Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2018

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.

June 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime
  • Crime in Toronto
    • Two persons are killed, and one injured, in a shooting in downtown Toronto. These are the 49th and 50th murders this year, marking a surge of violence in the city. (CBC)

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Arvid CarlssonEdit

Article: Arvid Carlsson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winner. Death announced on June 30. Zanhe (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Referencing needs attention. There's also big holes in the biography, eg how did he go from University of Gothenburg (1959) to Astra AB (date not specified)? Are any personal details available apart from his having a daughter? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I've added more sources and some background about his work at Astra (he was always at Gothenburg after 1959, but collaborated with Astra in the 70s and 80s while working for the university). Also added info about family and awards. -Zanhe (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

June 29Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Matt CappotelliEdit

Article: Matt Cappotelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):, CNN, & New York Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former wrestler for WWENikki311 03:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Gudrun BurwitzEdit

Article: Gudrun Burwitz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post & etc.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Only daughter of Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. She remained loyal to his memory and largely denied Nazi war crimes and genocide throughout her life. Article is short but not in bad shape and adequately referenced. She died in May but the news was only just announced. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as stale Not a recent death. No need to go out of way to post this death which occured a over a month ago.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the German newspaper Bild only reported the death on June 29th, the first report of her death. That does not make it stale for us if the death is only first covered some time after it happens. --Masem (t) 22:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Support reconsidered after reading procedure for posting. The article is well-sourced.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but sourced well. --Masem (t) 23:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Two more references needed, including a claim about religion. Stephen 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Two refs added and I removed the claim about being baptized Protestant though I am not sure that should hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kwesi Amissah-ArthurEdit

Stale. Stephen 11:00, 3 July 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: Kwesi Amissah-Arthur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
 ghost 12:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Temporarily oppose Many of the references fail on closer inspection. I tried fix some but I ran into a lot of backward copy right violations in Ghanaian media sources about his death which copy chunks of text from Wikipedia making hard to add new sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's precisely nothing about what he did during his term as Vice-President. Additionally, could someone knowledgeable in this area confirm that the MyJoyOnline & GhanaWeb websites, which support nearly all the text, are reliable? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Neither website is reliable. Both sites copied from Wikipedia for their obits: [1] [2]. I checked some of their past reporting on this person and found similar reverse plagiarism from Wikipedia to their articles.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:50, 1 July 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.

June 28Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) Capital Gazette shootingEdit

It's becoming clear that there isn't any consensus to post this. Discussion on the merits of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS can continue on its WP:RFD discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 29 June 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: Capital Gazette shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 5 people are killed in a shooting in the U.S. at the Capital Gazette newspaper offices in Annapolis, Maryland (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 5 people are killed in a shootingin the U.S. at a newspaper office in Annapolis, Maryland.
News source(s): Guardian
 2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:76 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Capital Gazette shooting. 5 dead, dozens injured. Appears to be a mass shooting event.

  • Added an alt blurb, as the newspaper situation is a bit complicated to explain in the short blurb. SounderBruce 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unremarkable event with no long-standing impact at all. Probably needs to be covered by a single sentence in a list somewhere, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, article looks to be in good shape, well-referenced with no glaring errors. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Tavix. Mass shooting, article is ready. Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, this occurred in the United States, which is prone to shootings, in addition the death toll is too low to warrant an ITN post. Kirliator (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kirliator and the TRM, no long-term impact and low death toll. Python Dan (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment Unremarkable run-of-the-mill US mass shooting on the face of it, but some comments by political figures may make this more newsworthy as it develops. At the moment, though, no, it's clearly not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news with a decent article. MINIMUMDEATHS is ridiculous, and is not a real WP policy. Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2116 WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn’t an official policy, but it does provide enough evidence to show what kinds of disasters get posted onto ITN and which do not. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't, it's based on a random sampling of postings gathered by a single editor over a brief period of time, and does not in any way aggregate the long history of postings at ITN. Further, it flies in the face of WP:ITN#Purpose. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the “shootings in the United States” bia. Shootings in the United States are far too common, and often times set a dangerous standard on what gets posted to ITN. I will not interfere with future impact per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I will state this: shootings were the fatality count is in the single-digits will almost certainly never get posted to ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the newspaper owned by Tronc? Apparently owned by The Baltimore Sun, which is owned by Tronc. If that is the case, we need to fix this in the article first.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed and added corporate response.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it news that DT says he's praying for journalists? – Sca (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN worthy right now, given the death toll is only in the single digits. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed blurbs are unclear. In what country did this event occur? Chrisclear (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • After a jolly past couple of days of beating cricket bats against American editors for daring to nominate the retirement of some judge in some court somewhere, this is just what ITN/C needs is a rousing discussion on the clockwork brouhaha that is gun violence in the United States. Absolutely wonderful.
  • Oppose per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.--WaltCip (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to the fact that this is an unfortunately but oft repeated gun tragedy in the US, it is getting coverage bias as all the outlets I spot checked are arguing this as a threat to journalism and the like. There's no indication this was an international terrorism act, though I'd reconsider once the authorities (who have the perp in custody) learn more. --Masem (t) 23:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support' per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS a made up non standard which is utterly worthless and has no value whatsoever, and per WP:ITN#Purpose which actually does have value. Easily as significant as some people killed in a Venezuelan night club, or a prison, or whatever unsafe building burns down in Venezuela next month. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) x ad nauseum Oppose Sorry, but absent something that adds to the notability of this tragedy, a death toll of five is not enough for ITN. Nor is that a US specific observation. If this had occurred in the Vatican or Buckingham Palace, I'd probably support. But violent crime is an unhappy occurrence all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mass shootings are routine in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pile on Oppose there are a number of problems with this nomination, but the main two that stand out: the article is not in in the best condition, and the fact that the death toll is far too low to warrant an ITN posting as the writer of the MINIMUMDEATHS “policy” states “5 or even 10 deaths is insufficient.” This is nothing more than yet another minor shooting in the gun-loving nation known as the United States. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Lets just be clear, so I'm gonna put in bold caps and swear: THERE IS NO MINIMUM DEATHS THAT'S MADE UP BULLSHIT USED PRIMARILY TO KEEP "US-CENTRIC" STORIES OFF THE MAIN PAGE -- IT'S NOT A POLICY IT'S A USER SPACE ESSAY AND IT HAS NO VALUE. You're welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't wish to comment on the merits of this posting, but I agree that MINIMUMDEATHS is inappropriate to cite. Either it should be made an official guideline/policy, or we shouldn't cite it as one. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've made a submission at WP:RFD regarding it. While I'm sure the editor was acting in good faith, I don't believe it belongs in the WP namespace. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - five deaths simply doesn't meet the threshold of notability required for ITN, especially considering the extenuating circumstances - the frequency of mass shootings in the states. Hence, I have to oppose. On a side note, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not "policy", and should not be considered thusly, despite the fact that it is an interesting and useful catalogue of the seemingly arbitrary thresholds applied at ITN through time. Please do not cite it as a rationale for a !vote. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is in the news here in Australia, packaged with observations about the increasing encouragement by conservative politicians and others to do nasty things to journalists. It's the latter that makes this globally newsworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Global news, horrible, and it seems "newsier" because it happened to a newspaper.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor shooting, would you nominate this if it occurred in another country? (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, I would if the news was getting international coverage.---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I forget the WP tag for this, but it's worth noting that this is this IP editors first edit. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is news that is getting international coverage!
In U.K., The Independent: "Maryland shooting: Capital Gazette staff share harrowing messages after gunman opens fire in Annapolis newspaper building"
In Australia, The Mercury: "Multiple people dead in US newspaper office shooting"
In Canada, The Toronto Star: "Five dead, many injured in shooting at Capital Gazette newsroom in Annapolis, Maryland"
In Germany, Stuttgarter Zeitung: "Schüsse in US-Zeitungsredaktion - Mehrere Tote"
I could go on with newspapers from every developed or developing country in the world. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In New Zealand, Television New Zealand: "Details on Maryland newspaper gunman: white male believed to be armed with shotgun"
In Italy, Corriere della Sera: "Sparatoria in Maryland, assalto alla redazione di un giornale. La polizia: «Cinque morti, fermato un sospetto»"
In Spain, El País: Tiroteo en un periódico de Maryland, en imágenes
In France, France 24: États-Unis : au moins cinq morts dans une fusillade dans un journal d'Annapolis ---Coffeeandcrumbs 00:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Getting international coverage is not a requirement nor necessarily supportive prove that an ITNC should be posted, though does show that an event has more than just local interest. --Masem (t) 00:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I should mention that there have been many nominations on this board that have received minimal coverage that ended up getting posted, whilst ones with “widespread international coverage” that were nominated but were not posted amongst various reasons. Kirliator (talk) 00:19, 29 June 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: Harlan EllisonEdit

Article: Harlan Ellison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vulture,

Nominator's comments: Orange tags for sourcing needed in many sections - so it does need a proper working-on Challenger l (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Too much unreferenced content. Please ping me when you have referenced the article, and I will reconsider. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted, this is ways away from being front page material, which is a shame. --Masem (t) 22:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Parts of this article are well referenced. However, significant parts aren't most notably the works section which is lengthy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - referencing is inadequate for the main page at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ping – Is the article looking any better? The orange boxes are still in place (it's not for me as an involved editor to remove them, I don't think), but all the individual "citation needed" tags have been addressed. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Moscow Mule: it is tons better but the Awards need to be sourced. This might help, but that's really the only thing I see at this point. Good job. --Masem (t) 23:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words & encouragement. All the awards are referenced now, unless something's slipped through. Moscow Mule (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is decently sourced now - yes, good job. Marking for attention. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, concur with Black Kite. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted (even though I was involved, will vouch for improvements and clear importance) --Masem (t) 15:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Big thanks to Moscow Mule and everyone that helped this along Challenger l (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rob HiaasenEdit

Article: Rob Hiaasen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun

Article updated

 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose, article was created less than two hours ago. Nothing is stopping it from being turned into a redirect or being deleted at AfD. It would be best if this nomination was withdrawn. Abductive (reasoning) 08:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Why should I withdraw the nomination? IMO, the article is well-sourced. Can you point to any particular problems? I will be sure to address them.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Notable upon death.--WaltCip (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there an issue with the contents of the page? Please point it out. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. If you believe the subject is not notable I invited to nominate for AFD. Otherwise, your !vote is moot and irrelevant. The person has an article and recently died. Therefore qualifies for inclusion per this RFC.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he's notable, to be honest. Editors of newspapers can be notable, but they generally have some other claim to fame or are nationally well-known. Mr Hiaasen, it appears, did not. I don't think his single short story in an anthology helps much, either. I'm not going to AfD it because I'm interested in what others think. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems like a pretty clear WP:VICTIM case. We need "significant coverage" in RS for a BLP aside from his killing. ghost 16:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this happens every time there is an RD nom for a newly created article. There is no requirement that an article not be new for notability. None. That's made up. If you have a problem with this article vs WP:N then take it to AFD. Opposing on notability grounds is worthless and should be ignored as a meaningless waste of time. Don't like it? Head over to WT:ITN and propose a change. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As discussed previously at ITN talk, posthumously-created articles should not be opposed for that reason for RD. As concluded in that discussion, and as Coffeeandcrumbs and LaserLegs note above: if you oppose it on the grounds that the subject is not notable, the appropriate venue is AfD, not here. In my view, the subject is notable enough for an article, so support. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Discussed, yes, but there was a clear lack of consensus. The RD RFC removed the elevated level of significance that exceeded WP:N, but said nothing about assuming notability itself. If an article is AfD'ed, it cannot be considered for ITNC, but the inverse (that anything not nominated is presumed to have met WP:N) is not supported by policy or discussion in the RfC. On the contrary, there is a clear advantage to discussing WP:N at ITNC, as it does not hold up the nom as an AfD would. Requiring such discussion to occur at AfD is a clear violation of WP:BURO. ghost 13:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Polarizing. Outcomes like this mean that people will be tempted to take such nominated articles to AfD to prevent them from being posted. Again, I urge people to not nominate weak cases such as this one. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It was certainly tempting to go to AFD for this article just to stop this from being posted. Of course, I'm aware this constitutes a WP:POINT...--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, the same admin who posted it bumped it 5 minutes later. Seems like he was making a point of his own. ghost 14:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you mean 5 hours?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Women DisobeyEdit

No consensus to post a relatively small-scale protest. Stephen 23:07, 2 July 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: Women Disobey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During Women Disobey protests, 575 people are arrested, including U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal and actress Susan Sarandon (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, The Independent, Die Zeit
 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is a bit short--please flesh it out. The fact that world-famous Sarandon got arrested, alongside a congresswoman and over 500 attendees, makes it notable/newsworthy.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a yuge number of arrests over one protest. Plus a congresswoman and a world-famous actress--no small potatoes!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Protests against teapot dictators in the Middle East dwarf the size of this protest on a regular basis and do not get posted. This didn't even make the front page of the New York Times. This isn't even small French fries. This is a total nothingburger.--WaltCip (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@WaltCip, Forgive me if I am not convinced by this argument since you voted against The Times front page article of that day "Per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS." @TRM, this is clearly #OPPOSEALLAMERICANNEWS and you are not even trying hard to hide that fact.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This and that are two different things.--WaltCip (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
"@TRM, this is clearly #OPPOSEALLAMERICANNEWS and you are not even trying hard to hide that fact." what are you talking about? I don't even care where this so-called news item took place, it's trivial, not in the news at all, and not worthy of our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb does not explain what a "women disobey" is. Chrisclear (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no lasting encyclopedic impact, a minor protest compared to those usually posted at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but maybe this would get more support at DYK. Davey2116 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is improved It's a little short and there's a few red links, but it's very notable. The blurb should be a little more specific about what the event was rather than just calling it by name, though. It's not a total nothingburger by any means; I would personally !vote in favour of posting protests with an equal number of arrests in other countries. It's certainly not trivial either. I tend to agree with TRM, but I am not impressed by the one-word response labeling an event that resulted in nearly six hundred arrests (including the arrest of an incumbent member of congress) as "trivial." I am also wholly unimpressed by WaltCip's response which included a total of zero words of rationale. Wikipedia is not a vote; rationale is what ultimately determines whether a consensus exists or not. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's a trivial number of arrests. And utterly inconsequential. Not newsworthy, nothing short of a trivial stunt to gain publicity. How many of the "arrests" have culminated in prosecutions? In the bad old days of European football, we'd get that many arrests at a single football match. Boring, of no consequence, no encyclopedic value, nothing that a real encyclopedia would even mention in passing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    Whether a demonstration results in ten arrests or a thousand arrests does make a difference in how newsworthy the event is; for sitting members of congress to be arrested and detained is not normal. The number of people jailed does make a difference, and arresting members of the legislative branch is definitely more notable than "arrests" in a football match. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, it's a publicity stunt, we get it. It's super trivial. This isn't getting close to the main page. Unless it's via the backdoor, trivia DYK route. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Participants in the event were estimated to number in the thousands.[6] ..." Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 2 July 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.

June 27Edit

Business and economy
  • Shares in African international airline Fastjet fall by 72% amid equity talks amongst shareholders, with the airline warning that trading may be suspended entirely and the company liquidated if a solution is not found. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) Hayabusa2 arrival at RyuguEdit

Articles: Hayabusa2 (talk, history) and 162173 Ryugu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Japanese Hayabusa2 sample-return spacecraft arrives at the asteroid 162173 Ryugu (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The JAXA spacecraft Hayabusa2 arrives at asteroid Ryugu on a sample-return mission
News source(s): The New York Times, PBS Newshour, CNET

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

Nominator's comments: Interplanetary spacecraft arrival at its intended destination, more notably Japan's (and humanity's) second ever sample-return mission from the surface of a minor planet. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Marking as ITNR - [3] "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". Banedon (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - of course. Major achievement.--WaltCip (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs updating, still talks to a July 2018 arrival. Stephen 03:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    I've fixed those statements. Modest Genius talk 11:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I was about to nominate this myself. It hasn't been in the media anywhere near as much as it should have been, partly because most of the press material they've issued has been in Japanese. Added an altblurb, which I think is clearer. No need for two bold links. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be significant, saw it covered on several news sites. Dragnadh (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the Sampling section of the Hayabusa2 article is written in a very odd tone so needs copyediting before we should post it to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    Fair point. I've copyedited that section. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. Supreme Court ends its 2018 termEdit

WP:SNOW close, pretty much a routine occurence in government. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 27 June 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: Supreme Court of the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The U.S. Supreme Court ends the 2018 term with decisions on the U.S. President's travel ban, organized labor, and the retirement of a Justice. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Nominator's comments: Suggesting this as a compromise that would include earlier nominations regarding the announced retirement of Justice Kennedy and the Korematsu case, while also including Janus v. AFSCMEStrikerforceTalk 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Second choice to a Kennedy-focused blurb; it's not entirely clear to me why these two cases are the most relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Rationale Janus is a case that has wide-reaching potential ramifications to public sector unions. The case is about whether or not a public employee shall be forced to pay any form of union dues (full-fledged member or Fair Share, as described by Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. A primary argument is that the case, if decided in favor of Janus (as it was), opens the door for a mass exodus of union members in the public sector. StrikerforceTalk 20:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Justice Kennedy's departure itself is a different discussion, but the end of the Supreme Court term by itself does not really receive the coverage and attention for ITN. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment interesting idea to post the closing of the term and the scoreboard of rightist victories that came with it, but the haters are going to pile on here like a raft full of Syrian migrants and it's going to sink the same way. Stand by for disappointment, @Strikerforce:. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I've no dog in the fight, @LaserLegs:. I just proposed it as a compromise. I'm open to including different cases. I just REALLY want to see SOMETHING posted today to knock the U.S. Open off of the front page. That tournament ended ten days ago. It's not "in the news" anymore and we look silly having it still listed on the Main Page. StrikerforceTalk 20:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I get that but opening the door to the latest Trump-related bragadaccio is not the solution. And whether you like it or not, the story is Trump once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
We posted his meet-and-greet with Kim, not the most impactful act from his administration. Trump may be obnoxious and over the top, but he commands the most powerful military and economy in the world, his absurdity does have reach I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not in English language Wikipedia. By all means create American Wikipedia to cater for all the absurdities of the president. The rest of the English-speaking world will just get on with real news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Obligatory summing-up story of little significance by itself. Sca (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Classic US-centrism - to even think of nominating this. Part of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and urge SNOW CLOSE. This is getting ridiculous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. News yes, implications: none. (relevance is below, e.g., Arab women driving cars). DePiep (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as the Kennedy nomination. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 27 June 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) SCOTUS Justice Kennedy to retireEdit

no consensus. After this many opinions have been expressed at this length, there is no reasonable chance that a consensus to either post or not post will emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 28 June 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: Anthony Kennedy (talk, history)
Blurb: United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator's comments: We're clearly likely to post whomever fills the seat (and whether they will rush someone before September, we don't know), but there's already ramifications on this. Kennedy, while a conservative, tended to be the swing vote on issues that fell on those lines. It is very likely the next appointee will be more staunchly conservative, and as such will affect court decisions going forward. Unfortunately, we have little ITN history to judge if this type of nom is appropriate (Scalia died so that got an RD, and I can't tell easily if this nom for Stevens retirement in 2010 got posted). --Masem (t) 18:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Masem (t) 18:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not local. Might even affect you one day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Ridiculous statement, you could apply that "logic" to any story here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until the actual retirement. Ravensfire (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Well yes, and then don't bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    The news is the announcement, not the day he actually finishes clearing out his chambers....--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    To add, the Court's plate is now clean (all cases of this term decided). Nothing is going to happen from SCOTUS until the next term starts. This would be the time to post. --Masem (t) 18:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the most influential member of the current court as the "swing vote" - this is huge news. Trump's second nomination will likely be even more contentious than his first - Gorsuch for Scalia was much more of a like-for-like.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Why is it huge news? Trump does what he likes, judges do what they like. Announcement of a retirement from a very very well paid job is not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'll just quote directly from the NYT article Masem linked - "A Trump appointee would very likely create a solid five-member conservative majority that could imperil abortion rights and expand gun rights." If you live in the US it's huge news. Less so if you don't of course, but it will still be of interest to a sizable number of our readers.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, you're all supporting something in a crystal ball. I get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Don't need a crystal ball. Trump picks his justices from a list drawn up by the Federalist Society - they're all staunch conservatives.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    So that's not even newsworthy then, it's already a done deal. The point is that this nomination seems to be entirely positioned on what could happen to local American politics. So it's OR heaped upon local politics. ZZZZZ. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not OR and it is not an example of US-centricism. In what language would you like the importance of this event explained:
Perhaps German: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
How about Italian: [10] [11]
Maybe Arabic would help: [12] [13] [14]
I can keep going. Wikipedia outsources the determination of notability to reliable sources. And RS from around the world clearly show this is huge news whether or not you want it to be or whether or not you think it should be. @The Rambling Man: at the bottom of this discussion, I have about 40 more sources from around the world showing this is HUGE news.---Coffeeandcrumbs 07:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't mean anything yet.--WaltCip (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this is an example of hysterical bias. Name me one other country and individual "judge" who would even be considered for a blurb (!!!) at ITN for simply announcing retirement. I dare you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Judge is actually considered insufficiently dignified for the 9 highest US, uh, judicial people. They've gotten mad at lawyer(s) who forget to call them justice before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how that makes any difference. There are equally as important individuals around the world, but I asked the question, and as yet, no-one has answered it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons cited by Pawnkingthree. In the USA this is big news with at least large potential impact. To answer TRM, All judges are not fungible goods. 7&6=thirteen () 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, you're all supporting something in a crystal ball. I get it. And your answer to my question is "no, TRM, it's just this SCOTUS judge". Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not crystal ball that Trump will replace a swing voter with a much more right wing justice. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
And that's therefore not newsworthy. Thanks for clearing that up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's 5 vs 4 left wing if the left wing side's slightly lucky, now it'll be 4 vs 5. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you actually reading anything that's being written here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Very well, crystal ball, 1 country only, not important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not "not important", just not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "We're clearly likely to post whomever fills the seat". Are we? Why? That would be a local political issue, and so is this. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    It's terrifying view into the assumptive nature of American local politics that several users here believe that these kinds of stories are pretty much guaranteed to be posted. The more I think about it, the more that 24 hour delay would be a good idea right now! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah we didn't post Gorsuch, so it would by no means be a done deal. But as I said above this is a more significant appointment because of the shift to the right.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the polarized political situation in the US has led to not just a gridlocked political system, but also a polarized SCOTUS. Because the US government and Congress often are incapable of addressing problems, the SCOTUS ends up doing the government's job and making binding decisions and there Kennedy has had the pivotal vote in many cases. So, we're talking about a person who in many cases was more powerful than the US president. Count Iblis (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    And we're talking about an inevitable change which may or may not have future ramifications. So it's not newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Given the way things work in practice in the US, this is far more analogous to Trump announcing he's going to resign (e.g. if Mueller were to recommend impeachment) than just some changes in the Supreme Court of some random country. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    " this is far more analogous to Trump announcing he's going to resign" really???? And for "random country" I guess you mean every other country on planet Earth apart from America? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    As I said above, it's because the US political system is incapable of making some decisions that most other countries can make, like e.g. deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. If a democratically elected government and Congress cannot make such decisions then it will end up being decided by the courts, albeit in a more narrow sense that comprehensive legislation could do. So, what you have in the US is that a small group of people end up being nominated as de-facto dictator for life to decide those issues that their political system cannot deal with. E.g. it was Kennedy who kept abortion legal. In almost all other democratic countries, the reason why abortion is legal or not legal can always be attributed to decisions taken by the government, the way votes went in parliament, and therefore ultimately to the public opinion. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    And the ideologically median justice has most of that power. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
How is it inevitable? If none of the 2 elderly and 2 young left wing justices die or retire till Jan 2021 (and the current age and ideology distribution gives them immense incentive to not retire) and Kennedy chose to retire at 84.5 instead of 82 and the next president's a Democrat then the exact opposite of your inevitable thing would happen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? If A and B and then not C then D but E and then F but if G didn't happen then H and I but not J? Seriously? This isn't news to anyone beyond the local politics of the US, and most of that is posited on a crystal ball of what might happen next. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
If no one retires till the President is left of center your inevitable situation doesn't happen. The next presidential election isn't that far away. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So you can't call the right-wing cementation of the SCOTUS inevitable. I guess post when he does retire, it's not inevitable that he'll not change his mind either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
So the story is either "bloke retires" (zzz) or "right-wing cementation" (original research). So it's not worth posting. I agree with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's hardly original research. BBC. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It's speculation as to what may happen. As such this is local politics, and not interesting. Should something materially change in global law, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously a big story. The SCOTUS is the most important judicial body in the world. We should post now, not July 31. Davey2116 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Really. It's the most important judicial body in the United States, I'll give you that. Outside of that jurisdiction, why is it more important? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose When have we posted changes to the Supreme Court... of any country? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per given reasons above. Seems not only too US centric but just an announcement and not the actual retirement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Kennedy's retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to select another SCOTUS justice, potentially impacting the balance of the court for the next 20-25 years. Yes, it's US-centric, but this is a huge story. (Side note - We must get the U.S. Open off of the Main Page, folks. That tournament ended ten days ago. We look silly still having that on the Main Page.) StrikerforceTalk 19:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    He has announced his retirement. Everything else is crystal-balling. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the time to post this story is today, not July 31. Regarding the "US bias" charges: on May 12 we posted about the removal of Maria Lourdes Sereno from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Also: the US relies on case law more than other countries, and many high-profile international issues are resolved at the US Supreme Court. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    He has announced his retirement. Everything else is crystal-balling. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as this story, while US-centric, is being covered widely, including prominent placement as of now on BBC's main page. I understand that TRM feels very strongly about opposing this, but I do not wish to get into an argument with him over this. I see this differently, and heated arguments accomplish nothing. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    He has announced his retirement. Everything else is crystal-balling. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    As I said, I do not wish to argue. Let consensus form please. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for the Senate to confirm Trump's nomination, right now we only have half of the story. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment given that we posted the lawful impeachment of a Supreme Court justice from the Philippines by their Senate, it would seem reasonable that the screams of "local politics" are really just anti-Americanism and could easily be ignored is irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    So you're equating an impeachment to a retirement? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm equating the lawful but controversial replacement of an authoritative government employee by means of a deliberative body, sure. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
      • So chalk and cheese. A retirement does not equate in any sense to a forced removal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
        • A "forced removal"? The senate voted to replace a government employee. More like Brie and Cheshire I'd say. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, a forced removal. Not a retirement. Red Leicester and Stilton. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Aaaaaaand we've degenerated into one-upping each other in cheesy comparisons. I'm out, this nom is dead anyway, but I think it'll stand a better chance of going up when Trump nominates some right wing fanatic to the bench. Cheers TRM, maybe find a nice Weisslacker. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Masem, Pawnking, Tillerh11. – Sca (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting Kennedy's retirement as I think posting his replacement would be a better marker of the change in direction of the court. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I would add that I'm not certain we would post a ideologically similar, relatively uncontroversial SCOTUS appointment. This one will be different. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Anthony Kennedy retirement announcement features prominently on AP, BBC, Guardian, New York Times, L.A. Times, NPR, PBS. – Sca (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    No doubt it's being covered by all the agencies. It's American news, after all. But this proposal is flawed, and not newsworthy, nor encyclopedic in value. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
If it weren't newsworthy, it wouldn't be on the seven major news sites cited above, and on numerous others as well. Sca (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the story is not that Kennedy is retiring, it is that he will be replaced by Trump's nominee. Everyone is in agreement on this. The time to post, if there is one (I'm not so sure that there is), is upon the Congressional approval of the new justice, not now. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. It's all about you-know-who getting to appoint someone to the high court, and that's all it's about. When Kennedy's replacement is announced, not enough will be known about that person to make the nomination ITN material. Sca (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Classic US-centrism - to even think of nominating this. Part of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Guy, next year we're going to have three European soccer leagues (possibly four) all around the same time, then the UEFA champion ... you're really gonna complain about "US-centrism". Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of things wrong with Wikipedia, incivility of certain editors being one of them, but an editor nominating a US-centric item in good faith is not one of those things. WaltCip (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Without hyperbole, for the past several years Kennedy has been probably the most influential judge in the world. As such, his retirement announcement is a reasonable candidate for ITN, and there is no doubt it is prominently "in the news" not just in the United States, but worldwide. And if the change of Justice is to be included on ITN, it should be now, rather than on his official retirement date a month from now, or on the confirmation date of a successor who will, at that moment, be far less well-known than Kennedy is today. I acknowledge that there are counterarguments to posting this, including that Kennedy is just one-ninth of the highest court in a particular country; I think the arguments for posting outweigh the arguments against, but reasonable people can disagree. However, I cannot agree with the suggestion that this is an unreasonable nomination, or that it is merely "local politics," or is "crystal-balling," or is "not newsworthy," or is "not interesting," or is "not encyclopedic in value," nor do I think it is necessary for any one editor to repeat his opinion in the same discussion for (as of this writing) literally the twenty-seventh time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, I agree wholeheartedly with Newyorkbrad. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if Kennedy is the most influential judge in the world, he has no authority anywhere except in the US. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Switch to Support I've been persuaded by Coffeeandcrumbs. Banedon (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe not but he has an international outlook - he has long been one of the leading proponents of incorporating international law into US court cases.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest close, there is plenty of support but no clear consensus emerging and among the non-supporters (myself included) "wait for his replacement" is emerging as the better time to post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Translation: The best time not to post this. Sca (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd rather see the discussion continue for a bit. It's been only six hours, and valid points are still being made by both sides. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support even from the wrong side (of the Atlantic). With British politics being so dismal, I started following US politics (Scaramucci et seq.) so I'm only too well aware of the significance of Kennedy's retiral. And it does affect us over here. Thincat (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:TOOSOON, the naming of a new justice is more notable. Even then, local politics. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons stated above by The Rambling Man, Black Kite, Ad Orientem, HiLo48. US editors really need to get some perspective here. This is a local politics story, and the chances of a story being posted about a supreme court judge in any other country is almost zero. Chrisclear (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
off-topic power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At the risk of provoking yet another anti-American diatribe, I would point out that U.S. residents comprise 77 percent of all native speakers of English worldwide and 38 percent of native and second-language speakers of English worldwide. Sca (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a doubtful statistic to me. One that definitely needs a reliable (non-American?) source. It also demands a definition of "second-language speakers of English". The Internet is global. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia. (I hope my spelling there is acceptable.) American exceptionalism is a lousy basis on which to build such an entity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers (as linked by the OP) is a Wikipedia article. You can check the refs, and if they fail WP:RS please tag them or find better ones! We get it, you don't think stories from the worlds largest military and economic power, with a large percentage of the worlds English speakers, should be featured on the English wikipedia, a US non-profit hosted in the Untied States. That's fine, don't worry, next time some cricket players are banned from cricket, or a cricket record is broken, or a cricket game is played, it'll get posted. Don't worry! And fret not, because this nom is clearly dead. Would you kindly move along, you're adding no value. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Arguments that this is local politics is ridiculous. We post local politics all the time whenever a new head of state of nation is elected. The retirement of a SCOTUS Justice (especially Kennedy, a "swing vote") is a rare event with huge international consequences. It is as important as the election of new POTUS. Let's let the international coverage in reliable sources speak for itself.
It is news in UK: [15] [16] [17] Australia: [18] [19] [20] New Zealand: [21] [22] [23] Canada: [24] [25] [26] Germany: [27] [28] [29] France: [30] [31] [32] [33] Spain: [34] [35] [36] Brazil: [37] [38] [39] India: [40] [41] [42] Japan: [43] [44] [45] China: [46] [47] Singapore: [48] South Africa: [49]
This is huge news everywhere! ---Coffeeandcrumbs 04:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
... in Finland [50] [51] [52] ... in Estonia:[53] Ecuador: [54] Denmark: [55] [56] [57] ---Coffeeandcrumbs 04:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the arguments of Newyorkbrad. This is a discussion in which reasonable people may differ; there is no call for complaining about the fact that this was nominated. Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's a reasonable guess that Justice Kennedy's retirement will result in changes to US laws on abortion, affirmative action, electoral boundaries and gay rights. But the time for a potential ITN is when that reasonable guess is a reality - that is, when the next Supreme Court actually makes the changes. It's also at least possible that reasonable guess will never come to pass - Democrats could delay the replacement until a new Senate, another conservative judge could take up Kennedy's swing vote mantle, the US President could even surprise us all by nominating a moderate. We don't know, and assuming the outcome is wp:crystal at work. Further, as a statement of the obvious, the US Supreme Court is not a multilateral agency and changes in US law on these topics has no impact on law in other countries. For now, an ITN on Kennedy would simply be noting the ending of the career of an eminent jurist in one country - a man worthy of a long, high-quality Wikipedia article but not of himself a figure of global or multi-regional significance. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose US centric, of little importance in other countries Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We would not post the retirement of a judge in any other country, so why treat this one differently? He's not even the chief justice. As others have mentioned, iff this leads to major shifts in US policy we can consider those when they happen, not the political machinations leading up to them. Modest Genius talk 10:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The chief justice is first among equals, he has almost no extra powers, gets to read the oath to the President at Inaugurations, assigns who gets to write the majority or dissent of the side he votes on, sits in the middle, gets paid 4.5% more. His vote is worth exactly the same as the others. It's the swing justice that's the most important judge in this country bigger than 1 or 2 of the continents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Euryalus mostly; there's a strong chance that Roberts will drift into the tie-breaker role, so to suggest that Roe was overturned today is CBALL. -- Separately, 4 of 5 stories currently posted are local. Most stories will not be international which is why we have that rule at the top that has become cliche to keep citing but IT'S RIGHT THERE! @TRM, you are consistently one of the most valuable contributors to this board, tagging/commenting meaningfully to push items towards posting. This aside from your monumental contributions to the project in general. But you have a giant blind-spot on American stories. The fact that you've commented on the nom 20-odd times shows you have a passion in opposition that far outsizes the material importance of its nomination. ITN will not fall apart if we post, nor will it if we reject. ghost 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    If you wish to address me, I will allow you to post to my talkpage. Don't waste others time here with your personal opinions on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this is already out of international news. As predicted. The real news may be interesting once a new judge is selected. But even then, it's local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – An old adage in journalism: "All news is local." Sca (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I initially thought to oppose this but as Coffeeandcrumbs points out, this is not a US-centric news story but has received prominent coverage all around the world. When was the last time that happened for a supreme court justice of another country? Regards SoWhy 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Clearly no consensus is going to arise from this. An uninvolved admin should probably take a look at this and close accordingly.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 28 June 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: Joe JacksonEdit

Article: Joe Jackson (manager) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN

Nominator's comments: Patriarch of the Jackson family. Some referencing work needed but looks in fairly good shape. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support all I can see that troubles me is the list of children, but only one is unlinked and entirely unreferenced. Fix that and it's all good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I sourced the kids; there's a couple of cite tags I'm trying to clear up.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support StrikerforceTalk 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems in good shape, and obviously notable enough. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-cited and looks comprehensive. I fixed an error.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Were he not the father of That Person, he'd be anonymous. So, without context listing His name in an RD, this is redicule (irrelevant without context). -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Given this article was established in WP before and it's clear he is separately notable from his children (even though managing the Jackson 5 was part of his notability), this argument is not valid. If he were simply only the father of the Jacksons, then yes, notability is not inherited and we could argue that. But that's clearly nowhere close to the case here. --Masem (t) 01:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
      • If not for being That father, why is he notable? -DePiep (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • He's notable because he has been analyzed by many independent reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Notable yes, notable to be listed in non-context RD: no. DePiep (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • actually, and I'm not the #1 to say this: RD should allow unbolded clarifying extras like ("King of ..."). -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to make a proposal. I think the last time this was discussed it was unilaterally dismissed as unworkable in such a small amount of main page space. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Duh. Even his DAB-specifier is useless. -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It helps us distinguish him from other people with a fairly common name, so it's more useful than your comments in this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. If DePiep believes this individual to be non-notable then they should take the article to WP:AFD. If not, then there's no complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
They shouldn't take it to AFD; WP:SKCRIT#6 applies, and it would probably be a SNOW close to keep if it didn't. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

June 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) SCOTUS overturns Korematsu rulingEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:05, 29 June 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: Korematsu v. United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​SCOTUS overturns Korematsu ruling (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In it's ruling on Trump v. Hawaii, the US Supreme Court effectively overturns the controversial 1944 decision of Korematsu v. United States which had justified the use of internment camps during World War II.
Alternative blurb II: ​The US Supreme Court upholds the Trump Administration's Travel Ban and reverses an earlier decision permitting the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
News source(s): USA Today, Politico

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added another source that goes more into the details. Count Iblis (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Regardless, 90% of the people reading that blurb will not know what on earth it means, let alone why (or if) it is significant. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor ruling in a case that has largely been cold and forgotten issue; this will certainly have no long-term impact Python Dan (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A meaningful, and appropriate, step symbolically, but not close to the level of a blurb. If we were going to blurb anything from today's decision it would be the substantive decision upholding the no-travel directive, but I don't think that would gain enough support for a blurb either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Add to the fact that it only say "Trump has that power", but sent the case back to lower courts for other matters of review. (eg the impact of Masterpiece still lingers). I definitely agree that the ruling today on the travel ban isn't sufficiently over yet for ITN. --Masem (t) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Technically, this was not an official overturning, but there is no way any court in the future will be able to use Korematsu again in light of this case. (Korematsu is the case that the Court found that President Roosevelt had the right to issue an exective order to place Japanese Americans into interment camps; the decision has long been a black eye on SCOTUS, and they basically ended up saying it is no longer valid in the US). It is an important legal issue, the equivalent of a major scientific breakthrough but in law, but really not strong enough for the ITN. I've posted a altblurb in case. --Masem (t) 21:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually the majority opinion does explicitly reverse Korematsu. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No, there is no language in the official syllabus of the decision that says its overturned. (contrast; The decision of SD v Wayfair specifically holds that two prior cases are overruled). It is the case that they they strongly repudiated Korematsu, it can never be used again in a rationale court to justify a legal argument, but it not officially overturned/overruled. --Masem (t) 01:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: Just FYI, the syllabus is not authoritative in construing a Supreme Court opinion (see the notation at the top of any published opinion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What it says is: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution. I'm not sure what "overruled in the court of history" means. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Weak Oppose Both legally and symbolically this is important. But it is ultimately a formality. That case has long been regarded as a de-facto dead letter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment without reading the article, I'll tell you the story here is upholding Trumps travel ban and the authority of the POTUS to deny entry to aliens by decree, without due process. The internment camp bit is an irrelevant bit of side trivia. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • That's what I was thinking too. I thought somebody might nominate SCOTUS upholding the travel ban, did not expect to see Korematsu in the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • That is nothing new. That has been case law for years. There is no inherent right for a traveler to enter the country and the courts have repeatedly ruled that the US can use means to prevent that that normally would be unconstitutional. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added a 2nd alt blurb that I might be able to give a weak support to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think this ruling is significant enough to be on the frontpage, I might be wrong since I am no expert on American law/politics. If someone can convince me that it is indeed significant then I will ofcourse offer my support. Dragnadh (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Revise and resubmit—The Supreme Court decision is notable, but the Korematsu precedent isn't the notable part.--Carwil (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. The Korematsu aspect should be left out of the blurb as it's too confusing for a quick take on the part of the reader. Those who are motivated can read about it in the article. Sca (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with either a Korematsu blurb or a "travel ban" blurb. If Congress passed a "travel ban" bill we wouldn't post that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of the point isn't it? "If Congress passed a "travel ban" bill" it would have been voted on by the house and senate, then signed into law by the president. This is rule by fiat. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Witamy w Ameryce!Sca (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of significance. This is just another twist in a long-running story which we posted already (the original travel ban). The blurb & nomination are also completely opaque to non-experts - I had to read the article to get any idea of what was going on, and even then it wasn't exactly accessible. Modest Genius talk 10:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Like the driving ban we posted last fall? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
was that in March or April or May? Chrisclear (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Major legislation effects, affecting multiple countries & people, and a major change in policy. (Can't help comparing this to current ITN's Saudi Arabia lifts its ban on women driving, which is symbolic, has limited reach, and more of a hype). If people here think that this issue is *not* about the travel ban, please clarify. -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not a Trump ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How so? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I meant "not" but because I was doing a million and one other things with perfection, this one slipped. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Sure ITN not a "Trump ticker". Actually, this item is a SCOTUS news fact, and it is huge. (Again, I think, how & why is Saudi Arabia lifts its ban on women driving on our main page? Are we a TBS ticker?). -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~
  • Suggestion Can we compromise on something to the effect of, The U.S. Supreme Court ends its 2018 term with rulings on President Donald Trump's travel ban, public sector unions, (insert brief summary of this case here), and the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.? StrikerforceTalk 19:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support if we must post something, it might as well be this. It's not like we haven't posted local court decisions before either - c.f. [Posted_Miller_case_(Brexit/Article_50)]. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment we don't summarily change our standards just because ITN is stale. Change the overriding guidelines, don't sticky plaster a bad situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the decision it is dicta. Of course, Korematsu v United States and the internment of Japanese American citizens was one of the worst actions ever taken by the government, and Korematsu gave a green light to the power of a racist government carrying out a ruinous and unconstitutional action. But the latest action is only a footnote in history, and only lawyers (like me) and ardent civil libertarians will be aware of any of this. 7&6=thirteen () 14:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, political window-dressing. Abductive (reasoning) 18:19, 28 June 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) Trump administration family separation policyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 09:43, 28 June 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: Trump administration family separation policy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Federal judge orders the US government to end the Trump administration family separation policy and reunite families with 30 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Seventeen US states and the District of Columbia file suit challenging the Trump administration family separation policy as unconstitutional
News source(s): [58] [59]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: While rejected as an ongoing item, this matter is dominating news headlines in the United States, has international repercussions, and has far more political ([60]) and constitutional (see the judicial ruling) importance than your typical Trump-media controversy. Carwil (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this news still significant? I have a feeling when watching the news (Internationally) that it is over its peak. Last week the seperation policy of Trump was all over the news, but now I do not hear of it frequently. Dragnadh (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support News is still significant, boat was missed on getting the separation policy on the front page earlier. Avg W (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An expected denouement to something that was not overly significant to begin with.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator of the previous item. Still significant. Davey2116 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is no longer news. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Not hearing a whole lot about this anymore, now that the policy has supposedly been ended through executive order. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Banal story. We already posted the real ITN stuff earlier. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not Trump PR stuff, but actually harming people (with political twist). HR related, so universal. -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 27 June 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) Dutch partial ban on face coveringsEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 04:17, 2 July 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: Niqāb (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Dutch Senate enacts a partial ban on face coverings like the niqāb (pictured) (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Netherlands joins other western nations such as France, Belgium, and Denmark in enacting a partial ban on face coverings like the niqāb (pictured)
News source(s): De Telegraaf, The New York Times, The Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: According to The New York Times, "The law, approved on Tuesday, puts the Netherlands, a country of about 17 million people, in company with France, Belgium, Denmark and other countries in Europe and North America that penalize Muslim women who either partly or fully cover their faces in public." ---Coffeeandcrumbs 13:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the nomination this is neither novel or particularly interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
There is an interesting juxtaposition with the lift on the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia which coincidentally would be the item just below this one.---Coffeeandcrumbs 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A nation legislatively endorsing the religious discrimination of one particular group of people is newsworthy, in my opinion. StrikerforceTalk 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, but hardly that notable since, per the nomination, many other countries have already such bans in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. Perhaps altblurb will work better and demonstrate a growing pattern in European nations doing the same. It is basically exactly what The New York Times says.---Coffeeandcrumbs 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
According to The Washington Post, "The Netherlands was the first European country to propose a burqa ban, which it did in 2005." It took 13 years to approve.---Coffeeandcrumbs 22:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose TRM has persuaded me, considering that other nations, some of which are bigger and more significant, have implemented similar bans or restrictions which have not been posted here, it would be hypocritical to post this to ITN. Python Dan (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The French ban on face covering was a news item on 15 September 2010 and 13 April 2011 (see top of Talk:French ban on face covering). ---Coffeeandcrumbs 22:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if taking into account of statistical evidence provided by Coffee and the Netherlands article, only about 800,000 people will technically be affected by taking into account of the Muslim population vs the entire population of the Netherlands. Now while that does appear to be a lot of people at first glance, keep in mind that there are over 7 billion people on this planet. And that number only correlated with roughly .01% of the world’s population. In other words this will not affect a significant portion of neither The Netherland’s nor the World’s population. Kirliator (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • More information please Does the Netherlands ban the use of motor cycle helmets in most public places, also for security reasons? HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The law also bans wearing helmets and ski-masks in public.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is already being done by several other European nations. Lepricavark (talk) 12:24, 1 July 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.

June 25Edit

Arts and culture;
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
  • The Ethiopia Federal Police Commission announces the arrests of 30 people suspected of involvement in a bombing of a rally for Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. The attack killed two and injured 156. The United States announces the deployment of FBI specialists to assist the probe. (Reuters)
  • Mexican authorities arrest the entire police force of Ocampo, Michoacán, on suspicion of murdering a mayoral candidate. (BBC)
  • Zimbabwean authorities report two people have died following Saturday's bomb attack on President Emmerson Mnangagwa in Bulawayo, with several others in critical condition. (BBC)
  • A judge in Nauru declares the Civil Procedures Amendment 2018 unconstitutional and strikes it down. The act restricted the ability of those facing prosecution to obtain legal representation. The court orders Nauru's government to pay Australian lawyers acting for those who brought the legal challenge. (Radio NZ)
  • A ban on single-use plastics including cups, bags, and bottles in Mumbai, India, comes into effect. Mumbai is the nation's largest city with such a law, and those in violation face fines and up to three months in prison. (The Guardian)
  • A U.S. judge dismisses legal action brought by two Californian cities against oil companies, regarding their contributions towards climate change. (The Hill')
  • German officials announce the arrest of a former aide to Osama bin Laden and plan to deport him to his native Tunisia. (Yahoo!)
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: David GoldblattEdit

Stale. Stephen 04:32, 2 July 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: David Goldblatt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Acclaimed South African photographer. Visually documented the apartheid era, and other significant subjects. CoatCheck (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced, and if you took away the Publications (most of which are relatively trivial) you have barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 26 June 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: Richard HarrisonEdit

Article: Richard Benjamin Harrison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mail CNN
Article updated

Nominator's comments: The "Old Man" from the original Pawn Stars. Article seems fine at first glance. Teemu08 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Richard Benjamin Harrison was my hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolinstephen (talkcontribs) 18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is well-sourced save for one potentially sketchy net worth citation. It was a DYK back in 2012 and doesn't appear to have changed substantially so it should be good to go roe another main page run. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I'm not impressed by refs 23-27 but I'm not sure that's enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Has been at DYK. Has good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - great article, has been at DYK, very notable person. Textbook case for RD. 1779Days (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

RD: Donald HallEdit

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

Nominator's comments: No obvious problems to me. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The referencing needs a lot of work especially the awards and honors and Bibliography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. There's also a whole bunch of red links that are never going to be articles.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a BLP, much of it should be tagged for lack of references. Certainly not suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Saudi ban on women drivers officially liftedEdit

Article: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia is officially lifted. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​More than 120,000 women apply for driver's licenses following the lifting of the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia.
Alternative blurb II: ​Saudi Arabia lifts ban on women driving, making it the last country to do so.
News source(s): CNN The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important: We did post King Salman's announcement of his plans to lift the ban (in September 2017), but there was still the matter of getting it processed through their agencies, etc. Today, the ban officially was lifted, and to stress how big this was, I provided the altblurb. This ban-lifting has been getting a lot of attention in the news, so the actual action seems reasonable for ITN. Masem (t) 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Widespread coverage. The last country in the world to allow women to drive (although it seems there were never many others). What next, one wonders. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with "widespread" news, love ban-lifting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Is that only privileged women who can afford a car?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is the largest market for cars in the Middle east.[61] Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, that's because only few were opportune to get the license as of now, largely those who already had it from overseas and that will definitely means privileged elite. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The alt blurb tells the story best, and how big this is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
How many women live in Saudi Arabia? I think "120,000 out of ..." would sound better.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Like those before me have said, its covered by a lot of news media. Dragnadh (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and this is ready. After seeing this news on every major news outlet despite the ubiquitous Soccer WorldCup stories, I come here to see whether this was already nominated. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Turkey election 2018Edit

Article: Turkish presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Recep Tayyip Erdogan is reelected as President of Turkey. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is re-elected as president whilst the ruling AK Party loses its majority in the parliamentary election
News source(s): BBC, CNN

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Erdogan looks to win. Discussion to focus on quality, we can add blurb as soon as confirmation is in. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait For at least preliminary results of the parliamentary election, and then post with info about both the presidential and the parliamentary elections Openlydialectic (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
⇒ According to Reuters, İnce's Republican People's Party says Erdoğan could still fall short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a presidential runoff July 8. But this sounds like a pious hope. Sca (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with others that say to wait till the offical final results are in, when this is the case then I will support posting it on the frontpage. Dragnadh (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Win confirmed. --Masem (t) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – No. 1 story on many major news sites. Unfortunately, article's text fails to mention who won (except for a chart listing all candidates), and still reads like a pre-election story. Not suitable for Main Page promotion in its present form. Sca (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment' - I'd prefer a note on the fact that he's the first combined head of government and head of state. Also, mentioning that he lost majority in the parliament should be considered.
alt blurb: Recep Tayyip Erdogan won Presidential elections of Turkey to become first executive president, despite losing majority in the national assembly.
--Joseph (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Wins. – Sca (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The results are in so this could be posted, but the article has no prose about the result. That's disappointing because it's otherwise in decent shape (modulo a few cn tags). I've added an altblurb that includes the parliamentary election, which I think can be included as a non-bold link. Modest Genius talk 11:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose several cite tags and needs a prose summary of the results.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose argue the toss all you like over the blurb, the article isn't good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – In view of widespread, intense coverage a couple days ago, this topic is rapidly growing stale. Since there appears to have been no remedial action on our flawed article, suggest close. Sca (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    It's still newer than several blurbs on the template. Nominations shouldn't be closed as stale until they've too old to post at all. Someone might improve the article a few days after the nomination, and that shouldn't invalidate the work. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:ITN/R, unreferenced content has been removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is still a lot of unsourced material. 2 out of the 3 para in §Electoral System is unsourced. In §Felicity Party (SP) only the final sentence is sourced. §Others is not cited. Most of §Nominations has no sources. There are several error messages in §References. This is not ready for the front page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
A lot of unsourced material is disguised by adding a source for the last few sentences in the paragraph.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

June 23Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Crime and law
  • Terrorism in France
    • French police arrest ten members of the far-right group Action des Forces Operationnelles (Operational Forces Action) across the nation, questioning them on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack against Muslims. (The Local)
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

2018 Bulawayo bombingEdit

Article: 2018 Bulawayo bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an assassination attempt on Zimbabwean president Emmerson Mnangagwa, a stadium in Bulawayo is bombed, killing 2 people and injuring 47. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: A bit late for this, but the oldest new item was June 17. Major act of political violence; very rare in the southern part of Africa. Article is well-updated. EternalNomad (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: FazlullahEdit

Article: Fazlullah (militant leader) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [62]

Nominator's comments: Confirmed on this day. Earlier nom was rejected due to lack of confirmation, so this should not be considered stale. ghost 15:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Previous nom was on June 14 here on news from Pakistan/US leaders claiming he was killed in an airstirke. The key difference here is that TPP (the group he led) officially announced him dead today in naming their new leader. --Masem (t) 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • If posted, perhaps should be swapped for Jimmy Wopo, as he died in that time frame. Brandmeistertalk 10:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the recent developments which kind of imply his death with as close to reliable sources as we're likely to get in these circumstances. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I renom'ed this on behalf of @Nixinova and Saqib: Are you still interested in supporting this? It's almost stale. ghost 13:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, I am supporting this like the last time. I think this should go up, now that his death is confirmed. He was the head of a multinational terrorist group. (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Arrest of anti-muslim terrorism suspects in FranceEdit

Article: Islamophobic incidents (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French police arrest 10 people allegedly involved in an anti-muslim terrorist plot (Post)
News source(s): Le Parisien, The Telegraph, The Independent

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to The Independent, "Ten people were arrested over the weekend across France, including in the region of Paris and the island of Corsica. Their potential targets included radical imams, Islamist prison inmates who had been released or veiled women chosen at random, French daily newspaper Le Parisien reported. Several firearms were discovered during the raids and some of the suspects had made grenades and explosives, the paper said." (link included in source as well) ---Coffeeandcrumbs 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose We generally do not post non-events, in that the event was foiled. Maybe if it was a more major international terrorism -related plot that was foiled, that might be worth it, but I don't see it hjere. --Masem (t) 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The event is the arrest. We never hear about the plots that were stopped why? Because death and gore sell.---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

June 22Edit

Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

RD: Vinnie PaulEdit

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder and drummer of the metal band Pantera. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Lots of unreferenced paragraphs.  Nixinova  T  C  00:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Dick LeitschEdit

Article: Dick Leitsch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, WaPo

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American gay rights activist dies at 83. Sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Citations needed.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Cited now.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose two potentially controversial unsourced statements. Now tagged. Also, given that there's more than just bare-bones biographical detail in this article, I would recommend a spot-check, which I will try to get to in a few hours. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanamonde. Should be easy enough to resolve for someone with the interest and the knowledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21Edit

International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Yan JizhouEdit

Article: Yan Jizhou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper, China Writers Association

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Chinese director, recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award. Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on good faith. I obviously cannot double-check the sources, but the article looks well-cited and comprehensive.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good faith support once again I can't verify any of it really, ref 1 could do with being fixed up from being a bare URL, but I trust the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with the good faith, but nom has not made any assurances about the quality of the citations. ghost 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and GreatCaesarsGhost: A new user added the bare ref after my nomination. I've replaced it with a full ref from a reliable newspaper article. Although four refs are in Chinese, the article does include two academically published books in English discussing his wartime career and some of his major films. Check them out. -Zanhe (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Support The English stuff looks good. No reason for concern. ghost 20:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John MackEdit

Article: John Mack (civic leader) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lloyd, Jonathan (June 22, 2018). "Los Angeles Civic Leader, 'Civil Rights Warrior' John Mack Dies at 81". NBC Los Angeles. Retrieved June 22, 2018.; Zahniser, David; Kohli, Sonali (June 22, 2018). "Civic leader John Mack, a prominent voice on Los Angeles police reform, dies at 81". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 22, 2018.; Fine, Howard (June 22, 2018). "Civic Leader and South LA Booster John Mack, 81". Los Angeles Business Journal. Retrieved June 22, 2018.

Nominator's comments: Civil Rights leader in Flint, Michigan and Los Angeles, California. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamsheed MarkerEdit

Article: Jamsheed Marker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gulf News

Nominator's comments: Pakistani diplomat Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Damn you beat me to it! Article well sourced, updated and no glaring issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support yep; fine. (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Adequate for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 04:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Charles KrauthammerEdit

Nomination is stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 25 June 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: Charles Krauthammer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times and etc.
Nominator's comments: An iconic news columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner. Article is not in bad shape but referencing has some gaps. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Iconic? Sca (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: According to RS, yes, one could say iconic. From the article:"Financial Times named Krauthammer the most influential commentator in America" and "The New York Times columnist David Brooks said Krauthammer was "the most important conservative columnist." I'm sure more laudatory assessments will be published as the sheer magnitude of his loss is put into perspective. – Lionel(talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In the last decade or so, iconic has become the most over-used and misused term in the English language. Suddenly, everything and everyone thought to be in some way notable is "iconic." (For example, where I live we have an "iconic" tuber.) Sca (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support mentioning the passing of the leading conservative political commentator in the U.S. media. A distinguished intellectual. Not a hack: said that ultimately Trump's liabilities outweighed Hillary's.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Although an undisputed leader in the field he represented, that in and of itself does not meet the significance threshold that is expected for a full blurb posting. Iconic is definitely a stretch, particularly when compared to the likes of Thatcher and Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose RD Nowhere near blurb levels. Never even heard of this guy (was picturing the long dead Charles Kuralt), and I'm a life-long red-state resident. Even George Will would be a hard sell for a blurb. ghost 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Mea culpa; wanted to weigh in on the blurb and insufficiently reviewed the citations. ghost 15:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD Several citation tags need fixing. Should go without saying that he's not blurb-worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD article doesn't look bad, but this is not notable enough to be blurb worthy. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I counted 12 valid [citation needed] tags apart from completely unreferenced paragraphs. Some references doesn't work also. For instance, the second reference on which heavy claim of syndication relies doesn't work and it is used 4 more times after that. It needs a lot of work to even be presentable as RD. . –Ammarpad (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Flat out oppose not good enough, not blurb-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Pulitzer Prize winner, highly-influential and well-respected commentator, and coined Reagan Doctrine.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether or not a blurb gets published, it should most certainly be in RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:UNINVOLVED admin comment There are still nine {{cn}} tags to address, and a few places where one could be added. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Stale – Suggest close. Sca (talk) 20:21, 25 June 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) PM of NZ gives birthEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 20:41, 21 June 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: ​Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, gives birth, becoming the second world leader to do so while in office. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Radio NZ; BBC; Irish Times; Express Tribune' DW
Nominator's comments: Not sure how to word the blurb, but unusual event that is in the news worldwide. Benazir Bhutto had a baby while in office but other than her, Ardern is the only other world leader in this situation. MurielMary (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘’’Oppose’’’ This would make great DYK material, but isn’t really worthy of a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons we didn’t post her pregnancy. —LukeSurl t c 09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aside from the above reasons, second is much less notable than first. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support top news story today, article is decent, the update is a bit thin but I don't know what else you can say. "Second", sure, first one was nearly 30 years ago so .... We also posted at least one royal baby. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
We posted a royal baby because that royal baby will eventually be head of state of the UK and other countries. Unless this baby will inherit the PM's office from their mom, this is apples and oranges.331dot (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The chief executive of the UK is the Prime Minister, the "head of state" in their case is a powerless figurehead. Apples and oranges right? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've made the point I want to make, which had nothing to do with the powers of the respective positions, and don't wish to debate it further. Thanks for your reply. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You actually, demonstrably made a point regarding "the powers of the respective positions" when you suggested notability only if "this baby will inherit the PM's office from their mom". You drew a parallel between the completely meaningless head of state of the commonwealth (of which NZ is a member) and the actual chief executive of New Zealand who actually held down that full time job while pregnant. All I did was point out the inaccuracy of the connection you very clearly made. Thanks for participating! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We wouldn't post if a male PM fathered a child. Women giving birth is perfectly normal; the only reason this isn't more common is that few rise to head of government whilst still of child-bearing age. Good for her, but this isn't of major encyclopaedic significance. Modest Genius talk 12:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I fear that WP's and/or ITN's gender bias is showing clearly here. "Lack of significance" to whom? To women, both young women and older women, it's extremely significant to have a world leader giving birth as it is so rare and transforms how we see motherhood and working women. It means that we have a high profile example of a woman giving birth while in a position of power - when many women are expected to resign when they have a child e.g. in Japan and other Asian countries in particular. Also "woman giving birth is perfectly normal" yes but a woman in a position of world power is not all normal. You've already stated why - few women of childbearing age get to such a position. It's also perfectly normal for a top golfer to win a golfing tournament but we post sports achievements all the time without discussion. MurielMary (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The birth of this child has no practical impact on the millions of English-language readers worldwide, male and female, who review ITN each day. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Sca (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose News/historical trivia. Long term significance pretty much zero. [Many years to the happy couple and their daughter.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not often we get a NZ-related article here but it's still not that important – if she was the first, maybe, but she wasn't. This is like the only news story here, and it's also quite high up worldwide, but it just doesn't have that much significance in a global point of view.  Nixinova  T  C  20:09, 21 June 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.

June 20Edit

Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD:Mushtaq Ahmad YusufiEdit

Article: Mushtaq Ahmad Yusufi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [63]

Article updated (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose until bare URLs are sorted out. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted after minor improvement. Stephen 02:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted and Closed) Marijuana legalization in CanadaEdit

Clear consensus to post, no problems with the articles. If you have a case for a pull, then re-open, if you find an issue with the article, take it to errors. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 23 June 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: Cannabis in Canada (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Senate of Canada approves a bill that will legalize marijuana nationwide, making it the second country to do so. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Canada becomes the first G7 country to legalize marijuana nationwide.
Alternative blurb II: Canada becomes the second country to legalize the recreational use of marijuana nationwide.
News source(s): BBC, AP
Nominator's comments: Only the second country to do this on a national level after Uruguay in 2013, which we posted. The bill has passed, but it won't go into effect until October. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Should be "it", not "them" in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Probably a big deal for cannabis folks, but being the second is trivia. Similar were the gay marriage legalization nominations. Brandmeistertalk 06:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but the article needs some work. Mkwia (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really "in the news" and not really important. Has WP:UNDUE(? is that the right policy for this) coverage of "Stock market volatility" and not nearly enough coverage of the "Steps to legalization". A sad day for my home and native land. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's faded from news sites because it's a two-day-old story. There was ample coverage earlier. Sca (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only featured in both radio and TV BBC National News but also prompted a suggestion for UK legalization by former Conservative Party leader William Hague. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The gay marriage noms were like "the tenth country in Europe." There's certainly a point where each successive domino is worth less than the prior, but not #2. Even controlling for bias, Canada doing something is a considerable step up in significance from Uruguay. @LL: not the brightest days for your adopted land either! ghost 12:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Except that in the case of gay marriage, individuals were being denied equal rights, in the case of marijuana individuals are being denied their habit forming depressant of choice. (re:adopted land, sometimes I wish it were just a bad dream) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant compared to Uruguay. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That reads like something dangerously close to "Canada is more important than Uruguay because they speak English/Are close to the USA/Are (mostly) caucasian/ etc...." I'm sure your reason is better than that. What is it really? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I would make the same argument as Martinevans123 based on population (37M vs 3.5M), GDP (10th vs 74th), and monthly Wikipedia page views (439M vs 14M) Mkwia (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, apologies for any unintended Anglophone/US proximate bias. I did not make the exact comparisons that Mkwia has above, but that's exactly what I had in mind. (I assumed marijuana sales weren't a significant part of Uruguayan GDP). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • * Support – in principle for altburb. I had thought it had long been legal in the Netherlands, but apparently it's only getolereerd (tolerated) there. But article takes too long to tell the news, and needs work on verb tenses. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Legality of cannabis by country doesn't seem updated, but it also suggests many more countries have legalized it.. or are we talking only recreational use (which then it is only Spain before?) Assuming that the "second country" is true, and to which degree is clarified, I support this, but believe that any further similar legalization in other countries will likely not be ITN. --Masem (t) 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree (re further legalization & ITN). Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Legality of cannabis by country looks accurately updated to me. Do you have a specific problem with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The map specifically was what I was looking at. I did see Canada was updated on the table, but I was trying to look at the map to see/validate the "second country" aspect. --Masem (t) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well it seems that's not what the map is intending to show? There also seems to be a discrepancy with South Africa. But it's not liked in any of the suggested blurbs. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess my concern was - if we were talking the Nth country (N > 2 or 3 ) to legalize, that seems like a non-starter for ITN. The map was the first thing that caught my eye. But I fully agree that when you limit it to "2nd country to legalize recreational use", then we have ITN reasonability. (Same argument involved gay rights, we don't want to post the "Nth" country when N is not small). --Masem (t) 18:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another aspect of Canadian legalization is that it might engender U.S. pot-head tourism to Canada, although crossing the border isn't as simple as it used to be. Just a thought. Sca (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point. But it's a long way from Washington State to Vermont. Sca (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
True, but it grows like a weed in Vermont. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course. It is a weed. Sca (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think being the second country to legalize marijuana is still notable. See this page. From now, if legalization occurs in countries where marijuana is illegal but de-criminalized (such as central Europe, most of Central and South America, Iberia, Russia, Iran, etc.), then it's really just a formality. But I think the next few major countries where illegality is enforced (say, the U.S., the U.K., and France) would be notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why? What's special about legalizing a habit forming depressant? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It is a controversial issue, it indicates a societal shift in ideals, and it brings upon a major economy all the benefits and burdens associated with drug legalisation. Mkwia (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in passable condition. Supporters make a good case, as I see it. Let’s post it. Jusdafax (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant as the first major country to legalize marijuana (no offence to Uruguay). Article is comprehensive. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. Whilst I'm not keen to open the floodgates for every legalisation, this is a big enough deal to post. The article is a bit WP:UNDUE on the financial market reaction, but I don't think that should preclude posting. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 per Modest Genius.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Alt2 would be okay, along with Alt1. But story's getting old! Sca (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree a certain degree of urgency is needed on this for it to still be fresh when posted! Mkwia (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing worse than stale cannabis.--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You mean putrid pot? Sca (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It stinks, affects your memory, cognition, and motor skills when it's fresh too.--LaserLegs (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are we whispering? Nixinova (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't wanna get caught. Sca (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Because we've been drinking heavily to stay healthy... Much better than weed. 2600:1014:B12E:E2F6:2195:3EBB:5C8C:ED64 (talk—Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's true, I take Jameson for anxiety and depression and I can't get my socialized medical system to pretend it's "medicine" and pay for my drug habit. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they would accept a bill for Teacher's – after all, it's educational! Sca (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Despite !voting, I've been BOLD and posted ALT2 given sufficient support above. Will revert if anyone has an issue with that. --Masem (t) 01:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - as discussed on the nomination for Ardern having a baby while in office (first time in 30 years) anything "second" is less notable than the first. This argument was used to oppose the nomination of her event, so why can this event (also a "second") be posted? I oppose on the grounds that being the second country to do this is less notable than the first. Same logic has to apply here. MurielMary (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Only one of the users opposed because second "is less notable than first", the consensus opposed posting because of the significance of the pregnancy. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I commented on that. Not in an explicit Oppose vote. Didn't think that was needed. I thought logic applied here, rather than counting votes. Hmmmm again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To correct the above, three users (including myself) opposed this before posting, not one. Brandmeistertalk 12:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Certainly highly notable in its own right, and will have a significant impact in the U.S., socially, economically and politically. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear. I am frequently accused of being anti-American here because I draw attention to US-centrism, but that comment is a blatant example. This is a global encyclopaedia. (See my spelling.) Why is a hypothetical impact on the US of any significance at all? And how about responding to those who have said that being second makes this less important? HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with pointing out international impact of an event outside of the country where it occurred, which is the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to one of my primary gripes about ITN, HiLo, that being the lack of logic and consistency caused by subjectivity and the lack of firm guidelines on significance. WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 23 June 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: Trump administration family separation policyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:39, 26 June 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: Trump administration family separation policy (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NPR

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know it's a bit late for this nom, but this is a giant story that is getting huge coverage, as there are substantial updates almost daily. The article is in really good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We've found ourselves in a place where ITN, for over the past year, has been bombarded with Trump-related noms to the point where virtually all of them are rejected (rightly so) as just being media-generated Trump-hysteria. As a result of this, though, the few Trump-related stories which are actually notable tend to get caught up in the wave of rejections. This is not one of them. The media hysteria and outrage behind this story is absolutely ridiculous in its magnitude. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Ironic that this has been nominated for Ongoing just as Trump has said he'll sign an executive order to end the policy (although of course it hasn't actually happened yet). I agree the article is in good shape and has generated huge coverage, but am neutral on whether Ongoing is appropriate here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That executive order is illegal on its face. Unless the courts flip in the next 24 to 48 hours, I doubt anything substantive is going to come of this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait to see what happens with this order Trump is supposedly going to sign. I'll believe it when the ink is dry on his signature. If he does sign one and that wraps it up, ongoing is probably not appropriate. It may (emphasis on may) merit a blurb, as this is turning into a big deal. The UN Human Rights Council(the one the US pulled out of) has commented on this matter, and by the matter's own nature it involves more than just the US. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing, but not necessary opposed to a single blurb depending on what happens. This is media hype at its finest, with the addition of "won't something think of the children?" thrown in that we try to have to look past for ITN. (Note: I absolutely do not agree with these policies, but I'm speaking to this neutral on the matter for importance for ITN posting). --Masem (t) 17:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing but respect for you, but "Won't anyone think of the children?" refers to misplaced hysteria, a la Tipper Gore. Here we have legitimate lack of concern for child welfare. Still, I oppose this on bias grounds. It's noteworthy to Americans because it's happening here. We know full well that children elsewhere have it worse, but it offends our sensibilities to think ourselves complicit. ghost 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems pretty noteworthy to the people fleeing Mexico and Central America, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There's very legit concern of children being separated from parents which is why the overall immigration approach is coming under attack, but the media is focusing to appeal to the heartstrings of split families rather than the big picture. It's part of the general trend that the media uses unbashedly to sway its readership. My caution is only to be aware of this media angle in judging significance. --Masem (t) 18:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The media does oversensationalize, but the issue of toxic stress is very much part of the "big picture" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a government has a policy that a load of people don't like? I'm not sure how that's even really newsworthy once you cut through the hype, the hysteria, the faked audio tracks etc. While it's horrific, I imagine even the caged children have access to food, water, shelter etc... which is more than can be said for millions and millions of children elsewhere in the world. Needs the application of perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "faked audio tracks" [citation needed]. The perspective I think is that Syrian refugees aren't being forcibly separated from their parents in Germany or Spain or wherever and deported back to separate places in their country of origin. Plus it's "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Plus, TRM's clearly limited imagination shouldn't be a factor in considering what's important, what's inconsequential, or what's even real. After all, to use his own tactics, "Millions of children living in destitute regions have to go without basic provisions" itself it less newsworthy than a first world nation kenneling five-year-olds as a matter of national policy. (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I've gone back and forth on this. It's a big deal, and could be a big enough deal for us to post (it is dominating the news, after all) but I'm getting the sense a blurb would be better and could still be a WP:RGW thing anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak support. Top news in the U.S. for days now, major international implications, etc., etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This user views the policy as despicable and a contravention of human rights, but for ITN the topic is too porous, changeable, multifaceted, etc. to list, even in ongoing. Sca (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a point at which government fuckwittery crosses the line into being genuinely evil, but if that was the case we'd have had an Ongoing for the UK Governement's treatment of the disabled for the last eight years, not to mention a dozen random dictatorships around the world. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all of the above. We've been dealing with this in Australia for many years now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I mean, of course this was going to be "Oppose - domestic issue, not like EU regulations that are posted at all", but the this was making headlines around the world. Nom it for a blurb and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not for ongoing, but as an event. It is global news. We have images of crying kids and kids in cages on Australian TV. It's what trump campaigned on, and now it has come to pass. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Australian TV is not immune from suffering the contagious hysteria of American media. WaltCip (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It may well be that the Australian media is the cause of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Everything is media hysteria: golf tournaments, fires in night clubs, military interventions, soccer tournaments, two despotic leaders meeting for a photo-op, no matter what, everything is a self-generated bother. This section is "In the news" ... you'll have to come to terms with that. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I get the impression that a lot of posts here are really saying "Sure, it's it the news, but it shouldn't be, and it's not fair, and it's fake news, and...." This isn't a mature discussion. Oh, and Australian news is nowhere near as frantic as the American media. (Well, we did invent Rupert Murdoch, but on average....) HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for some kind of blurb. I am loathe to encourage the ongoing hysteria that surrounds the one man circus that is Donald Trump, but this really is big news. This particular firestorm has been front page news globally for a while and with his just announced climb down I think we may be at the right moment to put it up on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltClip. This seems to fall under the regional politics category as well, and poor timing given recent development with the executive order. Gluons12 | 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC).
Regional politics maybe, but with extensive global news coverage. See the name of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just saw, again in headline news in Australia, that Trump has backed down on this. So, it's still major world news. That's what logically goes in ITN. Maybe we need a new item, but I'm not sure what to call it. Maybe "Trump yet again attracts negative attention to the US from all over the world"? OK, that probably won't fly, but it's hard to think of anything positive to write. "Trump finally sees the light"? I guess not. Suggestions? HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should just throw "Donald Trump" up there on the ongoing ticker and be done with it. Nary a day has gone by when this orange buffoon hasn't been in the news. WaltCip (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Isn't it done now? The Donald reversed his terrible policy. So this isn't ongoing.  Nixinova  T  C  05:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What's ongoing is the fact that Trump policies put images of kids in cages, and kids crying, all over the world. People don't forget that sort of stuff. But your point has some validity. This should be a one-off item. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if people decide the ship has sailed for ongoing event (I don't think it has yet) a blurb on the executive order would definitely be appropriate. Avg W (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Even today, it is not sure that the issue will be removed. Still waiting for actual development facts. wrt WaltCip (#1): all of them [Trump ITN candidates] are rejected (rightly so) as just being media-generated Trump-hysteria ... [this one is too]. How did you conclude this one is "media-generated", and "hysteria"? Isn't it factually happening, affecting actual people etc. etc.? And, isn't the very title In the news exactly that: media-generated issues? Wikipedia missed this one. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
As an avid reader of news media, I know it when I see it. When editorialists and professional journalists start throwing up comparisons to the Nazis and Auschwitz, absent any actual crimes against humanity, there is hysteria. Even so, as pointed out, the locus of the media attention has been on the sights and sounds of "crying children in cages", which while certainly outrage-inducing, misses the big picture for undocumented immigration that has been going on for nearly decades now, merely focusing instead on what is most likely to catch reader attention. In any case, with the executive order signed and apparently in-force, the underlying story is stale, and it's time to move on.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"start throwing up comparisions" -- what if such a comparision is to the point? Your political opinion re a news story is not relevant. You have yet to prove that the newsfacts in this were created by journalists. Also, that the effect of a news story is emotional outbursts (I have not seen any 'hysteria' btw), is not disqualifying the topic. All in all it occurs to me that you let your care for picturing Trump blind you for the relevance. of a story. - DePiep (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely ridiculous reasoning. "Absent any actual crimes against humanity" is your inserted interpretation of what is going on, and the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant families is a distinct departure from previous administrations. There is no reason why historical comparisons can be made in the media and that is definitely not a component of ITN criteria. The executive order is not the end of the story, as what will happen to the separated families hasn't been determined yet and the Zero Tolerance policy is still in place. The issue is continuing to receive coverage and the responses from Congress or the courts system are ongoing. Avg W (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still up in the air with much political hand-wringing on display. Developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news and a highly relevent issue. I was left wondering why I am able to follow a link to golfing results from the front page but nothing related to this. Calling it 'hysteria' is unsubstantiated and rejecting it on the basis of only being related to America is wrong (its an issue pertaining to an international border, it's an international issue). Even if it were only relevant in America, that isn't a legitimate reason to reject it as per the ITN criteria. Avg W (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing coverage in Latin America. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: too fluid to post. One day Trump's hands are tied nothing he can do. Today he signs an executive order. Tomorrow Congress passes something.– Lionel(talk) 03:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Heh. This sounds like "Oppose as this is in the news." Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose--lacks encyclopedic context and too soon. We need more (encyclopedic) context to avoid being a newspaper. Central American migrant caravan, which is not even wikilinked to this article, needs a lot of work. I suggest we also use this RS from the Council on Foreign Relations. It is not just a US-centric problem; it is a Western Hemisphere problem. They are fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and safe zones could be built in Mexico for example. The article needs to reflect the wider context. I don't see anything about Mexican policy/leadership on this issue. Ergo, it is too early to post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is an article about the Trump administration's policy of separating children from their parents. The Central American migrant caravan and Mexico's domestic policies are not relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is. We need to contextualize it, otherwise we are a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Anyway, the president has suspended it, so the headlines have already changed. Encyclopediae are about trendlines.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This article does not have to cover everything involved in the migration of people from Central America to the U.S. The headlines have indeed changed, to detail how the reunifications can happen, how many of them appear to be "lost", how the administration now wants to detain children with parents indefinitely even though the Flores agreement limits detaining children for 20 days. There's plenty to cover, and ongoing is a good way to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 22 June 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) Articles 11 and 13Edit

Consensus against posting this at this point. A new nomination can be opened when the results are in. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 20 June 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: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The delegates of the European Union are voting June 20 to 21 regarding whether or not to accept articles 11 and 13. (Post)
News source(s): Wired, BoingBoing, The Register, Sky News, BBC News
Nominator's comments: I have read that these new laws threaten to illegalise the fair use of news links, quotations, images, and news clips all across Europe for everybody who are unable to pay the financial fees. As such, this seems to be a threat, not just for everybody who want to have fun on the Internet, but for freedom of speech and Wikipedia itself, given the vast number of reference links and that it is funded by donations. --> David A (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The time to post this is when and if it passes and the sky really does fall. —Cryptic 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait and please condense that sentence. Remove "possibly" and "x fear y" and that last bit is completely unnecessary.  Nixinova  T  C  08:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay. I have modified the sentence, but it is just a draft suggestion. I would prefer if somebody more competent writes it instead. David A (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, reading the article tells me nothing about what the directive actually is, just a few bits of proseline about the terrible effects should it be implemented. It also has a very negative slant to it. Compare to General Data Protection Regulation or Net neutrality in the United States which are actually decent articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting that a vote is taking place. If it passes, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait let's post the results if ITN-worthy, not speculation. Mkwia (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolute support on the significance assuming this passes, but ditto what LaserLegs said. ghost 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The new laws have been approved by the EU representatives: The Guardian, BBC News David A (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of this line from the new BBC: "It will now go to the wider European Parliament to vote on in July.". This is not final. Wait for July. --Masem (t) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • To add, assuming it passes in July, this is definitely ITN, so editors should have no reason to not get those articles up to ITN-quality before that point too. --Masem (t) 14:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: the blurb gives no indication of what the story is, and doesn't even contain the nominated article! The article itself is a mess and after reading it I'm still no closer to understanding why this would be news, or how it leads to the concerns mentioned the nomination. We don't post items to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or because they might impact Wikimedia. It seems the event hasn't happened yet, so this nomination is premature. Even if the directive passes, I don't know whether we would post it when approved or when it enters into force (as we did with GDPR). Modest Genius talk 15:23, 20 June 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.

June 19Edit

Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

(Stale) RD: Big Van VaderEdit

Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 26 June 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: Big Van Vader (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Nominator's comments: American professional wrestler and professional football player. Died the 18th. Been a lot of updates to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Saw this before, checked the article, and it's incredibly far away from minimum sourcing to be postable. --Masem (t) 05:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. This one is going to need some work. After taking a look I did not even bother with CN tags, it would take all night. I have added an orange ref improve tag at the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 21 June 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: Koko (gorilla)Edit

Article: Koko (gorilla) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Maybe the world's most famous gorilla. Article looks to be in good shape. shoy (reactions) 12:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs a copy edit – much of it is still in the present tense.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Working on it. Should be better now. shoy (reactions) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The tense has been fixed, and the article is adequately referenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, needs minor fixes In the book section, if there's no direct reference or a blue-linked standalone article, we should at minimum have an ISBN number to verify the book exists (ideally the same for each line , even referenced or blue-links). This should be easy through Amazon or Google books. --Masem (t) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've done this sourcing. I think it's all ready to go, and I'd be bold and post it, but I'll wait a few more hours for additional feedback. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Aren't there meant to be only 4 RDs in the list? Because the oldest one hasn't been removed so there's now 5 RDs.  Nixinova  T  C  00:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Is now fixed.  Nixinova  T  C  03:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Barry McDanielEdit

Article: Barry McDaniel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): and many more official, but in German

Nominator's comments: A US baritone who worked 37 years at the Deutsche Oper Berlin, also Metropolitan Opera and international festivals. The article was detailed but practically without references, - I did what I could. His death wasn't reported until yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Referencing looks fine to me. Nice job.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work, fully referenced and updated. -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 04:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) KM Sinar BangunEdit

Article: Sinking of MV Sinar Bangun (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 192 people are feared dead as an overloaded tourist ferry capsizes in Lake Toba, Indonesia (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN

Nominator's comments: Article currently a stub, but should be expanded within the next few hours. Apparently there's an article on the sinking which is probably better written anyway Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Dominating headlines here in Indonesia. I'd support if the article were up to snuff.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, but I'd wonder if the article could be a bit more substantive. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently there's an article on the sinking, which is better written by all means. Maybe it'll work better. @331dot and Crisco 1492: Juxlos (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major disaster with high casualty. Article is well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in fine shape and subject is notable enough. Teemu08 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The sinking article is well developed enough now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major death toll, well written article on the sinking. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy WopoEdit

Article: Jimmy Wopo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: Second rapper that was murdered on the same day... EternalNomad (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Wow, another one? Article is well referenced; good to go.  Nixinova  T  C  04:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is very lightweight but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Osaka earthquakeEdit

No consensus to post a relatively minor quake. Stephen 03:22, 20 June 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 Osaka earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least four people are killed and over 350 are injuried in an earthquake near Osaka, Japan. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is of sufficient quality for posting. The only issue is the low-ish death count, though I think the 350+ injured is a significant factor. It was only a 5.5 but still threatening. Masem (t) 02:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's June and this doesn't even make it into the top 40 strongest earthquakes of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This earthquake was fairly inconsequential (I am in the proximity), but I think what is worth noting is that this was the first time Osaka Prefecture received lower 6 on the Japanese seismic intensity scale since 1923 when they began to keep records; taking Great Hanshin earthquake into consideration, that was fairly surprising. Alex Shih (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this event has not received major global coverage. It has articles about it on sites like CNN but those sources have not done major coverage. Also, a relatively low death toll. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Tillerh. Absent from major news sites. Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. I am not opposed to posting major earthquakes, but this one does not seem to qualify. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 19 June 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 and closed) RD: XXXTentacionEdit

Posted as RD, no consensus for blurb. Stephen 03:23, 20 June 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: XXXTentacion (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Might as well get the ball rolling on this one. Doesn't look in awful shape, but I'm no expert Nohomersryan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. Article is good, but wow.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - shocking news. Article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, article looks good to go. Wasn't a fan in any way but rip. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted surprised to see this was in good shape to start. I do personally not suggest it but as this was a murder, there is a possible blurb here, but I think the obscurity here will limit that. Discussion can continue if there's enough consensus towards that. --Masem (t) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for a blurb Highly unusual. I am not familiar with this person's work but from what I can gather rappers this high profile haven't been shot since the 1990-s (correct me if I am wrong), so I support a standalone blurb based on that. Article seems to be in okay shape too. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Even without the Mandela-Thatcher standard that we so sporadically apply here on an irregular basis for blurbs, this particular death does not quite rise to the level of being a headline in its own right. --WaltCip (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • How a 20 year old who had the #1 album in the country 3 months ago can be murdered in broad daylight and it not be a bigger story is remarkable. This should be a blurb, but the lack of MSM interest makes that a hard sell. ghost 12:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb It’s sad and shocking that he lost his life, but this was apparently an ordinary crime that was unrelated he was notable for. Although he was undoubtedly a popular figure I don’t think he rises to David Bowie/Carrie Fisher level of notability, so a blurb isn’t really appropriate here. EternalNomad (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Support blurb The transformative figure criterion has not (and will not) be advocated by anyone here. There is a completely separate criterion that the "unexpected death of prominent figures by murder" is a valid reason for a blurb. Further, "if the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." There should be no debate that the manner of death is newsworthy or that an artist with a very recent #1 record (still #24) is prominent. The only reason not to post is the word "may" gives us some leniency. ghost 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per WaltCip and EternalNomad. Lepricavark (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Are we really considering a blurb for this? Rappers get shot all the time, and this guy isn't Biggie or Pac. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb come on, let's be serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb So I get this straight....Glen Campbell, for all his decades of recordings and achievements, didn't even make RD, but someone thinks this guy needs a blurb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 20 June 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: Zhao NanqiEdit

Article: Zhao Nanqi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua, The Paper

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Korean-born Chinese general. Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Good faith support I can't really verify most of the content, but I trust the nominator and the article is in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. (References do not need to be in English as TRM indicates).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks decent enough.BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elizabeth BrackettEdit

Article: Elizabeth Brackett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 U.S. OpenEdit

Article: 2018 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Brooks Koepka wins the U.S. Open for the second consecutive year (Post)
News source(s): [1][2]

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.

 – Compy90 (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support decent article, decent prose coverage, a shame we have no photo of the winner (surely someone took his picture over these past two US Opens???) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Plenty of pictures, but none with the right free license for us to use. :/ --Masem (t) 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, decent article. Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Colombian presidential election, 2018Edit

Article: Colombian presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Conservative political newcomer Ivan Duque has been elected president of Colombia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ivan Duque is elected as President of Colombia.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Yellow tags. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Almost no prose, just tables. SounderBruce 02:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is barely a stub. Also, blurb is heavy on the commentary and would need to be rewritten sticking just to the details.--Jayron32 03:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:ITN/R. Translated "Legislation", "Retired candidates" and "Second round" sections, as well as adding an alternative blurb. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to remove the article's yellow tag after expanding it. The only current tag is "Expand Spanish". I hope there's further discussion before this becomes stale.--Jamez42 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
Politics and elections

24 Hours of Le MansEdit

Article: 2018 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, the 24 Hours of Le Mans is won by Fernando Alonso, Sébastien Buemi & Kazuki Nakajima, driving a Toyota Gazoo Racing hybrid car (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The article is generally OK but still needs a proper prose summary of the race. Unfortunately I won't have time to add one today, but am nominating in the hope that others can help out. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as noted in the nom, race overview is missing, plus accessibility issues with the tables (e.g. no row/col scopes, use of bold in contravention of MOS:BOLD etc) which in a highly technical article such as this should be remedied. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Prose summary added. The other presentational items would be nice to have, but aren't part of the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 13:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say this team “won” Le Mans when there were three separate classes of vehicles competing? —LukeSurl t c 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. They were the overall winners; others merely won their classes. Media reports and our articles all describe them as winning the race. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added several paragraphs of prose race summary to 2018_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans#Race. Modest Genius talk 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded and is now of sufficient quality.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - expanded article, quality ok.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Two unreferenced sections. Stephen 04:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Northern MacedoniaEdit

Closing per WP:SNOW. The previous discussion suggested waiting until it was official. The nominator describes this as "things are finally moving", and no other editors support posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 17 June 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: Macedonia naming dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Nominator's comments: This has been nominated five days ago but today the agreement has been signed by the PM and there have been significant developments on both sides, such as Tsipras surviving the vote of confidence. The referendum will take place some time in future and full implementation on both sides is pending, but given the circumstances, I believe the time to post this is now. Tone 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The signing of this agreement does not mean that the country must change its name, which may only happen after the agreement is ratified in both countries, a referendum held in Macedonia results in favour of the name change, and the Macedonian parliament votes on constitutional changes as stipulated in the agreement. That said, posting this now would be premature given the uncertain circumstances, and the earliest time to do it would be when the results from the announced referendum come in.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is why I did not propose a detailed blurb with the name change. What is currently a story is that things are finally moving toward some kind of agreement, after 27 years of disputes. It will take at least months before any formal change takes place, so we can post it then as well. --Tone 12:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with you because it's not certain that a formal change of the name will take place. In case it fails to happen, this agreement would have zero importance. The agreement just sets out a proposal and paves the way for the people to decide, but it doesn't say that the country must change the name in near future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting and noteworthy story, but still several hurdles to go through once approved. Would be worth posting after the referendum when the change is certain to happen. BubbleEngineer (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for the referendums. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait If this was, say, signage of an agreement that ended 20-some years of bloodshed or other violent actions between the countries, I'd agree that the agreement that would put an end to that while waiting for a referendum for the name change would possibly be ITN. This has just been legal and political battles, and thus there's clearly no rush on this. When the name is changed (and that seems to be when our article's name will be changed, too), then we can feature that ITN. --Masem (t) 13:01, 17 June 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.

June 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • A missing Indonesian woman's body is found inside a python, being one of only two fully documented cases of a human being consumed by a snake. (The Hindu)


(Posted) RD: Syd NomisEdit

Article: Syd Nomis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [64]

Nominator's comments: Needs a few more refs, but not too far away. ghost 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Found a reference for the cap table, which was the most glaring issue. ghost 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is OK for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Caracas nightclub stampedeEdit

Article: El Paraíso stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seventeen people die in Caracas, Venezuela, following a stampede after a tear gas canister is detonated in a crowded nightclub. (Post)
News source(s): Independent CNN Al Jazeera

Nominator's comments: Significant coverage, both nationwide and abroad, and unusual circumstances. It also appears to be the first human stampede this year. I'd be open to know if an alternative blurb should mention the people wounded or that most of the persons involved were students or underage. Jamez42 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news" anywhere. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN and article sufficiently developed Sherenk1 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment replaced blurb - original was not grammatical and had a spelling mistake. Does appear to be ITN - BBC story here... Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Was that on some BBC front page, or did you search for it? I can find highschool basketball games reported by WP:RS if I search for it. This is well on it's way to being yet another local disaster story posted purely on WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not sure about its ITN notability myself, which is why I didn't say "support", it is however on the front page of BBCs World News section. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Not there at 16:00, though. Sca (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you're right - I suspect it's been kicked out by the Mexico World Cup result and the minor (for the USA) shooting in New Jersey. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm satisfied that this is getting non-local coverage ITN and the article is good enough all things considered. My only concern is the background graph has a lot of different claims and only the one Spanish citation at the end (no hablo Español). Would prefer more inline citations, but if someone here can vet the claims against the source, I'm in. ghost 16:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Hi! I was meaning to take a look at the section, but it seems ZiaLater was one step ahead of me and expanded it (thanks!), so I added more references regarding the incidentes in 2018. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is a high enough death toll for an unusual event from a country that probably doesn't appear on ITN very often. Lepricavark (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems in good shape, and as long as other world reporting agencies are covering it (even if not front page), that's a bar met. --Masem (t) 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support nowhere near the major news headlines I've seen over the past day or so, but digging into Google finds global coverage. Article is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - significant death toll. Article is in good shape. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support receiving global coverage therefore news worthy, and the article looks fine. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, at least it's settled. The minimum deaths for posting is 9. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Er, there were 17 deaths here, not 9. Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the minimum deaths for posting is zero. The standard is "has good enough article, covered sufficiently in news sources, consensus that both of those are met". There is no arbitrary number of anything.--Jayron32 03:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Jayron is correct. We post on significance and quality of article, not how many deaths there were. Obviously an event resulting in a high number of deaths is more likely to be ITN, but there isn't - and indeed can't be - a hard and fast rule. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly guys, this kind of pointy bollocks is not worth dignifying with a response. Just let the user believe what the user writes, as we all know it has no impact here at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And yet you still dignified it with your own pointy bollocks. Just admit that American deaths are only worth around 0.666 non-American deaths and stop pretending otherwise. Unless it's a shooting death, in which case the Americans who died deserved to be shot. It's your standard position everywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Every editor here has their blind spots; it's why we do things by consensus. But when the consensus goes against you, lick your wounds and go home. ghost 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • IP, I don't think you get it. I supported the posting and recommended that the usual pointy bollocks be ignored. That's all. But hey, thanks for stopping by. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The number of confirmed deaths increased to 21, update is needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you forgot your smiley? We EngWP editors being known for strong Venezuelan contingent :) ghost 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gennady RozhdestvenskyEdit

Closing, stale. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 23 June 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: Gennady Rozhdestvensky (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Russian conductor. Refereeing Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Five unreferenced sections. Article also needs a massive cleanup.  Nixinova  T  C  06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose even his date of death is unreferenced. Basics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 18 June 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) Glasgow School of Art fireEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:49, 17 June 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: Glasgow School of Art (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Scotland, a fire destroys the Glasgow School of Art (Post)
News source(s): Glasgow Herald
Nominator's comments: Second time building has been devastated by fire in four years. Damage appears to be significantly more extensive than 2014 fire. Category A listed building. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stating the obvious: A tragic event for those associated with the school, but no wider significance. Sca (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Indeed tragic, especially as the historic music venue O2 ABC Glasgow got wiped out as well, but doesn't rise to ITN status. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the headlines this morning, I'd support, but the article is missing refs and the update is inadequate. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This does seem to be a highly significant structure from an architectural standpoint, but I would like to see wider coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca and Black Kite. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local fire. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Seemingly no significance for anyone not associated with the school/locality. Not ITN worthy Mkwia (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because this a regional story, but because the original (very architecturally important) building was destroyed in 2014. This fire is of the replacement, which really means either that it is only a setback for the rebuilding effort, or, if they give up, then the story should have been posted in 2014 and is now stale. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Buildings catch fire all the time. Not of significance even in the UK.  Nixinova  T  C  06:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead story on UK national news, coverage in New York Times, Le Monde etc. Building of international importance. Hardly insignificant and more than just a local story. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:38, 17 June 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.

June 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Enoch zu GuttenbergEdit

Article: Enoch zu Guttenberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German conductor. Article is fully referenced. Zanhe (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Article is very overlinked and quite hard to read. Well referenced, but all in German. Google auto-translates this page for me which is not a good thing on the English Wiki.  Nixinova  T  C  06:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I found exactly one doubled link and replaced it. It's normal to link awards in the Award section even if mentioned before. - For English, see external link Bach Cantatas, but it's not considered reliable by one user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Morocco vs Iran own goalEdit

Good faith nom but the World Cup is already listed in "Ongoing." There is zero chance this will be posted as a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 15 June 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 Fifa World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Morocco scores an own goal against Iran in the 94th minute. (Post)
Credits: (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Snow close. Is this a joke submission? yorkshiresky (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Recommending quick Snow Close of this. It is rare that a team scores a goal against itself, but not unheard of. It's a funny/interesting story, but not ITN material. --Masem (t) 17:10, 15 June 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) AT&T / Time Warner merger completeEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 June 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: AT&T (talk, history) and Time Warner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following Judge Leon's ruling of its legality, AT&T acquires Time Warner for $85 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: AT&T acquires Time Warner for $85 billion.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator's comments: Both articles are updated with this, but neither not in immediate shape for posting (not far off, its not a major sourcing issue). This is ink on the paper, deal is done, as of now Time Warner is a subsidary of AT&T; the Justice Dept. can still appeal but Judge Leon in his decision strongly warned the Dept it likely will be able to succeed in such. And $85B is not something to sneeze at. Masem (t) 05:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I've said before, the time to post this story is at its announcement when it's at the highest point of newsworthiness, not the completion of said deal. It's a bit late now. --WaltCip (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
We really should have an RFC or something to adjudicate this. If a sizeable contingent oppose at announcement and another at closure, we'll never have consensus to post something that all agree meets significance. ghost 11:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
There was an informal discussion where consensus seemed to be when announced. This particular story has some special circumstances. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Two things on this: First, the announcement of the deal was put up as a candidate here but failed to gain consensus to post [65]. Second, the most recent issue, the merger facing judicial oversight, has been in the news over the last few weeks. It does seem that any of this tens-of-billions deals involving telecom/entertainment companies will continue to be challenged by the gov't (if/when Fox chooses Comcast or Disney as its owner, with both >$50b offers, that will start the next judicial challenge to watch for). I would readily agree that we should post large deals when the companies involved have committed to following the action, but also see no issue that if the completion of that action is challenged, to post the result of that too when it happens. --Masem (t) 13:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the deal was being held up by presidential vendetta which was only blocked by the courts a week ago. Item is very much "In the news". TL;DR so no !vote. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment What does "TL;DR so no !vote" mean? Chrisclear (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't !vote unless I've read the article(s), and these are "Too Long" so I "Didn't Read". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There are solid arguments on both sides of the "when to post" discussion. The "it's too late" rationale would hold that the consummation of the deal would be a whimper compared to the announcement. In this case that is unequivocally untrue; my feeds are blowing up with this story (and meditations on its impact). ghost 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If this deal is posted on ITN, then the emphasis has to be on the failure of the U.S. government to halt the merger, as that is where the true newsworthiness of the story seems to lie more so than the deal itself.--WaltCip (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a bit POVish, but as I pointed out in my first blurb, I do think stating that they completed this following the ruling that cleared the merger should be mentioned, since the the gov't resistance to the merge is half the story. I just think its POV to say it was a failure of the gov't to stop it; they just didn't get the decision their way (Courts are not sporting areas, neutrally there are no "winners" or "losers") --Masem (t) 16:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment nomination when it was first announced. This level of interference from the US government in a corporate merger is unusual in modern times. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    • So much of what's coming from the U.S. Government over the last 18 months is unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You mean like LRM noshes with the PGIC? Sca (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly notable, and it hasn't been posted yet. If not now, when? Davey2116 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Given the attention the judge's ruling has gotten, I'd say the ruling qualifies as very much in the news. Plus, the first purpose blurb clearly states the reason for its inclusion in the "In the News" section. DJMcNiff (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What judge? (That's just my smartarse way of saying that most of the world would not know of this judge and his ruling.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be easy enough for the smart-arse to find out if they clicked the blue-linked judge's name, yes?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if this ends up not posted when it was announced "because it hasn't been confirmed yet" and then doesn't get posted when it's confirmed "because it's not sufficiently in the news", we have a fundamental problem on our hands. Banedon (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - now has to be the time to post, given the clear (imo) notability. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Basic story long since gone stale. Sca (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The merger following the judge's ruling is still clearly in the news (100+ articles in the last 24hr). Don't look stale to me. --Masem (t) 13:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes, notable, but neither article remotely approaches the standard required for the Main Page. Frankly, they're both awful. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability if/when articles are ready. Lepricavark (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment In case the first blurb is chosen, is it possible to clarify who Judge Leon is? For someone outside the United states he's probably unknown until his article is read. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - There doesn't seem to be a consensus on this story, and as TRM has pointed out, it's becoming stale and past the point of any newsworthiness. Suggest that this be closed.--WaltCip (talk) 11:35, 20 June 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: Matt "Guitar" MurphyEdit

Article: Matt Murphy (blues guitarist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Blues guitarist. I think it makes sense to leave "Guitar" in the name even if its not in the article title as nearly every article refers to him this way. Still a little tinkering left to do with the article but I think its close. Teemu08 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose those unlinked unreferenced album releases need sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, all now referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Shujaat BukhariEdit

Article: Shujaat Bukhari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Kashmir journalist who was murdered. EternalNomad (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – short, but well referenced article. MBlaze Lightning talk 06:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been majorly cleaned up.  Nixinova  T  C  07:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article seems to be on wrong title. The appropriate title of this article is "Death of Shujaat Bukhari" –Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. This is another example of an article created only after the subject's death, and therefore I don't think the presumption of notability that we normally have under the RD rules necessarily applies here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ammarpad and Pawnkingtree: While the article was created after the subject's death, the subject had a decent claim to notability before his death, as an influential journalist: he's written for the BBC and The Hindu, an Indian national daily; and his opinions have been cited in other major newspapers [66], [67]. So he's not slam-dunk notable, but he wasn't nobody before the assassination either. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to clarify my comment. I am not actually opposing RD, but I am neither supporting. I read the links provided by Vanamonde93: The first two are his writings actually 'opinion pieces,' and one was co-written. The last link is "interview", in the earlier link he was mentioned among other redlinked editors because their papers were raided by army. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "wrong title" argument is accurate, but I believe we'd be okay posting this BLP as an RD, while using blurb-level significance criteria. To that, I'm not seeing any reason why this particular crime is notable. ghost 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and marking Ready. Yet another journalist assassinated in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • De-marked as ready. You can support and mark as ready on the same "vote". Have some common decency. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment re-marked as ready. You can't fault duck logic! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment now ready for 24 hours, ANYONE HERE? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's new Prime MinisterEdit

Articles: Omar Razzaz (talk, history) and 2018 Jordanian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Omar Razzaz becomes Prime Minister of Jordan, after his predecessor resigns following widespread protests against austerity measures. (Post)
Alternative blurb II: Jordan's new cabinet includes seven women, the largest political representation of females in the nation's history
News source(s): Reuters, The National

Nominator's comments: I prefer the first blurb Makeandtoss (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: They were the largest protests in years. [68]
@Ammarpad: He was designate then and was only sworn in yesterday. Consensus can be changed, @Juxlos: recommended having more prose, which is the case now. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @GreatCaesarsGhost: Alternative blurb that includes a yellow person: "Responding to the largest protests the country has seen in years, King Abdullah of Jordan dissolves the government and issues a royal decree swearing in Omar Razzaz as the new Prime Minister." These protests (and their outcome) were covered by international as well as regional/local media, see here. Media outlets include NPR, the Guardian, Washington Post, and many more. Flycatchr 19:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb to avoid emphasizing gender. Changes in head of state are not common, and this one came after widespread protests too (meaning it dominates local news). Banedon (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    @Banedon: Just note: he's not head of state. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    Still head of a government of a sovereign nation who came due to widespread protests. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    I did not say he's not head of government, did I? I only say he is not head of state, is that not true?. 03:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    They are remarkably common. On average, changes to a head of government/state occur about once a week. Aside from that, this "look at the size of the protest" refrain is becoming a leitmotif at ITN. Protests are just bigger these days. When the king abdicates, then you can tell me about the effectiveness of your protests. ghost 02:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: The last major protest in Jordan was 6 years ago in the Arab Spring. The recent protests received widespread coverage because of Jordan's context in the Arab World. I seriously do not understand how an American horse, which is now on Wikipedia's news, is more newsworthy than a country's unrest and change of government! If this is not a cultural bias, I don't know what is. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
a) I'm not the only editor here. The others are registering their opinion with their silence. b) The triple crown is an ITNR item. This means its significance is not debatable at ITNC. I wholeheartedly support the abolition on ITNR, as its assumptions of consensus are frequently fallacious, but my opinion is in the minority. c) debating the relative significance of sport and "real life" is a fools errand. 113 candidates for office in Mexico have been assassinated this election cycle,[69], but El Tri are up 1-0 on Germany! What's the bigger story? ghost 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: I don't see how the rest of Wikipedians should influence your personal opinion. I don't see either how you think comparing the significance of different news as a "fools errand", then ask me to do just that. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you; I was sarcastically pointing out how a stupid game is a thousand times more significant then the systematic obliteration of representative government in the 11th largest country on Earth. Which makes the makes the goings on in your country look like a town hall. WP:BIAS doesn't mean we rubber stamp everything that happens outside the US. ghost 17:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Somehow, it conveniently means we rubber stamp everything happening inside the US. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a small change in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: The protests also a small change in the big scheme of things? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, the French have protests on a weekly basis that are larger than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You're comparing a country of 67 million people to a country of 10 million... that's an unfair comparison. Do the French protests result in the reshuffling or resignation of Macron's government? This is a significant and unique event in the country's history. Flycatchr 13:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Change of head of government following popular protests is ITN material. -Zanhe (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Zanhe: please continue supporting this. Flycatchr 13:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Fazlullah (militant leader)Edit

Article: Fazlullah (militant leader) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan chief Fazlullah is killed in a US drone strike in Kunar, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): [70] [71] [72] [73]

Nominator's comments: Pakistani Taliban leader, killed in US drone strike.  Nixinova  T  C  06:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Pakistan's most-wanted militant.. --Saqib (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I added a blurb because I think its blurb-worthy just like OBL was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, June 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment article is good. But since he was once already claimed killed in 2015, what makes this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Well he's been reported dead and we shouldn't jump to conclusions -- Wikipedia just parrots the facts; we don't need to inject our thoughts otherwise. Since he's reported dead, he's dead.  Nixinova  T  C  07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not really. We didn't post the Ukrainian reporter (thankfully). I'm just curous as to why this time is different from last time? And no, Wikipedia doesn't just "parrot facts", it applies editorial judgement (in most cases) before publication. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • On a point of order; if he's reported dead by the AP, he's dead. If he's reported dead by the U.S. military, that may be insufficient. Not to get Pythonesque, but here the RS are reporting that he is reportedly dead. In doing so, they are injecting their own journalistic skepticism. We could post a blurb saying he's reportedly dead (assuming consensus on significance), but I'm a wait on the RD. ghost 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where is his corpse? This Nigerian militant was reported dead multiple times by these reliable sources, if we had been posting that he would've like 5 RDs in the last few years. Also note; Aljazeera uses ('killed in drone attack',) in quote so as to express explicit doubt since they can't independently verify that. Times of India uses reportedly, another mild way of expressing doubt. But they made it clear "This isn't the first time it has been reported that a US drone strike has killed Fazlullah" so the possibility of another "official US drone killing" next year cannot be ruled out here. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • OpposeWhat Ammarpad says.WBGconverse 16:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this one is archived already, I don't know if it make sense or not but for the sake of record, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan has now officially confirmed the death and announced the name of succeeding chief of the organization as per this news story. @Nixinova, The Rambling Man, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Ammarpad: --Saqib (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Saqib: Given the specific objections of myself and others, it would be entirely appropriate to re-nominate under the June 23rd heading. ghost 15:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Arkangel de la MuerteEdit

Article: Arkangel de la Muerte (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Medio Tiempo sports magazine

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced.  MPJ-DK  00:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Nice little article, decently referenced, no issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks fine, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Sourcing is solid, prose looks good, table completely sourced. Challenger l (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been ready to go for about 12 hours now, anyone around? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Georgian PM resignsEdit

Articles: Giorgi Kvirikashvili (talk, history) and Prime Minister of Georgia (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister of Georgia Giorgi Kvirikashvili resigns due to anti-government protests. (Post)
News source(s): RFERL, Georgia Today

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Going to sleep now, someone else may update the article. I can join tomorrow. Brandmeistertalk 21:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait Article is pretty bare bones for a head of government and needs updating. Also it is probably better to post when we can name the new PM in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment according to the list, the PM has no real administrative authority, and according to Prime Minister of Georgia the position is appointed by the president. Not really seeing this "in the news" either, but maybe that's because of my locale. Would be nice if the protests had an article. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Antarctica is melting 3 times as fast today compared to 2012Edit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:40, 18 June 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: Global warming in Antarctica (talk, history)
Blurb: Antarctica is melting 3 times as fast as it did in 2012 (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Nature (published report)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: "Satellites monitoring the state of the White Continent indicate some 200 billion tonnes a year are now being lost to the ocean as a result of melting. This is pushing up global sea levels by 0.6mm annually - a three-fold increase since 2012 when the last such assessment was undertaken." Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a very, very big deal. More people need to know about this. Yes, I know, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but this is your future. WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The fossil fuels melt a cubic kilometer of Antarctica every 40 hours? Wow. (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose' top science news today, but the target article is crap. A wall of proseline from a position statement last updated in 2002, no other meaningful info, and no update for the current news as far as I could see. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have (scientific) faith that this article will be seeing some rapid and valuable updates as of now. If we are to pretend to have any genuine educational value remaining here, this is something which our readers should be directed towards. (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as LaserLegs notes, the target article is not in its best shape, nor does it mention the update (yet). Also, while it is getting decent coverage from BBC and the Washington Post, the fact is this is something many people around the world have been obviously aware of for years, if not decades. This is more-or-less an update on something that will likely fade from media within the next day or two. Python Dan (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Then, if during that two day period, readers come here seeking relevant and updated information on the topic (and find it), we have done our job. It's a good reminder that there's more to the world than sports and politics. (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added the Nature article that is the journal report supporting this. No immediate comment on ITN-ness here, just that this is based on a peer-reviewed study. --Masem (t) 21:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Python Dan, its a significant, but otherwise mundane issue that no one can really do about it. Long term impact is certain, but the full (or at least noticeable) result will not occur for a coon’s age at minimum. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to predict a speculative future, even if evidence is provided from scholarly sources. Kirliator (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip, but the article appears not to be updated. Davey2116 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality per LaserLegs. It's in bad need of an update and expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose May re-visit when article is actually updated.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both on article quality and importance, as 0.6 mm per year in sea level rise is not enough to be of concern for years; therefore, WP:CRYSTAL applies, as the main significance would be in long term impact. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS also. Gluons12 | 23:07, 14 June 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) Ongoing: 2018 World CupEdit

Article: 2018 FIFA World Cup (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "Ongoing" was developed in mind with the World Cup and Olympic events (short term and fixed endpoints). Technically the event does not start until tomorrow, but by the time this is !voted on and consensus, it likely will be tomorrow. Main article seems in good shape. Masem (t) 17:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I believe we did post the World Cup four years ago, and while I still maintain that Ongoing is not appropriate for single-sport events in progress, this would be one exception in my opinion. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
    • FWIW, reviewing the history, the 2014 WC was boldly added to ongoing as we appeared to have just finished the trial of "Ongoing". The bold action was not disputed (see [74] on June 12) in a !vote related to posting the start of the event. --Masem (t) 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because it's going to be both Ongoing and major international news for a month. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support same as above Mkwia (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support we don't ongoing the NBA, or the NHL or literally any other single sport tournament, and the opening is not ITN/R no matter how much the OP may wish it was, there is about to be a wall of people showing up here screaming about how soccer is the most important thing in the world, so probably best to just speedy post and get the inevitable over with. When Lionel Messi breaks the record for most opening goals kicked in a second half on even numbered days in a world cup - or whatever other irrelevant piece of sports trivia that'll be passed off as "significant" while this thing runs -- you don't get a blurb. You get ongoing, you get a blurb when it's done, that's enough soccer. #twocents. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The comparisons to the NHL and the NBA are apples to oranges, as you probably realize. Lepricavark (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, I know, soccer is the most important thing in the world and in all time past and present the Cretaceous–Paleogene extiction pales in comparison to this silly pageant. I supported it, you won. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nah, it's actually an extremely boring sport... in my opinion. But I'm not !voting based on my opinion of soccer/football. This is a clearcut case for ongoing and I really don't see your point. Lepricavark (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support post it up at kick-off tomorrow, take it down when we post the final result as a blurb. —LukeSurl t c 18:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There's wide interest in this sport, worldwide. Its significance is obvious. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Updates? In which article are we going to see daily updates? That should be the page that should be highlighted. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The articles are split by group and knockout stage, so there isn't one article to point to. 2018 FIFA World Cup is the index to all of that. Modest Genius talk 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the current linked article would have it. It has tables of the overall performance of each team during the first part of the cup. When we get to the knockout stage on June 30, we can change that link to 2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. --Masem (t) 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've randomly checked and it appears that 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A was updated in time. If this is the case this shouldn't be a problem, but if people are looking for updates on the main article and they found nothing, then that's another matter. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like 2018 FIFA World Cup Group A has zero updates as of yet. If this continues... meh, it won't be removed from ongoing, anyway... Howard the Duck (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The box table is updated (right now, only one game total has been played it looks like). I am pretty confident the FOOTY project is all over this. --Masem (t) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, when updates, I'm referring to the extensive prose updates an Ongoing link has to have at least everyday. We have rightfully rejected articles with league tables all over with no prose at all. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This and the Olympics are the only sporting events that I think merit being in Ongoing the entire time. As mentioned by LukeSurl, we should post this when the first match kicks off tomorrow. Modest Genius talk 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Most watched sporting event in the world, no-brainer really. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support truly global. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly a worthy candidate for ongoing given its significance to a large global audience. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It hasn't started yet! You were about 16 hours too early. I guess it would now look even weirder to take it down for a few hours. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • No, on this occasion, it's just fine. The prelude is well under way, teams have arrived, walkabouts and training sessions in situ have started. As an overall event, it's definitely started. It's all over the news, Wikipedians will be looking for information on what's led up to the tournament, not just how it's going once the first ball is kicked. I didn't see any readers complaining about this posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Look out world—TRM and I agree on something! ;-) More seriously, what TRM said, plus there were only two votes above that were in favor of waiting. It's a model we could explore more, within reason. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
NEWS FLASH: Russia 5, Saudi Arabia 0. — Sca (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove Turkish currency and debt crisis from ongoingEdit

Article: Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018 (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The updates for the last week or so are just normal economic reports that are continually published in any significant economy. It's not clear what standard we could use to remove this item, as the crisis will not have a clear end. Aside from that, is anyone seeing reporting on this without searching for it? ghost 11:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Agree that this is no longer 'ongoing'. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Where, elsewhere, has one seen this in the news? talk to !dave 10:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I had a look at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section and it does not appear to be in the news or being regularly updated with new and pertinent information.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's not being updated, and it's not in regular news coverage. Get rid of it. Ultimograph5 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 23:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Hudaida (2018)Edit

Article: Battle of Hudaida (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi-backed forces have begun an assault on the key port of Hudaydah after Houthi rebels ignored a final deadline to withdraw (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article still needs to be updated. Notability due to "Aid agencies have warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if the city is attacked, with up to a quarter of a million casualties possible." Sherenk1 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the offensive started last December, and the article has not been updated. Stephen 05:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This is an entirely new offensive with a distinct goal: to push out Houthis from the city. The past ones were sporadic and only meant to cause damage. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen, this is an odd nomination given those issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly old story, insufficient recent event/update to merit posting. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the offensive in Hudaydah City began today. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The target article isn't updated. I did hear about this on NPR this morning, hence the "weak" part of the oppose. If there's a sufficient update, I might support. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad, Stephen, and The Rambling Man: Battle of Hudaida (2018) have been created. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Article updated on blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The created article seems updated enough. I checked the Refs and many of them belonged to 13 and 14 June 2018. The incident is significant enough. --Mhhossein talk 18:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is worthy of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support* This is a news-worthy development in several ways such as a) the biggest battle since the war began in 2015, and b) taking place within the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. This is why I also prefer a blurb that mentions the humanitarian crisis as this aspect has featured prominently in almost all news stories about the battle. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - worthy of ITN. updated, refs checks.BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - Has an orange level tag, not suitable to be linked from Main Page. Should be pulled. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 FIFA World CupEdit

Articles: 2026 FIFA World Cup (talk, history) and Canada–Mexico–United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bid (talk, history)
Blurb: 2026 FIFA World Cup hosting rights awarded to joint bid from the United States, Mexico and Canada (Post)
Alternative blurb: FIFA award hosting rights for the 2026 World Cup to a joint bid from Canada, Mexico, and the United States
News source(s): The Guardian New York Times

 Mkwia (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • When ordering the countries, "Canada, Mexico, and the United States" is preferable, as this is the order in the bid title. --LukeSurl t c 12:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I know this will be posted because "OMG soccer" but this is actually a perfect DYK candidate. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Announcement of the next host city/venue for Olympics or World Cup doesn't seem significant given how far off these events are. The only thing that makes this a weak oppose is that it seems that the joint hoisting of the event between three countries seems unique? DYK seems perfect here for this. --Masem (t) 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Ditto. Sca (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is eight years away and will be posted then. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support considering the clusterfuck of the previous selections, this is notable in being not dubious. Also, this will be the first tournament expanding from 32 to 48, which is probably the main reason triple hosts were ok. Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITN worthy. May be suitable for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's notable enough, and the articles are in very good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support between the two articles, we have a good coverage of an item that is major international news. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It was posted last time. I think this the rare event where the announcement of the location is of wide interest. Naturally this time would be of even greater interest to our readers as roughly half of them live in one of the host countries. ghost 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Biggest sporting event in the world, decent article, and works nicely with the 2018 version starting tomorrow. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support truly global and about time we pushed the almost entirely US-centric news items currently listed down a bit. Oh, hang on.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GreatCaesarsGhost. Lepricavark (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant event, in my opinion. talk to !dave 19:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - dominating news in my neck of the woods, and we probably won't even qualify. The biggest sporting event in the world, of major interest to our readers (especially given the hosts). Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • History of AT&T
  • Tesla announces that it intends to cut 3000 jobs in an attempt to improve profitability. Many of those workers will be offered alternative jobs under the same employer. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) Heracleum mantegazzianum in VirginiaEdit

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: Heracleum mantegazzianum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Virginia state officials discovered a population of Heracleum mantegazzianum (giant hogweed), an invasive plant that can cause severe burns. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
  • Oppose both on importance - the plant's been in the US for more than a century, and it wouldn't merit posting even if it hadn't - and on update quality - all of nine words, by my count. —Cryptic 02:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom per Cryptic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 19 June 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.

(Stale) RD: Bhaiyyu MaharajEdit

Article: Bhaiyyu Maharaj (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced. Another tragic suicide. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced okay but most are linked to the same references.  Nixinova  T  C  03:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Referencing is okay, but there's some bad grammar, and a lot of unlinked and/or unexplained terms that would be very confusing to a reader unfamiliar with Indian politics. I'll try to clean this up, but I'm a bit busy at the moment; if somebody else could do it, that would be appreciated. Vanamonde (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose prose needs a complete copyedit, far from encyclopedic in tone right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: & @The Rambling Man:: Copy edited to fix the bad grammar. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The grammar has been improved, but it's still not perfect, and there are other issues with the prose; mostly a complete lack of context for much of the material, making it difficult to follow even for someone who works on South Asian politics, as I do. My !vote remains. Vanamonde (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Northern MacedoniaEdit

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted at this time; a re-nomination after the planned national vote on the topic would be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:50, 13 June 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: Macedonia naming dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Republic of Macedonia announces an agreement with Greece to rename itself "Northern Macedonia", ending the 27-year Macedonia naming dispute. (Post)
News source(s): AP

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A bit of a daft story, but one that ends a surprisingly significant dispute in the Balkans, and will hopefully fix relations between the two countries. The article currently has a yellow clean up tag, because the timeline should probably split into another article. Smurrayinchester 18:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's not a done deal. The BBC report this will need to be ratified by both Greece and Macedonia, including a plebiscite in the latter, and the outcome of these are not certain. The best timing would be when/if Macedonia actually changes its name. --LukeSurl t c 18:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LukeSurl. This is an important story, but this is not the time to post it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above comments. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would align this with the current discussion on the talk page, where it likely will not be moved until the paperwork is signed, to speak. This would be ITN when that happens. --Masem (t) 04:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the rest. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Lepricavark (talk) 13:31, 13 June 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 North Korea–United States summitEdit

Article: 2018 North Korea–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-Un meet in Singapore. (Post)
Alternative blurb: President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-Un meet in Singapore, the first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. President and a North Korean leader.
News source(s): CNN, CBS, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Historic summit. Article has been in very good shape for days. Davey2116 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait I'm sure we'll post it once the meeting happens, but that's a few hours off yet. Lepricavark (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the "Proposed conditions by North Korea" has a single source: A Korean Huffpo article. I think we can do better. Also, the article makes no mention of Kim referring to Trump as a "dotard". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The meeting will be underway in 15 minutes. Very notable as this is the first time the leaders of the US and DPRK have met.  Nixinova  T  C  00:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Meeting has begun.  Nixinova  T  C  01:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Meeting has begun. Nice4What (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ofcourse I support this, its a historic meeting in itself regardless of the outcome. The summit has already begun and is underway so I expect the article will have a lot of edits in the coming hours. Dragnadh (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support there will continue to be updates, but now is the time to post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as above, meeting has begun and event is extremely significant.— Crumpled Firecontribs 03:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Historical meeting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good-sized and well-referenced. Agree that we should post now. Jusdafax (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently the tenses jump all over the place, the lede doesn't state they met, and there are more words about their lunch menu than about the meeting. Stephen 04:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until substantive news is reported. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is an historic meeting on the level of "Nixon goes to China" level. There may certainly be even more noteworthy things that happen there, but if nothing major occurs, this meeting happening is groundbreaking news. We can update the blurb should an "interesting" result happen. --Masem (t) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meeting is well underway and this is a very historic event. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meeting is underway and already newsworthy. The picture of the two leaders shaking hands is groundbreaking since it's the first time a sitting United States president has ever met with a North Korea leader.S-1-5-7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose wait until the summit is over, and then check to see if something substantive occurred. We waited until the end of the G7 summit before posting, we can wait on this one too. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC))
    • The G7 summit generally happens every year, so while important, we can wait to post what was resolved. This is the first meeting of the US President and the NK leader, and without an assurance it will happen again. There's a big difference in how these stories should be handled. --Masem (t) 05:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this generated so much buzz before the event that it should be posted as soon as possible. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Propose the other photo: File:Kim and Trump shaking hands at the red carpet during the DPRK–USA Singapore Summit.jpg. wumbolo ^^^ 10:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree, that is a stronger image. The bold main link in the blurb, to the single word meet, also seems to me to be very bland and non-descriptive in terms of the historic signed agreement that resulted. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The image is very cluttered, looks like crap as a thumbnail. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's two tiny figures infront of a wall of color at 150px. Oh well, I guess it's better to just denigrate people right? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • With enemies like Donald, who need friends? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Trump is stating that a joint statement has been signed on de-nuclearization, and the U.S. is supposedly halting its military exercises. Whether or not we believe there's any veracity to this, this is a major development in the summit on top of the existence of the summit itself. I suggest we make this an ongoing item.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Not constructive. TompaDompa (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • No need to make this ongoing, but if you want to change the blurb to "Donald Trump legitimizes the brutal regime of North Korea" I guess why not. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure. Or why not have "Donald Trump hailed as peace-making savior of the world"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Well I think it needs to pass WP:V to be posted, and there is no verifability for that line of propaganda. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Ok, you talked me into it.... stick with the "legitimizes brutal regime" one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Or perhaps "Two rich men sit down and nosh on lavish lunch and make empty promises to the world"?--WaltCip (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
On that, I think that once we know exactly what was signed/pledged/agreed to, we can update the blurb. Ongoing doesn't make sense for a rather short summit, barring a massive rush of new ITNC blurbs in the next 24 hrs. --Masem (t) 14:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

June 11Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Victoria KalimaEdit

Article: Victoria Kalima (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Diggers

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Short but very well referenced.  Nixinova  T  C  05:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed, short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. ghost 11:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Neal E. BoydEdit

Stale; all oppose.  Nixinova  T  C  06:31, 17 June 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: Neal E. Boyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Nominator's comments: America's Got Talent winner. TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Rather bare bones article, though not a stub. Referencing needs significant improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough for a BLP, 12 [citation needed] need fixing as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many citations needed. I may support it if/when that's fixed.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 13 June 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.

June 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Terrorism in Iraq
    • A warehouse holding ballot boxes from elections last month burns down in Baghdad. Several politicians say the fire was a criminal act aimed at destabilising the state following a disputed election result. (BBC)
  • Authorities in Afghanistan announce the seizure of 156 sacks of ammonium nitrate being imported on a truck from Pakistan. This is one of the largest seizures of the compound, most commonly used as a fertilizer, but also used to manufacture explosives. (Reuters)

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) Tony AwardsEdit

Stale.  Nixinova  T  C  06:30, 17 June 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: 72nd Tony Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the Tony Awards, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child wins Best Play, while The Band's Visit wins Best Musical. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: Article quality not there yet, some sections incomplete. Masem (t) 13:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Other events and Creative Arts Award are both unsourced. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some sources needed, one sentenced paragraphs should be merged or expanded, also see WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION and integrate that DeNiro portion elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 12 June 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 French OpenEdit

Stale; mostly oppose.  Nixinova  T  C  06:30, 17 June 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 French Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the 2018 French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the Men's Singles and Simona Halep winning the Women's Singles. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, New York 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: ITN/R, so will be posted when the article(s) are fully suitably updated. Andise1 (talk)
  • Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose day-by-day summaries suffer the same lack of prose that's keeping the NBA off the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, unless I'm missing it, are there any refs for any of the scores in the day-by-day? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an encyclopedia not a stats site. Virtually no prose.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is very good. - EugεnS¡m¡on 14:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - one of the four "major" tournaments per year in professional tennis and the article is up to par for what is expected of its type. StrikerforceTalk 14:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
comment in the louvre as I write this, but I have a bunch of pics/vids from last night (before the rain), ive not uploaded to WP in quite a while...should I do so for possible inclusion on the 2018 page? Not sure in "fan pics" count for inclusion. The Emirates "drone" was above too (stadium right next to center court. Dunno if its court 1 as the Suzanne something was bigger).Lihaas (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just a bunch of tables. Hideous. Yuck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Have to agree with TRM on this one - page after page of long, unsourced tables with a handful of sentences concerning the very briefest background for the event itself. Challenger l (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for this kind of item prose is overrated. Most important things are 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and both are there. Banedon (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And neither are sourced. Indeed, none of the results are sourced at all, an inline source hasn't been added to the article since April. Even the existing prose is partly in the wrong tense. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose One massive pile of tables with practically no prose. Almost doesn't even count as an article. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quality is poor. Prose explains things that appear complicated through tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose All tables -- no prose at all below the lead.  Nixinova  T  C  05:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless you like a long article with lots of tables and flags. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually some of us not only like such articles but actually think they're often the best kind of sports articles. but unfortunately we're clearly in a minority here.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Banedon, even tho supporting is presumably a waste of time, per WP:SNOW. But for what little it's worth, I often look at Wikipedia sports articles for their often highly informative tables, but I rarely if ever bother to read any of the prose, much of which I find is just a time-wasting inferior partial duplication of what's already better said in the tables. Meanwhile forcing editors to waste time producing such prose duplication actively prevents them from genuinely improving the article by spending time finding and adding stuff that is not already said in the tables (such as controversies sections, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:09, 13 June 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: Jackson OdellEdit

If the quality is significantly improved before this is stale it can be reopened, until that happens there is no point in any more opposes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 12 June 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: Jackson Odell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
 Count Iblis (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and notability; this is a recently-created 1-sentence stub and I'm not sure any of his roles were "major" enough to meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Literally two sentences.  Nixinova  T  C  01:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I expanded it over the past hour, but his TV/film appearances, and even his soundtrack credit, aren't globally notable enough for RD. — Wyliepedia @ 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub with no fewer than six dab links. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Article quality aside, the standard for WP:ENT is multiple "significant" roles in notable productions. He unquestionably had multiple roles in notable productions, though an argument could be made that no two of them are significant. I couldn't even get the fake mayor cat deleted; this one wouldn't have a snowball's chance. ghost 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to the notability opposes You can wander on over to WP:AFD and do something about it, otherwise your notability objections are meaningless and will be rightly ignored. As an aside, Zeke Upshaw survived AFD with a speedy keep and the article looks great now. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a stub and will require expansion before it can be posted. And as noted above I am not altogether sure they pass GNG/ENT. Maybe this should be sent to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
On 2nd thought I would not bother with AfD right now. Recenctism bias has been so strong of late that it's all but impossible to get anything mentioned in current news deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article, if one may use the term, is a stub. Sca (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest snow closure. Article is simply not up to par for inclusion on the front page. StrikerforceTalk 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
...Or we could stop the pile-on and treat it like every other RD nom with quality issues: let it sit, giving editors a chance to bring it up to snuff. ghost 14:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but only because the filmography is unreferenced. The name of the section is "in the news", at least with the news sources I see it has been. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub. Probably not even notable - doesn't meet "significant roles in multiple notable productions" as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Three sentences and a table - stub. Challenger l (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two or three lines of text. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:01, 12 June 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.

June 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections
  • Over 100,000 people participate in a large protest in Bucharest, Romania, against apparent judicial abuses and "illegitimate interference" of the secret services in the political and judicial systems. The protest was organised by the governing Social Democratic Party and supported by other political parties. (The Washington Post)


RD: Lorraine GordonEdit

Article: Lorraine Gordon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, NPR, JazzTimes
Article updated

Nominator's comments: A prominent member of jazz community, and one of the most prominent non-musicians. The article is relatively brief, but it is a fair depiction of who she was, a direct no-nonsense person, and one who was not in the spotlight. (sidenote: this is my first nomination, I am not sure if I have listed the updaters properly above.) Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Could probably be split into more sections but well referenced.  Nixinova  T  C  05:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Minimally needs a referenced sentence about her death. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 44th G7 SummitEdit

Article: 44th G7 summit (talk, history)
Blurb: The G7 summit takes place in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, with the United States refusing to endorse the joint statement. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Was previously nominated by PineForst282929 and closed until the event ended. Well, it's ended, and something fairly serious happened. Smurrayinchester 07:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose until fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is becoming the target of frequent vandalism by several IPs that are inserting false and unsourced content. Python Dan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Python Dan: I'm not see evidence of that in the page history, but even if it were that isn't a reason to oppose - vandalism should be dealt with independently of ITN by usual means, e.g. requesting semi-protection, posting at WP:AIV, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems I was referring to the wrong article, so I’ve retracted my vote. Python Dan (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Independently notable, even more because of the United States. PineForst282929 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The blurb should give an indication of what the "joint statement" is. Also, I would argue in this case, given this was the G7 , the meeting of the leaders , that it should say that it was President Trump that refused to endorse the joint statement. (We do want ITN to avoid being a list of everything Trump's done, but as this is in relation to a ITNR, that result is all on him). Agree article needs improvement. --Masem (t) 12:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in Principle, but Oppose in Quality article has decent length, but it definitely needs improving as per two of the three voters have noted. Python Dan (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable and a decent article, though it needs a bit of improving. Ultimograph5 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is in decent shape and this is on ITNR. There's a single orange expansion tag on there, but I don't see what else is missing so that can probably be removed. I tweaked the blurb slightly. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Adequate article that includes U.S.-'G6' rift fairly high in the text. Sca (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Needs expansion. Two sections appear to be empty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy support - All major objections have been met, and the summit's notification risks becoming stale if not addressed.PineForst282929 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Struck out duplicate vote.--WaltCip (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now adequate, and greatly improved from when I last checked. Davey2116 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but would change the text to "The 44th G7 summit" as opposed to the current "A G7 summit." (NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC))
As a matter of style, we generally don't put the year or edition number in ITN blurbs e.g. the current template just says 'Stanley Cup Finals' for the link to 2018 Stanley Cup Finals. The same is true of the Belmont Stakes, Slovenian election etc. Modest Genius talk 10:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Undeniably thin in a few spots, but a reasonable level of information presented and is INTR. Let’s post. Jusdafax (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ok level for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R and quality is there now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I was about to post this but I see an orange template "expand" in one of the sections. I would be willing to post this once that orange box is addressed either by removing it (if appropriate) or by expanding the section (if appropriate). Jehochman Talk 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting Looks good to me, with the big news of the summit being Trump and Trudeau, sufficiently covered in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Justify winning Triple CrownEdit

Articles: Justify (horse) (talk, history) and 2018 Belmont Stakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In thoroughbred horse racing, Justify wins the Belmont Stakes, becoming the thirteenth United States Triple Crown winner. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In thoroughbred horse racing, Justify wins the United States Triple Crown.
News source(s):

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

Nominator's comments: Triple Crown win, part of WP:ITNR. Feel free to improve blurb per previous similar entries (i.e. American Pharoah). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Very exciting race. Mom won a few bucks. Justify looks good. 2018 Belmont Stakes needs a little expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Both articles meet the standards. Per Ad Orientem, 2018 Belmont Stakes could be expanded, but I think it still meets the minimum standards. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it needs some prose about the race itself; at the moment, it's basically just the pre-race article with a sentence saying that Justify won tacked onto it. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when the articles are ready. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: When did the ITNR entry get adjusted? Triple Crown winners have been on ITNR for ages, but I don't remember seeing the Belmont Stakes part of that entry before, or it ever being included in the blurb. The Triple Crown is the story here - we wouldn't post the Stakes alone. Therefore it shouldn't be a bold link and indeed could be omitted entirely. I've added a shorter blurb, which has the benefit that only one article has to be of a high enough standard. Modest Genius talk 14:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like Justify should be the target article and that one is in good shape. Teemu08 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zhang JunzhaoEdit

Article: Zhang Junzhao (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper, WHB

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Founding member of the Fifth Generation of Chinese cinema. Zanhe (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Referencing is okay, no issues.  Nixinova  T  C  22:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - references look good. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Eunice GaysonEdit

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First of the Bond girls. The article is fairly terrible, this is kind of a long shot. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I've sourced pretty much everything. It's a bit short but I think it meets minimum requirements now. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is on the short side but everything is now cited. -Zanhe (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The reference does not cover her TV appearances. Stephen 23:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the TV appearances are all very minor anyway, I've removed them for the time being. Marked ready. Black Kite (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good article. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support reasonable enough. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I went to post this but discovered a chunk of copy & paste from The Guardian obituary. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liu YichangEdit

Article: Liu Yichang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SCMP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: acclaimed as the founder of modern literature in Hong Kong. Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Danny KirwanEdit

Article: Danny Kirwan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Rolling Stone

Nominator's comments: Was guitarist for Fleetwood Mac near the beginning. Article isn't great but I've seen worse. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 00:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Maria BuenoEdit

Article: Maria Bueno (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: 1960s tennis "star" The Rambling Man (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Surprised I haven't heard of her, my mother was a big fan of Margaret Court, her rival from that era. Needs some referencing. Also personal life: where was she born, family details, what did she do between 1967 & 2006, was she married, children &c&c. Hopefully some of the obits will help flesh this out, though the ones I have seen are a bit sparse on personal material. Got to go out now, but will try to help later. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) oppose, most of the article seems good but in the tables, only the grand slam finals appear to be referenced. A couple of the prose paragraphs don't have inline references, but it's possible that they're supported by following refs. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, section headings could use a cleanup though.  Nixinova  T  C  22:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nixinova.BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2018 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the Golden State Warriors defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Finals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In basketball, the Golden State Warriors defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers to win the NBA Finals (MVP Kevin Durant pictured).

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 I post it we're still in the final two minutes, but almost all of the starters are on the bench voluntarily. Updates will be fast and furious and it'll be time to start reviewing the work. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support It's official now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe we need more than just a couple sentences to recap each game. --Masem (t) 03:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, working on it. And I hope others will help. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose and topic ban the nominator. Not the honourable sports of cricket, rugby, football (association or Gaelic) nor rowing. We already have a minority sport of ice hockey, and we already have a quota on these North American "sports". We don't need this. No one's interested in this. #BringBackHurlingInITNR --Howard the Duck (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    !!!!!!!ROWING KLAXON!!!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R, this one is a slam dunk. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, no it's not. Per ITN/R, the quality of the article matters. Any thoughts on that? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I'll let you form your own conclusions about the article. Lepricavark (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I have. It's crap. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
While your assessment is unsurprisingly exaggerated, the article could certainly use more expansion. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. that's what I meant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There’s a few large tables of data that lack a single reference. Stephen 05:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't believe people support match summaries which are literally two or three sentences long. Very poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reason as The Rambling Man. Get with it basketball fans! HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article is in horrific condition.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for someone who's not familiar with the sport, how did the teams end up 4th and 2nd in their respective conferences and yet end up in the final? The article doesn't tell me. (Yes, I know there's a separate article on the play-offs, but you'd certainly need some prose summarising how it happened). Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Because like half the league still gets to play in the elimination tournament. All major North American sports leagues do not restrict winning chances to only 2 teams (baseball did for it's traditional decades but that ended like a half century ago, MLB playoffs are 10 teams by now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, yeah, and the reason I missed that is because it was placed before the regular season tables, which doesn't make a lot of sense - shouldn't the prose about the playoffs actually be in the playoff section? Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • As a broader comment, related to this, this article doesn't seem to capture the general sentiments about this series: "everyone" seemed to know it was going to be lopsided, all depending on the non-Lebron Cavs to support Lebron, and the post-series stuff already has rumors of Lebron finding somewhere else to play. This article is a medicinal treatment of the series, but it should strive to cover broader aspects like this. I don't expect for ITN posting that that all needs to be complete, but we should have some rough overview of this summarizing the broad commentary on the mis-match. --Masem (t) 13:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I need help expanding the prose. I'm out of pocket for today and probably tomorrow. @Bagumba:, are you available? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support- article needs work, but should be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging opposers from Saturday: @The Rambling Man, HiLo48, WaltCip, and Black Kite: The article should be passable now. Is it GA quality? Nope, not by a long shot. But it conveys the main details with enough prose in each game summary section. I can continue to expand it further this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks good enough to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ready.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's ready.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 18:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted (yes, I know I commented, but I opposed before it was good enough, so no problem). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite:, I doubt anyone will mind. Can you change the image from Ovechkin (no longer on ITN) to Durant, once the protection takes hold? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Done - I've put the Justify image at WP:CMP so it can be added when KrinkleBot sorts the protection (I don't see "Durant" on the MP). Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Justify image added. If I've missed something obvious please feel free to change it, as I'm going to be AFK for a while now. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see what you mean. If you want to swap the image go ahead, they're both protected. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Eh no matter to me which image we use, as long as we swapped out Ovechkin. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Per AhlmarkEdit

Article: Per Ahlmark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Expressen

Nominator's comments: Former Deputy PM of Sweden. EternalNomad (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Well referenced, no problems.  Nixinova  T  C  02:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good. -Zanhe (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not checked in detail but still needs editing into past tense. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment The article does not appear to have been updated. Some parts are still written in the present tense and aside from the date at the beginning of the lead, his death is not mentioned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article with info about his death, and changed everything into past tense. -Zanhe (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose some of the "Writings" section make various bold claims which need reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 44th G7 SummitEdit

Consensus against posting now. Wait for the summit to conclude, update the article and nominate it again. Item is ITN/R and doesn't have to satisfy anyone's insistence on "significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 8 June 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: 44th G7 summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 44th G7 summit begins in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, amid rising tensions with the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The 44th G7 summit begins in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: Widely notable summit that is regularly featured on the front page, made even more notable due to recent events. PineForst282929 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We should definitely get rid of amid rising tensions with the United States, that is unnecessary editorialising. --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, and even if it were allowable, it's too vague on top of that.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Alt added. --LukeSurl t c 13:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment G7 is WP:ITNR. TompaDompa (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it best to post that the summit has started, or do we want to post its conclusion? --LukeSurl t c 13:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wait to see if they do anything besides palaver. Sca (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • What do you expect them to do? Ride logs down the St Lawrence? The item is ITN/R, if you've a problem with that, go ahead and nom it for removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I expect they'll go out for drinks & dinner. Sca (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, unlike the World's Fairs, it's not necessarily the opening that's ITRN. So no-one need nom it for removal yet, just wait to see if anything of any actual relevance happens. And see how the article evolves. Easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I was just checking this entry at ITNR and I didn't see a clause about "anything TRM deems relevant" -- could you point that bit out for me? Else the item is ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I simply said the opening wasn't necessarily ITNR. You asked what we expected them to do. I said wait and see. Please re-read, or perhaps I can rephrase it for you if it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing has happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Incorrect, the leaders of the G7 nations have met for their annual summit. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is ITNR but the article quality is well below our standards. There are several empty sections and at least one section that is entirely unsourced. Beyond that the article is basically a skeleton with little meat. I suggest waiting until the summit concludes at which point we may be able to post it, assuming improved article quality, with a more interesting blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, but as ITNR should be posted if it is improved. Normally we post G7/G8 at the start of the summit but as there's calls to bring Russia back in or to kick the US out, this is a case where waiting for the summit to conclude makes sense, and, if any major event like those happen, include that in the blurb. --Masem (t) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    When did we last post G7 summit please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    Technically, we shouldn't be asking that question as long as G7/G8 is on the ITNR list. We posted 2013, didn't post the cancellation of the 40th/2014 when they kicked Russia out, didn't post 2015 and best I can tell, wasn't nominated in either 2016 or 2017 (though they did happen of course). --Masem (t) 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    Technically we can ask any question we like so I'm not sure what "technical" reason prevents me from asking such a question. You just made an assertion about us "normally posting G7/G8 at the start of the summit" and I wanted to see evidence for that. Thanks for your response. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    When we posted, we posted due to the start of the summit, normally. We just don't always post the summit, in some cases not nominated, in other cases, not gaining consensus to post for various reasons; but a check through the archives suggests that in nearly all cases, the nomination for ITNC was made based on the start of the summit. My point initially was that given the situation leading into and around this specific summit, waiting until it concludes to see what events develop may be better than posting its start --Masem (t) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    The 2013 posting you mean? I understand. I thought you said we "normally posted" it, asserting some kind of pedigree of posting the opening. That clearly isn't the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN/R is not an automatic notability pass. If this isn't notable, it's not notable.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Um, yes it is. "This page in a nutshell: The recurring events listed on this page are considered suitable for inclusion on the Main Page in the In the news section every time they occur. Other recurring events may also be included if they satisfy the usual ITN criteria." It just needs to be sufficiently updated to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The opening of the summit is not notable. The conclusion may be, but this isn't.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Where are people reading that the opening of the G8 is ITNR? I'm certainly not seeing that, but perhaps "mine eyes are dim, I cannot see"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
          • @WaltCip and The Rambling Man: ITNR just says the G8, or G7, is ITNR. It doesn't say opening or closing. Perhaps we should add a qualifier to note that we should post it upon its completion. Or was it meant to highlight the event in an ongoing style? I'm not sure of the intent there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I just thought it was common sense because the opening of these is not inherently notable in any sense, what is decided and/or enacted during the course of the meetings may be. It's almost certainly jettisoning it from ITNR for that very reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
              • I can understand why it was nominated now, as it's in the news and certainly dominated the news radio I was listening to on my way to work (well, that and Anthony Bourdain). I think it could go up now, but only if in better quality than it is. Otherwise, we can hope it's in good enough shape when the meeting ends, and there is something noteworthy to include in a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on quality, and because the ITNR listing (which is definitely there) should be for the end of the summit, once the news of the summit has been reported. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it makes more sense to post the ending. Lepricavark (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have mentioned, it makes more sense to post once the summit has concluded. While the increasing stance of President Trump to be isolationist is making news, I think that's another subject for another time. StrikerforceTalk 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that, at least in this case, the conclusion is what matters, especially this year where it looks like Trump will be left out of the closing statement. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Near unanimous opposition. Nothing else is going to happen today. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 20:57, 8 June 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: Anthony BourdainEdit

Article: Anthony Bourdain (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American chef and personality Anthony Bourdain is found dead from apparent suicide. (Post)
News source(s): BBC. Guardian.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: US celebrity chef and television personality. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Several sources say suicide, which given his age and that he was seemingly in top form is surprising. Does this belong in the lede of the article? Sca (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Referenced. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Tagged about 8-9 statements for citations, but I don't think these are incredibly hard to complete (they are his well known activities but they should be cited). Obviously support once fixed. Iff this is deemed a suicide, I would potentially suggest this could be a blurb, but I'd say that's a premature call right now. --Masem (t) 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Weak Support Blurb I'd equate Bourdain with Robin Williams or David Bowie - one of the top people in their field (culinary arts in this case, rather than a TV personality) with sufficient international reputation, and as it is pretty much assured a suicide, the death falls under "unusual". If it was a natural death, I'd likely oppose it, and I definitely understand the resiliency towards including this as a blurb now. --Masem (t) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb even if this is a suicide, and the article is improved to FA status. Not Thatcher or Mandela, won't be a 3 days news fest like Michael Jackson. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb top of his field, widely known, suicide is atypical for his field (unlike say musicians). Nergaal (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anthony Bourdain was an influential chef and TV host, yet still commited suicide. It's been confirmed by CNN and by his friends. This is a terrible loss in food and entertainment media. —StarkinMN 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Celebrity chef and TV personality Anthony Bourdain committed suicide on Friday at the age of 61, in a shocking death that has stunned the food world. More news: "Bourdain hanged himself in his room at the Le Chambard hotel in Kaysersberg, France, where he was filming an upcoming episode of his CNN show Parts Unknown, according to French media." Count Iblis (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Not a reply to this !vote, but just a reminder that Daily Mail should not be used for sourcing anything BLP related. Mind you, that it was likely suicide was confirmed by multiple RSes, not an issue here, but we should be careful using DM to justify a reason to post an RD/blurb. --Masem (t) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support for RD There are a handful of CN tags in an otherwise good article. Once those are handled this should be good to go. Oppose Blurb. I have no idea where this silly idea that blurbs are reserved for persons on the level of Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher originated, but that is obviously unrealistic and has never been the generally accepted standard. Nevertheless, while a well known television personality, I don't think he was in the top tier of his field, which has been the customary standard for blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. Not newsworthy enough for a blurb. Natureium (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. I just took care of the last few CN tags. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: His unexpected death and left a huge impact and is being compared to that of Robin Williams. Article in good shape. If blurb fails then count me as a Support RD, but aim for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD: This is shocking and sad, but isn't newsworthy enough in my book to merit a blurb. I'm not sure if he was well-known internationally, although he was an important cultural figure in the US. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, possibly blurb - Well-known culinary celebrity who showcased the world's cuisine. WAR headlines on many media outlets this morning (CNN notwithstanding). CoatCheck (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Tagging as Ready for RD. Discussions about a blurb can continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD for the time being, blurb discussions can continue. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) What Black Kite said. Vanamonde (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. There's no way this rises to blurb levels of significance or impact. This is exactly the sort of notable but not blurb-able person RD was created for. RD is fine. Modest Genius talk 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Bourdain is currently at the top of the New York Times' website with no less than five six different articles. He's credited with changing how food and food culture is covered in popular media. (For example: "Among other things, he was one of the first writers to tell the dining public that many high-profile New York restaurants would cease to function without the work and talents of Mexican employees. It was almost a casual aside, yet it suddenly opened new subjects to the purview of food writing: immigration policy, labor conditions, racism.") Forbes calls him a "culinary Hemingway." The Telegraph says that his "influence on chefs and food writers is hard to overstate." The Smithsonian called him the "the original rock star" of the culinary world. (Note: If this does go up, which to be fair appears unlikely, the blurb should not mention how he died.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per CoatCheck and Ted17. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - With respect to supporters, I’m with those saying this posted RD should not be a blurb. Arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, and in my view the overall ITN-blurb notability just isn’t there. Jusdafax (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The applicable criterion in question is if the death ITSELF is noteworthy. This could be due to the circumstances or the "state funeral" sort of thing. So while a suicide is nominally noteworthy, it does not appear that reaction is particularly targeted at that. Rather, the reaction is largely tied to his legacy. ghost 22:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb our blurb standards for death are very high, and I don’t see this making it. This isn’t a major international story - Bourdain wasn’t greatly well-known outside the US. —LukeSurl t c 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb -cough- Thatcher/Mandela -cough-.--WaltCip (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb the Thatcher/Mandela standard is probably too high, but this doesn't meet a reduced standard either. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak from ongoingEdit

removed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 9 June 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: Few recent updates. On behalf of User:Tone. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No essential updates in the last 5 days. Clearly, the outbreak is still ongoing but the news have receded, update-wise. --Tone 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Remove regrettably. ghost 11:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 19:41, 8 June 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 Stanley Cup FinalsEdit

Article: 2018 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Washington Capitals defeat the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup Finals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Washington Capitals defeat the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup Finals (Conn Smythe Trophy winner Alexander Ovechkin pictured).
News source(s): NYT

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose at least until updated. @Muboshgu: the article does not reflect this information. — xaosflux Talk 03:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It will in a few minutes. I'm posting it as it's happening. The Capitals haven't lifted the Cup yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lead not updated, main text for game 5 not updated after 7:37 left in the game. --Jayron32 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the lead is updated, and the end of the game is too after my next edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Withdraw my opposition. It'd be nice to see the lead expanded a bit to more fully cover the series, but there's nothing I want to hold up posting at this point. Still, don't take this as an endorsement of perfection. If you want a well-written article you still have work to do. --Jayron32 04:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Perfection is a cruel mistress, and this is pretty good for a quick update. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Perfection is not a synonym for adequate, and I am saying this is not even the latter. --Jayron32 05:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
            • I think it's adequate for these purposes, but certainly not GA yet. The work is never done. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R and article has been updated, well done Muboshgu! I think the blurb should mention it's the Capitals' first Stanley Cup. -Zanhe (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Support and agree that the blurb should mention it is their first Stanley Cup. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Zanhe and HickoryOughtshirt?4, that the blurb should mention that this year's Cup is the Capitals' first. I also think regardless of what the final version of the blurb says (preferably one mentioning the Capitals winning the Cup for the first time), the photo of Ovechkin from the alternative blurb along with at least some version of the caption, should be use. DJMcNiff (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and agree that we should mention that it is the Washington Capitals' first ever Stanley Cup victory. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC))
  • Posting, just the basic blurb for the time being. Feel free to change and also to change the photo. --Tone 08:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, decent article with an adequate update. I agree with adding an image of Ovechkin per the footnote on ITNR, but don't think we need to point out that it's the Caps first win, which is trivia that can be left to the article. Modest Genius talk 11:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the notation of Ovechkin in the blurb (with photo) per ITNR. ghost 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) PC Party Wins Ontario ElectionEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 12:55, 8 June 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: Ontario contains almost 40% of Canada's population, and the fact that Doug Ford, brother of the late Rob Ford, is the leader should be of note. GrandKokla (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We never post provincial/state level election results. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Muboshgu: I know Ontario isn't Canada, but it's sheer proportion of the Canadian population and the notoriety of being Rob Ford's brother should surely be noteworthy since he captivated a worldwide audience. GrandKokla (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Infobox is not updated with results; data in infobox implies the PC lost. Fix that! --Jayron32 03:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The link very clearly states a win. GrandKokla (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • You're expecting us to post an substandard article to the main page, with obvious and easily fixable errors? In the time it took you to argue with me, you could have already fixed the article and then you'd have had my support. Why are you so opposed to making Wikipedia articles better? --Jayron32 04:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the notoriety of Rob and Doug Ford makes this more in-the-news than the average sub-national election, but not enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The sheer size of the Ontario, (if it was country, would be in 17th-19th place for nominal GDP) makes this election important in magnitude. State elections for single senate seats have been featured before, which is a far lower bar. GrandKokla (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • California would be the sixth largest economy in the world and we're not posting Governor Gavin (it's gonna happen). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, longstanding consensus is to never post subnational election result to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 04:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Yes, it is true that this is more notable than the average regional election. But it is still nowhere near notable enough. There are zero provincial or state elections that are notable enough for ITN. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC))
  • Weak Support in the news (gasp!), decent article (needs prose update of results though), and an unlikely premier of Canada's largest province. Given every incremental update in the Catalonia drama was posted, the phrase "we don't post subnational elections" is utter horseshit which is rightly ignored. It is, after in, "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics and of no interest to the vast majority of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this is not a national election (results from only one province), and local elections do not have the same notability as national ones. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 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.

June 7Edit

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections