Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2018

< 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

January 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
    • A BBC study finds that, as of October 2017, the Taliban presently maintains control of or has some territorial presence in 70% of Afghanistan, with full control of 14 districts (totaling 4% of the country) and demonstrating an open physical militant presence in 263 others (encompassing the remaining 66% of the group's occupied territory). (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] Super blue blood moonEdit

closing this to head off unrelated discussions. Please take it to a different location. --Jayron32 14:17, 2 February 2018 (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: January 2018 lunar eclipse (talk, history)
Blurb: A super blue blood moon occurs over east Asia and Australia.
Alternative blurb: A total lunar eclipse (pictured) occurs.
Alternative blurb II: A total lunar eclipse (pictured) occurs over Oceania and East and South Asia.
News source(s): CNN, Deutsche Welle, The Guardian
Nominator's comments: A supermoon plus blue moon plus blood moon. Lunar eclipses are slightly more frequent than solar eclipses, but instances when all three occur at the same time are fairly rare. Fuebaey (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If you exclude the ~1/6th of lunars too shallow to see with the naked eye and the ~1/30th of solars too shallow to see with the naked eye, solars are more common globally. Another ~1/12th of lunars are so shallow they look barely there. Only 64% of lunars have the hard edge of the full shadow like all solars do. Total lunars are also less frequent than total solars worldwide. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't normally post lunar eclipses, and the super/blue bits are both arbitrary and irrelevant. They don't make it any more or less impressive to look at. Some media sources have covered this in the mistaken impression that the coincidence is astronomically significant, but it really isn't. It's just a lunar eclipse - nice to look at, but not ITN material. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as pointed above, somewhat overhyped. 3-4 supermoons per year, lunar eclipses are common, blue moon is kind of an arbitrary term. --Tone 12:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The combination happens once every 43 point something years on average at an average location, almost double that if it has to be night when it happens so you can see it (weather permitting), maybe 20 or 21 years if it doesn't have to be blue nor visible in your time zone, just somewhere. The last one was 35 years ago but that wasn't blue at a wester longitude than Iceland so the last one in America was centuries ago which is why this is so hyped. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Reopening, sorry, but two opposes isn't snow. I'd be happy to support this, but only as a report of a (simple) total lunar eclipse (omitting the arbitrary "super" and "blue", see altblurb). Total lunar eclipses aren't that common, occurring on average annually (see List of 21st-century lunar eclipses). This was a big celestial event, viewable by billions and in the news even here in Europe where it was out of sight. We also get some nice pictures. --LukeSurl t c 13:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite, it's 0.81 and 0.85/year in our centuries (anyone from the 19th century reading this?), 0.87/yr for the century centered on the millennium parties (both years), 0.90/yr for the first half of this century, 0.7005/yr 3000 BC to 3000 AD average (which covers so many of the slightly speeding up ~600 year cycles at which rarity pulsates that it hardly matters if that's a whole number of cycles or not). The 9th century AD had 0.89/yr which exceeds the other 59 centuries of the longest astronomer/non-Young Earth creationist catalog I could find, we live in a time of extreme TLE frequency.
 
(rarity of these slugs (0-8/century) also pulsates each ~600 years, 38% of 21st century TLEs are these twice a generation slugs)
(the extreme amount of TLEs in the 2000s (1/yr) and 2010s (1.1) is because both had a slug of the most possible TLEs in a row in the shortest possible time. The next isn't till 2032) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We posted the April 2014 lunar eclipse, so it's not really true to say it's not ITN material, although the April 2015 nomination didn't get anywhere.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment added an ALT2, in case folks find the area where it was visible interesting (I would). Still undecided on significance, but thought I'd mention that the "blue" part of this is an entirely arbitrary consequence of the way our calendars are set out, but the "super" part is an actual astronomical phenomenon, a consequence of the moon's orbit. Vanamonde (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lunar eclipses aren't terribly uncommon, but sadly this one had so many "special" (read: happenstance) things to add that media went to town with it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The happenstance was the "super blue" bit, but the alt1 and alt2 versions of this nom consider the eclipse, which was, regardless of happenstance, a big event. --LukeSurl t c 17:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Undecided on ITN relevance but I find the article a bit light on prose and seems more a dumping ground for a LOT of free imagery. I'd be more likely to support this if this was more prose-heavy. --Masem (t) 14:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Overly hyped and ephemeral; without significant impact. Sca (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm aware this is in the news, but it's hard to view this as anything more than a random coincidence of astronomical events.--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose although the conditions met are rare, the media is, as the users above note, overhype this. Lunar eclipse are more common than people think, they occur more often than solar eclipses without a doubt. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reason I did the bombogenesis. The purpose of ITN is not to decide whether something is too overhyped to be in the news. The purpose of ITN is to point readers to encyclopedic information about things that are in the news. Let's counter hype with enlightenment instead of sweeping it under the rug! — Kpalion(talk) 15:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above opposers. 2600:1015:B106:8CAE:9C16:20D4:69C5:81D7 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The above opposes all set their own elusive and ill-defined criteria for what is, and is not, an event which is in the news. One way to tell if an event is in the news is to look to see if the event is in the news. This one is, and our article is of sufficient quality. I see no reason to keep it off the main page. Prefer Alt2. --Jayron32 17:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As Jayron32 says, this event was prominent in the news and I admired the moon myself last night for this reason. ITN is often quite stale and boring and so needs items like this to keep it fresh. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support “I do not believe that this generation of Americans is willing to resign itself to going to bed each night by the light of a Communist moon”. -Lyndon B Johnson -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've thought about this, and I think that although some are suggesting it's "just a lunar eclipse", it's slightly more than that as evidenced by the large media coverage, certainly from where I'm sitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron32, I'm not in Oceania or east Asia but I've seen this in the news. Certainly it'd be an even bigger story there. Davey2116 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support while lunar eclipses in general are not uncommon, this such occurrence is with a super moon and a blue moon coinciding, such an event would roughly be equivalent to winning the highest jackpot in a lottery. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - in the news, article is interesting, and science is underrepresented at ITN. Statistically, this is an astronomical rarity, if one indulges the pun. Meets the notability threshold. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Car X travels around the track at 30 mph. Car Y travels around the track at 29 mph. That X will occasionally lap Y is a given, the occasions of which are utterly unremarkable. If a blue moon is insignificant, it doesn't lend significance to another event by coincidence. Also, there are no refs in the "timing" and "related eclipses" section. GCG (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    That must be why it’s getting global news coverage then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this hasn't happened in 35 years. How is that common? Plus if one's going to argue lasting impact, then we can remove solar eclipses from ITNR since they have no impact either. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Stephen, which blurb did you post?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Now the proposed blurb. Rather than trying to concisely list geographic visibility, I've referred to the last occurrence per the lede. Happy for this to be undone, if others deem it unnecessary. Stephen 22:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - Ugh, seriously? Yes I realise this was in the news, but can't we show a little discernment? This was a hyped up story for the sake of clicks. At least please remove the "blue" part because that is an accident of the calendar. Adpete (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ugh, could you participate in discussions before they go to the main page? Ugh. We have discernment. Ugh. Ugh again, just for good measure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry for not being on Wikipedia 24/7. The "Ugh" was over the top, I admit, but I'm allowed to do a post-posting oppose. Adpete (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    OK remove oppose because we've posted lunar eclipses before. But the actual celestial event (lunar eclipse / supermoon) isn't uncommon and last happened in 2015. Adpete (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support The main oppose argument seems to be "overhyped". Okay, yeah, it was. So what? The title of the section is "In the news", not "Stuff that happened that is actually significant and that our editors care about". It is, most definitely, "in the news". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Nice article on an interesting subject that’s in the news. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting mild support A phenomena that occurs once in 150 years (edit: or even 35 years) certainly sets this apart from other run-of-the-mill lunar eclipses. That said, the article relies a lot on photos and could use some expanding with more references and text. FallingGravity 23:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs to change - it last occurred in 1982. Only "first time in 150 years" in some parts of the world. Adpete (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Was all over the news worldwide and the main story on all news outlets in Oceania – NixinovaT|C⟩ 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's something seriously messed up about our current consensus at ITN when this story is passed because "in the news means in the news", but Trump's SotU address, which received widespread coverage, gets shot down because "it's in the news but it's really not that big of a deal".--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure. The SotU address happens every year (like the Queen's speech) and has very little impact on anything or anyone outside a tiny microcosm of speech writers. This astronomical event is global and rare. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's a confluence of astronomical phenomena that have no actual measurable impact on people's lives. At least the SotU address outlines actual policy positions. All I'm saying is it's clear "in the news" is not the defining standard for which something gets posted, since the SotU address did receive global coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    I know what it is, and it enthrals people, unlike the meaningless ramblings of Trump which bore most Americans, let alone the rest of the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    Which again is not the point. To Walt's original point: we would do well to mentally amend the phrase "in my opinion" to every comment at ITNC. This event is not inherently significant or insignificant, and there is scarcely a posting decision made here that is truly ridiculous. Sure, it's irritating to see a certain editor's interpretation of the criteria change from nom to nom and back again (usually based on which side of the pond a story is occurring), but the doesn't mean that "consensus" is not working. GCG (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    Of course whatever people say here is their "opinion", what would make you think otherwise? Interpretation of what constitutes "news" and what constitutes "encyclopedic value" and what constitutes "interest to our English-speaking audience" are all subjective and of course that can change on a nomination to nomination basis. It's bizarre to think we even have to spell this out. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    Walt pointed out that an item being *literally* in the news is sometimes seen as relevant (see your vote on this nom) and sometimes rejected as gossip/hype (see your vote on SOTU), even by the same editor. The problem in my opinion is that voters tend to get a gut feeling about if a given story should be posted and select whichever criteria serve that feeling and reject the rest. If they can't find any of the actual criteria that support their feeling, they'll make one up (see your vote on Rasual Butler). We should all do better to consider our own blind-spots (I myself have trouble not feeding trolls, as one can plainly see). ITN is like laws and sausage: you really don't want to see how it's made, but the end product is fine. GCG (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    I've always got the readers in mind. The moon is global and this is a rare occurrence. Trump's ongoing nonsensical ramblings are barely newsworthy, but don't worry, there's bound to be another clanger right around the corner where we can reignite this tedious debate over what constitutes "news" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2018 (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: Oscar GambleEdit

Article: Oscar Gamble (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, ESPN

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.

 Andise1 (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose three or four unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support a few more refs could help, but there's nothing contentious or BLP-level objectionable. --Jayron32 13:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    Removed the "weak" due to recent improvements.--Jayron32 19:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I may be able to work on it today if there is time. It's not far from postable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Support Glad it's fixed up. I'm busy today. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Added a few refs, don't see anything else with a CN. GCG (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rasual ButlerEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 00:02, 5 February 2018 (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: Rasual Butler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Thechased (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Added a few missing refs. Don't see anything else that would prevent posting. GCG (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The professional career section is currently tagged for cleanup. Brandmeistertalk 10:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose awful formatted prose, tagged as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Does proseline fall within the ordinary quality standards. I acknowledge it's not great, but I don't see it mentioned in the policy (BTW, I am not the IP that removed your tag). GCG (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I'm not the editor that added the tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support The proseline mess (which is dreadful) does not, of itself, keep this off the main page for me (it's a yellow-level tag right now; the guidance for ITN says that orange or red is the no-go conditions). Otherwise, it's tolerable. Not good, but not bad enough to keep it off the main page. --Jayron32 13:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's not an excellent article, but we've had worse on the front page. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ummm... - his wife Leah LaBelle also died in the crash. Now that's an even worse article, but is there any precedent for posting two RDs as a pair? (i.e. "Fred Flintstone & Barney Rubble")? Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The infobox content requires referencing. Stephen 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Leonid KadeniukEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 00:03, 5 February 2018 (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: Leonid Kadeniuk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

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.
 Leonid Kadeniuk was the first astronaut of independent Ukraine. Importance - wikipedia articles in 24 languages. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose lacks inline references – NixinovaT|C⟩ 18:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub. Maybe it could be expanded with info from some of those other wikipedias?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret, it's above stub for me, but the lack of referencing means it's a no for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (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] President Trump's State Of The Union addressEdit

Yeah not going to happen Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Before you think I've completely lost my mind and move to snow-close this, hear me out. Not only is the entire front page of the NY Times splashed with analysis and coverage regarding this speech, which is a given, but the above sources I linked (Sydney Morning Herald, Al-Jazeera, BBC) cover this event on the front page of their websites. The State Of The Union address might well just be ceremonial puffery and grandstanding, but it does represent and showcase the present and future political positions of the US, many of which do have global impacts (Mexico, North Korea, Middle East, etc.). I realize it may be unusual for ITN to feature "just a speech", but if our baseline for posting items is that it's "in the news", there's no doubt that this event - temporal as it may be - fits the bill. WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing meaningful or newsworthy itself happened. I would not be opposed to posting something that meant something here, but this... wasn't it. --Jayron32 12:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I was so ready to oppose, but then...In the news? Quality updates? Might readers be looking for it? Might others be interested who weren't looking for it? This makes a stronger case on all 4 points than most everything we post. Significance is debatable, and there would be valid points on both sides, but that should not overwhelm the other criteria. GCG (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The SotU address always had been front page need after its given, with most papers have several pages discussing the finer points. Add the anti-Trump attitudes most media have, and that exaggerated the issue. Further, we at TIN do filter to avoid media sensationalism and bias, which is why this particular story is seemingly big worldwide. And we have to remember the SotU is all rhethoric, and doesn't set any policy, so while it might have touched on Mexico, NK, and other countries, it doesn't impact them in any way yet. --Masem (t) 12:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (This item edit-conflicted with Ammarpad's posting, so I restored it. --WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC))
News is news. Calling the entire Western media into question over perceived biases against Trump pretty much jeopardizes their veracity as reliable sources for anything else.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
There are too many finer points to argue on the bias/reliability issue, but specifically here, the bias leads to the current media scrutinizing every trivial action that Trump doe s to create disproportionate coverage. That is sensationalism which ITN avoids. --Masem (t) 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32 and article is currently tagged needing update. What is there is already known. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing internationally important. Just bickering between the two parties is in the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly - it's in the news. And international importance is not a requirement for posting on ITN, even though I would argue that this speech is internationally important since it outlines policy positions.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose meaningless ramblings. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would we post the Queen's Speech? No. This is no more meaningful.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I move to withdraw, considering that the tenor of ITN has still not changed sufficiently to have events such as this posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2018 (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.

January 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Hannah HauxwellEdit

Article: Hannah Hauxwell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian BBC Telegraph

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: I've tidied this up and cited it. I'll see if I can expand it tomorrow, but I think it's fine to post as it is. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article is fine, but nominated under the wrong date (Jan 31). She died on Jan 30 according to the article. I've moved it to the correct date. -Zanhe (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support - referenced, article is ok. Good to goBabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not written encyclopedically. I'll try to work on it but right now it's far to "bad tone". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, after improvement. Stephen 23:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Azeglio ViciniEdit

Article: Azeglio Vicini (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): FOX Sports, Sky Sports, La Stampa

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: Italian footballer and manager. Fuebaey (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support content is a bit sparse, but seems adequately referenced. "Weak" only because I do not speak French or Italian, and am therefore unable to check the reliability of sources in those languages, of which there are many. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've always wondered about that. The anglophone editor would reasonably validate refs in English; are we just supposed to take at face value that a foreign ref is not a recipe for Lasagna Bolognese? GCG (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is football so my interest is limited - at least one of the italian references was pointing at the host site rather than the target article - I fixed that, but I've not checked the references in any other regard. However if you're a pure anglophone you can try google translate which is pretty reasonable at large usage languages - just past the url of the reference you are trying to check into https://translate.google.co.uk/ and away to go. EdwardLane (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - referenced. Just on the right side of RD worthy and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support weak but ok, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mark SallingEdit

Article: Mark Salling (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2], [3]

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) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Can't find any verification of his roles in several entries in his filmography. Tagged those with cn tags. Need to have that cleaned up before posting. Otherwise it looks pretty good. --Jayron32 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32:I have referenced the mentioned sections.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jayron32 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing looks to be up to speed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable and sudden. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Awards, soundtracks and his single are all unreferenced. Article is tagged for poor lede. Stephen 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Some sources discussed the soundtracks although it will be good to cite them along the table. But this is good for RD overall.–Ammarpad (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do need to establish if he appeared on these albums. The stand-alone page for this one does not list him in its extensive personnel section. GCG (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That is unlikely to happen in time. I have removed the soundtracks, anyone wishing to look at the Glee discography can click the link provided. I have provided a reference for the release of the single.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm cool with that. GCG (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kevin TowersEdit

Article: Kevin Towers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

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: Almost ready to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. There's a few cn tags that need addressing before this goes up. It's also a bit light on prose, but it's minimally tolerable there. --Jayron32 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jayron32: All cn tags are now addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Good stuff. Support. --Jayron32 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good stuff indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support terrible news. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral truly mediocre article, but appears to cover sufficient base, and has support. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January 29Edit

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] MansourasaurusEdit

Article: Mansourasaurus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new genus of lithostrotian sauropod, Mansourasaurus, is discovered in Egypt.
News source(s): Nature, The Washington Post, Reuters

Nominator's comments: A new Dinosaur genus discovered in Egypt. Andise1 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment it's still marked as a stub (it's more than that in my opinion) but the reference used about its name comes from a June 2017 article in Nature, so is this not already stale? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If I'm reading it correctly, I think the academic paper was submitted in June. Nature published it in January. GCG (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of when the events actually happened, people are hearing about it now for being in the news and journals now, so likewise we should direct them to our article now. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The appropriate time to "date" an item which is based on a scientific article is the date of the final publication of the paper. Paper publication is a long and convoluted process, and their results are often disseminated in other mediums first, but most good news sources wait for this final step. --LukeSurl t c 16:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support decent enough article about an interesting and encyclopedic event. --LukeSurl t c 16:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • support - interesting. And article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - significant scientific discovery. -Zanhe (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Cyril TaylorEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (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: Cyril Julian Hebden Taylor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Knighted British educator. Refs are not 100%, but shouldn't be too large a task. GCG (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many unsourced paragraphs and unconnected sentences –Ammarpad (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2018 (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.

January 28Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Shipwrecks in 2018
    • Seven survivors from the MV Butiraoi, six adults and a baby, are found in a dinghy and rescued, four days after the 50-passenger ferry sank in Kiribati. New Zealand rescuers say there is a lot of debris near the dinghy, but no sign of anyone else. (Sky News)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Coco SchumannEdit

Article: Coco Schumann (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks solid and well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Agree, no issues on this one. --Masem (t) 03:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John MorrisEdit

Article: John Morris (composer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: While he died on Jan 25, I can't find reports prior to Jan 28 of the death, so placing on this date. However, article is not in good shape, needs updates and sourcing to at least get to quality. Masem (t) 19:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Been working on updating it. Only thing not well sourced is the credit list. --Masem (t) 21:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Credits ref'd. Turner Classic Movies is an easy and reliable spot for filmographies. GCG (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Greatly improved and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing it up there. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floydian:: He us up there for barely a day, but after new nominations were posted he was removed like all the RD's in the last slot. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No, he was posted with a date of 25th January (the date he died) - which is why he's dropped off the bottom - but should have been posted with the 28th (the day the news of his death was released). So I've put him back for the time being ... though one more RD assuming Salling is posted and he'll drop off again. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Australian OpenEdit

Unimproved. Stephen 22:04, 4 February 2018 (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: 2018 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the Australian Open, Caroline Wozniacki wins the Women's Singles and Roger Federer wins the Men's Singles.
News source(s): BBC Federer BBC Wozniacki

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: As always with the tennis slams we have options for the bold articles. Either the "top level" 2018 Australian Open, or the articles for the Women's and Men's Singles tournaments. None of which are great, heavy on tables, light on prose. Unlike last year there doesn't appear to be a 2018 Australian Open – Men's singles final article (and there wasn't an equivalent women's article in 2017). Messy. We could consider the articles Roger Federer (20th slam) and Caroline Wozniacki (1st) or their 2018 season articles (RF, CW), both of which have good text. LukeSurl t c 11:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Non-notable. Very little coverage in US media; way more important things going on right now. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Aaaaaabbbbb111:, as with the Grammys, this is presumed notable as it is on the recurring items list. If you feel that it should not be, please propose its removal at WT:ITNR. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Aaaaaabbbbb111: I would add that coverage in US media is not what we base postings on, and is specifically discouraged as an objection above in "Please do not". 331dot (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for an event that is ITNR, that was foreseeable and that has ended two days ago the quality is just not there. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:ECFB:FA76:8913:1EF6 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose altering the target article. ITNR already means there is no standard for posting this other than quality. Let's at least maintain that. GCG (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Four days after the tournament ended, there's still only two sentences of prose about what happened in the article. Otherwise it's just tables. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 1 February 2018 (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] 60th Annual Grammy AwardsEdit

Unimproved. Stephen 22:03, 4 February 2018 (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: 60th Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Grammys: Bruno Mars wins Album of the Year for 24K Magic, Record of the Year for "24K Magic" and Song of the Year for "That's What I Like"; Alessia Cara wins Best New Artist; Leonard Cohen and Carrie Fisher win posthumously.
Alternative blurb: ​At the Grammys, Bruno Mars wins both Album of the Year for 24K Magic and Record of the Year for its title track.
Alternative blurb II: ​At the Grammys, Bruno Mars wins six awards, including Album, Record, and Song of the Year.
News source(s): (NPR), The New York Times, Billboard, (CNN), The Hollywood Reporter

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.
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Grammys are ITN/R, but only for Record of the Year and Album of the Year. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • EC, but same point, though I will note if there's something super unusual that is called out by sources, we could cover that. We're not going to cover a posthumous award for certain (unless it was one of those two). --Masem (t) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I do see lots of press on Carrie Fisher's win. It may be worth mentioning. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
        • The thing though - and not to try to diminish her death or her winning, but it feels like a pity award, similar to how Heath Ledger was awarded Supporting Actor following his death. Additionally, given that we have limited space, putting that award over any others beyond the two noted diminsihes any other award as well as any lifetime recognition awards. I don't think we should give it that much focus at this point. --Masem (t) 03:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Carrie Fisher winning is big news. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There's hardly any prose, and what is there hasn't been updated. —Cryptic 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC), 07:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think this Carrie Fisher news is so big either. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending expansion. I don't see Carrie Fisher's win as being of particular significance, but the Grammies are ITN/R, so a blurb is a given. Kurtis (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a given at all; this hasn't been posted for the past two years due to lack of updates. I mentioned this concern when I initially nominated for this to be pulled from ITN/R. If the Grammys are so notable as to warrant ITN/R posting, the article's updates should be more substantial.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, it's ITN/R, but it needs a very big expansion if it's to be posted. At the moment it's a pile of tables - practically no prose at all. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is going to need a lot of work if it's to be posted on the main page. Article quality is really quite poor. In addition to the lack of prose there are huge gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Non-notable. Grammy Awards hit all-time ratings low

[4] Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aaaaaabbbbb111: The Grammys are on the Recurring items list, meaning that they are presumed notable, and as such their notability is not at issue in this discussion. If you feel that the Grammys should not be on the list, please visit the talk page there to propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – formatting is an absolute disaster, difficult to navigate and information is not presently clearly to readers. Needs an overhaul to be worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor referencing, very poor formatting. It needs major overhaul and third party sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2018 (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] South Yemen coupEdit

Article: Battle of Aden (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Separatists from the Southern Transitional Council seize government buildings in Aden from Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi's government forces.
News source(s): BBC, The National, The Hindu and The Independent

Nominator's comments: Important development in Yemen. Aden was the main stronghold of Hadi's government, and this new round of fighting is pitting the Saudi-backed Hadi government against UAE-backed southern separatists. Whether this will affect the Saudi-Emirati alliance or not is yet to be seen. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Important battle and article Braganza (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Important battle indeed. Seems ITN ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is far from ready, it is very short and needs considerable expansion before this can be posted. --Tone 18:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support important coverage. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality - the article is of insufficient quality to be posted on the main page as stands. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • In what way? It looks good enough to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Article has vastly improved since my initial objection, and is more than worthy of its listing in ITN. Kudos to User:Braganza for his updates, which brought it to this standard. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1817 bytes of prose. Not a stub. Long enough and well sourced, quality seems sufficient to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted RD] RD/Blurb: Ingvar KampradEdit

Consensus seems to favor RD only by a roughly 2:1 margin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2018 (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: Ingvar Kamprad (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ingvar Kamprad the founder of the retail company IKEA dies at the age of 91.
Alternative blurb: Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of retail company IKEA, dies aged 91.
News source(s): BBC

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: Founder of IkeaThe Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article seems fine. --LukeSurl t c 10:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD - tentative support for blurb Although at 91 his death isn't unexpected, given the global reach of IKEA I think he's worthy of one. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, blurb not necessary. He may have been the man behind IKEA, but it's his company more than the man who has the greater notability. cart-Talk 11:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RDAmmarpad (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - One of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time, active until the very end of his life. --Bruzaholm (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - One of the greatest businessmen in history. Multi-billion earning stores all around the world. Top of his field.BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD once article is improved - the sourcing could be improved, but more importantly, the article is quite uneven. The career section has a short paragraph on the founding of IKEA in 1948, and then jumps to 2013. Surely other things happened in those 65+ years? Also not sure about the section on Fascist involvement. It is noteworthy, but in terms of length seems disproportionate. In any case should be integrated with his biography, as it is part of his biography. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:606C:B42E:92B9:6051 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - substantial and long-lasting impact on the retail industry, who created one of the largest companies in existence. Clearly worthy of support for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. If we do a blurb, though, we'd have to split his name up and spread it all over the Main Page without useful instructions on how to read it, and then there'd be one vowel that we can't find anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Ironically, his humility has kept him from the public eye, and thus I can't justify a blurb. Radagast (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • IKEA is part of Kamprads notability. IKEA is a world wide known brand name. BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A tiny fraction of those who recognize IKEA would know Kamprad. We can't use one to fully justify the other, I don't think. Radagast (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD only A blurb for the death of a 91 year old? I don’t care well known IKEA is, this is what RD is for. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What does age have got to do with it? He was an extremely talented businessman. That he died at the age of 91 is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No it’s not. How unexpected the death was is one of the criteria. Also the level of media coverage is not exceptional (not front page news everywhere like Mandela or Bowie) and he does not have much name recognition (IKEA does but not him personally.)Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Kamprad certainly was influential and as per BabbaQ he is top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please consider my support above RD only: Ikea is very notable, and that is why we'd post if it got bought out or went bankrupt. Such notability isn't fully inherited by the founder. --LukeSurl t c 17:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only' The death is not a news story on the Bowie/Mandela level. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD, for which I see a clear consensus. I do not see a consensus for a blurb at this point. --Tone 18:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I'm generally opposed to RD blurbs, but this one seems to check the boxes. Because IKEA is a closely-held company, it's not incorrect to think of it as synonymous with Kamprad. Given it's wide expanse and influence, this seems like a good case to post. GCG (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per the above, IKEA is notable throughout the world. Davey2116 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • He is not IKEA. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, he founded IKEA and per those above is the person most identified with it. I don't know what the issue is here. Davey2116 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • They are basically saying that because Kamprad was normal and did not use a grand personality like for example Trump, he is not Blurb worthy. Just let it --BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)go.
  • Support RD only, until I discover what these four extra screws are for. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ... and some advice from Sheela-na-Gig aka Jeanne Rathbone
  • Support RD only as nom. Substantially important individual but nothing to write home about in regard to blurbiness. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD only - his death has not been a significant event. -- irn (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD only - IKEA (and its founder) is notable, but not notable or game-changing enough to warrant a blurb. Also, to get here I had to go through the main page, main page:talk, main page kitchen, ITN:C dining room, and ITN:C kitchen. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Haha. Hope you brought your own scredriver. I think you'll find IKEA offers an extensive range for both dining room and kitchen. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (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.

January 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Riverside homes and businesses in Paris are on high alert as the swollen River Seine threatens to overflow its banks. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Dennis PeronEdit

Article: Dennis Peron (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle

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: The "father of medical marijuana" – Muboshgu (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This is good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted (I turned it into paragraphs rather than bulletpoints first though - never a good look for a Main Page article that). Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It wasn't in bulletpoints when I went to sleep last night. I don't know who monkeyed with the format like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mort WalkerEdit

Article: Mort Walker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post

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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, no apparent issues in quality. --Masem (t) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Czech presidential electionEdit

Article: Czech presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Miloš Zeman (pictured) is reelected for a second term in the Czech presidential election.
News source(s): BBC reuters

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.
  • Support The article is pretty good. Note that I've tweaked the nom since this is ITN/R. Davey2116 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support wow, pretty good is an understatement. A great piece of work, looks good to go as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, major news. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R and article is in great shape. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic article. Proud support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Non-free image use in lists or tables is not allowed per WP:NFLISTS. --Masem (t) 23:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, more importantly, although they all had fair use rationales for inclusion in this article, each rationale was actually inaccurate, so I've removed the column. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Important election and article Braganza (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems the issues have been fixed, posting. --Tone 18:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Kabul suicide bombingEdit

Article: 2018 Kabul ambulance bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bombing in Kabul kills at least 102 people and injures nearly 200.
Alternative blurb: ​A bombing in Kabul, the third major attack in Afghanistan in one week after a Jalalabad attack and another Kabul attack, kills at least 102 people and injures more than 196.
News source(s): NY Times and pretty much every reputable news service.

Nominator's comments: The death toll is remarkable even for this violence prone corner of the world. Currently a stub but expansion is in progress. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on significance; article is changing quickly, a quality assessment is not going to be meaningful at the moment. Death toll shockingly high. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability per Vanamonde93. Should we mention that this is the third major attack in Afghanistan in one week? I've added an alt-blurb to this effect. Davey2116 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If that blurb is chosen then the old blurb on the hotel attack can be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - massive deaths toll, dominant news story at the moment, should absolutely be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support it's nearly above stub so once we cross over that line, I'm all in. Been in my news feed all day, getting more and more and more tragic by the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What could be done to improve the article? I worked out where it happened. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. Post as soon as article is de-stubbed. -Zanhe (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Ditto. More gore, alas. Sca (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, good work everyone, on making it look like the article was a crummy stub and spooking the admins. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Although the article is barely above stub-class, it is well-referenced and the death toll is unusually high for a suicide attack in Afghanistan. Kurtis (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Article is short but can and will be expanded. It's good enough quality to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

January 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

                
Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Hiromu NonakaEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (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: Hiromu Nonaka (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Japan Times

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.
 The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No major issue that should stop RD posting. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Several paragraphs, including most of the "Early life and local political career" section, lack sourcing. Support once these are fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (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] 2018 Miryang Hospital fireEdit

Article: 2018 Miryang Hospital fire (talk, history)
Blurb: A hospital fire in Miryang, South Korea kills 37 people and injures more than 70 others.
News source(s): NYT, BBC

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The article is more or less ready, just the infobox needs to be updated to reflect the number of casualties. --Tone 10:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I think the blurb should mention the fact that it is the country's deadliest fire in more than a decade but other than that. It seems more or less ready. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well sourced. It is OK for ITN –Ammarpad (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine to me, but how is the Jecheon fire at all relevant? Connection seems trivial, but it's the second sentence in the lede. GCG (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's because a party spokesperson referenced the previous fire in their response to this one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 94.15.181.120 (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on this but the support is clear and the article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 17:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Injury count now at 125–130 [5] [6]NixinovaT|C⟩ 19:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The best place to comment would probably be WP:ERRORS, Nixinova Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Invasion Day protestsEdit

Clear consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2018 (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: Australia Day#Controversies and issues (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Up to 60,000 attend an indigenous rights rally in Melbourne, Australia to mark the 230th anniversary of the British colonisation of New South Wales, dwarfing public celebrations of the national holiday encouraged by the federal government.
Alternative blurb: ​Up to 60,000 attend an indigenous rights rally in Melbourne, Australia to mark the 230th anniversary of the British colonisation of New South Wales.
News source(s): [7]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: These are large-scale protests and major news in Australia Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposing much shorter blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's important that this was done in defiance of the governing party, who believe the day should be celebrated, but I will shorten it. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The blurb does not need to and should not give every detail. That's what the article is for. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Still undecided on the significance, but if we do post this, the blurb should reflect the fact that these are protests against the celebration of Australia day on the anniversary of what, to indigenous people, is the anniversary of an invasion. Vanamonde (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how this could be worded without seeming to take one side or the other. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The target article was already on the main page on Jan 26 (On this day section). Right now there is one short sentence on these protests in this article, a sentence that incidentally is even shorter than the proposed blurb. It's not a sufficient update, and also does no allow to evaluate the significance of these protests. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:413F:BE86:755D:4014 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OpposeIt's not clear what the "significance of the developments" described here are. Opposition is commonplace and large scale rallies have occurred previously. GCG (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's some indication of the significance of this. 60,000 people is a tiny number for a national protest and an article on it almost certainly wouldn't survive AfD (for comparison, that's less than 20% of the numbers who turned up to protest the UK government's ban on hunting with hounds, and Countryside March remains a redlink). It's possible that there's some particular significance to this particular rally, but if so the onus is on you to demonstrate its notability. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above, also as suggested by article, this has been opposition growing each year, meaning its not an unusual rally at this point. --Masem (t) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I’m not seeing the significance of this. The indigenous peoples’ opposition to Australia Day is well known so this protest is not really big news.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2018 (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.

January 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


[Closed] Limiting smoking to one cigarette a day does not keep the undertaker awayEdit

WP:SNOWish non-smoking or at least e-cigs without nicotine. Brandmeistertalk 21:16, 25 January 2018 (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: Health effects of tobacco (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Limiting smoking to one cigarette a day does not keep the undertaker away
News source(s): BMJ, BBC

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If "smoking is bad for you" is really news to you, then congratulations, but I believe most of us are already aware. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No recent updates to target article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I read the header on my watchlist and thought "Count Iblis". This sort of story, along with pretty much all the Count's recent nominations, will never get a chance at ITN. This one included. Trivia at best, maybe DYK, but taking the two previous commentators' comments into account as well, not a snowball's chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2018 (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] 2 minutes to midnightEdit

Mercy withdrawal.--WaltCip (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2018 (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: Doomsday Clock (talk, history) and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advances the Doomsday Clock forward to two minutes to midnight.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: The closest the Doomsday Clock has ever come to midnight since 1953, when the US and Soviet Union tested atomic bombs. WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for same reasons we did not post the adjustment in Jan 2015 and Jan 2017. It's a arbitrary measure, nothing objective about it. --Masem (t) 18:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We'll post it when it hits midnight. Teemu08 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nah, man. It's a meaningless bit of trivia. It's like the terror alert rainbow system or any of those things. A non-story. --Jayron32 19:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An arbitrary adjustment to a meaningless scale. This is just a nebulous warning from a self-appointed group, no reason for us to feature it. Modest Genius talk 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the bulletin is made up of several experts and even Nobel Prize laureates, this is ultimately opinion-based. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2018 (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: Neagu DjuvaraEdit

Article: Neagu Djuvara (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8]
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: The article is very well sourced. He is a very important historian.--Culoarul4 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The criticism section needs sourcing (I tagged it), and the Notable Works should have sourcing to establish why these are notable works as recognized by others. Otherwise, limit it to books he authored. --Masem (t) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is now good to go. @Masem: That section was added six years ago without source in WP:OR manner and never sourced. It can take ages to be fixed, (assuming it is true) given scarcity of reference about him in English. I have fixed that and also fixed notable work title to more neutral one. Pinging you to reasses the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted after hiding all unsourced content, it was ready to go. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Pioltello train derailmentEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:19, 27 January 2018 (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: Pioltello train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train derailment in Pioltello near Milan, Italy kills at least 3 people and injures over 100.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 3 people are killed and over 100 injured in a train derailment in Pioltello near Milan, Italy.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Reuters

Article updated
 Osarius - Want a chat? 11:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Weak Support - The article in its current state is a stub and doesn't have a whole lot of useful information. I support the inclusion on the condition that the article is extended with more information before it is included. I'd expect more information to be coming in relatively quickly. Other than that, seems notable enough. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Article is not main page ready yet. Not much useful information to give readers. Will check in periodically to see if things improve. --Jayron32 13:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support once article is brought up to code. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose with due condolences to the affected people, I'm not sure that this disaster is of sufficient magnitude to be considered global news. I'm not seeing anything unusual enough about the circumstances for this to be posted either. Infrastructure disasters happen every so often. Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub, and like the Kazakh bus (which had 52 deaths) it's not really going to go anywhere significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, Kazakh bus was significant and that's why it was posted. Brandmeistertalk 16:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Not in longevity terms. It was posted because it had a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanamonde. An unfortunate but unexceptional transport accident. Modest Genius talk 17:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modern Genius. Just not that remarkable. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No lasting impact, and not an abnormally large number of fatalities. Therefore, not worthy of posting on ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2018 (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.

January 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] First cloning of primatesEdit

Article: Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese scientists announce the successful cloning of two identical monkeys (similar animal pictured), the first primates to be cloned using the SCNT technique.
News source(s): BBC NYT Scientific American

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The first primates created using the "real" cloning method (SCNT). BBC simply calls them the "first monkey clones". Zanhe (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I do feel this is ITN material but two things: first, I'd think we'd want to highlight the SCNT article too (the monkey article is very light on the science) and that's not in great shape. Second, this is not validated research that I can tell (eg this is not the result of a peer-reviewed journal paper); I do recognize the situation around that might be a bit tricky but I do want to make sure we're okay with that fact before posting. --Masem (t) 05:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The paper is published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Cell, see here. Jan 24 is the publication date. -Zanhe (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's clears that issue. --Masem (t) 06:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no question as to the notability of this event. The key article is well-supported and well-written, if on the shorter side, but I feel there is still enough material in it for ITN. The supporting article has large uncited sections, but otherwise it is up to standards, and since it is only a supporting article, I think it is ready. Inatan (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on significance: this is all over the news. No time to investigate quality at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • PP Comment – I'm not opposed to posting, but wonder how we derived consensus from just two supports. Sca (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree - I would have like a bit more discussion. I check ITN/C regularly and noticed this at ERRORS before I'd even seen it here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I would hope that the closing admin read my !vote as a support given if certain factors were met. --Masem (t) 15:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree and Sca: There's no precise number of !votes that must be reached to determine consensus. Lack of opposition is also supporting. If you have any objection why the article should not be posted then explain it and once reasonable the article will be pulled. Posting is not irreversible.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per Inatan. Davey2116 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jack KetchumEdit

Unimproved, stale. Stephen 04:12, 29 January 2018 (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: Jack Ketchum (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
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: Except for maybe the awards section, the article is well sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article sounds promotional and contains language errors. Sca (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Almost 10 unsourced and mostly non-notable awards, films plus major unsourced sections as well as lot of weasel words. This article needs non trivial editing or complete stubbing –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
— Maybe we could get Izzy to punch it into shape? Sca (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Mostly based on article quality. Poorly referenced and some bare URLs. Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
...and what is your reason? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who? This RD nonsense where we post everyone with an article should at least require a field designating why the subject is notable. If I have to readthe article to find out why anyone should GAS, I suspect the item does not need posting. Meanwhile, names like UKL remain unposted based on technicalities? Cheese and Fooking Crackers! (The ones from Foo King, China, that is). μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: You should be reading the article to make sure the quality is good enough for the main page. And Le Guin was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that's called being hoisted by one's own petard!!!!! Twice!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But, in all seriousness, if you really believe this to be "RD nonsense" then please feel free to do something about it. We had extensive trials, an RFC etc, which ended clearly on the side of the currently implemented consensus, but consensus can change, so you are welcome to instigate that change. I happen to think we're posting a vastly wider diversity of individuals than we ever would, we're being much more reactive than ever, and most of those featured on RD genuinely are recently deceased, unlike the main news items which are often very stale indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] RD Mark E. SmithEdit

Article: Mark E. Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian
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: Iconoclastic singer and songwriter of The Fall. Article needs a few more citations-ah. Yorkshiresky (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - but only after the entire article has been fully referenced. Otherwise notable enough for RD inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    This vote is pointless. We already know he's notable enough. We already know it won't be posted until it's of sufficient quality. So what, exactly, are you supporting? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support after sourcing issues are resolved - paging Ceoil for cleanup. There are two ways of fronting a band - the way everyone else does which is sing in the right places and join in with the music, and then there's the Mark E Smith way, which is to ignore the band and shout incoherently over the top of them (optionally turning off their amps if you can't hear yourself). Unique. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Once the referencing is fixed, I would argue for a blurb. Considering the Fall's prolificness and influence on rock music as a whole, post-punk especially, I think this is noteworthy enough for a mention at the top. GrossesWasser (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per GrossesWasser, totally unexpected death, he was still producing his best work. zzz (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for blurb once the quality is fixed up. Technically he was still touring, so this is a rather unusual death, but I also see that they knew he was in bad health since at least August, so it was a matter of when, not if. Still he appeared active in music recording up to this point. --Masem (t) 22:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Didn't see any glaring citation omissions. The notability isn't there for a blurb--he's a notable figure in post-punk, but we're talking about a sub-genre within a sub-genre within a sub-genre. Teemu08 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per GrossesWasser; influence stretches far and wide, and the band has been consistently popular for over 30 years. Citations have been added. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb not sure if he meets the Prince/Bowie standard as I mentioned below in the discussion for Le Guin. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants. Blurbs are for the Newtons of the world; the giants get RDs. GCG (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. FWIW I'm a fan - I have his recordings and saw him perform - but he was very much a cult figure, simply not of the global cultural significance required for a blurb. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb per Teemu08's comment. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD I think everything is sourced now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD for the time being, the discussion about a possible blurb can continue. IMO whilst MES was a hugely influential figure in his area, that wasn't an area with a huge demographic. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Larry Nassar sentencingEdit

Closing this just as it descends into unhelpful commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2018 (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: Larry Nassar (talk, history) and USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: Larry Nassar, former team doctor for USA gymnastics, has been sentenced up to 175 years in prison due to his sexual abuse of more than 150 gymnasts.
News source(s): CNN BBC The New York Times
Nominator's comments: United States gymnastics doctor who abused many gymnasts, including numerous Olympic gymnasts. This has been a pretty highly followed case that has now (unless an appeal happens) come to an end. Andise1 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid this kind of court case is becoming commonplace and so it's not remarkable or particularly newsworthy above all the others, see United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal which is ongoing and features coaches who abused children and youth players for decades. I don't see this case as being any more notable than all the ongoing cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to have gathered much more media attention than the football scandal, probably because it involves gold-medal winning athletes such as Aly Raisman and Simone Biles, whereas the footballers involved are relatively obscure players. Also notable for the extraordinary 7 day sentencing hearing with testimony from over 150 gymnasts. I would bold USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal rather than Nassar though.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, a point of correction, the footballers in general haven't been named. They could be anyone. We haven't had the Hollywood Court Case High Profile Televised Marathon that we've seen here, but the cases are pretty much identical. Just because one features the US gymnast team, it doesn't make it more or less significant than the kids who were abused in the UK, to whit: the number of affected clubs had grown to 331, with 285 identified suspects and 784 alleged victims, arising from 2,028 referrals. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Given the rash of sexual misconduct allegations from mid-2017 onwards, TRM is absolutely right that we're likely going to have a number of stories in the next several years along the same lines, and definitely not all of them should be posted. This one predates those, and had a bit wider attention already due to being an Olympic-based issue. We definitely need to be wary about these cases going forward, but I think this one is sufficiently high-level (particularly with the harsh sentence) to qualify. --Masem (t) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, the sexual abuse that went on at high profile British clubs took place from the 1970s onwards, so that by far pre-dates this story. Courcelles, we don't know the identities of those who are involved in these British cases, they are protected unless they reveal themselves, but the fact that before Christmas, more than 784 alleged victims were noted means that we have a serious case. Getting "huge coverage" just like the government shutdown. Don't forget this is one legal case about one individual. Just because it happened in an American court, it doesn't make it more notable than all the cases that are going through the British courts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    It involved the high profile Olympic sports. It is not quite as significant as the Russian doping situation (which had many more people involved obviously), but we're still talking extremely high profile incident over some number of years. --Masem (t) 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, it's odd to hear you arguing like this. I've already told you that we don't know the identities of those involved in most cases in the UK scandal, and the many accused. This case, it's one criminal, and a bunch of high profile people, that's it. Will we need to blurb every such case from now on, I guess I already know the answer to that if the accused/guilty is American. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The (nearly) definitive end of a notable story. Most of these cases don't involve such high-profile victims, which, in my mind, does increase the notability for ITN of the event. Courcelles (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To TRM, I'd be fine posting the British abuse scandal if it had a high-profile "finishing" moment like this one does. I suspect it'll be a while before that one concludes, and doubt it will conclude in such "clean" fashion, with a single act. Courcelles (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get that, but it seems odd to glorify/vilify one criminal whose acts are similiar, if not the same, to those who are standing trial around the world in their hundreds. This is a little like us reading OK!, or the god-forsaken Daily Mail. From an encyclopedic perspective and a historical note, this is just another pervert being caught. We're seeing cases like this daily, and yes this is a little more titivating than some, gymnasts testifying against a pervert, but it's fundamentally the same concept. I'm not sure why this one individual is any more important than any other criminal who has committed crimes, like John Worboys, soon to be released from prison yet having apparently raped/assaulted more than 100 individuals in his taxi, but only convicted for a handful. Is the whole sensationalism based around the US female gymnast team? Is that the kicker? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call it "sensationalism", but, yes. When you get down to it, this is all about the notability and number of the victims that separates it from run-of-the-mill child molestation cases. That's why this is getting so much coverage. Courcelles (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Getting huge coverage everywhere, including outside the US. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Like it or not this has been covered by media both nationally and internationally. Article seems ready for posting and includes very notable victims. BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few years ago I think I would have supported this. However it seems to me that consensus on ITN has been shifting away from crime stories over the last couple of years. Very few seem to be getting posted. To be honest I can't remember the last time one made it. Also TRM has a fair point. While this is certainly a shocking crime and it is getting a great deal of attention, that describes most crime stories/events that get nominated here. What makes this one different? Why is this more important than the British football sex scandal or the death sentence handed down to the surviving Boston bomber? In short I am opposing for the sake of some level of consistency here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
You might be interested in this: [Posted_Hillsborough_disaster]. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • But is that not a matter of Other stuff exists. It is irrelevant what happens with other articles or subject, we evaluate each individually.BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is OTHERSTUFF. But when other stuff is so consistent in its application then we call it "precedent" or in wiki-speak, "consensus." To be sure consensus is not without exceptions. But I think in this case we are talking about something that contradicts established precedent here and that brings me back to my question. Why is this different when we have been routinely turning down crime story nominations? What is the justification for the exception here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Page and media is well intrested at this.2601:2C0:4700:4A9A:28FA:2902:58AD:5F24 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support per MAINEiac4434. I don't like it, but fact is, if I put in "Larry" into Google every one of the first page's result is on this case. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per MAINEiac4434. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A top story in the Western press and significant to the sport. Bit like the controversy surrounding British cycling, this event hits the leading team in the world. I remember when we posted the controversy surrounding the British male child sex abuse scandal in football/soccer a year ago. Back then it was mere allegations in the press, yet for some reason we argue here that more than 150+ instances of American female child sex abuse is not important enough to post - especially when this is an actual legal conviction? Fuebaey (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Consensus is that the scale and level of abuse warrants posting, and this does not preclude or set precedent to post similar stories, be they earlier or wider in impact. Stephen 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – he was also sentenced to another 60 years for child pornography charges. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 03:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That sentencing occurred on 7 December. Stephen 03:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull well sourced? So is cabbage. This is a single person of absolutely no public import. No one will know his name tomorrow, no one knew his name yesterday. We should really be posting quality like Dorothy Malone. not righting miniscule wrongs like a pedophile employed as a pedophile in the various senses of that word. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
You have had your head firmly planted in the ground for the last month if you haven't heard the name Larry Nassar in the news even once.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(If you live in America, of course). Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not Lassar that has been posted but the Gymnastics sex abuse case. With several very notable victims such ss athletes who are amongst the top in their field.BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The US Olympic Committee has given an ultimatum to USA Gymnastics for their entire board to resign or be decertified as the governing body of gymnastics in the US over this scandal. [9] This is a big deal. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not a big deal (it is), just that the vast majority of the planet would not have a clue who Larry Nassar was, which was the statement. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite but I was more addressing the original poster. I apologize for my lack of clarity. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. Support - Overall, I think the scale of the crimes committed, the fact that it is receiving such extensive media coverage throughout the world, the unusual (albeit well-deserved) prison sentence, and the high profiles of some of the victims (e.g. at least two Olympic gold medalists) tips this story over the edge for me as being notable enough to be featured on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2018 (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] Ongoing: Mayon eruptionEdit

Does not have the level of activity or article updates for ongoing. Stephen 05:05, 29 January 2018 (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: Mayon (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NBC News
Nominator's comments: The eruption has displaced over 40,000. The last time the volcano caused an Alert Level 4 was in 2010. Inatan (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Note that the picture I have placed here is probably not good enough for ITN. It is the only good picture I could find on Commons of the event. Inatan (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean this to be an ongoing nomination? If so no image will be used. If not, you need a blurb and to fix the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Inatan (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and noting that this should be ongoing as nominated (though it seems fairly late, given that it started since January 13). Its intensity kept increasing since then. But this may not be good candidate for ITN. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for ongoing. Article is well sourced and comprehensive, but writing quality is dreadful. The amount of proseline writing is making my eye twitch... --Jayron32 13:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I just looked at this and 100% agree this cannot be posted in this state, regardless of how ITN-appropriate this is. This not only goes for the current activity but the past events as well. --Masem (t) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this observation, plus there are quite a few unsupported statements, which I have tagged. I worked a little on the prose. The article is seeing about as much support as an ongoing event of this scale typically does (some, but not enough), and if that keeps up, it looks like I might have to take the necessary steps to bring it up to standards. Inatan (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral the quality of updates is extremely poor, but from what I'm seeing, this is certainly a reasonable shout for ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - when some updates has been done. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Not trying to be a jerk, but you keep posting votes that contradict your comment. If the quality is not to your standards, you shouldn't vote support. GCG (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Without death or destruction, the eruption itself must be noteworthy. This appears to be a twice a month-level event. GCG (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2018 (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.

January 23Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] Eastern cougar is declared extinctEdit

Nomination is now stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2018 (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: Eastern cougar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The North American Eastern cougar is removed from the endangered species list and declared extinct.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article appears to be in decent shape and has been updated. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know exactly how these things work, but what has actually happened here? The first line of the article says that it was declared extinct in 2011; what has actually changed this week? ‑ Iridescent 23:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The 2011 declaration was an informal conclusion from a government study but it did not alter the legal status of the cougar. This is the formal "they are history" declaration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the lead for clarity. It was not well written. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Davey2116 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd say that this is a significant enough story to post, but the article needs a good bit of work. Not only are there uncited sections, but it is incoherent to the point of making it difficult for the reader to understand what it's saying. What it really needs is to be rewritten with a couple of sourcing giving an overview of the topic, but in the absence of those, at least an attempt to pull together the various threads in it. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Simon SheltonEdit

Article is a stub, and the entry has gone stale. Alex Shih (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2018 (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: Simon Shelton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Repurposing of below nomination, this time with the target at an actual person who has recently died. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Currently oppose on article quality; it is too stubby for useful information. If expanded to a reasonable size and depth of coverage of his life and work, with proper sourcing, that would be fine. --Jayron32 18:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose –Classic stub. Half of the references are unreliable sources. Not informative. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too short. Doesn't even say what he died of. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the others. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Nicanor ParraEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 22:07, 28 January 2018 (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: Nicanor Parra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Notable and death confirmed by BBC Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily due to sourcing, secondarily due to length and depth. If we ignore the list of works, the actual prose is basically stub-level. Even with the list of works, it is mostly unreferenced, and the tiny amount of actual writing on his life is also substandard with regards to sourcing. It would need to be expanded with more prose and fully referenced to be main page ready. --Jayron32 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sourcing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2018 (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: Hugh MasekelaEdit

Article: Hugh Masekela (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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 musician. Several paragraphs unreferenced. Article would need need a lot of referencing work before posting. LukeSurl t c 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Many obituaries, now published worldwide, should make sourcing a lot easier. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing seems to be good enough.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support strongly, per Martinevans123. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs referencing for the discography, then good to go. Stephen 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Naomi ParkerEdit

Stale, as she died on the 20th. Stephen 01:17, 24 January 2018 (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: Naomi Parker (talk, history) and We Can Do It! (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Naomi Parker Fraley, who inspired the famous We Can Do It! poster, has died.
News source(s): BBC, NYT

Both articles 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: The subject's article needs work but the article about the poster is FA quality. The item gets good coverage by the BBC and NYT and so merits attention. Andrew D. (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it is very unlikely this death will be posted as a blurb, so the quality/content of We Can Do It! is not pertinent here. --LukeSurl t c 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with LukeSurl that the article on the poster isn't at issue because this probably won't be posted as a blurb as this person does not meet the criteria listed at WP:ITNRD(not a world transforming figure, her death is not the story but the poster). Her article, as indicated by the nominator, does need work as only the date of death has been added to it. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing about this person's life that could not adequately be summarized in the We Can Do It! article. She should just be a redirect to there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
So should this be posted as a link to the article on the poster, but pipe it with her name? 331dot (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub bio just created today, and most, if not all of which can be covered in the "We Can Do It!" article. That FA even states Doyle's notion that the photograph inspired the poster cannot be proved or disproved, so first Doyle and then Parker cannot be confirmed as the model for "We Can Do It!" so even the proposed blurb is false if the article is to be believed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now based on article quality; article is a stub. Will reassess if and when the article is expanded. --Jayron32 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the RD of the bio article per WP:BLP1E (eg she should be merged into the We Can Do It article), but on that principle, willing to Support an RD for her using the poster article (eg piped link) as a exceptional case for RD. The poster article is in good shape for such posting. --Masem (t) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose Same argument as Masem, except given the circumstantial connection (the photo may be Fraley, but the photo was never confirmed as the source, it may well have been a composite), I thinks this falls short of the exceptional case he advocates. GCG (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Though this nomination originally pointed to Naomi Parker Fraley, an alternate, more developed article has been created at Naomi Parker (her maiden name). I have redirected Naomi Parker Fraley to this article. Commentators who viewed the stub may wish to re-assess after reading this other article. --LukeSurl t c 14:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It still falls under BLP1E issues - yes, her life beyond the photo for the poster has been documented, but that's non-notable facets relative to her role w.r.t. the poster. --Masem (t) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And it still fails the Parker cannot be confirmed as the model for "We Can Do It!" original point that she might not even have been the model in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • In this case, it seems that the RSes acknowledge she may not be 100% confirmed as the one, but they're treating her as if she is. That's not our fault if they end up being wrong. --Masem (t) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • It is our fault if our featured article is incorrect in some way. Or it is our fault if we make an erroneous claim as the current blurb seems to make. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
            • As long as our article states that "she is believed to be the inspiration for the posters by scholars", or something to that line, we are being 100% truthful; we don't claim she is but that sources believe she is. --Masem (t) 16:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Perhaps if RD passes muster, but, for the third or fourth time, the proposed blurb is false. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Naomi Parker article exists, and, after a little work, is adequate to post (the NYT obituary is a very good source). The RD procedures are clear. Unless someone intends to take this to AfD, we should post now. --LukeSurl t c 15:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Really? With three sources? When I nominated Tyler Hilinski last week, people had similar concerns about notability and it wasn't posted. And nobody has bothered to nominate it for deletion. How about some consistency here? I say oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From the template: "any individual human … with a standalone Wikipedia article (Naomi Parker) whose recent death is in the news (obituary in the NYT) is presumed to be important enough to post." I don't know what happened with Hilinski, I wasn't involved with that nomination. But here we have an article on a recently deceased person with no tags or flagged sourcing issues (there are only three sources, but the NYT obituary is very extensive and could support a start-class article by itself). If you don't think this person is notable, nominate the article for deletion. Otherwise this is a RD item. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The article did not exist until today, so the normal RD requirement is not satisfied (RD presumes that a standalone article already existed). We get to consider that in this evaluation. --Masem (t) 15:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you point me to where that information has been written down, so can learn more about it? I have, until now, never seen such a stipulation. --Jayron32 16:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Generally, that's going to extend from WP:BLP1E - if the person is only notable for one event (including if that is their death), then we shouldn't have a standalone article. The way I read the RFC on the RD aspect, is that we assume that the existing standalone prior to death justifies the notability for posting to avoid the BLP1E aspect around death, but that's not a hard-coded result of the RFC. However, I am going to start a discussion at the WT:ITN page about RDs on newly created articles to assure there's consensus for that. --Masem (t) 16:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, this death is reported by many news agencies. --LukeSurl t c 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Didn't we use to have a rule that the article had to exist prior to the death to qualify for RD? What happened to that? Anyway this person seems to fail WP:BLP1E and their sole claim to fame is based on dubious supposition, so the biography article may not survive very long anyway. I also oppose using the poster article as an alternative target, as that defeats the point in highlighting a recent death. Modest Genius talk 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as RD The article is well sourced but I think RD is better suited. @The Rambling Man:, @Jayron32:, @GreatCaesarsGhost:, @Modest Genius:: I'd hate to see this nom become obsolete due to a long-shot blurb nom, wouldn't a RD be good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (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: Sys NSEdit

Article: Sys NS (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kompas, CNN Indonesia

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.

  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Alaska earthquakeEdit

Thankfully limited in its effects. Stephen 21:58, 23 January 2018 (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: 2018 Alaska earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: A 7.9 magnitude earthquake occurs in the Gulf of Alaska.
News source(s): BBC
 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It’s very late at night here and I am crashing from an adrenaline high after fleeing my house lest it be destroyed by a tsunami, so excuse me for not doing all the paperwork, but we just had a massive earthquake here in southcentral Alaska, enough that it is being reported in US national news and BBC world service. Also it was scary as hell. that is all. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Tentative paperwork done, no blurb yet as no assessment of impact has been made. Good luck, stay safe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 7.9 earthquakes should qualify automatically as a topic; unless there's a quality issue, there's no way that this should not be featured. It's the lead story in my local newspaper here in Virginia, even though we're 4000 miles away, and its lead stories are almost always on local or state events. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I added a blurb; the magnitude is certainly significant however it doesn't seem to have actually done anything other than a tsunami warning.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Was apparently not "violent earthquake" and I believe the magnitude of the earthquake doesn't always mean it is significant, because it depends on location and depth.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for now. News coverage is evident and obvious, but the article itself is a bit light as yet, perhaps because we still don't have good information. Would like to see article expanded with more information on damage and effects. But its bare minimum to go up for me on a quality level. --Jayron32 13:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details. So far it doesn't seem to have caused any damage or deaths, just a lot of alarm, which wouldn't be ITN-worthy. However it may well have impacts that haven't been reported yet. We won't be able to assess significance until more information becomes available. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should only consider earthquakes (and other such natural disasters) based on their actual impact and right now, I'm not seeing anything besides an evacuation of some frightened people. Naturally if things change, we can re-visit. Having said that, they're not giving any further advisories, so I consider the matter effectively closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose 8.0 Mag quakes are nothing to sneeze at, so there's a good reason to post, but its also the case that I'm not seeing any reports of significant damage, the tsunami warning is lifted, etc. "Non"-disasters or those with few or no casualties tend to not be ITN material. --Masem (t) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't appear to have actually caused any deaths/damage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as it looks like tsunami warnings were lifted, and no casualties were recorded. Alex Shih (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tsunami warning has been cancelled and it appears there are no significant injuries or damage.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - powerful earthquake, but no serious damage, means that this is an oppose from me. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to admit this is seeming like a non-event for those who didn’t actually experience it. It’s not something I’ll forget anytime soon, my house shaking for what felt like at least a minute and then having to take my pets and my wife and just leave home, not knowing if I’d ever see it again, but luckily no significant tsunami waves occured, and I’ve not heard of any serious damage or deaths. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2018 (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.

January 22Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] RD: Preston ShannonEdit

Now stale, could have used some attention from an admin I guess... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2018 (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: Preston Shannon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 GCG (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This looks fine for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support brief article, but what's there appears adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2018 (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: Blurb?] Ursula Le GuinEdit

Article: Ursula K. Le Guin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American author Ursula K. Le Guin, best known for her works of speculative fiction, dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): New York Times

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.

 Jheald (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tagged a few places that need citations, but it's close. --Masem (t) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Unequivocal; article is in fine shape. Radagast (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is good, and she was a literary giant. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted with much sadness. I remember reading some of her books back when I was... Oh never mind. I was never that young. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we should at least consider a blurb in this case. NYT calls her "immensely popular"; Harold Bloom has a lot of praise, and included one of her works in The Western Canon (a list which, according to him, significantly influenced western culture); The Left Hand of Darkness is among the most-studied works of literature around; she's received the "Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters"; she had six Nebula Awards (including four for best novel, more than anyone else) and five Hugo Awards. Not as much impact as Mandela or Bowie, but more than Carrie Fisher. I'm a fan of her work, but I think I would support even otherwise. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the death is not causing any major waves as we have seen for what we'd expect for the blurb. We knew she was elderly, so the death wasn't really surprising (Whereas Fisher's death was very surprising though I don't agree that that should have been a blurb either). --Masem (t) 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also support a blurb Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Simply of insufficient global significance. Essentially a genre writer, and her death at 88 has not been headline news in most parts of the world. Responding to Vanamonde93, she is much less well known globally than Carrie Fisher, and her death is much less surprising. No problem with RD though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ghmyrtle: Fair enough, but I'd point out that "well-known" is not synonymous with "significant"; Daniel Craig is probably far better known worldwide than Martin Scorsese, but the latter is indubitably more significant. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
"Indubitably".....? {{cn}} Essentially, it depends on your point of view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, obits of many individuals feature on the homepages of the BBC and NYT, they won't be there in a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I think we need to fully "Godwin" Fisher from RD blurb debates. The whole point of CF as rhetorical argument is that she probably didn't qualify, but consensus gets to decide these things. Using her as precedent (which the rules advise against anyway) is ludicrous. GCG (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Yes let's not drag Carrie Fisher into this again. That was a mistake and should have been RD only, and so should this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Carrie Fisher's death drew a ton of press. A blurb for her was the right way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb As much as I adore her work, she's no household name. I can't give a good case for that sort of notability. Radagast (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Widely regarded as top woman writer in a male-dominated field, comparable in influence to Heinlein and Herbert, Earthsea trilogy and sequelae, The Lathe of Heaven and Left Hand of Darkness all widely disparate yet highly literary and award-winning classics. Not the normal "who's that?!?!?" type we get on the ticker nowadays. Importance goes far beyond pulp-fiction; comparable in skill and depth of themes to Tolkien and Lessing. μηδείς (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Fails the Mandela / Bowie standard. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, she's not a sainted political prisoner who healed a nation on the brink of civil war without reprisals and dictatorship. But Bowie? Certainly she meets that standard. μηδείς (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind, people like Bowie, Prince, and Robin Williams, while not the impact of Mandela or Thatcher, died unexpectedly; here, she was already in her late 80s, so the death is not unexpected. --Masem (t) 15:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Virtually no entertainment/literary figure (and few politicians) will match Mandela. If we take Bowie as a comparison, she is equally influential in her field. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It is purposefully a really high bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO, when we hold up the "in their field" model, we have to use the most generally defined field (That is, scientist not physicist, musician not drummer). One could make the argument that Bowie was the most (or among the most) noteworthy living musicians at time of death. Thatcher, Mandela, even Kohl, the most noteworthy statesmen. If you asked me last week to name the most noteworthy living writers, I could talk for hours and not mention Le Guin. GCG (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb neither the manner of her death, nor the reactions to it, merit additional commentary. Since we have nothing more to say than "she died", RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose blurb she's a literary giant, however I'm not seeing the kind of reaction like we saw with Prince, Bowie, et. al. This is "soft" however due to Vanamonde93's point about her obituary being front-page news for major outlets. Did we have a blurb for Harper Lee? I can't remember. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
No, there was no consensus for a blurb for Harper Lee.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. But the slander was always that Harper Lee was Truman Capote's meatpuppet. And the "let's get this carp out before she dies publication" of her "second novel" seems to have tainted her reputation in many and various degrees. Le Guin's reputation is unsullied in any such way.
Our paying attention to public mention rather than actual merit is an effing embarrassment, not a virtue. If public attention mattered, all we would do is post the deaths of Glee and Fast and Furious stars. I still remember Le Guin's name. I will til I senesce. Do you remember the Glee or the F&F "stars'" names? Did . Not. Think. So. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2018 (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.

I have taken it upon myself to unclose this discussion. Last I heard, I do not believe The Rambling Man (who closed it) is a current Wikipedia admin, so his word is not Wikipedia law in this.

It has been specified above that significance is measured within one's broadly-defined field. Le Guin's field is speculative fiction, but more broadly, it is English-language literature. The usual measure of significance in these fields is twofold: (1) is it considered canon? (2) is it still in print / how long has it been in print? In both the broadly-defined and narrow fields, her work is considered canon -- and she was continuing to produce canon-level literature right up to the year of her death. At the same time, many of her novels have never gone out of print since their first publication, to the point that you can still find them on the shelves in many brick-and-mortar bookstores. A high level of significance is thus established by two objective and somewhat independent measures, academic assessment and the marketplace.

It has also been brought up that obituaries constantly come and go on the front page of world newspapers. This is as true for Le Guin as it has been for Carrie Fisher, Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein, David Bowie, and Mother Teresa; and will eventually be true for the likes of Stephen Hawking and Jimmy Wales. The transient nature of obits can thus be used to grind any personal axe one wishes.

I would thus suggest that any lack of personal familiarity, here, and equally (given that there does exist high newspaper mention) personal assessment of the relative importance of those mentions, should be trumped by the opinions of experts in those fields.

Based on the assessment above, for whatever it is worth at this point, my personal opinion is that Ursula Le Guin's stature within her field supports a blurb, on the level of Asimov or Heinlein. - Tenebris (won't add "Illegitimum non carborundum", since this place always operates on good faith!) 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Connie SawyerEdit

Article: Connie Sawyer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People

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.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nom seems to have been overlooked in the discussions over the dog, the earthquake and an animated character. MurielMary (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. Still some referencing gaps in the filmography section. If those were fixed, I'd be fine with posting this. --Jayron32 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Filmography fully cited now. MurielMary (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as the referencing issues have been fixed. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Lucca (dog)Edit

NOT PROMOTED TO MAIN PAGE:
Without a single reliable source to back up this animal's death, there is absolutely no chance of this being placed on our main page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 24 January 2018 (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: Lucca (dog) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Lucca first United States Marine Corps dog to win the British Dickin Medal.
News source(s): "LuccaK458". January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018 – via FaceBook. It’s with a heavy heart that I tell you that Lucca passed away yesterday. Juan was able fly in to spend some quality time with her in her last few days and we were both at her side as she took her last breath. "War-wounded military dog awarded charity medal". BBC News. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016. "Lucca the heroic three-legged war dog wins medal" (Video). The Guardian. April 5, 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018. Wakefield, Jessica (April 5, 2016). "Adorable military dog, Lucca, who lost leg in combat gets medal for bravery" (Video). Irish Independent. Retrieved January 22, 2018. "PDSA Dickin Medal for Lucca". PDSA. Retrieved May 10, 2017.Phan, Hieu Tran (April 11, 2016). "How Marine dog Lucca made history". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved January 21, 2018. "U.S. Marine Corps Honors Dog for Wartime Bravery" (Video). CBS. 5 April 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018. Carpenter, Rhonda (21 October 2014). "Book Review – Top Dog: The Story of Marine Hero Lucca". Defense Media Network. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
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.
 7&6=thirteen () 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose for now pending the sourcing concerns noted below by Masem. A valid, reliable, independent, third party source for the death is crucial here. I made a good faith effort using Google and Google News and found bubkis myself. Consider this opposition null if the sourcing is fixed, and my former support vote reinstated when that happens. --Jayron32 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Can't imagine supporting a blurb for the death of a non-human. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The template was very malformed when originally posted (I did some fixing). I'm not sure the poster intends to make a blurb submission, or whether this is simply what would normally be in the nomination comment. Regardless, RD is clear here and the article seems OK to post as such. --LukeSurl t c 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not trying to be a jerk here, but the only source for the death is from Facebook (the other links are older, establishing notability). We generally expect death news to come from the news, not deaths that are just reported. However, I'm not aware of any previous case where we have a person/living thing that was notable before death, but their only death news came from a personal website/social media. --Masem (t) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah great catch. I'll strike my support until we can get verification. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Very good spot Masem. Kudos! --LukeSurl t c 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Let me stress again I'm not trying to be a jerk here: I don't know since with the new RD if it is critical that the death be "in the news" when it is clear the notability of the being was established beforehand. I open up the question if this approach breaks RD/ITN or not (And absolutely nothing against this because it is a dog rather than a person; that past RFC already fixed that in place). --Masem (t) 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I suggested we change the template from "whose recent death is in the news" to "whose recent death is reliably sourced." WP:ITNRD uses "reliably sourced," and I think "in the news" adds some ambiguity about the level of reporting required. GCG (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree with GCG's proposal. However, in this specific case it's worth considering if Facebook counts as a reliable source in this matter. As per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_MySpace, FB can be a reliable source "sometimes". Specifically "the official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Regarding authentication, this page is not "verified" for Lucca (presumably as FB would not authorise a non-human). More generally, by definition even a human individual cannot write a primary source reporting their death. --LukeSurl t c 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I spent much time looking for any news source on his death. And I only posted it when I found the Facebook page, which well antedates the death and reports the death in convincing detail. I quoted it. Given the pictures, the videos, and the text, this is certainly Lucca's facebook page. It has sufficient earmarks of reliability that it could be used. I only became aware of the death become another wikipedia editor put it into our article, and then I added sources and went on a quest. Finding a newspaper or mainstream media on the death of this remarkable dog may be a vain search. But if you choose not to run it, it is your and Wikipedia's loss. 7&6=thirteen () 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • A little bizarre that there's no coverage at all of the dog's death (I couldn't find any either). Would support upon that being presented. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think the FB post passes muster under WP:SELFPUB. GCG (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously not "in the news" and it's not our job to make it so. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems RD ready. BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless there's independent, reliable source that confirmed the death. Main page worthy article shouldn't rely on generally unreliable source.–Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no evidence has yet been presented that this death is in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    This sort of proves my point about the ambiguity of "in the news" vs. "reliable sources." No knock intended to 331. GCG (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Understood; no offense was taken. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can't find any online source stating the dog has died. MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Notability needs to be established by reliable third-party sourcing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If no third party sources have bothered to report the death, that brings into question the notability of the animal at all, let alone the propriety of us announcing it on the MP. A Facebook post is not a reliable third-party source. Frankly the idea of automatically posting an RD for every animal with an article is looking increasingly ridiculous. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There has to be at least some news coverage to qualify for RD and there has been zero.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Facebook is not a reliable source for his death. The article contradicts itself currently by having a death date in the infobox, but the article implies he's alive. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. Death reports like this sometimes take a couple days to appear based on a number of factors (location, when/if the family talks to the media, the state of the news cycle, etc.). For now I oppose due to the lack of sourcing, but reliable sourcing may appear and change things. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (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] Ongoing: US Government ShutdownEdit

Shutdown has ended, rendering this nomination moot. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NYT BBC
Nominator's comments: This is a formalised proposal that we remove the blurb for the government shutdown, and move it to ongoing. This suggestion is purely because of the nature of the nomination. The shutdown, as it persists, will drag on, as too will its impacts. Ongoing is currently vacated, so there is no opportunity cost in placing in there. The article has and will continue inevitably to receive updates, fulfilling the criteria for an ongoing placement. There is a consensus, however contentious, for this item to be listed at ITN. However, I feel that it is better suited to an ongoing listing at the moment given its nature, and am hence creating this nom, per Vanamonde's suggestion in posting its predecessor as a blurb, to gauge interest in moving the item to ongoing now. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I'm neutral on this, but if I were to be the closing admin here, I would see a "support" to mean "remove blurb, move to ongoing" and an "oppose" to mean "keep blurb". If we want to remove this altogether, that will have to be discussed separately (or, per IAR, could be decided here but only if folks are explicit about it). Vanamonde (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for not phrasing correctly. As nominator, this would be my reading of events too - support for removal of blurb and transition to ongoing, oppose for maintenance of blurb as is. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Falling slightly between Vanamonde's two options, I would suggest pushing this to ongoing iff the shutdown is still in effect when the blurb "falls off" the bottom of the template. --LukeSurl t c 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb is going to fall off the list. (eg about 2-3 days). We know that Congress is going to be trying to do something, as I write, we're in an hour before a next major vote, and if the shutdown is rendered null, then making this as ongoing is unnecessary. Additionally, whether ongoing is necessary depends what actually happens. If there is clearly attempts to resolve and it's all about negotations and the like with the implications the shutdown will be resolved soon, then ongoing seems unnecessary. If both sides walk away and let the shutdown linger, that's ongoing-worthy. But I can't make that distinction now, so this ongoing suggestion is too soon. --Masem (t) 16:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And as I'm watching, CNN reports that the Dems say they have reached a deal and Senate is voting now to pass the bill, rendering all this moot. --Masem (t) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And now CNN reports the vote has cleared the Senate. Obviously, let's make sure it gets signed and passed before closing this down. --Masem (t) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the blurb misleading? I thought the shutdown was due to the Democratic refusal to build the wall in exchange for DACA?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That may have been the reason for the funding bill not passing, but the shutdown is the direct result of the bill not passing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The blurb is not misleading, and putting it on Democrats is a POV violation of oversimplification as there were Republicans voting against it as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It appears to be a moot point. The government appears to be on its way to reopening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears moot. Apparently expect to end in a few hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. If this were to fall off the bottom while the shutdown was still happening, then it would be fine to move to an ongoing link. Otherwise, since it just went up a few hours ago, there's no need to move it of its own accord. It's on the main page, and I am unconcerned about whether the link appears as a blurb or ongoing. The blurb is sufficient unless and until it becomes a long-term shutdown. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have been resolved fairly quickly. Would have supported if this would have lasted (significantly) longer. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Once a deal is made, which is more likely than not, we can just fix the blurb to past tense. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We never put blurbs in ITN in the past tense. When the deal is made, the story is no longer of significance and will, I would imagine, be removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I would hope not. The story simply becomes "The U.S. government reopens after a three day shutdown." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I strictly oppose adding things that are no longer happening to the ongoing section. I'll also note, that such an oppose does not mean in any way that I support any other blurb's existence. This poll is for adding the nominated article to the ongoing section, that is all. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly, per the BBC "The shutdown is over, but the immigration and budget battles rage on. Both sides will try to claim victory, with varying degrees of success." i.e. a political farce played out in public for a couple of days with next-to-no impact, certainly no long-term effects, and definitely not "ongoing" in any sense. It was always clear this was going to be resolved in next to no time, and while I respect the admin who posted the ITNC story, it's a shame it didn't wait another few hours when it was confirmed to be a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (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: Jimmy ArmfieldEdit

Article: Jimmy Armfield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC

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

 GCG (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I've updated the article with a cause of death and the referencing looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 21Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted] Electron (rocket)Edit

Article: Electron (rocket) (talk, history)
Blurb: Rocket Lab's Electron becomes the first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine
News source(s): Washington Post Financial Times

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: For reasons I never understood, the first launch of a new rocket family is ITNR. Technically this was the first successful launch and we didn't cover the earlier failure, so I think it still qualifies. The Electron is very much towards the 'small and cheap' end of the market, but does have a significant technical advance in its 3D-printed electric-pumped engines. The article is rather lightweight at present, but there are plenty of sources covering the launch which could be used for expansion. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Is the "first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine" fact in the FT article? If so, could this be added to the lead of the article? This article is paywalled for me. --LukeSurl t c 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I've now hit the metered paywall so can't access the article I was reading a few minutes ago! I'll have a hunt for a better source. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Found one; this fact is now in the lead and cited to Popular Science. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice to have some science in the ITN box. Article is slim but meets minimum standards, and its worth appreciating that a lot of info is contained succinctly in the infobox. --LukeSurl t c 13:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article on the rocket is good enough (for a science article) to be featured here. The supporting article on electric pump fed engines is good enough as a supporting article. Within the world of technology, the accomplishment is notable enough. Inatan (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose copied from Wikipedia talk:In the news. Why is the rocket article featured? The innovation is small, not large, where the electical reference is just to the pump that pushes fuel into the engine. So its an improved pump, not an electrical or otherwise non-fuel-consuming engine. So why the hyped product? -Inowen (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC). Continued: It has the earmarks of British propaganda, as the company and even the name of the Rocket are British self-honorific. -Inowen.
  • I've made the formal quixotic suggestion that we remove Space Exploration from ITN/R. I support this story, believe such stories belong on ITN, and trust that the consensus will overwhelming support legit scientific progress. But ITN/R is meant to be a black/white process: there should be no debate about if an item "fits" an ITNR, and the Space category is ripe for generating debate. Please do pop in offer your opinion. GCG (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Its clear that the policy is well intended but its application has to apply to meaningful innovations, not just incremental ones. It seemed that the inclusion made some people happy just because it was technical, but small technical innovations typically should not qualify. Its good to have electrical pumps I suppose because of a quantifiable improvement over combustion pumps but such isn't equivalent to putting electrical vehicles on the street or in your garage. -Inowen (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John ColemanEdit

Article: John Coleman (meteorologist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post

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: Article is well sourced and updated. Died on the 20th but coverage began on the 21st. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No serious issue –Ammarpad (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 20Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attackEdit

Articles: 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack (talk, history) and Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three gunmen attack a hotel in Kabul and kill eighteen people, including four Afghans and 14 foreigners.
News source(s): The Guardian

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks and war. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I still oppose posting casualties in a war zone. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
How about we stop posting sport results from countries with lots of sporting events? -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - attacks in the region are so prevalent that this is not even the first one in the hotel. Also, there is no standalone article, such an article would fail an AfD, and the update amounts to a single line with barely any information. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also oppose this resurgence of the nomination. Does not pass the threshold of notability required for posting in my view, given that Kabul is an active war zone. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That source says the death toll could rise to 43. It currently stands at the horrible, but far less significant, total of 18. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Subject is in the news, and the article has been updated. There is no death toll minimum for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No one is claiming that there is. However, an attack in an active warzone will not be particularly newsworthy unless there are significant fatalities, purely by virtue of the fact that people die frequently in attacks in a warzone. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Newsflash — people die in wars. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - high-profile attack with deaths involving many nationalities. Worldwide news coverage. ITN should feature the attack article, not the hotel. -Zanhe (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, it's an attack in a "war zone", but it's a focused attack on a hotel where non-combatants would be staying. Apparently up to 18 have been killed. It's all over the news, the article is now "okay", so it's getting to the point where it's more difficult to argue against posting it. The "war zone" opposers will have to wake up when the next mass shooting happens in the US with just 10 deaths, say. We should summarily ignore all mass shootings in the US from now on until they raise the bar to record-breaking levels, or are in some way novel. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As one of those opposers, I can confirm that the frequency of mass shootings stateside has earned many opposes from me in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah same with above. Mass-shootings in country with extremely poor gun control and health care, not news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't get the logic behind the argument that terrorist attacks in unstable countries are "not news", while we regularly post all kinds of sporting events from countries that are crazy about sports. Which is more unexpected and has more real life consequences? -Zanhe (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although the confirmed death toll is not record-breaking for Afghanistan (but substantial and rising nevertheless), this was targeted based on nationality, which is far less common than the typical, indiscriminate attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per Eternal Nomad. Attack on international facility specifically to kill non-Afghans. Jusdafax (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support High profile attack, many nationalities, article is good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Topic is being covered by news sources, and article is of sufficient quality. Ticks every box for me. --Jayron32 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support'. The article on the event is well-written and shows that it ss a notable event that has been in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. An attack on a major hotel with (presumably) tight security does not happen very often, not even in Afghanistan. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim RodfordEdit

Article: Jim Rodford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced. BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not how RD works. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who? Oh, no, The Kinks. Nominators really should mention why the subject is notable. There is indeed a comment field. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to mention why the subject is notable as this is irrelevant to the nomination. As per the note on every nom, the only point to be discussed is quality of the article (length, prose, copyediting, referencing etc). MurielMary (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, since reviewers need to be looking at quality only, they will quickly determine who this individual is because they'll be reading the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is mostly well referenced. The one unsourced sentence can be removed without much impact on completeness. (now fixed) -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced overall. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul BocuseEdit

Article: Paul Bocuse (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has orange tag with reason: needs more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Support Issues has been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unaddressed cn tag and totally unreferenced section full of puffery. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is now well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Afrin OffensiveEdit

Article: Operation Olive Branch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkish war planes have launched air strikes on Kurdish positions in northern Syria, in a move likely to cause tensions with the US.
Alternative blurb: Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.
News source(s): BBC, NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either we use as blurb or ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Likely to? Renominate when something actually comes of this. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support, change blurb to (as an example): Turkish military has launched military invasion against Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria, which opens a new front in the Syrian Civil War. This is probably the biggest development in the Syrian Civil War since 2015 Russian intervention, and will affect the middle-eastern politics for decades. I mean, just so that you understand, Turkey just officially started war against the SDF, which is not only the biggest faction in the syrian civil war after Assad, but SDF was also the world's main ally in the fight against ISIS. Niqabu (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Niqabu's proposal. If not that, I'm fine with alternate blurb laid out by the OP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on news sites I read and the current target, while average quality, suffices for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have been following the situation for some time now, and while it is not the first time the Republic of Turkey has bombed them, it would certainly be the first time a full-blown military operation has taken place during this war (see this map), so I would certainly support it, but I would wait to post it until we are absolutely sure about the situation (this could take several days). Inatan (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentative support That military action has been taken is appropriate for ITN, but my concern is making sure how this is being taken (Yes, it is arguably an "act of war" but doesn't mean it is necessarily "war"). Obviously it's part of the overall Syrian civil war, but just would be good to have a clear understanding how the world is taking it. (eg the comments by Niqabu above are a bit over-the-top based on how I'm reading news articlea bout it). --Masem (t) 21:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, the blurb states "Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.", which part of that is problematic? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not so much the blurb but the article. It does seem to be sufficiently neutral at the present, but the implications are not 100% clear. --Masem (t) 21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well we're not here to debate the "implications" of the action, just to note that something newsworthy has occurred and to decide if our article covers it sufficiently. That seems apparent. We should stop dithering and post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Article looks fine (do link the current title), and it tops the news headlines. I'd prefer a blurb without US mention, since I thought the Afrin part of SDF didn't have much US military support. Narayanese (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's no reason to mention the US in the blurb, given that it doesn't really back Afrin's YPG and there are no coalition forces there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that "US-backed" should be dropped from the blurb. This is a little too much analysis for an ITN blurb --LukeSurl t c 11:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think the fact that Turkish troops are attacking a "US-backed" force is an important component of this story and certainly one which will create more interest and be more informative to the readership. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with Gatoclass. This is by far the most important part here, and its not analysis or specultion. Both the US and SDF officially confirm that US backs and arms SDF. And supports their operations with plains and special forces. And trains SDF. And has military bases on the SDF occupied territory. Niqabu (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post posting support to keep the blurb as is per above. 174.92.70.237 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please make the link go directly to Turkish military intervention in Afrin to avoid ending up on a wp:redirect page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I noted this at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Pulled] 2018 United States federal budgetEdit

Can repost nomination in three weeks. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2018 (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.

Previous close linked here.

Articles: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history) and 2018 United States federal budget (talk, history)
Blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States federal government shuts down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill.
News source(s): The New York Times
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Premature They could strike a deal at the literal 11th hour. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    They have an hour. Lol. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Literally, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I did see we posted the last shutdown in 2013 [10]. That said, there was a separate article for that shutdown, and I see no reason not to expect the same here. Yes, it doesn't make sense to create it until the shutdown is confirmed, but I fully expect that before I could support this. --Masem (t) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens an hour from now, obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I have tweaked the blurb per Muboshgu and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Abomination May shut down? This is an internal fiscal legislative matter that would never be published for any other country. It is also crystal balling, and treats "politics" (i.e., there are enough votes to pass a budget, except for the US "fillibuster") as if they were real things, and not power manoeuvres among non-productive (save for hot air) parasites living at public expense. Bring back the House of Hanover! μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When the shut-down occurs; may shut down is obviously not enough, but actually shutting down is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's past midnight in DC. They will have shut down now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Despite the fear mongering, this only affects things such as national parks, museums, etc. Anything of importance to conducting life continues to operate as usual. This affects nobody outside of America, and very few within America. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is true over the weekend, but if the shutdown lasts into Monday it will be highly disruptive. Last time 800,000 employees were furloughed. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But if I may quote that article: "non-essential" - Floydian τ ¢ 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not just national parks (which actually Trump wishes to continue) are effected. Moody's Analytics estimated that a shutdown of three to four weeks would cost the economy about $55 billion. Lost wages of Federal employees will amount to about $1 billion a week.[179] Goldman Sachs estimated that a three-week shutdown would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 0.9%.[180] According to the Los Angeles Times, a two-week shutdown would reduce GDP growth in the fourth quarter by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points. By comparison, the GDP has grown by less than 2% in 2013.[181] Many programs are affected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The two blurbs as provided were incorrect, since the bill that failed was a continuing resolution and not a budget resolution. I struck these and have provided a corrected version. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news, worldwide. Article improvement and expansion at acceptable levels, with competent Wikipedians at work. Jusdafax (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major news, shutdown has begun. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this dominates American news and is widely reported elsewhere as well. Banedon (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see the point of posting pointless political maneuvering of a country which in the end will not result in any extraordinary problems or changes in status quo.75.73.150.255 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm aware that we posted the last shutdown in 2013, but I wonder if we should be discussing posting this to Ongoing or only posting the end of the shutdown(depending on how long it goes). The longer it goes, the more damage it will do(being the weekend relatively little of the federal government will be open until Monday). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing seems reasonable as the article should be updated as the shutdown goes on; the end may also be more reasonable as only then will we know exactly how newsworthy it becomes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "government shutdown" is hyperbolic. In reality, as discussed above, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. The government itself and other essential services do not shut down, as the term implies. So if this were to be posted (and I don't think it should be), a better blurb would be "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill" Chrisclear (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the term both reliable sources and the government itself uses(the White House is trying to term it the "Schumer Shutdown"). 331dot (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My issue with the nomination is not with the term "government shutdown" per se, but rather the importance of this news item. That is, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. Regarding the blurb, the phrase "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down" is more accurate, and helps explains things better to non-Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of US government "shutdowns" which do not involve the government shutting down, as the term implies. Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out that the government doesn't actually shut down during a "shutdown". Chrisclear (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Some sources use the term "partial government shutdown"; perhaps we could use that here. "Non-essential" doesn't quite capture it, since the nuance is that the workers that are retained are the ones essential to preserving life and property, not the ones essential to actually having a functioning government. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does ITN even post news anymore? This project is bollocks and its existence could be done away with. It seems like for five or six blurbs at a time, it is consistently a week behind. Anything that is ever legitimately in the news is never on the front page of Wikipedia, and obscure crap like a guy winning a darts contest stays on for ten days at a time. Fifth most popular website on the internet and you guys posture for content on the Main Page worse than the U.S. congress for a bill when all you have to do is just look at headlines. That being said it meets the merits of being on the front page it being, you know, news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: ITN is not meant to be a news ticker or otherwise updated constantly, but is intended as a way to highlight quality articles about subjects that are in the news that people might be looking for. It also motivates the improvement of articles. ITN does not parrot the press but bases consensus on the merits of the event and quality of the article. If you wish to find or participate in generating current, breaking news, WikiNews is available. No one forces you to come to ITNC if you disagree with what we are about. If you feel ITN should be a news ticker or post subquality articles, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is, WP:NOTNEWS has been a staple of Wikipedia since inception for creating content and establishing what Wikipedia is and isn't. Despite this, some of the most discussed, heavily debated-about stuff on Wikipedia is what we should feature as 'news' for the Main Page. I don't want, nor should we be a roving ticker of news or try to be WikiNews. Nor, if you're going to attempt news, should we be producing piss-poor news that is actually not news. We already highlight quality articles with featured articles. If the point is attracting editors to newly-created or developing articles, then it doesn't do it's job because we never feature them in time for it being in the news (not to mention, they are usually protected from new editors editing them anyways). What is the point? All I see is endless debate about things a limited number of people care about being presented as 'news' when articles that are actually going to have an audience get attention regardless of whether we consider it newsworthy. We might as well replace "In the News" with "Ten Most Visited Articles Today" and there's your news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You are free to propose that though I think it's been tried and failed many times. Even merely renaming ITN to better reflect that it is not meant to have breaking, current news has been proposed and failed. "Actually going to have an audience" is relative and would preclude the possibility of users learning something about a new subject that they might not have been aware of. However, further debate about the meaning of ITN should take place on the talk page if you are interested in attempting to change what we are about. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: Everyone knows ITN is broken. Unfortunately there's no consensus on what to change it to, with the result we're stuck with the status quo. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree changes could be made but not that it's "broken", but everyone has their own opinion. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess perfectly summarizes the U.S. government shutdown as well, I guess. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically domestic, but big enough to have major repercussions. United States federal government shutdown of 2018 appears slim but adequate. Suggest posting as a normal blurb, then consider ongoing if its still occurring when it drops to the bottom of the box. --LukeSurl t c 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian amd ChrisClear. This doesn't even affect the majority of people in the USA, let alone anywhere else. Political posturing is not for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This is my concern - this is a combination of the norm of partisan politics ("We won't pass the budget unless you also pass this") combined with the bitter resentment the press has against the current state of the Congress. I'm not dead certain on opposing this, but this is the type of news bias where we should remember that we are not a newspaper in general. Yes, there is a shutdown, but we should wait to see what the effects actually are until deeming it significant. --Masem (t) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We would consider something like he US defaulting on its debt/interest paybacks to the Federal Reserve and other bond holders to actually be significant. The shutdown of a few federal services in one nation for what, according to historical context, will only last up to a couple weeks, does not even compare and should not be considered to be worldwide important. If the shutdown lasts for more than a few weeks, and stories begin to arise of actual impacts from this, then I would reconsider this decision. Otherwise, it's letting our platform be used as free media for congressional members who are trying to make this seem like a big deal. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and possibly add to Ongoing. Major event that will have lasting repercussions in America. (Note: I'm not American so no COI)NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nixinova: It is not a COI for an American to comment on this discussion, nor to edit the article itself. Maybe if Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, or Chuck Schumer themselves were editing, it would be a COI, but not Americans in general. It would be a systemic bias issue, but that still wouldn't prevent people from commenting here. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until Monday. If the shutdown ends before the weekend is up, the effects will have been fairly trivial. If 800k workers are furloughed on Monday, it will become a very significant disruption. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Ongoing may be a good idea if this continues on past the weekend. It's major news with major coverage and a postable article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems to be a thing in the US, it happened not that long ago, and although it's marginally disruptive to a few Americans at the time, it doesn't seem to have any long term impact (hence why we're doing it all again five years later), other than scoring political points on a government that appears to have little or no control over itself and its country. It's a good example of how not to run a first-world country I suppose, but that alone shouldn't be sufficient reason to post. If it's all still clagged up in March, let's talk again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just like gun massacres, just because they happen in the U.S. more often than they should doesn't mean we should stop posting them when they happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. It means precisely that, because it's less newsworthy if it happens more frequently. It adjusts the baseline of newsworthiness. And it's not the only point. This just happens from time to time and it's inconvenient, but until anyone can provide a reason as to why this has any long term effect other than a bunch of internal politics, it's simply not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's exactly where this project fails. People seem to think 'news' is 'what is interesting' and it isn't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
          • TRM is correct here. These occasional "shutdowns" are window dressing. No one loses any wages or benefits, since all furloughed workers, etc., eventually get paid even though they stayed home. The only newsworthy event of the 2013 shutdown was that some people were fined for "trespass" when they used publicly accessible areas of national parks such as running trails. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
            • How many billions of dollars did the U.S. government lose because of the last shutdown? $24 billion. And "it reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent." That's the benchmark, and it's pretty newsworthy and significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
              • I know that sounds like a lot of dollar, but what is it in relation to national debt? Last time I looked it was $5.4 trillion, so a few billion is really a drop in the ocean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                • You are completely missing the point about how a government shutdown hurts the economy, and a G8 economy to boot. You just don't like it and should not engage in ITN nominations like this one, instead of breaking out these senseless comments of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • And you are completely involved now, so stop forum shopping to get your POV posted. Your personal attacks are noted ("senseless comments" etc) and for a new admin, I'd suggest you just slow down a little and remember why I voted for you. The impact is objectively and literally inconsequential. Don't assault me, especially with your admin hat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • I'm not acting as an admin in this discussion. Your comments are senseless; I didn't say you are senseless. The impact of a shutdown may be inconsequential for you but it's a big deal over here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                      • There you go. My comments are not "senseless" and I'll ask you retract your multiple accusations. In what sense are they "senseless"? You are making personal attack after personal attack on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, oppose blurb - this is the ideal item for filling the void at ongoing, though the effects are not profound enough yet for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The shutdown might have a limited impact, but it is noteworthy compared to other news this time around. --Horus (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened? I'd like to know why. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe try considering ITN criteria. Nobody said it's more noteworthy than the 2013 shutdown, and there is no rule here saying it has to be. It's at least equally noteworthy, and we posted that one. Your comments here make no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hang on, my comments here "make no sense"? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Your question is completely irrelevant to the nomination discussion at play. You asking that question makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    What, my question that asks you what you're talking about? Did I really vote for you to be an admin? Are you really taking this course of communication? Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    The question I replied to. "Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened?" That question doesn't help this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    When you retract and redact your accusations of my comments being "senseless" we can continue to communicate. In the meantime, Arbcom record for quickest desysop awaits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I would say it has the same noteworthiness with 2013 shutdown. And since it was in ITN last time, I don't see any problem why it can't this time. This is not hard to figure out. --Horus (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Another oversized business going bust. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No it isn't. It's an artificial freeze on government business. No-one has gone bust, unless you accept the US national debt of 5 trillion dollars. This is just a symptom of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking needs attention In hindsight that's probably the better way to get an uninvolved admin to assess this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's apparent that this nomination isn't the only thing that needs attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely newsworthy; passes ITN criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, that's meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean. I think the vote is meaningful after reviewing the guide at the top of this page. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean by "passes ITN criteria". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. The ITN criteria are twofold: that the "updated content" must be high-quality, and that the topic is "significant enough". Furthermore, the criteria tell us that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another". Therefore, if a topic is significant enough, the quality of the article is of decreased importance.
    This topic is clearly significant; the criteria tell us that an event must be "being covered, in an in-depth mannner, by news sources". This event is receiving substantial coverage in multiple news sources, such as the Times, the Journal, and the Post. So, it passes the criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Was this posted last time it happened? What's changed? (... apart from that big orange thing, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It was posted. For what has changed, not much considering the most vocal voices in 2013 are still here being vocal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. Who on earth would nominate something like that, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Story is very clearly in the news, article is in fine shape with good updates. The argument against posting is that it happens frequently, but then this is the third occurrence in the past quarter century. GCG (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A current event of wide interest that is being reported on worldwide. Article is in good shape and receiving regular updates. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – It's time we posted this, although blurb should be qualified with "partially" before "shuts down." As BBC notes, "essential services that protect 'life or human property' will continue, including national security, postal services, air traffic control, some medical services, disaster assistance, prisons, taxation and electricity generation." Sca (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: Marked (again?) for attention. Sca (talk)
  • I'm still neutral, if not leaning against this, because the idea of a government shutdown is pretty much unique to the US [11], something that comes up year after year but most of the time avoided due to short-term spending bills (last year, those were signed in early Dec so that they didn't push the deadline), and the fact this is a story that is biased by it being a petty partisan squabble, overblown by politicians and the media alike. It's a manufactured situation for all purposes, and not the type of story ITN normally puts into play. But it does have potentially to be more impactful if this continues past this week, for example, so it might be better to wait until its resolve. --Masem (t) 14:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
For reference, at this point the news that a deal was likely broke and discussion re-opened
  • Carillion going under is no longer on the front page of any news website either, while the shutdown being over still is. Start there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It will be over, that's clear. And this news item is exactly as predicted, all bluster, not impactful in any tangible way, just political posturing, and not very good posturing at that. Carillion going under will effect thousands of people for months and years to come. This political joke is already yesterday's news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For something so life changing as "effecting thousands" for "years to come", the BBC and other British websites have zero coverage on the front page of their websites. Meanwhile, the shutdown is still mentioned in comparison. So which is old news? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We're just moving on with Carillion, it's happened, just like this hyped up political silliness has happened and will now end with no long-term impact at all. Unlike Carillion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is that how that works over there? "Thousands of lives are devastated, nothing can be done, let's not talk about it." Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I guess so, although I don't know what "devasted" means. There's nothing much that can be done, our country isn't run via Twitter and threats, so I'm not sure what you'd expect us to do any differently. And for what it's worth, it's still all over our news, just not headlines. That's how news is supposed to work. (Clue in the name). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks for that, I've been awake too long. You're right, that is how it's supposed to work, which is exactly why the shutdown is news. Have a nice day. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest that we amend to "…partially shuts down for three days…" once the temporary deal passes, but without bumping the item. Having the blurb up in its present form will remain technically correct, but could give the impression that the shutdown is still extant to readers, and it's worth adding three words to avoid being misleading. --LukeSurl t c 20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have undone WaltCip's extension of the archive box with this edit. This story has markedly changed with the (impending) deal, and both TRM and I have proposed different reactions to this. It's questionable where these discussions should occur (here, the "ongoing" nomination above, WT:ITN, or WP:ERRORS) and I'd be happy to move my comment if mine is in the wrong place. However there are reasonable arguments for both pulling and amending the blurb and it is unnecessary to close off such discussions because they are written underneath a colored box. --LukeSurl t c 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that, if the government does indeed reopen, it's best for an admin to simply update the blurb to say that, along the lines of "the government shut down for three days and reopened". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • In other words, it wasn't really that newsworthy after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • As evidenced by all the news coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, as evidenced by most of Trump's hype. Your previous personal attacks have been noted, as an admin you should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Bickering with you is pointless and counterproductive. My mistake yesterday was forgetting that. I won't reply here again, so you can get the last word as you always insist upon receiving. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - This was clearly a non-impact story of political posturing, just as I and several others predicted. Also, these discussions last for up to 7 days when there isn't clear consensus. @Vanamonde93: should have known better than to close this before an actually non-controversial consensus or non-consensus was reached. I'm not pulling the blurb myself. But, this discussion is not over, nor should it be archived. So it no longer is. If more editors come by and ask for it to stay, then by all means let's close this thread at that point. But closing this only 2 days into such a controversial discussion is just not acceptable. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull a complete political joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You literally made the same !vote three hours ago. We know. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion has since been re-opened in an attempt to restore some kind of sanity to this over-hyped classic Trump nonsense carnival. Feel free to strike the previous pull request which was made when this was inadvertently posted and the discussion soon after closed. If it makes you feel better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull The shutdown has now ended reportedly, as the deal was reached: [12], [13]. Brandmeistertalk 21:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - per Brandmesiter, as the shutdown has ended. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus whatsoever for "The US government reopens" to be listed as a blurb, and the current blurb is not inaccurate. Something has got to give here. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, this non-event is now wrapping up. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This was posted based on 2:1 consensus. No one thought it would last forever, so the ending of it does not change that consensus. I strongly urge any admin to not pull this without some original supporters flipping. GCG (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Vote counting is expressly forbidden. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No, that's not a suitable reason to keep something which is actually no longer true anywhere near the main page. Nor is vote counting considered a reasonable approach. Nor should we have to wait for "original supporters" to "flip" anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) PullAP still says "End to government shutdown in sight." If it's truly over, I agree that it should be pulled. Sca (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Getting closer. AP: "Senate Dems relent, vote to end shutdown; House to follow." (Ditto NYT, Wash. Post.)Sca (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, the House has passed it, I'd do so myself but I !voted on the original nomination. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep why should this be pulled now that the impasse has resolved itself? That's like saying that if Turkey ceases its offensive we would pull the blurb, if someone decides to buy up Carillion's debt we would pull the blurb, etc. More likely we'd just modify those blurbs, which should also be the default here. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh silly Banedon, that's how double standards are supposed to work. It's almost as if it didn't happen to them. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been pulled ... fair point, what I was going to say is that this is something that can be cancelled ... the examples you gave above still leave issues behind. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled, short-lived effects of domestic political wrangling were practically over before they started. Stephen 23:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, they're not over. There's a good chance we're going to be in another shutdown in a few weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, it'll be back to haunt (taunt?) us in early Feb. Sca (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep bad pull. The story happened, it was in the news, as much as a bus fire, the attack in Afghanistan or some bloke throwing darts. There was no technical reason to pull. This amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the extreme. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-post, was wrongly pulled per CosmicAdventure. I don't know what's wrong with saying, "The U.S. federal government entered a partial shutdown for three days after the Senate fails to pass a funding bill on time". The subject is still very much in the news, much more so than some of the other blurbs that are still standing. Erasing the blurb is the wrong way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's the link to the pageview stats for the pages currently boldlinked on ITN, and for the government shutdown page. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2018 (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] 2018 Blind Cricket World CupEdit

Commendable work, and a suitable prospect at DYK, but this nomination is not going to receive adequate support for posting. Hence, WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (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: 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb II: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
News source(s): News18
 Abishe (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Typically sports related articles need a prose description of the final match, the article currently just lists results. I would also like to see wider coverage of this, even in just India where cricket is big. I do see the Indian PM commented on this, so.... 331dot (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google Images search on "blind cricket world cup final" brings up large numbers of shots of players in front of completely empty bleachers and stands, even for major matches like Pakistan–India. Is this actually a significant sport in which readers would potentially be interested, or something hyper-niche? Certainly, clicking the "match report" external links on 2018 Blind Cricket World Cupeven for major matches like the semi-finals—seems to bring up mainly "and there was a Blind Cricket match played" micro-articles. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Iridescent makes a very good point, these matches do not seem well attended(if attended at all) in person, let alone getting sufficient coverage in the news. I understand the desire to promote sports with disabled athletes, but ITN is not for generating interest in any event. It must already have interest. I would note the upcoming Winter Paralympics will be posted when they open. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret Abishe, top marks for bringing this kind of event to ITN but as mentioned above, it's not really scratching a mark on the news items our readers would expect to see. I know it's scant consolation, but I would definitely consider making this into a DYK, and I'll help you, or if not, we can work on it to get it to GA. Please let me know. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per TRM. I've tided up the article so it reads well now, could make a decent DYK and if there are sources out there, a GA. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (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.

January 19Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Dorothy MaloneEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (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: Dorothy Malone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times

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: From Peyton Place. Filmography is almost entirely unreferenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - added some refs to the filmography. Much of what's unref'd in the body could be dup'ed to the filmography as the body basically IS a filmography. I think it's good enough. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but Preposition. The article is still unsourced as some statements are unsourced. What if, we create a separate page for her filmography and then use the same sources to fix her career section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2018 (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: Fredo SantanaEdit

Article: Fredo Santana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Billboard, Variety

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: Notable rapper who died young and has created songs with a variety of well-known people. Despite being a relatively short article, it is also well-sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Allison ShearmurEdit

Article: Allison Shearmur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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.

 MurielMary (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support no concerns. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great work especially for being in great state for being a new article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried. — Wyliepedia 07:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Agni-VEdit

No consensus for a successful test firing. 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: Agni-V (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India successfully test-fires its Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missle
News source(s): [14] [15] [16]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Up to ITN whether or not to mention that this ICBM is nuclear-capable. Banedon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's the fifth test occurred so far so doesn't seem that significant. When Agni V becomes operational seems more of an event - The Agni V is expected to undergo a final test later in 2018 before being made operational. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd also be okay with posting this when Agni-V is made operational, per Galobtter. Davey2116 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, I do not see the fifth test (which isn't even the first successful test) to be particularly significant. My personal, somewhat arbitrary, standard is to see if a particular news item is appearing in news sources outside the source country: and I am not seeing much of this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (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] [Ongoing] Cape Town droughtEdit

Closing for now given consensus against. Re-open when the water does actually run out, as this seems to be the point of contention for most who oppose (myself included). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (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: 2015-present Cape Town drought (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Time, ABC
Nominator's comments: The Mayor of Cape Town recently announced that the City will run out of water by late April. I updated the article, and I think everything is referenced. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ongoing and escalating apparently. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's something to indicate that there's any particular significance. While it may be the first time this has happened in Cape Town, water supplies to major cities running low is a fairly routine occurrence; the 2014–17 Brazilian drought and the 2011–17 California drought are probably the ones that will be most familiar to readers, while readers in Australia and the south of England will be wearily familiar with the phrase "hosepipe ban". Besides, this kind of thing generally takes years to resolve as people change their water-use habits, desalination plants and diversionary aqueducts are built, and people wait for the aquifers to refresh. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing as the odds of incremental updates seem remote; I might support posting the actual shutoff of municipal water services (when/if it happens) as that seems very unusual to me. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is unprecedented for a city of 4 million to be within less than 3 months of having to switch off municipal water. I'm not sure what restrictions were in place in Brazil or California, but this is well beyond a hosepipe ban - that has been in place for ages, with a wide range of severe restrictions and residents restricted to 50 litres of water per day. This has been featured in many international news sources including Newsweek, CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, Daily Mail UK, Time Magazine. Zaian (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's clearly notable, but I am not sure about when to post this. Now? Or in April? Or sometime in between? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making a claim that may or may not come true in three months time is clearly not something that warrants posting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. ITN is not for speculation - if it happens and/or when some drastic action related to it is taken then that will be the point at which it is suitable for posting here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If they do have to announce a drought I would reconsider, but this is primarily a statement to get citizens and businesses into action to help avoid it, and not an actual event. --Masem (t) 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to let everyone know that I am still working on this article. It needs a bit of updating with regards to its political impact and I would like to add a graph as well. I am also planning to get an aerial photograph of one of the largest dams to better illustrate this article. As a resident of Cape Town I can say that this issue is still evolving so I would hold off on publishing it for now. I would wait until the taps run dry (day zero) which should be in April some time. If the taps don't run dry at all then I would be very happy.--Discott (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2018 (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] New Zealand prime minister announces she's pregnantEdit

Boldly closing this early per SNOW instead to wait for flurry of pile on. I am afraid, this kind of gossip will likely never get to the main page in the offing–Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (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: Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces she is pregnant, with the baby due in June.
News source(s): [17]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Nominating this for Schwede66 on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. World leaders have been pregnant before. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might have been ITN worthy a couple of centuries ago if we were discussing a queen and possible heir. But this is the 21st century and ITN is not a society page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid magazine. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:13, 19 January 2018 (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.

January 18Edit

Business and economy
  • The Emirates airline announces an order for up to 36 Airbus A380s. Emirates is already the aircraft's largest operator, with a fleet of over 100. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Nancy RichlerEdit

Article: Nancy Richler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.cbc.ca/books/nancy-richler-author-of-the-imposter-bride-dead-at-60-1.4493933

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.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please tag them. As I read it, every sentence (occasionally two sentences) has a reference, and it has already been established here at ITN that it's unnecessary for every single sentence to have a citation. MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have changed my !vote rationale. I took a closer look.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Should now to ready to go. MurielMary (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stansfield TurnerEdit

Article: Stansfield Turner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

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

Nominator's comments: Former CIA director, article fairly in good state –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Aktobe bus fireEdit

Article: 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus fire in Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan kills 52 people.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Disasters of similar magnitude have been posted before, and the story has been picked up by various news organisations. As far as I can tell, no article on this existed, so I've created a stub here. I hope posting here might attract some editors to bring it to a reasonable standard. LukeSurl t c 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stub, and I'm struggling to imagine how much more can be reasonably added in the short term. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring the ability to expand this out. This is not an area of the world with great media coverage, so as TRM says, to expand more beyond what's there is unlikely. But I would agree if this can get to a decent size and quality, the incident is of ITN-appropriateness. --Masem (t) 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's quite possible to expand with Russian-language sources, for example, as I see a decent coverage there. So pending expansion this is supportable due to sheer death number, comparable with other accidents and attacks we post. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While the article has been updated, I have concern about the use of a non-free image for the article. It's not that it is gruesome (there are likely the bodies still aboard but the are not visible) but it's just from this photo a bus on fire. We normally use free images of the vehicle type in question in such accident articles; barring that, no non-free should be used if the scene is as "normal" for the type of incident. -Masem (t) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value this alleged fair use adds, after all there are plenty of images of that type of bus and it doesn't take a great deal of imagination (if one hasn't actually seen a bus fire) to imagine what a bus on fire looks like. If it was a really unusual demise (e.g. it was sliced in half by a helicopter rotor blade) then I could see how it would be fair use and add EV, as it stands it's just a bus on fire. If fair use is extended to this, then we'll be scraping Bestgore.com for multiple "fair use" images of multiple tragedies. I don't think that's the right way ahead, so this image shouldn't be in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I was surprised when it was added (the infobox is the only major part of the article that I'm not responsible for), though I'm not super-familiar with fair use's boundaries. I've replaced this image with a map, though I won't personally be formally disputing the fair use of the image. If the editor who added the image decides to restore it, I'm not going to revert it back. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
          • As ITN rarely has to worry about non-free content in the nominated articles (at least, as an issue to contest), we still should be aware this is part of a quality of the article, as NFC is a core content tenet like BLP. We don't want to encourage frivolous use of non-free media. The image would currently fail WP:NFCC#1 (nothing unusual about this accident that a picture of the same type of bus that could be obtained freely could illustrate) and WP:NFCC#8 in that there's nothing documented special about the visual image of the bus on fire. If it image is added back, then this article is not to the quality of ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I uploaded it under fair use just to be safe bc its a huge piece of news, but I'm pretty sure it's public domain since its from the Kazakhstan government and the extent of use on major commercial newspaper websites, some even without attribution (under the PD-Kazakhstan-exempt tag).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Well sure, if you can prove PD then no worries. Until then, it's not justifiably fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Created a File talk page here. Can someone who knows more about copyright help? I thought it would meet the official document (as it is part of the investigation) parameter and the news parameter, so wan't sure which one it was and din't want to leave uncategorized. I think its better to be too careful than not enough.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – There are fairly complete stories on BBC and Reuters, and other RS stories may be expected due to death toll. Concur with Brandmeister re significance. However, suggest article be renamed 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire. Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The AFP have a bit more info. Would add myself but am likely to be offline for the rest of the day. —LukeSurl t c 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I found a computer and added it in. Practically, the article has everything that's currently in the English-language sources. --LukeSurl t c 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and practically, it's still a stub. That's what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a more expansive piece from RFERL this morning, and I've used this to expand out the article. I think this expands beyond stub-class and posting should be considered now. --LukeSurl t c 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable and ready to go. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – The article is pretty thin all right, but due to number of casualties.... (Repeat suggested name change to 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire.) Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notability is clear, and the article, while short, is as long as possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-High number of casualties. If it were a crash of this magnitude in a country like France or US, it would by headlines for weeks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain why? -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support high death toll. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support from my original oppose. Really good work on the article, creators and editors have listened to the community, it's still a dead end as far as I can tell, nothing fundamental will actually change as a result of this incident, but I acknowledge it's a big death toll and a tragic outcome for a simple bus journey, and was definitely headline news, albeit fleetingly, on even the BBC. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kashinath (actor)Edit

Stale (and even if it were not, still largely unsourced). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2018 (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: Kashinath (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IB TIMES, The News Minute

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 being updated, some ancient tags were already attended to –Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the prose is mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not even going to look at the article when his photo is a screencap and clearly a copyright infringement. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, just tag it, remove it from the article, and then look at the article again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lol, so I wonder how you know photo exists, when you can't even look at the article. That aside, now the photo is removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well in that case I'll oppose on sourcing. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:12, 20 January 2018 (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: Peter WyngardeEdit

Article: Peter Wyngarde (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Support Our article details the confusion of sources about the subject's birth date. As this seems to be well done, it's good to get this out there to help in explaining the matter to the world. We know from the case of Jimmy Wales that such dates can be difficult to agree and so it's good to have another detailed example. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my view, the whole section on "Birth and family background" fails WP:SYNTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Reading that, all the accounts of his life prior to where it can be documented (1946) reads really funny, and I agree feels like synthesis from WP here. I see what sources do talk about this period all state he gave different accounts, so it might be better to reduce that part to less conjecturing. --Masem (t) 15:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently referenced, and undue weight placed on the birth and family section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks well referenced and in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still see some CN tags, and the "undue weight" issue needs to be resolved before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the "Birth and family background" has been trimmed. Presumably "undue weight" can be resolved by consensus at the Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No more CN tags. Please make your case at Talk:Peter Wyngarde is you still think there is WP:UNDUE for the "Birth and family background" section. Otherwise this could be posted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE now dealt with. Previous opposers may wish to re-evaluate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment still the tags (I placed) around the appearances which aren't verifiable within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

January 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Dave HollandEdit

Article: Dave Holland (drummer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Ultimate Classic Rock

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: Death was apparently several days ago. The article is pretty bad. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose As you rightly admitted. I counted over 14 unreferenced paragraphs, unsourced major sections, many parmenently dead references and sources which are clearly not reliable. Plus the death has been over a week. You shouldn't have nominated this. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


[Posted] RD: Kingdon Gould Jr.Edit

Article: Kingdon Gould Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support brief, but covers key points and is sourced. Marking [ready]. SpencerT♦C 20:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild support yeah, it's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill BainEdit

Article: Bill Bain (consultant) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Boston Globe

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - article has not been updated since his death to put activities into the past tense. MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @MurielMary:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    not notable Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Did you read the notes? 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment been ready for 24 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tyler HilinskiEdit

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (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: Tyler Hilinski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, LA Times

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: It's a new article. I'll expand it some more today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Question - keep in mind that NSPORTS does not consider college players notable by default, and if he committed suicide which is the only reason elevating this to notability, that would possibly fail BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I think I've found enough sources that predate his death to clear the WP:GNG bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Masem. Those sources seem to fall under WP:NCOLLATH's mention of "game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." GCG (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that those are routine coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The first of those two links looks like a local news human interest piece that doesn't do anything to establish notability. The second is better, but if that's the only thing you've got that isn't routine (I haven't looked at any other sources in the article) then I'm not sure I wouldn't support an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the forum to discuss notability. If someone wants to take this to AfD, then we can do that, and this nom will be stale here. If nobody does that, we should be judging it here based on ITN/c merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is new for the purposes of RD, we need to evaluate if it is appropriate. If the article had existed well before this, I'd accept we had this article and presumed it was considered notable. But given the article was created on the news of his apparent suicide, which is something BLPCRIME strongly urges against, we should be evaluating if this is really an appropriate stand-alone topic. --Masem (t) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Notability not established.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing wrong with the article (in fact far better than the usual stuff that appears in situations like this), but the fact that it was only created on the subject's death suggests that he may not have been particularly notable. The question we need to ask is - if he'd been run over by a bus, would we have an article? One could argue on both BLPCRIME and BLP1E grounds on this one. As regards the coverage, the second link provided above is local coverage of the Cougars (see the top of the page). On that basis - not that I would - I could create articles on half a dozen footballers for my local team that have never played a professional game. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that per ITN guidelines, opposes based on notability will likely be ignored. The appropriate way to dispute notability is to nominate for AFD. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposes on notability grounds are fine if it's a brand new article and therefore hasn't had a chance to be checked for such. That's simple logic. But regardless, my oppose is not "he's not notable", but "I'm really not sure if he is notable, is there anything that could change my mind on this?" rather than rushing straight off to AFD. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly - that's why mine is not an outright oppose, just that on the current basis of "played high-school and some college with not an amazing record, and then appeared to committed suicide" is generally non-notable for WP, but that could be proven out otherwise. --Masem (t) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ITN is not a substitute for AFD. If you think the subject fails WP:N (or one of it's many sub-guidelines) take it to WP:AFD where it belongs. Being considered for AfD will disqualify the item from ITN and you'll have done your civic duty. The requirements for RD are clear, and opposes for "notability" ought to be ignored by any admin considering the item. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @CosmicAdventure: The point is that we are not sure if the subject fails WP:N, nominations at AFD where the nominator isn't sure tend to be frowned upon, and I (and presumably we) don't want to shut down the nomination if they are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: We finally killed "notability" discussions for RD, replacing them with "well, I'm not sure if it'll pass an AFD or not so I'll just raise doubts here" is the same thing. This nomination has been shut down, with two opposes for notability. Either an article fails WP:N or it doesn't, and WP:AFD is the place to find out. I belive you're all acting in good faith, but we simply cannot let RD discussions become AFD-lite. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I completely respect the point here, but I have a different reading. The RFC would seem to suggest there is no longer a difference between ITN-level notability and GNG; if it's good enough for WP, it's good enough for ITN (RDs, that is). I don't believe that suggests we cannot make the GNG argument here. The ITN project adheres closer to WP guidelines than WP as a whole, because the size is more manageable. If an article does not meet GNG, it should not be posted to MP and it should be AFDed, but requiring the AFD is like trying to apply ITN standards to the whole site. AFDs are more work and they opening the nominator to criticism. The effect is that most who don't believe there is notability will just abstain altogether, which is exactly what has happened here: note zero support despite the article technically meeting the requirements. GCG (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • RD is based on the assumption that there was an existing article for sometime, thus notability was presumed. This article was created because of the death, so that RD assumption is not applicable. We can evaluate the notability of the topic here. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    hate American football Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Wow, okay, so that stands out and we can all remember it next time you make such a !vote! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (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: Jo Jo WhiteEdit

Article: Jo Jo White (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN

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: Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - looks good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready - Agree it is all set of posting. --Masem (t) 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. There were two uncited things I spotted, I've fixed one of them and the other is already tagged but it's not contentious and should be easy to source for someone who knows the topic so I didn't think it should stand in the way of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] New Mormon headEdit

 Fuebaey (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a minor branch of Christianity changes leadership. Does not bear any major significance to the greater world and is not ITN-worthy. I would read his novel, though. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You can hardly describe the Mormons as 'minor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Compared to the three major denominations - Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity - yes, they are minor. Brandmeistertalk 10:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just because it's minor in christianity doesn't mean it isn't without significance. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Weak oppose We did post the new head of the similarly-sized Church of England (Nov '12), so we should tread carefully here to avoid BIAS. This is a sect that has been subject to continual persecution (see vote #1 in this nom) since its inception. I think it would be appropriate to post the head of any church with over 10 MM adherents (subject to ITN and quality, of course). GCG (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
On second look, there's a bit too much uncited to post right now. Two CN tags, a few more graphs with no refs, and the positions section only cite 4 of 12 items. GCG (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportWeak oppose large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Same as GreatCaesarGhost, reasonably well cited but missing citations in beginning two paragraphs of LDS church service and professional leadership. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of sentences still without reference, but high enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Galobtter.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality I'm neutral on this (I see both sides), but irrespective of that, the artilce is missing sources in several places particularly on positions and awards at the end. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Still neutral on this, but I agree the sourcing is no longer holding this up. --Masem (t) 22:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • You don't think 13 [citation needed] tags on a BLP should stop it being posted?? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed a CN tag and updated the announcement of the presidency (the article still stated that the conference would take place on Tuesday). I will try to find sources for the pending CNs. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added sources for church service and positions – no CN tags remain as far as I can see. @Galobtter, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Masem: would you mind checking if there is anything unsourced that I may have missed? –FlyingAce✈hello 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that flips the script enough by my standards. Thanks for your work. GCG (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no doubts about the notability of this event. There are a handful of quality issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed with 5-15 minutes of work, and enough editors seem interested that I expect most of these will be cleared up within hours. Inatan (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - setting the bar at 15 million adherents being a sufficient number to post could set a poor precedent, given the fractured nature of just one religious sect. It would be an uphill struggle to argue against posting the mayor of New York on that basis, something which was snow-closed when it last arose. To grant religious stewardship greater significance over political and civic one is a clear invocation of bias and undue weight, and should be avoided. Football teams are also of significance to many, and we don't post managerial changes for them. Nelson has not become a head of state, and should not be treated as one. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this is we have and will continue to post the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope, of course, has a much larger flock, but AofC will get posted because of a strong pro-UK contingent amongst our editors. One voter may abstain from AofC while opposing this, or abstain from this while supporting AofC and claim innocence of bias. But when WP speaks with one voice, it is saying "mainstream church good, cult of freaks bad." 159.53.174.140 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the more notable christian denominations. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:48EB:505A:CD60:28C7 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this affects 15 million people and is of little to (more likely) no significance outside of that sect. This represents 1/5 of one percent of the population. Likely of no significance outside of The Americas where Mormonism hasn't widely spread. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stormy Clouds & Floydian. I searched for "Russell" on Google News and all but one of the first page dealt with other Russells. Banedon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Switch to Neutral. Banedon (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GCG. Davey2116 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a large enough impact to the English speaking world... seems more like an advertisement for their religion than anything if we posted this. I can't think of how this is possibly news worthy enough for our Main Page when it isn't on any newspaper's front page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Mormonism is the fastest growing Christian denomination. Of the 15.9 mormons, 8.3 million live outside of the U.S. For comparison, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has similar size. When its last leader, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, was selected in 2012, that fact was posted to ITN. I think the mormons deserve the same. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose the quality of the article is insufficient, particularly as a BLP, to go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose Setting aside the issue of quality, religious news is woefully underrepresented on ITN. But even when limited to Christianity (and it is a hot topic of debate whether Mormonism is Christian) their numbers are pretty low. Right now pretty much the only transition in religious leadership that is all but certain to be posted is the papacy (which is ITNR). That needs to change. But a smallish confession of 15 million is not the right place to begin correcting this bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITN currently announces the result of an election in Northern Cyprus and that only has a population of about 300K. 15 million is larger than most of the countries in the world so saying that this is of no account is to elevate secular politics above spiritual matters and that's not NPOV. But, of course, people are going to read this article in large numbers regardless of what is said and done here. It's Wikipedia and its main page that will look bad -- stale, out of touch and low quality. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is appalling, so posting it will make Wikipedia look bad - "low quality". Out of touch? Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: - *Honest question – how is it "appalling"? I understand there was an unsourced section that was missed earlier, but it has been fixed now. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I took a quick look it was grossly under-referenced. Now I've taken a detailed look, it's grossly under-referenced. A BLP with 13 [citation needed] tags is unsuitable for main page inclusion. Still, it doesn't look like we'll have long to wait before we see another near-identical nomination... let's get it better next time perhaps. Plus I'm not sure why we'd consider posting the head of a tiny sect, Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama, yes, head of this organisation??? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, changing to strong oppose. I hadn't realised, but this appears to be more cult than religion, with things like "Mormons also believe that the Garden of Eden was in what is now known as Missouri, and that when Jesus returns he will go there to create the New Jerusalem" and previous "head of religion" Brigham Young opposing black priests, and the "modern" website saying "blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel, [and] God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin". What? I'd support the next top Jedi or the next top Scientologist over this. I guess at least they're bonkers, but honestly bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
They're a little prominent in U.S. history and the non-coastal parts of the West U.S. even today though. The state that last had the Olympics is 60% them (2/3rds practising). Even Manhattan, New York has a Temple. They're pretty prominent for their numbers (though systemic bias would suggest posting all other religious heads of ≥15 million if this is posted (how many are there?)). They're also by far the biggest group that believes Native Americans are Jews. And New Jerusalem is supposed to be 1,500 miles tall, wide and long and you can visit the holiest hectare next to the River Boulevard bus stop sign @ 39.091°N 94.428°W near Kansas. On a c. 1 hectare city block in Independence holiest city in the world for millions of Americans except possibly Jerusalem or Salt Lake City. I think they also believe the Voyager 1 spacecraft will break through a glass-like shell between the God of this solar system and the next one if it gets far enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And one of them almost became President. Kind of sobering in retrospect. 107.77.217.40 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
what. the. hell. Gents, the largest sect on Earth routinely consume the literal body and blood of their messiah. Many belief systems may indeed be far-fetched when compared to other religions, but it is not the position of Wikipedia to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such. Down that way lies ruin. GCG (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree that the "quality" of the belief system held by members of LDS is no good reason to allow or deny posting this news item. Indeed, it can only be beneficial if more people come to realize what this organization believes in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to the quality issues, your argument is not great. From where I am sitting, the numbers are not too large. The proposed target is not going to get near the Report, so the volume argument is not supported at all. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that graph. Not only does it demonstrate that this "notable" sect is somehow less interesting than "Carillion" (really??), it also demonstrates that it's rapidly becoming stale news, and it also demonstrates that the boat was somewhat missed when traffic to this individual's page peaked a few weeks ago. Highly informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is usually the case that ITN lags behind the peaks in readership. That's because ITN/C often takes time to discuss items in the the news and this naturally introduces a delay. Our readers mostly don't care what's happening at ITN/C -- they just see that something is in the news and go straight to the topic. ITN is mostly just for the record and to keep the main page looking fresh. It's not working well because of this slowness. Most other sections on the main page are updated every day but ITN is bizarrely the slowest and least timely section because of these discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, what the graph demonstrated is that it is, in fact, now pointless to post this story as it's really of little interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Another day has passed and ITN still has exactly the same set of blurbs. Most of them are staler than this topic and have less readership. This isn't quality; it's awful. Fortunately most our readership doesn't go through ITN. For example, Peter Wyngarde is mired in pettifogging objections here but was read by about 100K people yesterday regardless. ITN should be shut down and replaced by Top read, as has been done in the Wikipedia App. Such stats would give a better feel for what's actually happening. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and propose that Andrew, instead of reminding us constantly that your preference on how ITN should work isn't how it does work. The problem is that people who continually rail against a process yet do absolutely nothing about it are quickly ignored, rightly or wrongly. I think you know what's happening here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Those “pettifogging objections” have led to a much improved, fully referenced article that is now ready for posting. ITN’s purpose is to promote quality encyclopedic content and that is more important than speed. We are not a news ticker, as you well know.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is not that bad of sourcing for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Too many {{citation needed}}s at the moment to post. However notability wise I narrowly come down on the "yes" side. I think I'd be happy to post changes in the top person in other, similar and larger religious groups. --LukeSurl t c 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note there are now citations for all the cn tags. Bahooka (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been improved and now everything has a citation. Elevations of religious figures of similar stature (Archbishop of Canterbury Welby, Coptic Pope Tawadros, etc.) have been posted before. --Tocino 07:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think these points need more discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Funny, I wouldn't compare the election of this man to be on a historical par with the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mind you, I suppose if your sect or cult or whatever is only so old, you don't have any history to look back on and compare for historical significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I would have never guessed you'd prefer an Anglo-centric nom. First you bury this in CNs, then use those tags as a rationale for opposing. The refs get cleaned up, so you change your tactic to maligning Mormon beliefs. Then its old news. Then its low page views. Twice you called this religion with half a million adherents on each continent a "cult." I think we know where you stand on this. GCG (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think you'll find every CN was necessary, unless you don't wish to adhere to WP:BLP. There's no tactic change, I made the comment relating to the absurd beliefs and teachings before the CNs were resolved. The page views were a direct response to another editor today. People have questioned whether or not Mormonism (which says Jesus will return to Missouri when he finally returns) is a cult for decades. Which "anglo-centric nom" did I "prefer"? I'm really excited to hear the response. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal opinion of doctrine isn't really relevant to determining if the article is notable enough for ITN. I recommend not discussing it here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, that's a strange point of view. If someone thinks that this group are simply a strange sect then clearly that has an impact on whether or not they believe the selection of their new head of said strange sect should be on the main page of Wikipedia. I recommend it be openly discussed, and that we don't try to close down active debates, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to Ramblingman: One might argue whether this article should be posted on the mainpage or not. But one can (and is expected!) do so without being offensive. So maybe stop your childish behavior, and start being constructive. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part of any of my responses you would consider "offensive" or "childish". Thanks to the world in which I live, I am able to provide personal comments on how notable this individual is and how notable his organisation is, and how his organisation presents itself, entirely based on evidence from this individual and his organisation's website etc. I don't follow how that would not be constructive. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, don't play stupid. You know exactly what you are doing. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand you at all, other than you are apparently attempting to stop my right of freedom of speech. Please stop attempting to do that as it's grossly offensive and disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside of this specific dialogue and discussion.
Note: The Rambling Man has been blocked multiple times and is under Arbcom sanctions for the same behavior he displays above. Disgraceful. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you are telling me what I can and cannot say about this sect. That is an obstruction of my freedom of speech. That is disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because of the size of the church, which I view as sufficiently large, but because the structure of the faith means that the president has very limited power to effect change. He is not a pope. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant change in LDS Church, which can be considered high profile because of certain adherents (Mitt Romney comes to mind) and the popularity of The Book of Mormon (musical), regardless of membership numbers. Bahooka (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If the popularity of musicals is a viable rationale for posting, we may make ITN into a news ticker for items relating to the Founding Fathers. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That was just an example of why the church may have a higher profile and interest by readers that extends beyond just the 15-16 million members. Bahooka (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the "change" significant? What will be different under this "leader"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no clue what will be different. Another minor profile-raising thing: The 1st Mormon "MP" with <2 wives was seated 1903 and the Senate debated the kicking him out vote till 1907. They got more letters than any other debate in the National Archives of a century later (up to 1,000 angry letters/day/senator) and he won cause they couldn't get 67% of 90 votes. The only "MP" before him (1898) had 3 wives and wasn't even seated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent rationale. You truly swayed me. Comrade Comrade (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
*Support per Galobtter. - We can't all be this insightful, to be fair. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Double oppose per "this isn't the sect leader you're looking for", a tiny bit of research shows that literally hundreds of thousands of individuals in the United Kingdom alone have registered as Jedis. This would make the Church of Jedi larger than Mormons quite easily, and actually many of the beliefs of Jedis seem easier to swallow. So let's accept that we shouldn't be posting new leaders of sects full stop. Unless Yoda gets a look-in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But it is time for the Jedi to die... Stormy clouds (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Above editor voted already once, a few paragraphs above. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Struck my first oppose, reordered your reordering, please don't do that again! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
IP user, in my opinion your posts here border on harassing TRM and I would suggest that you stop. You clearly are not new to this. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's quite something. Looking at all the badgering and name-calling TheRamblingMan, I have the genuine impression that he is the one who is harassing others. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Give me one example of "name-calling", and then compare it to your (ongoing) attempts to silence me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest Close I think this has been open long enough, and garnered sufficient participation that we can reasonably conclude there will be no consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive; this leadership position is not like the Catholic Pope. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that one editor (TheRamlingMan) has voted three (!) times, and only one of these votes has been striken. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to strike any previous opposition I may have overlooked. My "double oppose" above is the only that needs to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have stricken out another duplicate oppose vote made by TRM. Davey2116 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the opposers argue that this shouldn't be posted because the LDS church's 15 million followers isn't large enough. However, the ascension of the current pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (which has about 20 million followers) was posted on November 4, 2012. I'm not sure about the effect of that event on the Anglophone world, which is the argument that many of the opposers are making for this event. Davey2116 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, I think most of the opposition stems from the fact that this change of "head" of sect is completely insignificant. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support, per Davey2116. Mormonism is a major branch of the Abrahamic religions and is significantly different from Christianity. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's different? You can say that again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Davey2116's rationale was that we posted a listing for another Christian faith, so we should post in parity. Your second comment, Mormonism is a major branch of the Abrahamic religions and is significantly different from Christianity., contradicts this rationale. Please clarify. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Mormonism is just as Christian as Rastafari is. Both are based on the Bible. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Riveting. However, this piece of trivia does not have any bearing on Davey2116's reason for support, nor, by proxy, does it relate to your reasoning. Therefore, could you please come up with a reason for supporting, as your current rationale is monumental in its incomprehensibility. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid I do not see this as significant enough. There are numerous sects and cults in other parts of the world with a good many more followers: I suspect the reason we are even considering this is because Mormons have always occupied a disproportionately large space in the public imagination, thanks to things like this, this, and even this; none of which actually demonstrate the impact of this leadership change. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. There is weak consensus to post, and I'm sure there will be some controversy so I will explain how I took into consideration different arguments. Concerns about sourcing have been resolved. One issue that has come up is whether the number of adherents to Mormonism is large enough: it looks like there is consensus that there is based on the discussion, with additional considerations for global reach of Mormonism, as well as comparing that to previously posted items on ITN (Head of the Coptic Church). Arguments regarding recency and being a cult (however that may be defined) were considered less important than the number of adherents. There were some opposing arguments that the role of the president was limited, but supporting arguments stated that the role was on par with other religious leaders posted (i.e. head of the Coptic Church of Alexandria). Neither argument was really substantiated/sourced, but the position is notable enough to have its own article (President of the Church (LDS Church)) similar to an article existing for the position Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Lastly, as an additional means to evaluate consensus, I looked at the number of those supporting, opposing, neutral, and there were more vote changes from oppose to support or neutral than typical ITN nominations. One support !vote from an IP with no other edits was not considered. I recognize not everyone will agree with how I evaluated consensus, but I wanted to lay out my rationale. Best, SpencerT♦C 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Note that, even if there was no coverage at all by BBC, Nelson did make it to the The Indy. It's quite amazing that, at 93 years of gae, Nelson is the second-oldest man to assume leadership. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Oliver IvanovićEdit

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (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: Oliver Ivanović (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN

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: Notable figure within Kosovo who was assassinated. Looks well sourced in most sections, but some claims need sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose 2008-2012 sub section completely not referenced. Four CN tags. Rest looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose, still a few citations needed. The claim that "His maternal heritage is Montenegrin" absolutely requires sourcing or removal before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Shhhhwwww!!: If you could elaborate on your reasoning, it would help those reviewing this nomination. I assume it is related to the citation issue raised by Thryduulf? 331dot (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Still a weak oppose as being under-referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2018 (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.

January 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • 2017–18 North Korea crisis, Korean War
    • A meeting of senior officials from countries that backed South Korea in the Korean War begins today in Vancouver which will look at ways to better implement sanctions to push North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons. China and Russia, which backed the North in the war but have since agreed to U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang, will not be attending the meeting. (Reuters)
  • Israel–Palestine relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Óscar PérezEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2018 (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: Óscar Pérez (policeman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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: Perpetrator of the 2017 Caracas helicopter attack. Article appears reasonably sourced. LukeSurl t c 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready, but just. The article could benefit from a few more references.BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but more references wouldn't go amiss - there are some long paragraphs with only a single reference. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumping this. A quite extensive article has been created, with lots of info on his death and the aftermath of this. This has been adequate to post for a while now --LukeSurl t c 12:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Came by to post this, and found that it is older than the oldest death currently on ITN. This is a collective failure of the admin corps, on whose behalf I apologize. Vanamonde (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2018 (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: John SpellmanEdit

Article: John Spellman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Seattle Times

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: Fixed the article and is now well sourced. Article has been updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks good. 1779Days (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dolores O'RiordanEdit

Article: Dolores O'Riordan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Telegraph

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: Necessary nomination and the article seems okay - except for the discography. If we can get that referenced, this should be ready. GrossesWasser (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article needs source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've worked on it, only two CN tags remain. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Great work! Support from me now. No more glaring issues should be g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly, because of her prominence, the name should be listed under recent deaths on the front page. Trackinfo (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Er, that's not how it works. Either the article is high quality and it gets posted, or it isn't and it doesn't. "Prominence" has nothing to do with it. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That is another ridiculous Wikipedia policy. Timeliness (reporting a Recent Death on the front page) is important here. Withholding the news based on article quality bases the posting on an arbitrary decision by a few bureaucrats. Articles for anybody achieving WP:N are always improved upon following their deaths. It is probably the biggest and best period of time when an article is improved. Sources abound as obituaries are written (and unfortunately copied). Posting the news on the home page attracts editors to the article, incites knowledgeable people to write obituaries and articles that become better sources. THAT is how improvement happens. Expecting it to improve by osmosis before you get around to announcing a death to the world information system is backward logic and counter productive. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @Trackinfo: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Right, that's why the current news on the mainpage are a mudslide, a ship collissions, a train crash and cricket (!). Very encyclopedic. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Well said by the IP. We are on a page talking about the "In the news" section. That excuse does not fly here. Simply put, whoever controls this page is using their position of authority to control content by means other than news judgement. IF that is by wikipedia policy, then the policy and possibly the people need to be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talkcontribs) 20:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Please read Wikipedia:In_the_news. We strive for quality over quantity. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
                • The article is of more than sufficient quality. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • We need a sufficient quality when it comes to sourcing, writing (length), and image use to be representative of what we expect for good quality articles - it doesn't need to be perfect but we can't have major gaps. The point of ITN is to highlight articles that are good shape that happen to be in the news, avoiding any necessary systematic biases created by the media, as to draw readers that may be interested in the topic to help edit the article. But to make sure that stage is set well, we know new editors copy-cat what is on a page, and thus we look to make sure the quality is minimally representative of what we want articles to end up being. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs work, if no-one else has sorted it beforehand I'll do it when I get home, around 23:00 UTC. I hope 2018 isn't going the way of 2016, music-wise. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb obviously. Big news, unexpected. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No, not "obviously". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb per Trackinfo. She was a giant. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I've also added a ton of citations, removing most cn tags. Only two that I couldn't find briefly Googling remain. I think it's good to go. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Very clearly notable. 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:96 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements (but oppose blurb) Judging the history, Maineiac4434 did a good job on the prose, but the "Other Appearances" section is still broadly unsourced and needs to be fixed; that plus a couple CN's stand out. Oppose blurb as while young-ish, this is not creating a shock-and-awe type reaction as when Prince, Bowie, or Robin Williams died. --Masem (t) 21:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is getting fixed nicely, just some sections remain. And I've tagged the one about Pope Benedict in 2001, as this is surely wrong. --Tone 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I fixed the Benedict one. Can only find evidence of her meeting JP2 twice in the early 2000s, and performing once for Francis in 2013. I can't find evidence that she even met Benedict, let alone performed for him. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, so the only thing left uncited is the sentence about her having a "myriad" of hairdos. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Which is sourced by the same source as the rest of that paragraph. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article has been cleaned up, last cn was just resolved. — xaosflux Talk 22:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; I guess she couldn't linger. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support what a shame, a sad loss. Article looks good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Nice work with the article, everyone! --Tone 22:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well done everyone - just got home and thought I'd have to sort this one, it's been done. Great work. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, great job to those who improved this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: as can be seen by this pageview chart of the current RD's on the main page - this article was viewed by orders of magnitude more than the others, easily showing the importance of quickly bringing articles up to minimum presentation status when they are in the news. Many news outlets were found copy-pasting our article in to their websites, etc - many prior to cleanups. If it wasn't for this INTC nominationwe would have been in much worse shape. Thank you to all the editors that assisted! — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RapplerEdit

Clearly not going to be a consensus to post this. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 20 January 2018 (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: Rappler (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Philippine government decides to cancel the license of Rappler.
Alternative blurb: The decision by the government of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by journalists as a major blow to free speech since the end of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship.
Alternative blurb II: Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte revokes the media license of the news site Rappler forcing it to shut down.
Alternative blurb III: The decision by the government of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by observers as a blow to free speech.
Alternative blurb IV: The decision by the Philippine government to end the operating license of Rappler is seen by observers as a blow to free speech.
News source(s): The New York Times, al-Jazeera, BBC, BuzzFeed,

The Philippine Star, Channel News Asia
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What seems significant is “The S.E.C.’s kill order revoking Rappler’s license to operate is the first of its kind in history — both for the commission and for Philippine media,” the note said. and it being called an attack on press freedom. However the article isn't even updated.. Didn't see the update; the issue seems complicated, unsure of newsworthiness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft support maybe with an alternative blurb talking about how this is unprecedented in history? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While this might be unprecedented in other countries, Duterte's reign in the Philippines has already established itself in the past couple years of being oppressive and dictatorial. It is not especially surprising, therefore, that he would then move to close down aspects of the media that may be critical against him. Comrade Comrade (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean it's not news. We post sports results after all. But the article paints a weaker picture than RS do (e.g. the NYT article cited. GCG (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The bolded article doesn't mention Duterte, doesn't mention free speech reactions, and doesn't give any indication on how important or trafficked the news site is. Stephen 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not headlining any major news sites I visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no longer in the news, and therefore fails the most important criteria of the ITN process. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article says "Despite the certificate revocation, SEC stated that Rappler can still operate since their decision isn't final", so I'm wondering what the big deal is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been trying to see what the "controversy" is here but the only "controversy" I see is that this nomination has not gained consensus. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2018 (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.

[Removed] Remove ongoing: Iranian protestsEdit

Article: 2017–18 Iranian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Although the article still states these as "ongoing", the most recent entry in the timeline is for the 7 January. My guess is the "end" of these protests will be unclear, as they're likely to fade out rather than have an abrupt stop. However, what is more clear is that there is a lack of updates to the article to justify being in ITN/ongoing. The extent of international attention to internal events within Iran is far diminished from when this was placed into ongoing. LukeSurl t c 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Time to remove, as there have been no updates to the article. --Tone 13:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as original nominator of the ongoing placement. There will be no fixed end to the protests, but they appear to have died down somewhat. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article is still getting substantial updates. And it is clearly still in the news, in particular the alleged suicides of protestors that were arrested. Let's reassess in a week or so. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:F4F1:9816:F121:9BEC (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is no protests anymore and the issue is not among the main topics of the international news agencies and media. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed from ongoing as the crisis appears to have subsided for now. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Cyrille RegisEdit

Article: Cyrille Regis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian

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: Just one line so far on his death, but I suppose that's enough?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • That is ok. However, several paragraphs need references before this can get posted. --Tone 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Everything appears to be cited now. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] CarillionEdit

Article: Carillion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British services company Carillion goes into compulsory liquidation.
Alternative blurb: ​British construction and facilities services company Carillion goes into compulsory liquidation.
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Company delivers services across the UK and overseas. Involvement in high profile projects such as HS2 and Airport City Manchester at risk. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • This is all over the headlines here in the UK, but editors in other countries might be better placed to assess its notability in an international context. The update seems sufficient, as Carillion#Financial_difficulties contains the background and Carillion#Liquidation has today's news. --LukeSurl t c 10:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the bell has tolled. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the company is small. Market capitalization of less than 1 billion GBP in July 2017, revenue of 5.5 billion GBP. A few months ago Disney bought Fox for $50 billion. That's something; this isn't. Banedon (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Disney buying fox hasn't actually gone through; the company still has double the employees as fox news; this affects those jobs, numerous construction contracts such as on hs2 high-speed line etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Disney bought Fox studios, not the "news" division or the local affiliates. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I meant 21st century fox for the employee figure Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Top business story today. The "Blacklisting" section uses primary sources from Carillion, and the acquisitons section could probably use a copyedit (if any section better serves our readers as a list of bullet points, it's a list of acquisitions). Financial difficulties section seems to rely on a single source, the "Construction enquirer". Few CN tags and operations section reads more like "Scandals and Incidents". Overall not bad I guess it meets the minimum. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Top business story in the UK at best. Looking at various finance sites, the top stories as of time of writing are "Euro hits three-year high as Europe leads global optimism" (Reuters finance), "Airbus can't deliver its planes to China" (money.cnn), "Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus was the second-best selling phone in China in 2017" (CNBC), "Amazon’s Grocery Sales Increased After Its Whole Foods Buy " (Wall Street Journal business). Banedon (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sitting in Atlanta, GA and the location aware Google and Bing news aggregators still saw fit to put the story at the top of the business section. That's good enough for me. There is a whole "Please do not..." above too... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I agree that taking this from a UK angle, it's a big story, but we have to keep in mind this isn't the end of the company (yet), just its current ownership with the gov't getting involved to make sure its current workers and contracts (most for gov't related projects) continues forward. A lot of companies are close to a similar predicament, and we generally do not post those. The company is not that large on a world scale based on revenues, etc, so financially this is not a big situation either. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder how many companies with >20000 employees liquidate in a year - certainly aren't swamped with them - and that may atleast break the monotony of sports, disaster, and elections.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support good move despite usual anti-UK bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Article still has primary sources in the blacklist section everywhere now. Oh well. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled temporarily until issues with sourcing are fixed - Until the cite errors and redlinked templates are fixed, this needs to be off the main page. As soon as that issue is fixed, I'm for posting ASAP. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just removed a whole section because it wasn't relevant to Carillion, but only the companies that formed it. There are still half a dozen primary sources in there, but they're nothing contentious and it is of course OK to use primary sources for information about the company itself. I don't see a problem re-posting this at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much as always!!! I've re-posted the blurb to ITN. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Dan GurneyEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (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: Dan Gurney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo News, Reuters

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: Citations needed on a good number of claims, but notable nonetheless. --PootisHeavy (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article looks pretty good. Very notable figure in racing 1779Days (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose majority of the article is basically unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2018 (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.

[Bumped] Bump: MV SanchiEdit

WP:IAR Proposal. Bump the MV Sanchi article to top of order (i.e. relist with date of 14 Jan) as the vessel sank today. Posting of the original story was delayed due to the protracted discussion as to whether or not it should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer Mjroots (talk)
  • Support. I agree with Mjroots. This is a significant development and has caused this story to re-appear in new sources. Blurb should be updated to include the sinking. —LukeSurl t c 13:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It already has been  . Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumping. --Tone 17:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sanchi oil tanker collision should be the bold article. --LukeSurl t c 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • disagree. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, it should be. But we're pragmatic, so if it's not good enough, let's go with what we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with TRM here. The collision article must be the target article as it actually has the sufficient update about this story. That article is not too bad, but its all proseline right now. --Masem (t) 19:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

January 13Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

                
Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Jean PorterEdit

Article: Jean Porter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter

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: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I was unaware of the TV Guide filmographies. That could save a lot of headache on RDs here (and WP:RSN seems to be cool with it, if anyone else was curious). GCG (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Insufficiently referenced filmography. Stephen 23:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Stephen: It was before, but I made it more sufficient now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The first film I checked wasn't listed in any of the references, nor was her name listed in the film article. Stephen 00:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Stephen: Fixed it with Hollywood Reporter ref. Her role in the film was pretty small. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, thanks for the final referencing, Stephen 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doug HarveyEdit

Article: Doug Harvey (umpire) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail

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: Notable and well sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I fixed some sourcing issues and I was about to nominate this myself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and marking ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Hawaii missile alertEdit

SNOW close by nominator. Consensus against posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2018 (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: Hawaii missile alert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A false alert about a ballistic missile threat is transmitted in the U.S. state of Hawaii.
News source(s): NBC News Mirror The New York Times

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Article is a WIP but news has grabbed international headlines. This sort of thing simply doesn't happen often. The alert specifically stated, erroneously, "THIS IS NOT A DRILL." Kudzu1 (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting, but not ITN material. --Masem (t) 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Semes like it might fail at AfD based on WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and also the article is at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose should it survive AFD, this is an awesome DYK in the making. Sorry people of Hawaii, hope you're all ok and that no-one died from shock etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would make an interesting DYK, but is not going to remain news after today. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose false alarms are not ITN material. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it should be deleted, but don't think it merits posting to ITN either. A national false alarm, maybe, but not this one.331dot (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2018 (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.

January 12Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Keith JacksonEdit

Article: Keith Jackson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, LA Times

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.

 Davey2116 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added {{cn}} tags. The "notable broadcast" section is unsourced listcruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the CNs. Did what I can with notable broadcasts, but some of these are probably specious on the notability claim ('03 OSU/UM?) and can probably be dropped. GCG (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been sourced good enough, with few cn tags though still present, it has been approved greatly. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is so filled with trivia it's hard to cite (e.g. that a sample of his broadcast was used in a TV mini-series seems non-BALASP). I think it's plenty good enough now. GCG (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GCG. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 11:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Dipak MisraEdit

Domestic manoeuvering, re-nominate if anything tangible occurs. Stephen 23:16, 15 January 2018 (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: Dipak Misra (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court of India call an unprecedented press conference to air their grievances against Chief Justice Dipak Misra
News source(s): [Times of India]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I suggest that we keep this open for a week (despite near unanimous Opposes) or so during which this issue should be resolved and a blurb can be posted if there are any repercussions.(At the time of writing this the BCI has talked about fastracking ansd resolving this - 11:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)  — Force Radical∞ ( TalkContribs ) 11:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I have to support this one. Unprecedented event in India. Article is referenced and ITN ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this does end up with any action again Misra, that's the point to post, but right now it is just accusations being made and which have been denied. Not appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 15:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. If Justice Misra were kicked off the court that would be blurbable. Sca (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. While I can see why this was nominated (imagine US Supreme Court justices publicly criticizing Chief Justice Roberts For misconduct) we don't post accusations. I would support posting his removal or resignation. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This kerfuffle seems noteworthy enough to post at some point, involving as it does the seniormost judges of the world's numerically largest democracy. I'm not sure this is the appropriate time or the appropriate blurb, though. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - post when ramifications occur, rather now at the onset of internal political/judicial squabbling. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Indian domestic issue for now. If something were to come from this, however, that's another story. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (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: Doodhnath SinghEdit

Article: Doodhnath Singh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India, The Tribune

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: A well known author and recipient of highest literary honours of two Indian states, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh whose combined population nears 300 million. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - article is in an utterly torrid state at the moment. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How is it in a torrid state? Sentences cited and paragraphs organized. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Nominated for AfD, littered with red links, overly reliant on one source, poorly organised and too short. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't nominated for AfD then, red links can easily be removed and aren't really a problem Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Structural problems have been broadly resolved, so will move to weak support. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - short article perhaps but seems RD ready. Cited and paragraphs organized indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Lead can be expanded to improve the short article status. Support Article has been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Though short, the sources are adequate –Ammarpad (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has been nominated for deletion by another user. Perhaps close this nomination now and wait until consensus reaches to re-nominated if not deleted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD discussion has been closed with the consensus to keep the article. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Work for medicaid requirementEdit

closing per WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination, but there's no way this would ever be posted. --Jayron32 04:36, 13 January 2018 (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: Medicaid (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Trump administration will allow states to impose work requirements in Medicaid.
News source(s): NYT
Nominator's comments: Pretty big deal. 107.77.219.218 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this domestic policy adjustment. This is not USApedia. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN generally does not post adjustments to domestic policy. This is not an exceptional case. —LukeSurl t c 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per 331dot/LukeSurl. --Masem (t) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't support or oppose, but, isn't opposing just cause this is related to one country against the rules? 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. CherryPie94 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] US to quit nuclear deal with Iran within 120 daysEdit

WP:SNOW — Almost almost total opposition to posting a political event not due to happen for three months. Sca (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (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: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US to quit nuclear deal with Iran within 120 days
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: "US President Donald Trump will approve the Iran nuclear deal only one more time before abandoning it if it is not changed, White House officials say." But the deal cannot be changed by the US, so it's the end of the nuclear deal. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The deal will still go for 120 days, and this is Trump pushing the EU to make the necessary changes he wants otherwise, the US just drops out. This is not a groundbreaking change in the status quo; it would be either if the EU does make changes or when the US actually drops out, either which may or may not be ITN depending. (And of course, Trump could go back at the end of 120 days and sign a new extension) This point is not an ITN point. --Masem (t) 19:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing of significance has actually happened... yet. If/when it does we can revisit this. I suggest the OP withdraw this as it has no chance of being approved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable development. The target article needs some minor fixes though. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:5CA7:5D90:A6D6:B313 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • wait until it actually happens --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting speculation, and renewing the deal is keeping the status quo. Trump also denies making comments that are on tape, so it is difficult to believe what he states; he might likely change his mind again. If he actually does pull the US out of the deal, that would probably merit posting. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose what a "shithole". Seriously, let's post this when it happens, as a lot of what Trump says is utter claptrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose jumping to instant conclusions is pointless. This will not happen for another 4 months and you disregarded the chance that Trump may reconsider the decision before then. Kirliator (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for 120 days. At that point the status quo will either change (and it will probably be ITN-worthy) or Trump will have changed his mind (and/or denied that he changed his mind) and the status quo wont change (and it probably wont be ITN-worthy, but I'll reserve final judgement on that). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2018 (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.

January 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime