of support or criticism). Nergaal (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Death section is now substantial enough to merit main page posting. Story is developing, most recent development is an arrest. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added an alt-blurb that avoids the word "assassination". --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Target article is in good-shape, top news story with international geopolitical impact, etc. --Tocino 12:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, even as the nominator. Kim Jong-nam was a private citizen who hadn't been involved in North Korean affairs for over a decade. His assassination, which is strongly suspected but still unproven, is deplorable but merely demonstrates the ruthlessness of the current regime. It doesn't directly impact upon current events or international relations. Nor was he a public figure on the level of Mandela or Thatcher. Therefore this doesn't reach the (high) threshold there should be for a blurb. RD is enough. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mandela and Thatcher died of natural causes. The argument for posting a blurb comes from the violent circumstances of the death. A comparable case is the Murder of Jo Cox. Cox was a fairly junior politician, but the violent and sudden nature of her death meant that it was headline news and an ITN item. --LukeSurl t c 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb somewhat reluctantly. It's major news globally and it has been widely reported that Mr. Kim was being maintained by China as a potential replacement for the current N. Korean dictator should a change in leadership be required. At this point I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that this was an assassination and it is being called that by a huge number of reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider at least temporarily Pulling from RD? I don't know why, but the BBC 6 o'clock TV News this evening was strangely cautious, repeatedly referring to his 'possible body', as if they have some doubt as to whether it's actually him, in which case it just might yet turn out to be a case of Mark Twain's "Reports of my death are much exagerated". Tlhslobus (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: - Both the Kuala Lumpur Police Department and the North Korean Embassy have confirmed that the assassinated was indeed Kim Jong-nam. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've now also asked the same question at WP:ERRORS. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. The BBC website tonight says: "North Korea has asked Malaysia for the body of a man believed to be leader Kim Jong-un's half-brother. Kim Jong-nam is thought to have been poisoned as he waited to board a flight in the capital Kuala Lumpur on Monday. Local authorities are carrying out an autopsy to establish the exact cause of Mr Kim's death, but Pyongyang has reportedly objected... Malaysia has yet to formally confirm that the dead man, who was travelling under the name Kim Chol, is Kim Jong-nam." (My emphasis). So, we should wait before doing anything. Even if it is confirmed to be him, his death, in whatever manner, is not sufficiently notable to be worthy of a blurb. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ghmyrtle. Does that mean that you support at least temporarily pulling him from RD? I note that item 2 of the criteria for inclusion at WP:ITNRD states:
2.Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.
  • Incidentally, I'm planning to copy your above quote to WP:ERRORS. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's OK to keep him as a death at present - it is reliably sourced. But, in the circumstances, we should be cautious about giving it any more prominence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
His death has been reported as an assassination in more RS sources than I can count. The only question seems to be coming from Pyongyang, which is not a reliable source for the current weather much less anything serious. This remains one of the top news stories globally (except in the United States where we remain convulsed in self obsession over our laughingstock of a president). That it has not been posted is simply ridiculous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
More careful and cautious sources like the BBC are not saying they are certain it is him, are not saying it was murder, and are certainly not calling it an "assassination". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
How many sources beyond the BBC are towing Pyongyang's line? The only source for this manufactured doubt is the North Korean government. The BBC may regard Pyongyang as a reliable source, but I do not think we do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb for the time being, at least unless changed to 'reported assassinated' : Apart from the above-mentioned caution of the BBC, here from Google are just some of the sources saying 'reported assassinated' or 'suspected assassination'; admittedly most are a day old, but ABC is only 3 hours ago.
    • Kim Jong-un's Half Brother Is Reported Assassinated in Malaysia - New York Times · 1 day ago
    • Kim Jong Un's half-brother apparently assassinated in Malaysian airport - USA TODAY · 1 day ago
    • Kim Jong-nam death: Woman arrested over suspected assassination in Kuala Lumpur - ABC Online · 3 hours ago
    • Kim Jong Un's half brother is reported assassinated in Malaysia - The ... https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/...reported-assassinated.../story.html - 1 day ago -
    • Kim Jong Un's half-brother apparently assassinated in Malaysian airport - www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reported-assassinated.../97886974/ - 1 day ago -
    • Kim Jong Un's half brother is reported assassinated in Malaysia - The ... www.ocregister.com/articles/kim-743969-jong-north.html - 1 day ago -
    • Kim Jong Un's half brother is reported assassinated in Malaysia | The ... www.reformer.com/.../kim-jong-uns-half-brother-is-reported-assassinate... 1 day ago -
    • Kim Jong-un's Half Brother Is Reported Assassinated in Malaysia - www.msn.com/en-in/news/...reported-assassinated.../ar-AAmVAUr?... - 1 day ago
It is not 'rubbish' to suggest that the BBC, ABC, USA Today, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, etc, are NOT all just dupes or mouthpieces of North Korea. (And meanwhile we are still awaiting official Malaysian confirmation that he is in fact dead. Malaysia is NOT just a puppet of North Korea either.)
If it's changed to 'reported assassinated', then I'm at worst neutral, and tending towards weak support for a blurb, on the basis that there's no doubt that he has been reported assassinated, and this is 'all over the news'. But I prefer to leave it to others to argue over whether we should be posting such 'highly credible but still unconfirmed reports'. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • BLURB! brother of sitting world ruler assassinated? The news is the assassination, and otherwise he would not even rate listing as a normal RD. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - was leaning towards opposing per Modest Genius, but eventually was persuaded by the ongoing coverage of this. It's not a one-off "______ was assassinated!" headline that then disappears from view entirely; it's continuing to generate stories about the perpetrators' arrest, the relocation of the corpse, and so on. That's enough to support for me. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He does not merit a blurb on the grounds of notability as a person, but his assassination with the impact so far does. The whole story tops the news for days and there are many major ongoing developments coming from the investigation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb -- KTC (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Comment: Malaysia has now officially confirmed that the body is Kim Jong-nam's (NBC). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Change Blurb - To say that he was indeed assassinated. Several news reports are now using the term 'assassination'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You may well be right, but proposed changes to the blurb should be argued at WP:ERRORS. So I'll now copy your request to there. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan bans Valentine's DayEdit

WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 13:26, 14 February 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: Valentine's Day (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a ruling by the High Court, Pakistan bans the celebration of Valentine's Day nationwide.
News source(s): [28] [29]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Shimlaites (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Kind of an oddball nomination, but just putting it out there. Compare precedent [30]. One difference is that Valentine's Day is not a religious holiday; another is that there were protests this time round (according to the photos in the news articles). Banedon (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not the first and probably not the last. DYK fodder. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN material. --LukeSurl t c 09:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a domestic court ruling; the stories are also contradictory, with the CNN piece saying it is in the entire country and the BBC saying it is in the capital only. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor local ruling regarding an unimportant event. I agree that DYK might take this (if there's an actual article, perhaps Valentine's Day in Pakistan), but it's not of ITN significance. Modest Genius talk 12:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Disregarding the fact that it's not notable in any sense, it's also not surprising that a majority Muslim nation (97%) would ban a generally Christian holiday. If they were to ban an Islamic holiday I'd be more surprised, but banning a Christian holiday is somewhat expected. Remember that Pakistan is not a secular state like most of the Western world; the state openly prefers Islam to Christianity or Judaism. (No hate towards Pakistan or Muslims, just stating the facts). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 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.

February 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 13

[Posted] RD: Ricardo Arias CalderónEdit

Article: Ricardo Arias Calderón (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Estrella
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Ex-VP of Panama. Article is GA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. I made a few small formatting changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Michael T. Flynn resignsEdit

No consensus. ITN don't post resignation of governmental advisor. -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 14 February 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: Michael T. Flynn (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael T. Flynn resigns his position as national security advisor to President of the United States Donald Trump after it was revealed that he misled other top U.S. government officials about his communications with Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States.
News source(s): [31] [32] [33] [34]
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very big deal in that Flynn was an important official in Trump's administration, as one of the president's senior advisors; lots of media attention. The blurb may well be too long, in which case the second part ("after...") should probably be removed. Everymorning (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was in an important position and his story has been making news, but ITN never posts the resignation of a person at that level, and this resignation doesn't significantly change things to the point that I'd say it should be an exception. It's nominations like this that give Americans a bad name around here. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - while it's certainly making the news and is a rather big deal, I think it's a bit too specific to the more meso-level politics of the USA. The only benefit I can see is that it might help folks learn who Flynn is, but it doesn't seem make enough to put in ITN. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Muboshgu and EvergreenFir, this doesn't seem to rise to the level of an ITN entry for a global encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose tempting as it is to nominate every twist and turn of Trump's administration, this is simply not significant in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per EvergreenFir. Ironically though, this is probably seeing more international coverage than the Oroville dam nomination below. Banedon (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per EvergreenFir. --LukeSurl t c 09:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EvergreenFir.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:45, 14 February 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 Lahore suicide bombingEdit

Article: 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 13 people are killed and 85 injured during a suicide bombing at a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan.
News source(s): New York Times, Dawn
Nominator and updater: Mar4d (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Samee (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First attack inside a major Pakistani city in a long while. Mar4d (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support article looks to be in decent shape. --Jayron32 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now references are fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready concur that both sourcing is good and the article is reasonably complete for an event like this. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Important story and decent article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting Stephen 22:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Comment It isn't really 'First attack inside a major Pakistani city in a long while' as claimed in the nom - the article itself makes reasonably clear that 75 people were killed in the same city less than a year ago. And bombs are usually let off partly to gain publicity, and our posting means we are doing our bit to help them get that publicity - but presumably that's a trivial price that others should be happy to pay for the privilege of helping us adhere to our interpretation of our policies? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Oroville DamEdit

No consensus, non-event. Stephen 08:02, 15 February 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: Oroville Dam (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Damages to the Oroville Dam in California force more than 180,000 people to evacuate.
News source(s): KCRA, (Washington Post)

Nominator's comments: Quite a few people contributed to the updating of this article. PFHLai (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm wondering if we should wait and see if the spillway fails; if they manage to save it this story becomes a lot less notable. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, the updated section Oroville_Dam#Emergency_spillway_use_and_evacuation_of_the_Feather_River_Basin would probably make a better target. It is extensive and well referenced. --Jayron32 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - unusual event, major impact whether or not the dam fails. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It seems to be a story about a large scale inconvenience at this point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This evac seems to be a very precautionary measure should the steps to restore the operations to normal fail in ways they cannot determine at this point. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - When the levee breaks, we can reconsider posting then.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like a non-story, some inconvenience but no actual real news. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is a huge event, it's the highest dam in the US and spillways are planned, but never tested so the ramifications are large. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it(and unless the situation has changed) the dam itself is not in danger, just the spillway- and once the lake water level drops below the spillway, the danger will be reduced. I'm still willing to wait and see what happens. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, it's the spillway that "broke" but it's a huuuuuge mess. Tens of thousands of people evacuated and the cost to repair is very large and is shedding light on California's infrastructure problem. I would use 2017_Oroville_Dam_crisis instead of Oroville Dam. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It's okay, I'm sure the Mexicans will pay for it. It's not really an actual story, more of an "almost story". Perhaps DYK is the best venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as long as are not casualties. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - People, the dam doesn't have to collapse for it to be notable. Almost a quarter of a million people are being evacuated and for a dam collapse nonetheless. I'd say it's extremely newsworthy as it is a historic dam, a historic evacuation and a historic event. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    Nothing to see here. Lots of inconvenience, but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support - seeing just about enough international coverage to support this. Prefer different link regardless per Sir Joseph. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This news story has been covered enough that I think it should be posted. The comments about an evacuation being an "inconvenience" are hard to fathom. Getting stuck in traffic is an "inconvenience". Being evacuated is a big deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing major happened there, just evacuations. Don't think that only for this to post on the main page. Rambling Man has right. - 2A02:2F0B:B0D0:17C2:FD0E:360A:C664:861B (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless upcoming storms result in significant material damages. SpencerT♦C 09:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. If the dam bursts, this could be a big deal. If it doesn't, this isn't. Modest Genius talk 12:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with TRM's assessment that this is an "almost story." The evacuations have been a precautionary measure, not a direct response to imminent dam/spillway failure. As it stands, the only story here is the evacuation order, and in the realm of natural disaster preparedness, 180,000 affected people is not an especially large evacuation. There's no way we would post a blurb about evacuations for a hurricane until the storm actually struck land, and I don't think this is much different. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - hopefully the dam will not collapse, but the evacuation of 180,000 people in itself is ITN-worthy. This has been widely reported all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I reiterate that the dam itself is not in danger of collapse; the problem here is the spillways, which if they collapse, will only release part of the lake(certainly still very bad, but not as bad as the whole thing going) More rain is expected in the area in the coming days, so this may worsen, but not yet. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That is true. We shall see if the coming rain is enough to cause the crisis they're thinking may happen. The way I see it, even without the worst possible scenario, this is already worthy of posting because of the (1) 180,000+ evacuations which are incredibly disruptive to their personal lives and the local economy and (2) the light being shown on the crumbling infrastructure of the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
      • But 'crumbling infrastructure of the US' is surely grounds for opposing posting, as it could be used by Trump supporters to criticize the Obama administration, and to support Trump's stated plans for more spending on infrastructure, and the first rule of ITN currently seems to be that we only post anti-Trump stories :) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. By the standards of typical evacuations, both in the US and elsewhere, 180,000 is not unusual. The root cause is somewhat unusual, but in that case the root cause itself would be the story should this evacuation have proven to be lifesaving (as opposed to the appropriate precaution it currently seems to be). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Evacuation order has been rescinded; downgraded to "Evacuation Warning" status. [35] SpencerT♦C 00:07, 15 February 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.

February 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 12

[Closed] Turkmenistan presidential electionEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:56, 17 February 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: Turkmenistani presidential election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow is re-elected as president of Turkmenistan.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

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: Article needs a prose updae. Lihaas (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of prose update and the tendency of such articles not to receive them. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to the above posts, I ask: should we be posting "elections" in autocratic regimes? It seems the process in Turkmenistan is a "sham", and many other nations have unfree elections. 97.69% of the vote for the winner? Maybe this is better addressed at ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, if you're prepared to develop a list of elections that were corrupted by something or someone (like the US one apparently), ITNR would be the place to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Worth discussing. I would think we should be noting the sham nature of the election in any blurb we post. --LukeSurl t c 17:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    And whose opinion would you adopt when noting such a sham? The Russians, for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    It's a slippery slope. Independent nations which have elections to select their leaders should be sufficient. Once we get to assessing who we like based on how corrupt we perceive the country to be, there's no bright line. Instead of assessing such things of our own beliefs, just post them all, so long as the article quality is up to snuff. --Jayron32 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Just change the blurb to "Incumbent Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow is re-elected as president of Turkmenistan with 97.69% of the vote." Should be self-explaning, without us having to judge how free and fair these elections were. 197.156.67.7 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    While the right place to work this out would be at ITN/R, I would argue that we are simply reporting on elections in general - and the fact that there are sham elections should be seen as a given and do not have to be specified, barring extraordinary circumstances. Plus, unfree elections are not insignificant - they, at the very least, formally guarantee the rule of the winners for the foreseeable future. Morningstar1814 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; the readers who read the article are fully capable of determining which elections are rigged or otherwise unfair. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support it if it were a start or C. I've added a reference I found in a CFR e-mail. This happened 5 days ago--how much time would we have left for ITN?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:31, 17 February 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: Ren XinminEdit

Article: Ren Xinmin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Daily
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Med Nyin (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Centenarian aerospace engineer Zanhe (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I've picked out one statement in the lead that needs a citation and marked it with a {{cn}}. --LukeSurl t c 18:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: I've added a citation for the statement. -Zanhe (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  Looks ready to post now. --LukeSurl t c 18:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

RD: Al JarreauEdit

Article: Al Jarreau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today, Ebony Magazine, New York Times
Nominator: 109.144.218.198 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Al Jarreau, singer who spanned jazz, pop and R&B worlds, seven-time Grammy winner, dies at 76 109.144.218.198 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now, there are a few uncited statements in his biography, but once those are cleaned up, this looks good to go. --Jayron32 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose far too many unreferenced claims, and loads in the Discography section, particularly those without articles. Miles away from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammy AwardsEdit

Article: 59th Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: 25 wins Album of the Year and "Hello" wins Record of the Year at the Grammy Awards.
Alternative blurb: Adele wins five Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year (25) and Record of the Year ("Hello").
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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: Show is nearing the end, the two usual awards we use for the ITNR are not yet announced but should be soon. That said, Adele may need a different highlight blurb if that happens. I do note that we did not post last year due to lack of prose, and the current article is suffering the same. MASEM (t) 02:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 70th British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Article: 70th British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: La La Land wins five awards, including Best Film, at the 70th British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jockzain (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Doesn't look like the article is fully updated as of right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rogue One needs an update in the Best Hair and Makeup category. Reach Out to the Truth 00:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. --LukeSurl t c 16:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but Hatch, Rose and Thomson need disambiguation in the Ceremony section, Donelley, Foster and Hare in the results table too. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done this disambiguation. --LukeSurl t c 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to be posted in current state. --LukeSurl t c 17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready Everything seems ready in terms of quality and sourcing. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] German presidential election, 2017Edit

Article: German presidential election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Frank-Walter Steinmeier is elected President of Germany.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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: I do note that in Germany, the executive head is the Chancellor, the President has some power so I don't know if this really does qualify for the ITNR and/or coverage for ITN (only just saw it pass on a headline when checking for a source elsewhere). There's some sourcing problems in the election format. MASEM (t) 14:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I know far more about pre-WWII German politics than I do about the present day, but my understanding is that essentially the structure is the same as it was from 1919-1934? The President holds significant constitutional power, and has more discretion in how they use it than say, the British Monarch, but effectively they're a figurehead except for times of constitutional crisis? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The German presidency is a titular, symbolic office, the main function of which is to represent Germany at formal events, such as greeting visiting national leaders, or at international commemorative observances. While formally head of state, the president has no political power of his own, which on the national level is wielded by the chancellor of Germany, head of government in Germany's parliamentary system. Sca (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The office of President in Germany is more or less the same as the position held by Queen Elizabeth II in the UK, less the glamor of the monarchy. It is a figurehead position intended to relieve the Chancellor of the ceremonial duties normally associated with a head of state. I do however believe it is ITNR. So assuming article quality is up to scratch (I haven't looked) I'd support it. 17:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yeah, the president is basically a 'goodwill ambassador,' at which President Gauck has excelled. The president may allude to national policy positions established by the political leadership, but does not devise or advocate policy on his (or her) own. Sca (talk)
  • Oppose on current article quality - article is written from the perspective of before the election took place, and there are less than a dozen words in the body on the actual outcome. But I acknowledge that this definitely qualifies as ITN/R as, ceremonial or not (indeed, elected or not) heads of state are on the list. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The selection of Steinmeier, the obvious candidate, was worked out well in advance; his election by the Bundesversammlung was pro forma. Sca (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many red links. Each candidate should have an article.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There's no requirement for that. If the actual winner was a redlinked, yeah, that would be a serious issue, but given the nature of this election, the redlinks of the losers is not a surprise. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Invalid opposition position. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To be clear, all candidates except Steinmeier were paper candidates. A couple may be notable enough for articles, but we should almost certainly not have an article about Engelbert Sonneborn, for instance, who was just proposed as a joke by his son Martin Sonneborn. For now, I've used template:ill to link to the German articles and reduced the overlinking. Smurrayinchester 09:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've updated the election article, but Frank-Walter Steinmeier (which is extensive and well cited, bar some missing references on his awards) should be bolded rather than the low-quality and perfunctory election article. Smurrayinchester 10:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • However, ITNR for elections is based on the election results article, not the persons involved (as often in non-Western countries those election winners have poorly developed articles relative to the election one). We can feature both since Steinmeier's seems good too, but we need the election one in shape since that's the news story. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - adequate in its current state. --LukeSurl t c 15:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this position is purely decorative, and only 1200 electors voted for it. I don't see any discussion covering such cases as being ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that as a new head of state, this election ITNR regardless of how important the position is. This has been hashed out before and did not really go anywhere. Mamyles (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentEndlich. Suggest pic of Steinmeier be used rather than that of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. Numerous choices avail. Sca (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    For the nth time, see WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, been there, done that. Sca (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
And it got fixed. Do it properly and you'll get results, as long as there's an admin working... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

RD: Raymond SmullyanEdit

Article: Raymond Smullyan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: "Exapand" tag on Philosophy section. Would be nice to expand, but not entirely clear if this section needs expansion prior to posting. LukeSurl t c 12:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Smullyan died on Monday (6th) but his death is only being reported now (NYT story is dated yesterday). If this nomination needs to be moved to a different date please do so. --LukeSurl t c 12:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Earliest coverage I can see is on the 10th, based on a statement from his daughter, implying they wanted a period of mourning, so I don't see an issue with it being on the 10th or later in terms of posting. Absolutely needs more sources, particularly the subjective-ish Logic Problems section. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

February 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 11

[Posted] RD: Fab MeloEdit

Article: Fab Melo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Daily News
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: NBA player who died tragically young. EternalNomad (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose nothing on his death in the article. Seattle (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's in the lede. There should be a section or text in the body (particularly given that there's question of how he died, and that he had gone back to Brazil), but that's the only thing that I see that needs fixing. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - Per Seattle - The article is extremely lacking on information about his death. The NY Daily News article provided is also extremely lacking due to the extreme recentness of his death. Maybe by tomorrow at 12:00 there will be more information, but for now I'd say wait. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There's something there on his death now. The article looks decent enough to post. It'll be improved further. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not fit to post. Too many unreferenced sentences and statistics. Stephen 09:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Statistics are referenced through external links, which is how things are done in featured biographies like Tim Duncan, Michael Jordan and Yao Ming. Morningstar1814 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That still doesn't seem to be enough information to warrant posting. Check the other posted RDs and you'll see. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I've written other RDs that have been posted. Please be more specific because I don't see a problem here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it's fine. UNSC Luke 1021 don't tell regulars what is needed, that's too patronising for words. As for this item, good updates, my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article now in decent shape. Good to post. Morningstar1814 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support concur with Morningstar that article has been improved sufficiently for posting. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

February 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 10

[Closed] The Daily Mail criticizes Wikipedia banEdit

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 09:33, 12 February 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: Daily Mail (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Daily Mail calls its Wikipedia ban a 'cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press'.
News source(s): PressGazette
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose More that this is navel-gazing; I do note I have suggested the ban and media response for the Signpost, but I do not think this is an ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; (ec) seems like navel gazing; but more fundamentally, I'd like to see wider coverage of this issue. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To comment, as I've been trying to help provide Signpost stories, the general impression I get from the press is that the move is surprising but most seem to recognize DM on bordering on tabloid-ish, and thus aren't really bothered by the decision. It would be different if this was a major media backlash criticizing WP, but that's just not happening. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing C'mon now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The citation used in our DM article to discuss the ban is from Huffington Post..... Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK material. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 12 February 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: Mike IlitchEdit

Article: Mike Ilitch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [36],[37],[38]
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Still needs more sourcing – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Unsourced.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Three orange section tags and very minimal sourcing throughout. Challenger l (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

February 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 9

[Posted] RD: Tom RaworthEdit

Article: Tom Raworth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph
Nominator: Christian Roess (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Died on February 8, but his obit notices are just showing up on the web today. Christian Roess (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Sourcing is good,sufficient on impact, looks ready to go. While the death is only just being reported, 2 days isnt that long of a time, and by my judgment, putting this as the 8th is not going to impact its own time on the RD list as it currently stands whether it was listed at the 8th or the 10th). --MASEM (t) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This should be moved to the 8th if he died on the 8th. Isn't that the rule?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It was posted to the 8th.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, it should be moved to the 8th. The death was reported then, obituaries always take a day or so for less well known individuals. As Masem says above, it won't make a difference to his time on the main page. Stephen 00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it should not be moved to the 8th. No, there is no rule Zigzig20s. No, the death was not reported then on the 8th of February Stephen. The first acceptable (reliable) obituary notice appeared on 9 February. The death was listed on Wikipedia (Deaths in 2017 page) by editor Racklever on 10 February, Therefore, I will be bold and move this to 9 February: that is not an unreasonable compromise. Also, I'm moving this to 9 February due to my experience with posting RD's in the past. Because, in fact, the date the RD is posted does make a significant difference to the time it spends on the main page. Christian Roess (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason that we generally allow an RD to be cataloged on a different day if there is a severe amount of time between the death and actual reporting in the news, usually due to family privacy/respect issues. This is usually something on the order of 5 or more days. This is not the case here; it was picked up the next day, and the reason why is not clear (The fact that this has gained very little news coverage is a bit weird despite him being notable before). If the death was late on the 8th, the Telegraph may not have had a chance to report until the 9th. Irregardless, that one day difference is not reason to post on a different day of death. Now, as for the impact, there is only 5 open RDs, and none earlier than the 8th. That means for all purposes regardless of what day you think this could be categorized on, it will still be considered on the 8th and will move off without any unusual treatment, and outside of one placement (listed on the 9th) wouldn't really change if you put it on the 9th or 10th. So the concern that the time it spends is really not a major issue here. (I do note that it helps that the article is effectively ready to go for posting outside a few more !votes so it will get up sooner than some of the other later noms). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, Masem, you are incorrect. You appear to be a hardworking & a reliable editor, so let me try to be cordial. But I've been posting here at ITN since last March, and that's not my impression at all of how things work around here. First off, is there a rule establishing when and where an RD nomination is posted? No. And in fact, an RD nomination is not necessarily posted under the date of death. But only as long as the nominator provides a reasonable and reliable explanation that is verifiable (backed up by facts) as to the time lag. And that's what I did. Secondly, it's been my experience, repeatedly, that the specific date an RD candidate is posted under really does make a significant difference. Because it effects both the order and the placement on the ITN/main page. And that, in turn, effects the length of time it spends there. But let me say this: in the past here at ITN, and on most occasions, let me tell you: I've spent literally days revising an RD nomination to insure its quality, only to have it rejected as "stale." Especially during a busy time, with a heavy RD turnover rate. Frankly, I've been burned too many times, not to be very cautious and wary. Christian Roess (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Our process has RD noms filed on the day the person died, not the day that the press first reported on it, even if the press don't pick up on it a day or two later; it eliminates this subjectivity of "well, this person's death was only reported here, so it should be treated as here." We only make allowances for when the person's death was purposely withheld by the press, nearly always likely due to request of the relatives of the person, and even then, we're looking for a gap large enough that it would significant affect timing on the RD list - that normally is on the order of 4-5 days or more. There's no indication that Raworth's death was withheld by relatives (in fact, it's very wary that no one really picked up on his death save for the Telegraph, but that's neither here nor there now), so we have no other way to judge beyond that the Telegraph, by the 9th, was reporting his death on the 8th. This always would fall back to the 8th simply because there normally is little difference that one day's placement would affect the RD list (and specifically in the current situation too, we're talking one or two placements). It is unfortunate that so many RDs go stale because the BLP before the RD are in terrible shape, but now that we accept any notable person's RD, we have to be a stickler on the quality issues so many RDs do expire out, but in most cases, that's rarely due to the RD date posting, but lack of effort by those that nominate. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This forum is called In the News, and Raworth's death was first "in the news" on February 9-10, not on the day he died. That's how we stay relevant around here. Now, according to sources I've cited in the Raworth article (but are not directly quoted in his wiki article) Raworth's death was reported on February 8 via Facebook when Raworth's wife, Val, sent an email to poet Charles Bernstein, informing him of her husband's death. In turn, Bernstein posted this info on his Facebook page. Well, Facebook is not an acceptable source here on Wikipedia (obviously), so no way to post this to RD/ITN on the day of his death. Next, Raworth's death was reported on by The Poetry Foundation website with only this info: Tom Raworth (1938-2017), but nothing about the specific day of his death, (ie. Feb 8th). Again, not acceptable by Wikipedia standards (and btw, is the Poetry Foundation considered an acceptable source for reporting a death?). Finally, the Poetry Foundation did update its reporting, along with The Telegraph, and both did their obituaries late in the day on February 9. And these, along with his other obit notices, were not showing up in web searches until February 10. And that's my point: in my opinion, I've provided a reasonable and verifiable explanation for posting this RD when I did. Let me make another important point here, too. We do not necessarily (there are exceptions) figure in a notability criteria in our determination regarding which RD candidate is, ultimately, posted to the main page. However, those media sources which we rely on (because they're deemed acceptable and reliable according to the Wikipedia community at large) really do, in fact, use a notability criteria when they post their obituary. That means that these same notable figures, who have their deaths reported almost immediately, have a considerable head start in the nomination process here at ITN. I can think of many examples, but my comment is getting too long. So quickly here's one example: the RD nominations of Arnold Palmer (d. 25 Sept 2016) and Bill Mollison (d. 24 Sept 2016) who both died one day apart. Needless to say, and without going into details, Palmer is the more notable figure and, indeed, his nomination took precedence, even though Palmer's death happened the day after Mollison's. Palmer's death was reported immediately. It took many days until Mollison's death was reported by a "reliable" source. Christian Roess (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: André SalvatEdit

Article: André Salvat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Le Compagnon de la Libération André Salvat est mort". La Croix. February 10, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.; "Communiqué de Jean-Marc Todeschini, secrétaire d'Etat chargé des Anciens combattants et de la Mémoire: Décès d'André Salvat". French Ministry of Defense. February 9, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Highly decorated French veteran of World War II, the Indochinese War, the Algerian War; also served in the DRC... Zigzig20s (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - article state is adequate for main page posting. --LukeSurl t c 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks ready to go in quality and sourcing. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks like it's in good shape, sourcing looks thorough and solid. Challenger l (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: How many "supports" do we need before it gets posted? Is there a rule for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    It really depends more on when a willing admin passes by. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Shall we make a rule so that the process becomes less arbitrary?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't count votes. Or at least, good admins don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose/pull. I don' see what makes this guy notable, he was low-level officer in a war where millions served at the same level. His main claim to fame appears to be his later service in the Algerian War as Delange's aide-de-camp, but that is far below the treshold required for ITN. The article is in a horrible stub-like shape, it heaps very generalized and non-specific praise on him from a politician concerned with veterans affairs, but what he is most notable for is only mentioned with a short sentence with no details. The Algerian War was a highly brutal and controversial war where the French committed numerous war crimes[39], and for someone who served in his position in the Algerian War for many years, when hundreds of thousands of Algerians were killed and many were tortured, raped etc., we would expect the article to elaborate somewhat on his actual role during that war. --Tataral (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
He was highly decorated. I'm afraid your opinion on the Algerian War is irrelevant. If you can find more reliable third-party sources about his time in that war, do expand that section; but WP:Work in progress.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That is completely irrelevant; ITN is based on newsworthiness, not on whether someone had received a couple of medals noone outside their country has heard of (and the sheer number of people said to be "highly decorated," whatever that means... we are talking millions for each world war alone, and vast numbers from other wars in the following decades, so it's clearly not sufficient by itself, particularly when he had a more noteworthy military career at a much higher level in the Algerian War which the article completely fails to adequately address). There is nothing in the article that supports posting him in RD; also please note that it is the nominator's responsibility that the article is in decent shape, not the editors opposing the item here. --Tataral (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
RDs on ITN are no longer evaluated on importance. As long as the person has a standalone article (thus presuming they are notable) they get an RD as long as the quality is there. You're free to debate if the person's really notable at the article or at AFD, but we no longer use that here. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As pointed out above, there are serious problems with the quality of this article. His main claim to fame, a several year-long service in a reasonably high position in the Algerian War, is mentioned with a single sentence and no details except stating that he was there. --Tataral (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is based on reliable third-party sources and they all highlight his WWII service. That is "his main claim to fame" (or rather, what makes him notable) according to those sources. When you can find more sources about his role in the Algerian War, feel free to expand the article; but his obituaries only mentioned it in passing and we cannot do original research.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Discovery of 12th Dead Sea Scrolls caveEdit

No consensus. Stephen 22:30, 13 February 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: Dead Sea Scrolls (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new 12th cave was discovered, the first cave in over 60 years. This is a tremendous archaeological find.
Alternative blurb: ​Archaeologists discover a 12th cave used to store the Dead Sea Scrolls, the first such find in 60 years.
News source(s): http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Hebrew-University-archaeologists-find-12th-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-cave-480966, CNN
Nominator: Sir Joseph (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

  • Comment From the news sources, there is a lot more that can be written about the discovery of the 12th cave that should be added before posting this. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - even neglecting the historical and linguistic value of these scrolls, the Abrahamic religions are some of the world's biggest. Banedon (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The update is rather light and does not convey the significance of this find, or even tell what was found within the cave (unlike the treatment that the other 11 caves get in the article). However, the details will probably make their way into the article in the next few days, and the obvious encyclopedic nature of the subject and the otherwise very good quality of the article leads me to support this.128.214.163.204 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article has been tagged since 2012 at least, and has at least three separate orange-level tags. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the knowledge to know for certain, but the tags seem to have been addressed and simply not removed: there's a "needs expansion" tag within an already quite expansive section and a "needs update" on a section that has been updated multiple times since 2012. The only tag that makes any sense is the "external links" tag.128.214.163.204 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
And the "legal expert needed" tag, didn't see that.128.214.163.204 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment while the article needs to be updated to reflect more of the new findings, the article itself should be enough to warrant a read based on the finding of a new cave. This might even be a great way to get someone interested and edit about the new cave and improve the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is not a "tremendous archeological find". What nonsense. The cave was thoroughly looted and will contribute nothing to scholarship. Israeli archeologists are some of the worst hypesters of all time. Do not trust their bullhockey. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. The above comment was uncomfortably prejudiced.--WaltCip (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I can provide evidence of numerous overhyped "discoveries" by archeologists working in Israel. Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "magical" scrolls start turning up when belief in certain gods created in that country are waning, yeah I don't buy it.--Stemoc 12:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia, please try to act like it is. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:47, 13 February 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.

February 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 8

RD: Peter MansfieldEdit

Article: Peter Mansfield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)
Updater: Tomwilko2005 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit) and Ollie231213 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel prize winner Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Too much unsourced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails BLP, too many unverifiable claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

RD: Nicolai GeddaEdit

Article: Nicolai Gedda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Pizzicato
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 --BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose most of the career section, for instance, is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Woefully under-referenced, orange tag for them too. Challenger l (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Somali presidential electionEdit

Articles: Somali presidential election, 2017 (talk, history) and Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (talk, history)
Blurb: Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, a Somali-US dual citizen, becomes the new president of Somalia.
Alternative blurb: Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed becomes the new president of Somalia.
News source(s): "Former PM and dual-US citizen wins Somali presidential election", The Guardian, 8 Feb 2017
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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.

 Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this nomination. I hope it gets into shape for posting. It will need information on the results(assuming they are released) for starters. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I added some {{citation needed}} templates into the second article. I have no opinion until these are filled. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In following the standard practice of previous Somali presidential election, 2017 is the only article we need to be worried about the standard of for ITN reasons. The fact he's a dual citizen does not need to be in the blurb.
Why not? That seems significant to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
But I suppose the altblurb is fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is in poor shape: it was held in a hangar and totaled ~200 although there are like 10 candidates. WTF? Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the BBC article explains that the airport was the safest place to hold the election. 10 candidates in the first round, two in the second round, which is when he won.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It was an indirect election - only parliamentarians could vote. --LukeSurl t c
The campaign article looks much better now!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've done a fair bit of work on this. For fairly obvious reasons, sourcing this isn't easy but I think its reasonable now. --LukeSurl t c 22:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Could possibly do with a "reaction" section, but I need to sleep now. --LukeSurl t c 22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Another Comment - I've added a {{expand section}} template in the '2017 election' section. Once again, will not support until this is done. This is my final problem. I have no more side quests for you. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
User:UNSC Luke 1021: I've expanded the section a little. How much more do you want please? We are running out of time now. There will not be as much content out there than for Western elections.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This is fine, I have voted support. Thank you for cleaning up an article on an important election in Somalia. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have tentatively removed the "expand section" tag after it's come up five lines. I hope that's OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Article is fine for posting. Yogwi21 (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR and article quality. Were it not for ITNR, I would oppose this because it doesn't seem to be an election at all. A foreign-government funded congress of a subset of parliament, locked in a warehouse on a tiny strip of land that enjoys the security provided by foreign militaries, chooses from a slate of candidates of ambiguous names, a president of a government which is not even in control of the country. I'm not even sure what this should be called. A government-in-exile domestically?128.214.163.204 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to pass judgements on the electoral systems of foreign nations. We simply relay sourced content; we don't make history. Thanks for the 'support'.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
To the IP user, ITNR events do not require support on the merits; we are only evaluating article quality. As Zigzig indicates, that's how they conduct their election for head of state. It isn't for us to pass judgement on it. I believe there are several nations where the head of state is chosen by the parliament/legislature(President of Israel is one). This position seems to be the generally recognized leader of the country(even if protected by foreign armies) 331dot (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And do we have consensus to post this yet please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
In an earlier age, such an arrangement would be called a "protectorate" and the insistence that this government rules all of Somalia would greatly offend the actual indigenous governments (Rep. Somaliland, Puntland, etc.) who are able to conduct their business without such "protection", but who would otherwise be poor foils for foreign patrons. R. Somaliland even issues their own passports. Procedurally, there's no room to oppose this, I just want to make clear that my objection had nothing to do with the mechanics of the election as such.128.214.163.199 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for now Quality remains a problem. We are told there were 24 candidates based on a Tweet (Twitter is not normally considered a reliable source). Several of these are listed as notable, without any supporting citation, and the others are unlisted. We are then only given the votes for the top 4 candidates in the 1st round. And these are only the most immediately obvious quality issues - there may well be other less obvious ones. I appreciate that Reliable Sources are hard to come by for this election, and that there is at least arguably a WP:BIAS problem in not posting an African election, hence my qualifier 'at least for now'. But I think people here need at least to be aware of these serious quality issues before we decide to post in ignorance of them.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done a little bit more work on the article. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere that is reporting online the full results of the 1st round of voting. Regarding the candidates list, copying out all 24 candidates from this list is an option, but instead I've reduced the listing in the "candidates" section to the 4 persons who got past the first round of voting - each of which is WP:notable (being an incumbent or former PM or President). Realistically, the level of sourcing we have here probably as good as it's going to get for Somalia. --LukeSurl t c 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see Twitter being used as a reference. Was this removed? Can we please agree this is as good as it gets and reach consensus now? He was elected yesterday and it is ludicrous to drag this on...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No, Zigzig20s, the Twitter reference is still there, but it is now only found as reference [1] (with Twitter now invisible except in the URL) within footnote 1, where it's just the source for the claim of 24 candidates, with another source being given for the claim of 23 candidates, and the main text saying "23 or 24". It used to be the sole citation for the candidates section (see here), but that is no longer the case. The changes (for which thanks, LukeSurl), may well be as good as it's ever going to get. In any case it's now academic unless somebody calls for the item to be pulled on quality grounds, which I won't be doing. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The female candidate left the race--that's in one of the sources. I'm doing two RDs right now and then I need to do real "work" outside WP. I think this is as good as it gets for now and we've all done a phenomenal job.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I might also add that an earlier claim here that "we are running out of time now" seems premature - this item has only been a candidate for a day, and will not "run out of time" for another 5 to 6 days.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-Blurb - Articles were expanded and cited at my recommendation, and this event is notable in general. Hopefully this new president will bring stability to a severely unstable country. Both articles look good and the blurb seems ready to post. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt per ITNR. Both articles look pretty good to me, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted
Thanks. Can you please add his picture instead of the football player's?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to choose the picture you want to include. Just go to Wikimedia Commons, search up his name and pick one that you like. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to the admin who did it!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I prefer the alt-blurb because his being a dual US-Somali citizen seems irrelevant. Otherwise, the article has plenty of references and is well-written for the moment being. Kurtis (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Tara Palmer-TomkinsonEdit

Article: Tara Palmer-Tomkinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The GuardianBBC
Nominator: Amakuru (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose until such time that referencing is brought up to the required standard. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh? The article is almost entirely referenced, as far as I can see. What do you feel is lacking?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Mjroots left his comment four hours ago so it's safe to assume he was reviewing a different version from the current one. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's still lacking in places, all of which are tagged. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost there, just the lede to sort and the books to reference and it'll be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mjroots - I'll have a look at improving it but until everything is properly cited per BLP this cannot go on the main page. This sounds like a job for Martinevans123 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was always more of a Tiggy man myself. And she's still alive and kicking. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support made a few adjustments, looks pretty much good to go for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - now ready, earlier oppose struck. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks for working on this, guys. As the nominator, I had intended to do more referencing and expansion of the lede myself, but haven't had time.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Alan SimpsonEdit

Article: Alan Simpson (scriptwriter) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, ITV, Telegraph, Huff Po, New York Times
Nominator: Martinevans123 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Rather short article Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. Most of his career details are at Galton and Simpson – he's only notable because of that partnership. The career section could be expanded with text from the latter article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree on this; we need a good one or two paragraph summary of the partnership for this, since that's principally what he was known for. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Some material now copied across. May need further trimming to avoid duplication, but at least article now outlines his career. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support While the material brought over from the G&S article to here could be trimmed down to maybe two paragraphs, it is otherwise sourced and now reasonably complete in regards to Simpson's bio. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    Please trim as appropriate. I trust they'll be good. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Decently referenced (although a few more wouldn't hurt), easy to read, and he seems notable enough given his body of work with longtime collaborator Ray Galton (Hancock's Half Hour, Steptoe and Son). Kurtis (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose two paragraphs without a single inline reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Forget it. It'll take weeks to sort that. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have just trimmed it down (remember, we have a main article for the pair, so we don't need all the details, just enough to establish importance) to make it ITN ready. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, looks fine to me (yes, I did remember - that's where I copied it from; but does it now need a derivation tag?) Maybe it's even ready for posting now? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You likely should document on the talk page the copy/paste using the {{copied}} template just to track attributions. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

February 7Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 7

[Posted] RD Richard HatchEdit

Article: Richard Hatch (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Significant sourcing problems needed to be fixed before posting. MASEM (t) 01:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • For a second there, I thought you were talking about this Richard Hatch. In any case, I can only give a tentative support contingent upon the addition of at least a few more citations. A longer lead section wouldn't hurt either. Kurtis (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Article needs a lot of work (mainly sourcing and lead expansion) to be good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done a fair bit of editing to sure up the sourcing and expand the lead. I'd like to think it's ready now. --LukeSurl t c 12:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There was a lot more, and much of the career stuff is sourced to IMDB which is not really a usable source. It needs more work, I've tried to add some, but still a ways away. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for marking these. I've been through and dealt with all the {{cn}} either by adding references or removing unsourced statements. --LukeSurl t c 15:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been ready for about a day now. --LukeSurl t c 15:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Hans RoslingEdit

Article: Hans Rosling (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.svd.se/just-nu-hans-rosling-dod
Nominator: Fuzheado (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent global health, data visualization guru, TED speaker. Missing references all fixed. Fuzheado | Talk 16:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Article seems to be in order. I've added a sentence of prose about his death, including the cause. --LukeSurl t c 17:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - world known public speaker. article seems ok. his death has received plenty of international press. As well as press in the past. RD is appropriate hereBabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article overall looks good except the lack of sourcing in the Awards section. Other than that its a Support for me.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Any previous quality issues seem dealt with now. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 16:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

February 6Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 6

[Posted] RD: Inge KellerEdit

Article: Inge Keller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Spiegel DW
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: A well known German stage actress and has been called "one of the most prominent performers in the former German Democratic Republic". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Filmography needs sourcing but otherwise seems okay to go. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Masem:: Added more sources including from German obits, reviews and one from the NYT. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Pull - I am not voting pull for the nomination itself but rather the rapidness of posting. Can I ask why this was posted so soon? There was little to no discussion and no votes as far as I can tell. I think we should pull this to generate a clear consensus. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We only need judge RDs on quality. Do you think there's anything wrong with the quality of the article? Could you point to specific issues with it please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • - I'm not voting pull for quality but rather how fast it was posted. I'll strike my vote because I was informed that it was posted properly. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • - What was the issue with how fast it was posted? RDs need only be assessed on quality.--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • - That was the issue; I thought we needed community consensus as well. When I was informed that we didn't, I struck my vote. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)
  • There should be consensus about the quality/sourcing, or at least some comment towards that. My statement above, plus TDKR's affirmation they fixed and added, are part of that. I would presume Stephen doublechecked before posting. I personally would have liked to see a couple more but I doubt they would have commented about any problems, so it's not really harmful. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Joost van der WesthuizenEdit

Article: Joost van der Westhuizen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4]
Nominator: Drchriswilliams (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: South African former rugby union player who actively campaigned for issues relating to Motor Neurone Disease. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, iconic player but career section (for instance) is completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Weak support article is much improved, still some unreferenced claims, but probably good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for both his rugby career (most capped Springbok certainly notable) as well as his MND campaigning. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @The C of E:: as outlined in the box above, all persons with articles are now considered "notable" for RD, the job here at ITN/C is solely to evaluate the article quality. --LukeSurl t c 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's very valid to question if for an RD nom if person is truly notable to have a standalone article, since there is no guarenteed process to check that an article topic is notable when a standalone article is created. Certainly not the case here, but questioning notability if there's been no AFD process and sources fails WP:N is perfectly in line. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really, this isn't the venue to discuss an indvidual's notability. If someone feels that a BLP fails to meet WP:N, they should conduct the discussion at an AFD, not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Except I would hope that as part of the quality check of the article , looking at the sources and finding, say, all primary sources, would be called out. We've yet to actually have a case of some truly non-notable person posted here, but we need to have that exceptional allowance that if someone managed to push through an RD that absolutely fails all notability guidelines, that fails our quality guidelines, and that should be rejected. Now, there would be the case where the person may be borderline (say, one RS and several primary) on notability, but I would agree that here at ITN is not the place to debate that, outside of how that affects quality issues. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If when doing a quality check you find a serious problem like that then either fix it, tag it, prod it or nominate it for deletion (and preferably note here that you've done it). Any article currently nominated for deletion is automatically ineligible for the main page, a red tag will never get a consensus to post and an orange tag almost never. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - nothing wrong with the article, pretty much everything is sourced.--Stemoc 21:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape for posting! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is fine for posting at this point. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Irwin CoreyEdit

Article: Irwin Corey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: DatGuy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Should the filmography be sourced? Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, sourcing is required, along with sourcing for all the other unsourced paragraphs. Stephen 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Added sources to cover the unsourced material.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per added sources. good for RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

February 5Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 5

[Posted] Super Bowl LIEdit

Article: Super Bowl LI (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In American football, the New England Patriots defeat the Atlanta Falcons to win Super Bowl LI.
Alternative blurb: ​In American football, the New England Patriots defeat the Atlanta Falcons 34–28 to win Super Bowl LI, the first to go into overtime.
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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: Preparatory nom to have eyes to make sure the game's article is in shape prior to the game. Obviously, a recap of the game, its stats and other events of the broadcast need to be added after it is completed, but this is usually done on the fly. Also I note that we generally include the MVP once this is determined (if anything, as an image with the blurb "MVP (name) pictured"). MASEM (t) 23:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This wasn't necessary. The article has lots of eyes on it. I added a bunch of {{cn}} tags yesterday and most have been resolved. The article should be fine soon after the game ends, but it hasn't started yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • For ITNRs like these sporting events, the more attention from ITNC reviewers (not necessary editors) to make sure they're happy with the article just prior to the actual event, it significantly helps smooth the posting process. I did look at it before posting this, and I didn't see anything, but I'm just one voice. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
      • It's always a tricky one. Vote-counting mop holders have been known to post ITNRs due to the extent of support, completely ignoring the fact that an article is crap. The issue being that the larger pool of admins who do the right thing and wait for issues to be ironed out do not hold a veto on posting.

        If however anyone is looking for things to do while enjoying the final 17 minutes of pretzelfest, sourcing is a little bit thin in the teams' sections. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Cool trivia: Another fact we can add to the blurb is that this is the first Super Bowl ever to go to overtime.Canuck89 (chat with me) 03:19, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb added to mention OT. SounderBruce 03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once summary is added. I suggest no score mention, just overtime. Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb, major event. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a sports event of very little interest outside the country in which it is played. Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: That's blatantly false- and even if true, single-country objections are not considered valid(see "please do not" above) as very little would be posted otherwise. Furthermore, this event is on ITNR and will be posted upon a quality update; if you wish to see it removed, you are free to propose it. 331dot (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Don't be too quick to accuse somebody of trolling. I'm striking my oppose as this is not the place to discuss the ITN/R criteria, but my opinion has not changed; has anybody taken a look at how dominant events from Western Europe/the U.S. are in that list? Vanamonde (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: If not trolling, it seems WP:POINTY, since it's ITN/R and even TRM knows its significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I missed the bit about ITN/R the first time. You are misunderstanding what WP:POINT means, too: I was not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: I was saying exactly what I thought, in a situation where it was (unbeknownst to me at the time) not applicable. That's all. I'm not really interested in discussing this further. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I can understand if you missed the ITN/R bit, even though ITN/R noms are a different color to show they are ITN/R. I'll finish by quoting the above: "Please do not 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) 18:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Muboshgu: even TRM knows its significance! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That "stopped clock" reference goes for me too. But when we agree on a U.S. sporting event, I'm shocked anyone disagrees. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same rationale as above. Mélencron (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • So both are just (Redacted) now? – Muboshgu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Neither of these are valid opposes given this is on ITNR. You can argue there to get it removed, but as it is on the table, it is considered significant enough to post. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – There is certainly more than "very little" interest outside of the United States for the sport, and within the sport, this is the most significant event. Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — Would it be worth mentioning their comeback (overcoming a 19-point deficit) in the blurb? Seems trivial, but it could be on there. Aria1561 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    FYI, it was a 25-point deficit (Atlanta lead 28-3 midway through the third quarter). --Jayron32 14:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb once deemed ready. The first overtime in a Super Bowl deserves a mention. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - obviously can't be posted until game summary is expanded. But beyond that, I don't have words for what I've just seen, and I don't envy the person responsible for condensing the inevitable string of wordy alt blurbs into a suitable summary. I don't see how we can fail to mention that it went into OT, I don't see how we can fail to mention the 25 point deficit, I don't see how we could go with no mention of the MVP, and even if you mention all of those there'll be justifiable clamour to shoehorn a record in there. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb; it is significant. This is the first Super Bowl I can remember where I have probably been legally intoxicated at the end, such was the length of the game and the nail-biting intensity; fortunately I do not have to drive home as I am already home. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until adequate game summary is added. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Administrative Reminder - This is already listed at WP:ITN/R, which means that it will be posted once the article is ready (regardless of any comments made here). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not important. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Probably the single largest global sports event. Not sure I follow "not important" but I would hope, as this is ITNR, this "vote" is completely disregarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not the FIFA World Cup Final uh, Final? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I said "probably". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, we would post the results of the FIFA World Cup if it were happening right now, as we have always done before. Kurtis (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • probably *second* largest. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trivial. The only interesting bit was the half-time show.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Listed at ITNR, this "vote" is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggestion what about, "In American football, the New England Patriots defeat the Atlanta Falcons in overtime to win the 51st Super Bowl."? I know it's normal for the Super Bowl to be numbered using Roman numberals, but I'm a bit concerned that it's not very clear for our international readers, especially since, unusually, the numeral is pronounceable as a word. I also think the overtime aspect is worth mentioning. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be duly concerned with the use of Roman numerals here, our international readers probably understand it better than most of the domestic audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Fair point. This single exception aside, Americans tend to be fonder of the Arabic variety than the rest of the West. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    I believe that they are nowadays referred to as freedom numerals in the US. Stephen 11:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Suggestion The use of "LI" is confusing, because for readers not familiar with the Super Bowl, they might think "Super Bowl Li" is a thing in itself, when in fact "Li" is actually a number. "51st Super Bowl" or even just excluding the number in the title would help to avoid such confusion. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    If it's not confusing to the 110 million American viewers, and it certainly isn't confusing for most European readers who are taught Roman numerals from an early age, then I'm unclear as to whom it would be unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    It would be unclear to those readers who see the vowel "i" after the consonant "l" and think that "LI" is part of the thing being described, rather than just a number. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    I've been reading this discussion, and I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute. I think we should keep 'LI' rather than '51st', but I can see what Gfvoice means here. An example of confusion I thought of was that LI can be short for 'Long Island'. Someone who is unfamiliar with American Football and/or Roman numerals could possibly mistake LI for Long Island and think that's where the game was played. This could lead to confusion when they read the article that says the game was in Houston. I think that it should be kept, however, because the Super Bowl is of interest mostly to North America, Europe and Oceania. Roman numerals are commonly used in these places, so confusion would only come from people of the regions of uninterest. I hope this resolved the issue. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. The details about MVP, comeback, and so on can be found when the reader clicks through to the article, and it's not the purpose of blurbs to touch on every major part of an event.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I've made sure the text update meets minimum standards. Hopefully more will follow once the Monday morning quarterbacks start waking up, but IMO there's enough to post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is extensive, and the article is ITN/R. Smurrayinchester 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding some of the opposition above, proposals to withdraw ITN/R items can be voiced at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items at any time and it is not useful to make such arguments regarding an ITN/R item on an imminent ITN/C nomination. For the record, the Superbowl was on the list of "Low controversy ITN/R items" which were approved with unanimous support in 2013. --LukeSurl t c 11:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. I think the overtime should be mentioned, since it was the first one in the 50 times this game has been played. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. While it's not our place to sensationalise the game, the fact that it was the first of 51 games to go to OT is objective and uncontroversial. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep. While I wouldn't support mentioning OT in future Super Bowls(unless it's another 50 years) I think the first is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've uploaded an image to Commons which shows Tom Brady with the Vince Lombardi Trophy after the game. The image is rather busy and might not be a suitable replacement for the one already posted. However, it is more relevant to the blurb than the generic picture of Tom Brady. FallingGravity 01:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    No. It's barely bigger than a thumbnail and badly focused. Stephen 01:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment there seemed to be greater consensus for mentioning OT than there was for highlighting the MVP (who, as is the case more often than not, was the winning team's QB). If we're doing the latter we should certainly be doing the former. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    Overtime is trivia. MVP is the usual way to add a picture to the item. Stephen 11:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    As far as your latter point is concerned... why? There was a picture from an article on the same day, and as far as I can see zero discussion here calling for that to be changed. There was by contrast consensus that the first ever Super Bowl to go into OT was worthy of mentioning, to demonstrate the closeness of the contest without sensationalising. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    Our longstanding practice is to update the image when feasible (with variety in mind), with or without a discussion calling for such a change. In this instance, I purposely delayed the replacement to prevent the MVP image's chronological collision with other photographs of American sportsmen and allow the previous image to remain up for about 1 ½ days.
    If there's consensus to mention the overtime (or even if there isn't), the image swap certainly can be reversed. —David Levy 12:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    It wasn't a complaint about the image addition per se. I have no strong feelings on that, certainly not strong enough to warrant a reversion. It was more of a comparative point – that of the changes to our usual formulaic blurb for this ITNR were discussed, the one which was barely mentioned happened whilst the one discussed in multiple places in this section with broad support hasn't. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    It wasn't a complaint about the image addition per se. I have no strong feelings on that, certainly not strong enough to warrant a reversion.
    I mean that we can switch back to the protest photograph to accommodate an overtime mention without creating an excessively long blurb (or, regardless, simply for the sake of variety).
    It was more of a comparative point – that of the changes to our usual formulaic blurb for this ITNR were discussed, the one which was barely mentioned happened whilst the one discussed in multiple places in this section with broad support hasn't.
    As Stephen noted, the MVP (or equivalent) mention is part of our standard format for applicable sport items when a suitable photograph is available. Consensus is longstanding and valid unless and until a new discussion shows otherwise.
    I'm unsure of whether consensus for an overtime mention exists in this instance (and I'm not arguing that it does or doesn't). Given my ignorance of Superb Owls and their handeggs (and sports in general), I prefer to remain on the sidelines. (That's a footballing term, right?) —David Levy 18:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    (ec) The overtime is not trivia. It was the first one in the SB, making it historically notable. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Africa Cup of NationsEdit

Article: 2017 Africa Cup of Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Cameroon defeating Egypt in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Cameroon defeating Egypt in the final.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Yogwi21 (talk • give credit)

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.

 Yogwi21 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support state of the target article seems comparable to previous versions. I would like to see a recap on the final game in the article linked to that, but that's not part of the target so not critical. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral, meh. I don't know that this, nor CONMEBOL or CONCACAF are on the level of importance as UEFA to be significant enough for ITN. Support upon learning its status as ITNR. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    That's already been determined, hence its inclusion at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until further work is completed. A few dead links, uncited sentences (and most of the broadcasters table), and a lack of information about the tournament itself outside of bidding. SounderBruce 03:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trivial.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    Listed at ITNR, this "vote" is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Masem on the state of the articles (2017 Africa Cup of Nations and 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final). Prose would be nice, but most sports matches are adequately described with a statistical summary, and often ITN's efforts to meet a prose threshold ends up creating an unnecessarily verbose version of the stats. --LukeSurl t c 12:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a match summary for the final is provided. It doesn't need to be a verbose version of the stats, it needs to be subjective coverage of the main moments of the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"Subjective coverage"? Can we assume you actually meant to write something like "substantive coverage"? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added your suggestion as an altblurb. We can let the admins decide which they prefer.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking as Ready per above.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The good prose summary mentioned above by LukeSur1 seems to meet our quality requirements, and we link to that from the main article. If somebody wants to duplicate or partly duplicate that summary in the main article, I won't object, but I don't see much sense in using such lack of unnecessary duplication as grounds for not posting. (Indeed it would actually be quadruplication since the result is also shown without prose, and given in prose in the lead. I've added a nameref to the citation in the lead just in case anybody wants to copy the lead sentence into the section on the final). Failure to post this African item based on such debatable technicalities is arguably also liable to be seen as yet more WP:BIAS. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major sport event. The article is good. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Romanian protestsEdit

Article: 2017 Romanian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 500,000 Romanians protest against attempts by Romanian Government to undo several anti-corruption safeguards
Alternative blurb: ​More than 500,000 people protest in Romania following the transition of power to PM Sorin Grindeanu and amendment of the country's penal code
Alternative blurb II: ​Following protest of more than 500,000 people, Romanian Government reverses its plans to undo anti-corruption safeguards
Alternative blurb III: ​Following large protests, the Romanian government rescinds an emergency decree commuting sentences of some nonviolent criminals and decriminalizing certain corruption cases.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

 Zigzig20s (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support maybe add blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I do think we should post something about this, but do we need this ongoing? Yes, the protests are going, but the individual daily events of the protest seem calm in that there's little violence, just larger crowds. I would suggest an ITNC, "More than 300,000 people protest over four days in Romania following the transition of power to PM Sorin Grindeanu and amendment of the country's penal code" (or something like that). I would not have an issue with it being on the 4th even though the event was in January, simply because the protests have only started growing to a point of gaining more international coverage. I just don't see ongoing as necessary here, though. (eg: there are still protests against Trump's immigration ban, and its still making news, but for ITN purposes it was the one acknowledgement that happened that is why it was a ITNC blurb and not an ongoing). --MASEM (t) 15:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb then ongoing. Today, began protests against the president Klaus Iohannis, people asking his resignation. It is a conflict between Romanians. - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sure, we could do a blurb. I followed the advice I was given there, but Masem's blurb seems OK.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle over half a million people have been reported, but little-to-no reports of violent incidents. Nergaal (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • EC. The blurb seems a bit POV (not that I don't believe what it is saying), but isn't there a way to phrase it more accurately, such as, "undo anti-corruption safeguards" or something? (I see that somebody was on it.) Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but only with a modified blurb noting the government's intent to rescind the measure. Mélencron (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please help me with the triple negation. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about wording this as neutrally as possible. See alt blurb 3 for my suggestion; the degree isn't explicitly one to reverse anti-corruption efforts in Romania, but it's widely been interpreted as such because of its obvious implications (freeing politicians, mostly of the PSD, suspected of corruption). See if you can cut it down a bit? Mélencron (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine, but I changed the linked article to a non-stub. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article should be protected, because some people are trying to add propaganda. Also they are deleting information about protests against President. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3 but I note several Reaction sections are not sourced, and needs to be for this to be posted. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. Large-scale protests, dominates local news, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2 or 3. Mass protests causing a complete 180 on government policy without violently removing said government. A rarity. Furthermore the level of international coverage is significant, despite the initial lack of interest. For Eastern Europe a rarity indeed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment on the 500,000 mentioned in the blurb. Where is the number 500,000 from? I didn't see that in the linked BBC and CNN references. The article mentions "600,000" but it's linked to a foreign-language website. Someone needs to double-verify that the source does explicitly report such a high number and if the source is an RS. Accurate crowd counting is extremely hard, and we shouldn't just believe extremely large number just because people said so and there are a lot of people in the photos. HaEr48 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Another BBC article backs up the figure, as does Euronews. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support eminently newsworthy, and the article is in decent shape. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted alt3 -- King of ♠ 06:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

February 4Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 4

[Posted] RD: Bano QudsiaEdit

Article: Bano Qudsia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dawn, The Tribune
Nominator and updater: Dharmadhyaksha (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mfarazbaig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Acclaimed author from Pakistan having won various government awards. Unfortunately not much info is available about her and her works. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Short but seems complete and sourced properly. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 3Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 3

[Closed] EU Malta DeclarationEdit

No consensus. Stephen 05:09, 7 February 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: Malta Declaration (EU) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amid the European migrant crisis leaders of the European Union agree upon the Malta Declaration that focuses on measures to stem the flow of immigration from unstable Libya to Italy and the EU.
Nominator: Fixuture (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not sure how notable it is but I do think that it's far more notable and newsworthy than about 1/3 of the other items that make it into the "In the news" section. Fixuture (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Seems to be more about a commitment to take action rather than any binding steps to help to stem the flow, but I may be misintepreting from the article (which thus implies the article needs improvements). --MASEM (t) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: Well it's a commitment in the form of a declaration of outlined specific steps. One could argue to what extend that would be "binding" but I'd say such a joint declaration is pretty binding. Either way I find this declaration way more notable than a large share of other items that make it into the In the news-section. --Fixuture (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Masem. The sources in the article that I read are silent on actual actions as well. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Banedon: Those actions are described in the article and some of the sourced (e.g. those used as source there) describe them. --Fixuture (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems that nothing at all has come of this, and the article is rather poor as well. I'm not even sure this should have its own article, as everything in it could be added to any one of the other articles detailing the immigration crisis.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @128.214.53.104: True, however: a) the article is relatively poor (still sufficient imo) mainly due to not much information being available for it / useful here as of right now and b) of course nothing has come out of it yet - it's just the declaration not the implementation of it but I do think that the declaration is notable and that there's probably no specific action that could warrant an In the news-section inclusion except the declaration made prior to said. Also I don't think we should cram stuff into other articles for no reason - this deserves its own article; it could/should be linked / shortly mentioned from other ones though. --Fixuture (talk) 19:51, 6 February 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] 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in MyanmarEdit

Article: 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations releases a report stating that the Myanmar Army has committed serious human rights violations, including mass killings, systemic sexual violence, and the killing of children, during the ongoing persecution of Rohingya people in the country
Alternative blurb: ​The United Nations releases a report stating that the Myanmar Army has committed serious human rights violations against the Rohingya people, including mass killings, systemic sexual violence, and the killing of children
Alternative blurb II: ​The United Nations releases a report about the ongoing persecution of Rohingya people, stating that it has included mass killings, systemic sexual violence, and the killing of children
Alternative blurb III: ​A United Nations report about the ongoing persecution of Rohingya people states that it has included mass killings, systemic sexual violence, and the killing of children
News source(s): [5][6][7]
Nominator and updater: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The scale of this persecution is such that it is worth featuring: this report has brought it into the headlines again. Vanamonde (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This is an extremely loaded blurb, but considering it is the UN, it doesn't matter at all. Unless there is a UN resolution I recommend not posting this. Nergaal (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2 seems to be the best option, the article itself is in good shape, well referenced and informative. --Jayron32 22:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support things here seem to have certainly taken a turn for the worse, and coverage in global news outlets indicate this is something we should be concerned about. We also have a half-decent article to present to our readers, so no real reason not to post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support; ongoing crisis, but noticeable increase in recent press coverage. Blurb 2 seems to be the best option in terms of brevity. Mélencron (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I actually like the original blurb. I know it seems biased on the face of it, but the hard fact is that it embodies exactly what the UN report says. However, I'm fine with any of the others if everyone else prefers them. Kurtis (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt 1 - per Kurtis, but preferring alt 1 because it's more concise. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1 - Yogwi21 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment strong consensus to post this, looks like alt 1 or alt 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was about to say the same, thanks TRM. Obviously I can't post this as it's my nomination: any other admins around? Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm on mobile so post it as my proxy. Stephen 06:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rob StewartEdit

Article: Rob Stewart (filmmaker) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety, The Hollywood Reporter
Nominator: Nohomersryan (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Shark activist and documentary filmmaker, vanished and drowned while filming his third movie. Note that he vanished on January 31 and likely died then, but his body was only discovered today. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Short but sourced, and agree that this is the proper date for RD sorting purposes due to the circumstances of death. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most of the "Awards and nominations" section is unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I overlooked it was that weakly sourced - I have gone and ahead and added sourcing and fixed a bit of the wording, please doublecheck @Thryduulf:. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Support. Could do with a source for the cause of death being unknown but that's minor. Marking ready as my previous concerns have been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks ready. Is the photo in the info box the best one we can find of him? It looks very blurry. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Found a newer and better freely licensed one at Flickr and it is now in place. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – As of late around the encyclopedia, seven or eight out of every ten articles I view for the first time have "lead sections" which are not proper lead sections whatsoever, instead merely a seemingly random block of text separated from the rest of the article. Likewise, in the case of biographical articles, the lead section is not a summary of a person's biography, but rather a laundry list of (job) titles. On both accounts, this article is certainly no exception. This begs the question: are we really judging these nominations on article quality or on slavish devotion to a particular manual of style and treating the readership as if they're incapable of telling the difference? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • For an article as short as this one is, the lede is a reasonable size and covers the basics per WP:LEDE. If he was someone with a very prolific career, with a 50k-character article, one would need 3-4 lede paragraphs, and that would be a reason to call it out here before ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gordon AikmanEdit

Article: Gordon Aikman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: British ALS campaigner, a really sad story about a cruel disease. EternalNomad (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support comprehensive and very well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. POV during the Brexit debate and possibility of Scottish independence. Happy to hear a rebuttal, but I think it's a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that as a matter of article quality, the POV is a problem? 331dot (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I am concerned that Scotland is considering leaving the UK to stay in the EU at the moment, and his lede suggests he played a critical role in the "Better Together" campaign. So it's tangential POV (although on the other hand, we can't help that he died when this is happening). The article looks fine otherwise, except one reference is a youtube link, which seems unusual, doesn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The lede says he was Director of Research for Better Together, which is sourced in the body. That doesn't necessary say he played a "critical role", simple the position he held while in that group. It's a completely neutral statement. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's not Better Off Out. My point is that the timing is unfortunate. I would rather we did not promote politically charged articles on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I really think its a extreme stretch that putting on RD a person that was in a named position of an politically-slanted organization (which is an objective and sourced fact) while that political situation is going on is "promoting" the political position. Especially under the current RD stance that any notable individual with a quality article is appropriate. Unfortunate timing, yes, but in no way does that make us look like we're supporting an effort, since if a person associated on the other side of the issue died, and was notable, we'd still post their RD too under the current stance (barring quality articles). --MASEM (t) 01:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and actually we've had a number of politically charged articles in the news recently. Perhaps that is inevitable in such a polerized era.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I could be swayed to support this if the youtube link and layout issues were fixed.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, perhaps the layout could be streamlined. There appears to be too many small subsections.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonable length and sources. To Zigzig, I don't see anything that even looks like a POV problem - but is there some significant controversy that he was central in missing? --MASEM (t) 00:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Quality looks fine to me. ZettaComposer (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support not in any way POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 2

February 1Edit

Portal:Current events/2017 February 1

[Pulled] VaquitaEdit

Article: Vaquita (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Committee for Recovery of the Vaquita announces (on 1 February 2017) that the population of the vaquita, a porpoise endemic to the northern Gulf of California, has dropped to the brink of extinction at about 30 individuals.
News source(s): CIRVA-8 report, Science article
Nominator and updater: WolfmanSF (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It would become only the second recognized cetacean species in history (along with the baiji in about 2006) to go extinct due to human agency, and only the second "megafaunal" vertebrate to go extinct in the last 40 years (since the Japanese sea lion in the 1970s and the Caribbean monk seal in the 1950s). WolfmanSF (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support definitely more notable than many other entries that make it into the In the news-section. However the count of species going extinct due to human agency might be a problem here for future entries. Also for checking how many those would be I looked for the appropriate category and the closest I found was Category:Species made extinct by human activities. Why doesn't that category feature baiji? --Fixuture (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It does now. There are definitely a large number of smaller mammals, as well as birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc. that are at or heading towards the brink of extinction. What makes this example more unusual and notable is the size of the animal, and the taxonomic category (Cetacea). WolfmanSF (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question the article says this was determined in November 2016, what's the news here? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The report was released on Feb. 1. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support on the one hand this doesn't get much coverage, on the other hand it's completely different from the other blurbs we already have. Still, c.f. [40]. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this is the sort of news an encyclopedia should highlight, rather than the current focus on routine news such as my local sports team beating your team. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose I'm still a bit confused, IUCN listed this as critically endangered in 2007. According to our article that could include criterion D, "Numbers less than 50 MI (mature individuals)". So the IUCN already recognised this as an issue for the past ten years, and use what's now considered a standard set of criteria to judge remaining populations against. I still can't see what this "new report" adds to the picture (instead of creating a different benchmark for "nearly extinct" at 30 MI). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to agree with TRM here. Also, "news" implies a level of recency. This cited report is over two months old... Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pulled - The reported numbers are from November, so it's common sense that this shouldn't be on the main page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It is recent news. The report was only published and the numbers were only released on February 1. In 2007 the population was in the hundreds. "Numbers less than 50 MI" is only one of a number of possible criteria for declaring a species critically endangered, and obviously, one that was not applicable for the vaquita in 2007. So, would it be better to not post any news about this situation until it finally does go extinct? Now is its last chance. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what relevance the report has, the IUCN has already said (and has done for a decade) that this species is at "high risk of extinction". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you understand, or care, about the difference between "at high risk of extinction" and "about to go extinct"? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, but let's not personalise this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing personal. My point is, all the arguments used to oppose the posting, or reverse it, were based on confusion or incorrect facts. WolfmanSF (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well certainly not from my perspective. This was declared critically endangered in 2007 by IUCN. Since then numbers have depleted. Another report has come out saying they're still on their way down. There has been no change in official status. Nothing other than an update to the number. I don't see that as news at all. So yes, I think the answer is that if it was declared officially extinct in the wild, that may be newsworthy. Another entry on the already huge List of extinct cetaceans I suppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
List of extinct cetaceans includes only fossil species. As the intro to the list points out, only two species (not on the list) have gone extinct in historic times (in the last 400 years). The vaquita was declared "critically endangered" in 1996 when it's population stood around 600. Now it's at 30 and is at the last point where this decline could conceivably be reversed. A change in official status is not the point. Sorry, it does seem to me you are being deliberately obtuse. You formed an opinion without understanding the facts, and you can't admit you were wrong. Other newsworthy aspects of the situation include the declaration that recovery efforts on which Mexico and a variety of NGOs have spent tens of millions of dollars have been a failure, and the unprecedented nature of the proposed capture/captive breeding program. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I was only wrong about the year the IUCN declared it to be critically endangered. Now we're at somebody's idea of a point of no return. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, any obtuseness is purely accidental, but thanks for your lack of good faith. Incidentally, I was far from the only person who didn't see the point of the posting in the first place. When it goes extinct, then yes, we can post it, especially as you seem so convinced that's now 100% inevitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Inevitable UNLESS drastic action is taken now. Which, of course, publicity might facilitate. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. What you've said has underpinned the fact that nothing, really, has changed. The species is at high risk of extinction, and has been since 1996 and it's been getting worse rather than better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Let it be known that TRM supports animal extinction.</sarc> --WaltCip (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Desmond CarringtonEdit

Article: Desmond Carrington (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Veteran radio broadcaster, 35-year career at BBC. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support no major issues with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Long enough and sourced well. Should be fine. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A shame we currently have no image of him. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support His long career in entertainment is well-covered in the article and the referencing looks fine.Bcp67 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we add a picture?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    No, RDs don't do pictures. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    And if you're talking in the article, unless there's a free image of him, we generally do not allow NFC for the recently-deceased (on the presumption that after a few weeks, one can approach family/etc. for free images before defaulting to non-free free). --MASEM (t) 22:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Unable to find any trace of living family. Not sure if that changes anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it would be nice to add a picture to the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] ZeniMax/Oculus VR lawsuitEdit

Self-withdrawing, good enough reasons give in the !votes below --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 February 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: Oculus VR (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A jury awards ZeniMax Media $500 million in damages over intellectual property concerns on its virtual reality technology from Oculus VR.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)
Updater: yes (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The obvious: the decision will be appealed, $500M is small change in the world of business, etc - I recognize this has a ways to go for posting consensus. However, this is a big lawsuit in the growing area of VR technology, and that given that Oculus is owned by Facebook and was to purposely help drive its VR efforts, this does impact how it will approach. I have just spent a bit of time getting this updated about the lawsuit at least. Please note the bold link is to the trial section of the Oculus article, since that's where this case is best detailed on WP. MASEM (t) 23:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom. The decision will be appealed, and $500M is small change in the world of business.--WaltCip (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltClip. VR may be "growing" but I don't see that as important - it's not like we'd post Apple vs. Qualcomm because it deals with well-recognized products, or a lawsuit over self-driving cars because it's emerging. The scale of the suit matters; the topic, not so much. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the decision will obviously be appealed, then it's inappropriate to post, until at least a final resultion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose VR isn't exactly the forefront of tech revolution at the moment; both news sources focus on Facebook's role as the parent company, emphasising how niche the tech is. Also still early days compared to other long running tech spats. Not a fan of how lopsided the article is either - the update is almost as long as the rest of the prose combined and gives the impression that the legal case is more significant than the business. Split it or write up the company. Could benefit from sub-sectioning and some culling/paraphrasing of quotations. Fuebaey (talk) 15:40, 2 February 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] QE Prize for EngineeringEdit

Unimproved. Stephen 05:08, 7 February 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: Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael Tompsett, Nobukazu Teranishi, Eric Fossum and George Smith are awarded the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering for the invention and improvement of digital cameras
News source(s): BBC TIME
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a relatively new prize (biannual and created in 2013, so the third time it has been awarded) but does seem to be top of the field of engineering. The topic is certainly important and digital cameras are of widespread utility and interest. One of current winners also received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics a few years ago for the same breakthrough, but for the other three this appears to be the biggest prize they've won. The article needs tidying up and updating (I don't have time now but will take a look this evening) whilst those of each of the winners will also need attention. Modest Genius talk 15:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with noted sourcing improvements Agree that this does seem to be a top-of-the-field award for engineering (rather than pure science as the Nobels typically focus on), and do agree that the article needs to be better sourced for this to be posted. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support would prefer to see some indication in RS that this is indeed the "top of the field of engineering" (see List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field). If it is indeed the top of the field of engineering, then this should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when fully updated. I've listed the 2017 names & made a microstub for Nobukazu Teranishi. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 3 February 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.
  1. ^ "Congolese soldiers kill at least 101 in militia clashes - U.N." Reuters. February 14, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2017.
  2. ^ "MONUSCO STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE PERSISTENT VIOLENCE IN THE KASAI PROVINCES". MONUSCO. February 11, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2017.
  3. ^ "Pope prays for victims of violence in DR Congo and Pakistan". Vatican Radio. February 19, 2017. Retrieved February 20, 2017.
  4. ^ BBC, Sport24, TimesLive
  5. ^ "UN condemns 'devastating' Rohingya abuse in Myanmar". BBC. 3 February 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
  6. ^ "'Hundreds of Rohingyas' killed in Myanmar crackdown". Al Jazeera. 3 February 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
  7. ^ "Myanmar Army committed crimes against humanity: UN". The Hindu. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2017.