Open main menu

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

Contents

March 31Edit


[Posted] RD: James RosenquistEdit

Article: James Rosenquist (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 11:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. For what's a top twenty list of Pop art icons without his name on it? That would be a total fail. --Bagoto (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is fine. Pictures have been a snagging point for RD noms lately.128.214.163.208 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support too many external links but article content is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gilbert BakerEdit

Article: Gilbert Baker (artist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Rolling Stone

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've asked someone who may have one to upload it, but haven't heard back yet. By the way, we are citing his own website in three instances, which should be avoided. Is there a way to replace this with an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Only one instance now. Perhaps we could just remove the sentence?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
We have a picture now.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RD: Mike HallEdit

Article: Mike Hall (cyclist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: RD only
News source(s): ABC News Corp, Wales Online

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Cyclist extraordinaire, died near completion of extreme marathon event while in 2nd place. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose mostly unreferenced or abuse of external links interwoven inline into the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment due to referencing issues. If referencing issues are fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk)
  • Support, seems well referenced. Don't see any abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    It applied to a version of the article five days ago, which was edited here to remove the embedded external links. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    So not sure why still any oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

March 30Edit


[Closed] Interstate 85 bridge collapseEdit

Closed, no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Interstate 85 bridge collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bridge collapse on Interstate 85 closes the highway in Atlanta.
News source(s): CNN, CBS
Nominator's comments: Major infrastructure failure, called a "transportation crisis" by the city's mayor – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination. This is far too trivial for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Infrastructural disasters happen all the time. And considering how little money and resources the U.S. federal government is willing to allocate to improve infrastructure, this should come as no surprise; incidents of this sort in the U.S. are likely to be more frequent overtime as are mass shootings.--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the UK had a trivial traffic incident like this six months back, it's a big deal to the people inconvenienced but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relatively minor accident due to a fire; no casualties. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the lack of any injuries even related to the collapse, this is not a severe incident (compared to something like I-35W Mississippi River bridge's collapse that killed 14). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Falcon 9 reusedEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Falcon 9 (talk, history)
Blurb: SpaceX successfully launches a previously-used Falcon 9 booster rocket for the first time
News source(s): [1] [2]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Needs a better-worded blurb in my opinion, the current one makes it seem like it's something internal to SpaceX. Targetting SES-10 is also possible. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Top news in BCC Science section. Starts the age of reusable rockets. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The blurb needs to be reworded. With the current wording, why is it so important that this type of rocket was reused? Is it not a first for any type? LordAtlas (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments It is not clear to me why the partial re-use of a rocket is significant in the field of space exploration, and the article was no help in this regard, despite being overly detailed and quite long. I had to click on another article linked within, also very detailed and long, to find a partial answer. Additionally, I found the article to be jargon loaded, e.g. "They were equipped with parachutes but SpaceX was not successful in recovering the stages from the initial test launches using that approach due to their failure to survive post separation aerodynamic stress and heating". The update is two sentences long. I don't think readers are going to read through ca. 22,000(!) words, so the blurb really needs to get across why this is in ITN.128.214.163.211 (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not notable. Not 'In the News' enough. Rocket launches happen all the time. If this is posted on ITN section, it will open a floodgate of other rocket launch ITN candidates. mfarazbaig --mfarazbaig 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think you've missed the crux of the story, that the booster is reusable. If it was simply a reusable space vehicle, I'd be with you, e.g. Space Shuttle. But it's more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll need to weakly oppose. I'm a lifelong space enthusiast so I understand what a momentous achievement this was, and that the implications for the future of spaceflight are difficult to overstate. That said, I don't think the general interest is there outside of the industry and its followers. From what I've seen, the response from the general public has ranged from "so what?" among those who know nothing about rocketry, and "didn't NASA already do that decades ago?" from those who know just slightly more than that. I'm afraid that fleshing out the blurb enough to give the layperson any idea of why this is significant will result in an unwieldy and convoluted spiel not suitable for ITN. I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can craft a satisfactory blurb and/or indicate somehow that this story has adequately broad appeal. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree, it's incremental, not some kind of revolution in space exploration technology. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Re-usable boosters are not new – see Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but landing one back on the launch pad rather than it falling into the sea for recovery certainly is. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Dissolution of Venezuelan legislatureEdit

Article: 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Venezuelan Supreme Court announces the dissolution of the national assembly.
Alternative blurb: ​The Venezuelan Supreme Court rules that all powers of the national assembly are to be transferred to the court.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Venezuelan Supreme Court strips the National Assembly of legislative power in a move widely described as establishing a dictatorship.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Venezuelan Supreme Court reverses its decision to strip the National Assembly of legislative power.
News source(s): CNN NYT

Nominator's comments: Described by NY Times as a step closer to a dictatorship in Venezuela, and condemned as a coup by many. EternalNomad (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose latter sections entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support major unexpected development with serious consequences. International reactions are coming in as well as domestic ones. I've expanded National_Assembly_(Venezuela)#Removal_of_powers to hopefully an adequate length. Note that this is an effective but not literal dissolution, so the altblurb should be used. --LukeSurl t c 22:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. No citations in the "1961 Constitution", "1999 Constitution", "Structure and Powers" sections, additional cites needed for the "Political composition" section. Improve those issues and I would support this. --Jayron32 00:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per LukeSurl. To quote the CNN article, "The ruling sent shock waves across the region. The Peruvian government broke off diplomatic relations with Venezuela over the matter, recalling Mariano López Chávarry, its ambassador to Caracas". Banedon (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per LukeSurl on importance. Quality isn't there yet. (Would probably argue that this deserves a separate article.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM/Jayron, only on article quality. This is clearly something that should be at ITN, but the article needs a lot of fixing up, and following Ed, perhaps should be a separate article in the long-term (though that make take a lot more time). --MASEM (t) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support after fixing article - As per above arguments. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A standalone article has been created at 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état, and is already extensive. This avoids the sourcing issues with the National Assembly (Venezuela) article. --LukeSurl t c 11:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    Still oppose the stand-alone article on the following issues 1) first paragraph on Background section lacks sourcing. 2) Outside of lead, NONE of the events of the actual Coup d'Etat are discussed at all. Indeed, outside of one sentence in a very short lead section, there is NO discussion of the events of the coup. The main body's last mentioned event is "a 7 February 2017 meeting" We'd need an entire new section to give the chronology and details of the dismissal by the judiciary. We have none of that yet. Still needs expansion before it is ready. --Jayron32 11:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    Support coup article now. Currently in sufficient shape for posting. Thanks to all who expanded it. --Jayron32 00:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support It needs a little expansion and there is a CN tag. But otherwise this is major news that needs to be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is no longer a stub and has some substance. International recognition has occurred, especially among controversy with OAS states.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Slide toward dictatorship is a major story and the article is now of sufficient quality.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support AltBlurbII and the self-coup article that it focuses on, but without the last bit about dictatorship (leave it up to the reader to come to that conclusion). --Tocino 04:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is still a CN tag but otherwise it looks good. Fix the tag and I think we can post this. Side note- the article was briefly locked due to some POV Edit/Move warring. I have lowered the PP to extended confirmed and will be keeping an eye on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article and blurb may need updating prior to posting. Fuebaey (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a rapidly evolving situation. It appears the Venezuelan Supreme Court is backpeddling on its decision after enormous international condemnation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Added altblurb III. Fuebaey (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready The article now looks to be in good shape now. I am going to suggest that the posting admin adjust the blurb to reflect recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest changing it to something like "The Venezuelan Supreme Court strips the National Assembly of legislative power in a move widely described as a "self-coup". After, internal criticism, the ruling was reversed." Some called it a dictatorship move, but a more neutral description that is being used is an attempted "self-coup".--ZiaLater (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Arrest of Park Geun-hyeEdit

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2016 South Korean political scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of South Korea Park Geun-hye is arrested on corruption charges.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Park Geun-hye could also be the bold article. We posted Park's impeachment, but I feel it is at least worth a discussion whether this development merits a further ITN item. LukeSurl t c 18:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. We posted her impeachment and removal from office. Since she is no longer a sitting head of state/government I think we should follow our normal procedure for high profile criminal cases, which is to post convictions, not arrests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Even former heads of state are not typically arrested. This seems like a big deal. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose anyone can be arrested, even momentarily, so let's wait until charges are levelled, or convictions are made. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It would seem she has been charged; the BBC writing "The Seoul Central District Court earlier issued a warrant to detain Ms Park on charges of bribery, abuse of authority, coercion and leaking government secrets, after a nearly nine-hour court hearing on Thursday." 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose normally we wait until conviction at least, and in this case we posted the impeachment so it's not as though the issue has not been looked at. Arrest by itself is not an encyclopaedic development, since either nothing will come of it, or we will have a no-doubt high profile trial and conclusion (either way) to consider including in due course. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that the arrest of a former head of state on charges related to her conduct while in office is not encyclopedic. This also does not happen every day. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I came here to read the discussion. I had been leaning on 331dot's side because the story of the arrest is in fact in the news right now and the article could surely use some attention. I think adding a news story like this would typically capture the spirit and purpose of this main page section. Also, to be honest, I keep seeing Carrie Lam and being like "is that the woman from the news that just got arrested?" and the answer continues to be no.

    On the other hand, I find Ad Orientem's argument compelling enough, so I'm a neutral, I guess. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support she's a former head of state. This kind of event is rare. Plus it has been reported in the news for quite a while, see [3] which showed that the preceding developments was reported in a major newspaper. Also: fighting the US/UK bias also involves supporting non-US/non-UK nominations. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Compare [4] for all the irony ... if Tony Blair had been arrested, would it have been posted even if he weren't found guilty? Banedon (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Banedon. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the article quality is very low, it suffers terribly from WP:PROSELINE so regardless of notability, we should definitely not be featuring such on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is a longstanding ITN consensus to post convictions only. Abductive (reasoning) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Alexei AbrikosovEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TASS

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nobel laureate in physics, a bit more refs are needed. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Death is uncited in the article, and I'd want to see a better source than TASS for it especially given that he lived in California, not Russia; it's putting it mildly to say that TASS has got facts wrong on occasion. ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose no clear "in the news" indication and the article is very poor, serious lack of referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that there were two separate citations for his death prior to the first comment (TASS here and Interfax in the article), to suggest that it was uncited and/or not in the news is odd. I'm not sure why a Russian-based wire service would be considered unreliable, nor can I think of a [political] reason for why they would misreport the death of a scientist. Elsewhere, an American citation is available here from his former employer and a non-Russian news source can be found here from a Brazilian wire. I do agree, however, that the article itself needs substantial improvement with referencing. Most of the prose is unsourced, save the last paragraph in the career section and a handful of awards. Fuebaey (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 29Edit


[Posted] United Kingdom invocation of Article 50Edit

Article: United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Kingdom invokes Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, beginning the formal EU withdrawal process
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: Notable. Will start reactions. Sherenk1 (talk)

  • Support if and once it happens (far as I can tell, it hasn't happened yet). This has been lingering in the background for quite some time, and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Adding a blurb. Banedon (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this should be posted at 12:30 p.m. today when Tusk receives the letter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Major political event, possibly the start of the collapse of the EU. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The major world papers are covering it. Although it's been sort of inevitable since the referendum result, much like Trump's inauguration it's still headline news.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the 3rd time this story would reach ITN. And there is going to be another nomination for the actual exit. Four entries for basically the same story is excessive. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yep, the fourth one will be in two years time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And the second time was a month ago. Nergaal (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the second nomination? I only remember the first, and can't find the second after searching the February archives. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
1st in June 2016, 2nd on January 26, 2017. Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, more than two months ago then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. I opposed the 2nd nomination, but it was posted anyway (and the fact that the objection at the time was overcome in two months says something about how it shouldn't have been posted ...). Still, having posted that isn't a very good argument against posting this - after all, this is the significant event that the 2nd nomination was referring to. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I am surprised nobody mentioned that the current update is just one sentence long. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think since the entire article is dealing with the invocation of Article 50, and is in very good condition, it's just fine as it is! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Such major and far-reaching geopolitical shifts do not come along very often. - The Bounder (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, this is the third major news related to the same story, but it is not less significant than the previous two. The news enjoys popularity and is widely covered in the media, which easily meets our notability requirements. I'd also support the news pertaining to the actual exit once it happens in two years from now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Should we add to the blurb that the pound has fallen drastically?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    No, because it hasn't. Or at least if it did, it has rebounded!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Good luck to all of you editors across the pond. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support. It may have featured before but this time it's the big one. It's really happening now...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting until something actually happens (ie they leave the EU), as per our normal non-UK news practices. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not going to recommend pulling but will voice my Oppose. This is the start of a process (the signature on a letter) that will take many months/years to complete, and thus far too early in the situation to be at ITN. When the withdrawl is actually complete, then that was the appropriate point for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely "in the news" all over the world though.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Just being in the news is not a metric for inclusion; it's a minimum requirement but there are plenty of other factors to avoid having stories keep popping up over and over and over again (the same logic about being in the news means we should have a daily Trump ITN entry for all matters, and no, that's not going to happen). And historically, on things like this, where we know the end result (when the UK withdraw from the EU is completed) will definitely be a major bit of news, we generally wait on posting until all the red tape is resolved. We posted when the vote to affirm Brexit happened, we posted that the last internal legal challenge in the UK court was resolved assuring this was going forward, and so the next major point is either the completion of the process, or if there is some significant legal huddle from outside the UK that might stop it (I dunno if there is or not). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
This was a major point in the process, however. This was the point of no return that begins the withdrawal process. At any point before the receipt of the letter, the UK could have decided to do nothing, and Brexit would have not happened. The letter is the trigger that initiates the process, and for that reason, it receives the attention. It wasn't a mere formality, it literally is the only event that actually matter to start the withdrawal process. --Jayron32 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Arguably, it feels like any of these points already posted were points of no return, given 1) the referendum vote result and 2) the intention by the PM to follow through on it, only hampered by the need to pass Parliamentary law to enable it. That this was signed was effectively no surprise, once that law passed. I agree that in the overall timeline of Brexit, this letter is a critical date as the official start of the process, but we have to be a bit more selective to avoid every step of this otherwise major ITN-appropriate process from being blurbed every time something happens. I'm not asking for anything to be pulled, there was clear consensus to post, but I'm concerned there's not long-term thinking going on here with Brexit in ITN, hence my oppose. (Whereas we have taken extremely great strides with things like the Syrian civil war or the US presidental election to post the very key highlights) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that this is one of the very key highlights. Assuming that the UK actually does leave the EU (whether it is possible to withdraw an article 50 notification is not clear in the legislation), this is one of the four most important points: from most to least important: Referendum result, leaving, triggering of article 50, passing to legislation to enable article 50 be triggered. Four stories in 2¾ years is hardly excessive in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, this is the key moment. Everything that preceded it and everything that follows it is somewhat irrelevant now. We can't go back and we are on a destined path. It's unique, it's something that could destroy both the United Kingdom and the European Union. So it's notable. Of course I understand that those outside this tiny blob "off of France" may not quite grasp it. But that's not relevant I'm afraid. It's in the news, it has strong consensus and it's here to stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any merit to noting Proposed second Scottish independence referendum within this? I don't know that it warrants it's own ITN bullet, but perhaps merging it with this? --Natural RX 14:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    When it becomes a formal proposal, I'd say we should consider it. --Jayron32 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'd oppose that, even if it becomes a formal proposal. Per longstanding precedent, we don't post the initiation of referendums, only the results. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Those above saying that the referendum was the key moment are missing the point; that was a purely advisory referendum which carried no legal powers, and the government was perfectly free to disregard it had they so wished. (Catalonia voted to withdraw from Spain in 2014 yet remains singularly non-independent; except in a few places like California and Ireland where they're written into the law, governments are under no obligation to respect referendum results.) The formal triggering of Article 50 is the declaration of independence; 12:30 today was when Brexit—and consequently the near-certain dissolution of the UK—went from "something that is likely to happen" to "something that is certain to happen". ‑ Iridescent 19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
2888 months later.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

March 28Edit


[Closed] 2017 Broadband Consumer Privacy Proposal repealEdit

Consensus will not develop for the repeal of a non-implemented US law. Stephen 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Broadband Consumer Privacy Proposal repeal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On 28 March 2017 the United States' House of Representatives passes resolution S.J.Res 34, turning over the Broadband Consumer Privacy Proposal and allowing Internet service providers to sell Web browsing histories and other data directly to companies without consumers' consent.
News source(s): Washington Post, The Guardian, New York Post
Nominator's comments: This a highly notable development that affects all Internet users of the United States Fixuture (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Not sure what you mean / what your point is here? --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another "Trump repeals", and yet another "America is appalled" story. Not interesting, not even that "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. A law that was never actually implemented is now not going to be implemented? The very embodiment of "parochial non-story". ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Why would that be a "non-story" when considering its tremendious contents/repercussions? Also it's barring the FCC from similar regulations in the future and moves away its authority, more or less explicitly allows these things to be done and now it's "opt-out" while it has been "opt-in" previously. --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Six-month old protection (added in Oct 2016) is repealed by change of executive branch party. This really is a non-story but the US press is freaking out over something that has existed for more than a decade. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: Again, why would that be a "non-story" when considering its tremendious contents/repercussions? This hasn't "existed for a decade". --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's close to 90 degrees where I live but I see SNOW in the forecast for this nom. Good faith nom to be sure, but this is going nowhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose : It's not viable for ITN to follow developments of one country's domestic politics at with the thoroughness that posting this item would imply. --LukeSurl t c 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: Well, that's a good point. (It's different for other language Wikipedias which are typically associated with one, or a few, countries.) --Fixuture (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support this if it were actually passed, since it would be of interest to at least half of our readers (those who get only the newsstand version of wp excluded). But it is a bill, not a law. Sixty votes in the Senate and the President's signature would be necessary. I suspect it won't go to cloture unless there is significant Democrat support. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not a non-story; there are important privacy concerns for US consumers. But it's not ITN material, sorry.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Ahmed KathradaEdit

Article: Ahmed Kathrada (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

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

Nominator's comments: A prominent anti-apartheid activist. Article is in OK state, updated after his death. HaEr48 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose several unreferenced claims, bare URLs need to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Went through the article and added references when needed. Also fixed the bare URLs. HaEr48 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Imprisonment and Awards sections still lacking refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Gave it another round. Fixed those sections as well, removed some unsourced statements, and added some pictures. HaEr48 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Provisional support conditional on problems with article identified by The Rambling Man being fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — looks good to go. —MBlaze Lightning T 15:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

March 27Edit


[Posted] RD: David StoreyEdit

Article: David Storey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Why is this person's death considered in the news? The fact that a person has an article does not make his death notably in the news. The nominator should explain this. ITN is not an obituary, and that a dead person has an article does not make him ipso facto "in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: You are aware of the consensus we've been working under for a good while now? The one that's mentioned in the nomination template? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I always like to be spanked. Unfortunately, the RfC held that having an article establishes the decedent's notability. But what matters here is whether the death is notable; whether it is a notable death. Dozens of people who have articles about them die daily, we don't postevery stiff. It is the nominator's duty to show that the "death is in in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No, that's not the metric. As long as the death has been verified, and the person was notable, then the RFC says we can post the RD (as long as quality is met). It is not about the death itself being notable. (I do note that to the best I can tell, we have yet to have a case where a notable person's death has only been noted through way of the common "short form obit" used to document the average person's death; all deaths have been documented in at least one long-form obit, such as the NYTimes in this example). --MASEM (t) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I suppose what I meant was a widely noted death; I did not mean to imply that an unordinary death was necessary. It behooves the nominator to show this, as well as to justify the nomination in his comments. The RfC certainly does not say that we post any dead person with an article--the nominator has to justify the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
            • "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.". The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "in the news"? Well if the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Spectator, The Times &c. &c. &c. are anything to go by, it's "in the news". A quick Google search demonstrates that perfectly adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the article needs a bit more, certainly from a reference perspective, and is sadly a little bit weak, but there's little doubting this individual's prominence given the wide and mainstream coverage around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no question the person is notable. But is the death notable? That notability needs to be verified within the article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • There's no such requirement for the "death" to be notable, per the RD RFC. It only needs to be verifiable. (That said, the fact the NYTimes and BBC have a long-form obit leaves no question about the death being notable). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." The Rambling Man (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once the article has been expanded and the lede fleshed out. Notable and all over the newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once minor improvements are made. Storey was a notable person and his death has received widespread coverage as per Rambling Man. It is quite likely that a notable person's death will receive widespread publicity in their native country and other countries where they are well known. Their death will not be as publicised in other countries as not every notable person is a household name throughout the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Cyclone DebbieEdit

No consensus. Stephen 01:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cyclone Debbie (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Debbie (pictured) strikes Queensland, Australia, killing at least one person and causing extensive damage.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator's comments: Stub as of now but will be expanded as more information comes in. It is being compared to Cyclone Yasi. Sherenk1 (talk)
Done. Though the one for TCs should stay as Current until we see what the page look like when it dissipates. Thank you for this, though. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Too early to tell if this cyclone will be significant enough for an ITN item but worth keeping an eye on. --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – on a global level, most major Australian cyclones fall far short of reaching ITN level as they strike largely unpopulated/sparsely populate areas (namely Western Australia) or effective preparations limit loss of life (ex: Cyclone Yasi). Would have to wait a day or two to see if the damage warrants this being posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Curious: Has an cyclone ever affected a major Australian city that's not Darwin? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way: the entire country can be affected by cyclones in one way or another (i.e. Cyclone Alby infamously affected areas around Perth as a non-tropical system). The two largest cities I can think of that are somewhat regularly impacted are Cairns and Mackay. Brisbane has been his multiple times by severe floods related to topical cyclones: 1974, 2010–11, and 2013 are the first three events that come to mind. Western Australia doesn't have any major cities along the cyclone-prone coastline, just towns. But it's the smaller towns that usually suffer the brunt of major cyclones, such as Innisfail in Cyclone Larry. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until impacts are clearer. Being the largest storm in 2+ years seems potentially noteworthy, but we can't post on potential article content, only actual article content. Once we have the article fleshed out with the impacts, which may include the effectiveness of preparations etc., then we can assess the article. --Jayron32 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support because the article looks in good shape and because this is a significant storm with at least 1 fatality. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Damage thus far seems to be less than expected, but the storm has been significantly disruptive. The event is still ongoing, however, with torrential rains continuing to fall. Some areas have seen over 1,000 mm (half a year's-worth) in just 48 hours. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose although the article is top notch (as is usually the case with such strong support from the various weather-based Wikiprojects) the impact is not significant at this time. A lot of rain, sadly one fatality, and a lot of inconvenience, but not really rising to the level of ITN blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see this reaching ITN level with the damage that has already taken place. The worst damage is relatively localized and thankfully there were minimal casualties. Can always be renominated if the flooding proves more notable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, currently the main national news story in Australia and one of the biggest floods in a long time (decades?), with millions of dollars of damage. Just scrapes into ITN in my opinion. Laurdecl talk 05:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – The death toll has risen to five. Laurdecl talk 03:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - doesn't rise to the level of significance that we usually require for ITN weather events. Landfalling tropical cyclones almost always dominate the news cycles in their respective regions, and while the damage is widespread, it's not exceptional by any means. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

March 26Edit


[Posted] Hong Kong Chief Executive electionEdit

Articles: Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017 (talk, history) and Carrie Lam (talk, history)
Blurb: Carrie Lam wins the Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017, becoming Hong Kong's first female leader
News source(s): See article

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Hong Kong "isn't even a country", but it is a SAR. Marking this ITNR as a result. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Hong Kong isn't a sovereign state. This isn't ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – This not being ITN/R doesn't bother me, as I think it meets ITN standards on its own strength. Hong Kong's political situation has been awkward for the past twenty years and from what I've heard on the Dutch news about this, there are a lot of protests going on regarding this election. The fact that it is getting international attention elevates it to ITN in my opinion. I'd personally change the blurb to mention the allegations of Beijing manipulations rather than the president's gender, however. ~Mable (chat) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. The Carrie Lam article is tagged for neutrality issues and poor quality standards. The election article is good, but we shouldn't be featuring Lam at all with her article in its current condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we don't post California's gubernatorial elections either. Nergaal (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Is California a communist Special Administrative Region of the United States under a One Country, Two Systems system that doesn't use dollars, drives on the left, uses Fraktur or Blackletter or some other type that mainland Americans find hard to read and has border controls to prevent illegal crossing? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Some Americans seem to think so.   We do inspect stuff at the border! --47.138.161.183 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability grounds. This isn't ITN/R, but ITN/R states "…dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.". Hong Kong is a significant, populous, and geopolitically important entity with substantial autonomy and substantial differences from the rest of China (see One Country, Two Systems). The Chief Executive is an important office. If Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017 is the sole bold article (and that looks ready), the quality of Carrie Lam at present should be sufficient. --LukeSurl t c 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is notable enough for ITN. Both article appear to be of acceptable quality. I've engaged on the talk page to inquire about why an orange tag was applied. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the Lam article didn't seem to need those tags, removed until specific issues are highlighted. This is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I've added some vital CN tags. There's some overt analysis and speculation which has no source. Also in the Personal Life section. --Jayron32 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    Just de-bold Lam. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'd be OK with that. The election article looks fine. --Jayron32 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    You have the power. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    Not anymore. I've voted. See WP:SUPERVOTE. I've ineligiblized myself to commit an admin action because I have a preferred outcome. When an admin who hasn't taken a position comes along, they can assess consensus. --Jayron32 17:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    (1) you opposed (2) we have WP:COMMONSENSE for a reason too. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    There's hundreds of admins anyways, and it got posted. I'm not very important to this process; that's the beauty of Wikipedia, no one is important at all. It gets done by somebody. Furthermore, no one has ever filed a complaint against an admin for declining to use his/her tools, whereas we have thousands of cases where such complaints are filed for using one's tools where one was not supposed to. Simply put, nothing bad can come to any admin, of the hundreds of us, who just ignored this request to post the item and moved on; indeed we don't even know how many of such admins there are. Rather, if I had posted this, someone would have the right to be a pain in the ass about it. Its much easier to simply avoid all of that and let someone else deal with it. I can't possibly be sanctioned for simply passing by and not using my admin tools. --Jayron32 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think "first leader" is too broad of a label. Hong Kong has had plenty of "female leaders," at least in the business field (see [5]). The article supports the statement "first female Chief Executive". Maybe "first political leader" could work. FallingGravity 06:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@FallingGravity: It's not wrong per se to post your concern here, but you will get a faster response by posting to WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulgarian parliamentary electionEdit

Article: Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Bulgarian parliamentary election, the center right party GERB, led by former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, wins a plurality with 32.65% of the vote
News source(s): Washington Post

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: News is breaking, there is still a slim possibility that Bulgarian Socialist Party actually won (will update blurb if that happens). EternalNomad (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    Weak support results are in there now, the article could use a bit more around the results, but the fact of the matter is that the data is now available and mainly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article does not yet have sufficient prose describing the results of the election. --Jayron32 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    Weak oppose Results and aftermath still lack sufficient prose. Data completion and sourcing has improved, but right now all we have is tables with no real prose to give context or anything. --Jayron32 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bulgaria has a smaller population than NJ, and we wouldn't even post the results of the NJ legislatorial election. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What on earth has that got to do with anything? All results of general elections in states on the List of sovereign states are ITN/R and therefore will be posted (assuming that the article is up to scratch, of course, which this one isn't quite yet). Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of elections in small nations which have not been posted. This might be a borderline case. ITN/R is irrelevant, since the list was simply compiled by admins without consensus. Unless there's an RfC that decided all general elections would be posted, there's no policy, just a fiat. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Medeis: It is well established that everything currently on ITN/R should be there, however it got there, until at discussion at WT:ITN/R arrives at a consensus that it should be removed. If you disagree with the current entry regarding general elections then start a discussion there, arguing on individual entries will get you nowhere. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thryduulf, you simply confirm my argument, everything is there by fiat. The burden is not on me to prove otherwise, nor will I comment further on the matter. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Until any effort is made to remove elections of heads of sovereign states from ITNR, it is safe to ignore this kind of protest vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR so we can resolve this once and for all. Then when we have consensus, we will record it against that ITNR item, and/or modify or remove it, and there will be no grounds for such future protest !votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Well that was easy enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Russian ProtestsEdit

Articles: 2017 Russian protests (talk, history) and Alexei Navalny (talk, history)
Blurb: Alexei Navalny, the main Russian opposition leader, is arrested during anti-corruption protests in Moscow.
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: Breaking headlines. Article just added by another user but I am expecting this to blow up. Feel free to remove if I am wrong. Sherenk1 (talk)

  • Oppose - More of the same. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak support The protests seem to have developed into something of note, but the article needs heavy work. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose, but wait. BBC is reporting that the main opposition leader was arrested as part of this, so this might turn out to be something more, but right now, it's basically <10,000 ppl, which is a rather small protest and the type that tends to happen all the time, failing NOT#NEWS. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We almost never post domestic political stuff like this. If the protests become massive (millions of people) or reach the point where they are credibly threatening the government we can revisit this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    We do post domestic political stuff like this - [6] [7] [8]. Still, this looks pretty small-scale in comparison and the article is very poor. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
None of those resemble the protests going on in Russia. As I noted, if the protests become massive, or threaten the government we can revisit this. We don't do run of the mill domestic political stuff like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Uh, they are massive. Although I see what you did there - you pulled this ridiculous threshold "millions" out of your thin air, just to make sure that these protest could never pass that kind of silly test. Per sources [9]: "the marches appear to be the biggest since anti-government demonstrations in 2011 and 2012.". Add the arrest of THE main opposition figure in Russia, and yeah, it's very newsworthy and notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per reasons above "this looks pretty small-scale in comparison and the article is very poor". Banedon (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    Striking opposition given the developments. I'm neutral now, leaning support, per LukeSurl. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - major protests. Above the usual. I would support this for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (on notability, article is currently a stub) - the main story here is the arrest of Alexei Navalny, the main opposition leader in Russia. This takes precedence over the protests themselves. --LukeSurl t c 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Going just on the arrest, that doesn't assume any crime has been committed yet. I'm fully aware of the political issues in Russia that this definitely could mean something else, but we shouldn't lower the bar just because an arrest was made. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand that the protests are nationwide, that hundreds were arrested including the Opposition leader and the protests are about alleged corrupt practices by the Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev. [10] Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For one, Denis Voronenkov should not be posted as a blurb (see below). Now this one is just a stub with one reference about a one-day protest. This is Wikipedia, not Russophobiapedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but calling this "Russophobic" is frankly ridiculous. "Russophobia" is a form of bigotry against ethnic Russians. How in the world does including the fact that there are large scale protests in over 80 Russian cities constitute a form of bigotry? These are Russian protesting, no? Please stop ... well, at least being blatantly obvious in your POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede of Russophobia says, "Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia is a diverse spectrum of negative feelings, dislikes, fears, aversion, derision and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians and/or Russian culture.". It does not talk about "ethnic" anything. I for one do not believe in ethnicity.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I might as well add that by making such a charge you are insulting your fellow editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No. Please assume good faith. We are talking about the nomination here, not editors. I am not interested in Wikidrama, so please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
"Not interested in Wiki-drama" after essentially repeating the same oppose screed to the ITN talk page. OK.--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The nominator provided one reference, but that doesn't mean there aren't more. E.g. I put "Russia protest" into Bing and there are results from CNN, CBC, CBS, and Reuters. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support tons of sources, seeing as how these are the biggest protests in years. I thought I'd list sources, but... there's so many it doesn't make sense to do it that way. So how about this - you name a major news source and I will provide you the link? I mean, pretty much EVERY major news source is reporting on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support definitely newsworthy, and very much still happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • strongly Support definitely newsworthy. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant, given the restrictions on protests and free speech in Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support not sure about the blurb, but two things are noteworthy, the fact that the prime minister of a country is accussed of having embezzled more than a billion USD is noteworthy. And the demonstrations itself, in particular given the heavy-handed crackdown by police. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on article quality. The "events" section of the bolded article is sparse, has an empty subsection, and has zero references. If this were expanded and fully fleshed out, I'd support this. The article quality just isn't good enough yet to put on the main page. People who have supported posting this don't seem to have assessed article quality. Any admin who decides to post this should please double check to see that the article quality honors Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see this as main page material. At least not for now. The number of protesters also appears low. If it grows and intensifies, maybe we can add it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Étienne. Still not very large-scale. Also, not the first time Navalny is arrested. --Երևանցի talk 11:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Cincinnati nightclub shootingEdit

Good faith nomination but consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Cincinnati nightclub shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​14 injured and 1 killed in Cincinnati nightclub shooting
News source(s): Reuters, Xinhua

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unusual in that multiple shooters are suspected to have been involved, and who appear to still be at large. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stub. Don't see this as breaking headlines. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not particularly notable as it currently stands. I don't think this will even appear in newspapers outside of the US, let alone make cover stories. ~Mable (chat) 12:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose They have seemed to take this as domestic violence, nothing to do with terrorism, so relatively small incident on the scale of where mass shootings in the US typically occur. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose absent a large body count or evidence of terrorism. Sadly mass shootings are just too common in the US to post most of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even notable among the mass shootings of the month. This happened just four days ago, four killed... Or this one from just over a week back, three dead and two injured. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ASITUSA.--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Sadly (and morbidly) not notable enough within the plethora of shootings in the United States to warrant inclusion on ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 25Edit


[Withdrawn] Yemeni President sentenced to deathEdit

Withdrawn by nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The President of Yemen, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi is sentenced to death in absentia by the court in Sana'a.
News source(s): Reuters, Xinhua

Article updated
Nominator's comments: From what I see Houthis are currently running the show in the country, but could be a kangaroo court. Brandmeistertalk 07:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Meah, civil war stuff. Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as non-story—this is just a symbolic piece of posturing by the Houthi rebels (the Aden government is the internationally-recognised one, even by countries which are politically opposed to it). Since there's no possibility they'll ever be in a position to carry it out, this doesn't have any more significance than the death sentences they pass on the leaders of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per aboves. -- KTC (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Means little unless they 1)are the legitimate government and 2) can actually carry it out. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per aboves. It is a biased court. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, kangaroo court it is. Withdrawn. Brandmeistertalk 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 24Edit


[Closed] Hosni Mubarak freedEdit

Stale. SpencerT♦C 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Egyptian prime minister Hosni Mubarak is freed after the Court of Cassation cleared him over the deaths of protesters in the Egyptian revolution of 2011.
News source(s): [11] [12]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Technically, he was cleared on 2 March, but only just released now. Banedon (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] American Health Care Act of 2017Edit

SNOW CLOSE- We don't do national politics excepting elections and changes of government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: huge news in U.S. politics Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose A bill that didn't even get voted on. Let's not get sucked into the 24-hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose Status quo remains. Additionally, I'm sure this is not the end of story, as the bill could go back to committee discussions, etc. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It sounds like they're going to move on to other business for the time being, but yes, there's still 3 years and 10 months (shudder) left in this presidency. Barring really good news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE This is a severe case of USA bias, if you ask me. This has no place on ITN. If Uzbekistan (or any other country not the USA or Britain) canceled the voting on of a healthcare bill to repeal the plan of the ex-president, would it be nominated to ITN? Heck no, and the same applies to this. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 23Edit


[Posted] RD: William H. KeelerEdit

Article: William H. Keeler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RD, refs seem more than adequate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support All sourcing seems to be in order and sufficient for front page. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support refs could use a serious overhaul, but nothing overtly problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing looks good, and no other obvious issues. Reach Out to the Truth 22:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No reason given for nominating the subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Per the template: "Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb] Denis VoronenkovEdit

Article: Denis Voronenkov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Russian MP and critic of the Russian government Denis Voronenkov is murdered in Kiev.
Alternative blurb: ​Former Russian MP and government critic Denis Voronenkov is shot to death in Kiev.
Alternative blurb II: ​Government critic and former Russian MP Denis Voronenkov is shot to death in Kiev.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, Reuters

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

Nominator's comments: Former Russian MP living in exile assassinated in Kiev. Article is a bit short but appears to be adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb - A political assassination, as this looks very much like, has a strong case for being a blurb. --LukeSurl t c 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC),
  • Support, and have been expanding the article and providing sources. Yakikaki (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, but Support - regardless if it was state-sponsored assassination or just a random shooter, the death warrants a blurb. CNN reports that they have the potential suspect in custody in a hospital, so I would assume that in a few hours we will have a clearer picture how "motivated" this attack was. The target article seems in good shape but obviously should be updated if new info becomes available. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: The attacker has now died in hospital and the police say they believe he was a hired killed with a Ukrainian passport. I've updated the article. My bet is that's all clarity we will ever get. The Ukrainians will keep blaming Russia and the Russians will keep claiming that's absurd. In perpetuity. Yakikaki (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds likely. The blurb I suggested avoids using the term "assassinated", but includes the political background that makes this story particularly notable. --LukeSurl t c 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll support leaving it as "murdered", with obvious consideration that if it is determined an assassination, that can be changed. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb per above. 45.116.232.22 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Quite a few Putin critics have been experiencing some bad fortune of late. For instance, Vladimir Vladimirovich Kara-Murza and Nikolai Gorokhov. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Was he a Russian critic? Yes. Was he murdered on the orders of Moscow? Very possibly. But it is not the job of Wikipedia to insinuate things that have not been proved. RD only at the moment, please. We're not a tabloid newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree that the blurb should not include the "critic" part to imply that's why he was murdered. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Former MP. Not current. And he's no Mandela or Thatcher.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Justification for the blurb is not based particularly on the prominence of the individual, but on the violent, sudden and politically important nature of the event of his death. --LukeSurl t c
  • Not the point - the blurb as written is suggesting something that is not proven. Is he worthy of an RD? Yes. If he had been run over by a bus would he be worthy of a blurb? No. If he had definitely been assassinated on the orders of Moscow would it be blurb-worthy? Possibly. Do we have that proof? No. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we proceed on the assumption that there are no objections to RD while we sort out the blurb? FTR I am not wild about a blurb for the reasons noted in the two previous comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, but weak. Since the man was not supper noticeable I do support the blurb more for refreshing Wikipedia's homepage. (A more interesting blurb can always take this blurb's place.) Support from me for RD obviously. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb offered above. There's no doubt he was shot to death. (If that's not murder, what is?) However, suggest more than one source. Sca (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
See also Altblurb2, with different word order, above. Sca (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Added two sources. Sca (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, may be escalated to a full blurb after further discussion. Stephen 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb - timing is unfortunate since it's right after the London attack, which is still dominating news and is likely to keep doing so for a while longer, thereby keeping coverage of this down. Still, it is a political assassination which isn't a common thing. If the Kim Jong Nam assassination was anything to go by this might continue to be reported in the media for weeks to come. Weak support for now, and if it stays in the news (even against competition from the London attack) I'll switch to full support. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree London aftermath will be a story for some time, but I'd like to see a Voronenkov blurb out there soon, as his death is likely to drop off the radar much more quickly. Sca (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a reason to not post this as a blurb in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Time to close or post? I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Let's either post this or close the discussion and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment what makes that image fair use? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What image? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Denis Voronenkov.jpg. We don't usually allow fair use images literally moments after the death. Six months is considered standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Good question and I don't know. The article talk page is probably a better place for that question. But absent a good explanation it might well be nominated for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's becoming more and more commonplace, without regard to the individual or the likelihood of obtaining a free image of the recently deceased. In most cases there's absolutely no excuse for not trying to get a free image, and in the meantime, non-free images should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The pic isn't essential to posting blurb. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've formally disputed the fair use rationale for the image. 08:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Preceding comment posted by Thryduulf.
  • This really needs attention from an uninvolved admin. Either way is not a big deal to me, but let's post this or close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as a blurb. SpencerT♦C 18:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you misspelled his name in the posted blurb, should be Denis not Denys. 45.116.232.21 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Remove. Recent Death maybe, Blurb certainly not. This politician was certainly not known internationally, and a blurb is undeserved, unless Wikipedia wants to insinuate he was murdered by Russia, which is nothing but a rumour that they deny. Bear in mind that if American businessmen who disagree with Trump get murdered/killed, the Russian media could start spreading similarly absurd rumours. The bottom line is, he may have been murdered because of bad business deals. Hence we may have a blurb about an obscure Russian politician who was murdered over bad business deals. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22Edit


[Posted] International Cloud AtlasEdit

Articles: International Cloud Atlas (talk, history) and World Meteorological Organization (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Meteorological Organization adds twelve new cloud types to the International Cloud Atlas, the first update to the official cloud classification scheme since 1986.
Alternative blurb: ​The World Meteorological Organization adds twelve new cloud types to the International Cloud Atlas (volutus pictured), the first update to the official cloud classification scheme since 1986.
News source(s): https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/cloud-atlas-leaps-into-21st-century-with-12-new-cloud-types/80685/

Article updated

 207.107.159.62 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Currently the only mention of this in International Cloud Atlas is "The 2017 edition of the atlas is available online" in the Later editions section. This is a type of ITNC item where the update to the article makes a stronger case than anything that can be written here. Please add a paragraph or two to International Cloud Atlas and then editors here can make a more informed assessment of whether an ITN posting would be justified. --LukeSurl t c 10:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done. [13] 207.107.159.62 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in supporting this, but I would like to see a tad more news coverage shown, especially in some more general media. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BBC. Support - any chance of an image of one of the more interesting new ones? Not Contrails obvs, no need to get the lunatic fringe worrying ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That works for me. Support. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Great idea Only in death! Plenty of options for a good picture here. I've added a couple in this section of the article. --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds interesting and newsworthy from an encyclopedic point of view. News pertaining to scientific extensions (similarly to scientific discoveries) should find their place on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support this but @Cyclonebiskit: for expert opinion first. Banedon (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support this, but some of the info is contradictory. This cited source says there are 12 new cloud types, but the text of the article says 11 new "formations". The article also currently says "Its modifications comprised the following" and then lists only 7 cloud types. --LukeSurl t c 13:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've figured out what's going on here (and learnt a bit about meteorological classification, hooray!). I've edited the article accordingly, hopefully adding a bit of clarity, and am now happy to support posting to ITN. --LukeSurl t c 13:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This needs some sort of pictures for the update to be considered sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point: without pictures, the update is meaningless to any non-specialist. Nergaal (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 
"they have also added one new "species" - the volutus, or roll-cloud"
  • Support I read this item on the BBC the other day and thought then that it was excellent. We have plenty of pictures available. For example, the volutus (pictured) is now recognised by the WMO as a new species of cloud. "Truth is stranger than fiction". Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've suggested an alternative blurb with the picture of volutus, or we can also use Asperitas as it's a nice one. The article looks about ready. I don't like red links, so can someone help redirect International Meteorological Committee to International Meteorological Organization (i.e. WMO's precursor) in the main article? I think a redirect is better because there's not that much info about the IMC to mandate an article separate from the IMO; the connection is mentioned within IMO. If any of our auxiliary articles require more referencing, I'd be happy to help supply that (but I am quite busy with some thesis work; other than that, good references for arcus clouds are very abundant). If nobody objects, I'd like to mark this [Ready]. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Comment That image is really outstanding. It might be a viable candidate for Featured Image if anyone were to nominate it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment. It does look great! I noticed the red links in the article. We already have articles on most of those, except for the -genitus type clouds. You can see them in my Special:Contributions. For example, Cauda is in Wall cloud#Associated features (here). We can create redirects from each of those red links (again, because I'm IP and I don't like red links). But all the other ones already have articles; it may make more sense to let those be moved around to new titles and developed from here, if Wikipedia community deems it beneficial. Thanks. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dallas GreenEdit

Article: Dallas Green (baseball) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Philly.com, Chicago Tribune, ESPN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: It's not up to snuff yet, but I can get it there today. Now I think it's ready. Let me know. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Maiduguri attackEdit

Article: 2017 Maiduguri attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 8 people killed and 20 injured in a series of bombings in Maiduguri, Nigeria.
News source(s): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/multiple-bomb-blasts-rock-nigeria-maiduguri-170322074812422.html

 Gfcvoice (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Article is currently (as of my writing) a stub which contains little more information than is already in the proposed blurb. When article is expanded, I will re-assess. --Jayron32 04:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On quality - Article is stub but subject is more than notable. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub and lack of in depth coverage.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to article quality and lack of demonstrated news coverage. I'm also concerned about the merits as Boko Haram attacks are not infrequent in Nigeria, but I wouldn't stand in the way of posting if the article quality and news coverage issues are resolved, since we aren't loaded down with such postings. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 World Baseball Classic – ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2017 World Baseball Classic – Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States defeats Puerto Rico to win the World Baseball Classic.
News source(s): MLB.com, NYT

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 championship game is starting as I post this. The article is up to date except for the game that hasn't happened yet. Any feedback on problems is appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Withholding assessment until a prose synopsis of championship game is available to be assessed. The current article has minimal summaries of other games, so I am hopeful, but I will not assess until article is in a state to be assessed. --Jayron32 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I plan on writing a similar summary for the championship game before I go to bed tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • When you do, let us know. Asking us to assess something which does not yet exist seems a bit presumptuous... --Jayron32 02:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I was asking you to assess what's already there. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
          • But what good would that do? The blurb isn't about the semi-final game results, is it? Just post the nomination when you're done with the article; it will save everyone the need from having to assess it twice. --Jayron32 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
            • It would tell me if anything in the article needed to be fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Game's over USA! USA! – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm taking the liberty of marking this ready since it's ITN/R, I've made the updates, and nobody is objecting to anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Westminster attackEdit

There is clearly a strong consensus in favor of posting this and I see no reasonable likelihood of that changing. If there are concerns about the criteria used to determine when we post terror attacks that discussion should take place on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2017 Westminster attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man is shot at the Palace of Westminster and numerous civilians are struck by a vehicle on Westminster Bridge in separate attacks in London.
Alternative blurb: ​A man is shot at the Palace of Westminster and numerous civilians are struck by a vehicle on Westminster Bridge in what is being treated as a terrorist attack in London.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, AP, Yahoo News
Nominator's comments: Ongoing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support - major incident. involving even the Prime Minister. Even if death toll might be low if any.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Shootings never happen in that country.--WaltCip (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (when the article is ready) - passes the Le Monde and New York Times test. It's their lead story. Clearly worldwide news!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support upon an adequate update. Seems to be a terrorist incident. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Although, not sure it should be described as "separate attacks": it looks like part and parcel of the same thing (at the moment, at least). - The Bounder (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until the dust sets. In the grand scheme of evil things so fair looks like a minor incident. Brandmeistertalk 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The way the fog of war on these stories work, we might not know all the details until a week from now.--WaltCip (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not to mention this is not Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or the United States. Attacks like this are extraordinarily rare in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but wait until developing story becomes clearer. (At this moment Reuters seems a little more current.) Sca (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll say Wait until more is clear. Will probably support once that happens. -- KTC (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty skeptical. This could evolve into something similar to the attack in Nice, but there's no confirmation whether it's an actual terror attack. It's just being treated as one. Article quality isn't great either. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what about a man stabbing a policeman at the Houses of Parliament while another simultaneously mows down civilians on the bridge isn't a "terror attack". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    In a broadway, it's considered terrorism. Also, just wondering, there are different reports of stabbing, manslaughter (is that the right word?), and gunshots. How many are confirmed? Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Stabbing, the car running down multiple people and gunshots have all been confirmed. - The Bounder (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sky News reports that police have labelled it a "Terrorist attack". But I guess waiting is better.BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The police have confirmed it is being treated as a terrorist attack.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Gunman shot dead, says Yahoo News. Sca (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per statements above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for at least an hour or two so the article can settle down. The emergency services are still responding. Modest Genius talk 16:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - No accurate numbers are available yet so definitely not ready for posting. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for reasons discussed above. Also, think about the blurb. The picture emerging from reports is that the man who was shot was shot by police as they attempted to assault people with a knife. Current blurb implies the shooting was done by an attacker. Also, it appears that this was the same person as drove the car that hit the pedestrians so "separate attacks" is probably misleading/false. Still unclear however. --LukeSurl t c 16:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FYI When I posted this I boldly tweaked the blurb to avoid details that are less than clear right now with the expectation that it will be updated as more information becomes available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Posting a blurb this quickly about circumstances that are still fluid goes against the prevailing arguments that ITN should only showcase the highest quality articles. This is not a complaint, but a note of encouragement. If we are finally accepting that what goes into the ITN box should be timely and in service to readers looking for the latest Wikipedia articles related the current news cycle, this is a good thing. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Due to how quickly information can change, recently developing events are generally subject to more nebulous standards of quality than are predictable, routine events like the Academy Awards, the Boat Race, or some other sporting event.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until some actual concrete information is available. I am watching the feed on BBC news; Wikipedia should only sum up final events. It might be the article becomes an FA, it might be deleted in two weeks per WP:NOTNEWS. We just don't know right now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well, we know a car was driven by an individual into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, crashed shortly afterwards, the occupant then ran into the Palace of Westminster, stabbed a policeman and was shot to death. So that's not going to be NOTNEWS, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Its unclear at the moment (if you follow the BBC's live updates) if the stabber and the driver are the same person. Looks like they have decided its one person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The police have read a statement saying that safety is the prior concern, full facts will come out in due course, and it is better to wait and be factually correct than to speculate and be factually wrong. That's good enough for me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Fuzheado. It makes me very happy to see how far attitudes at ITN have come since last July with major unexpected events like this. :-) We're here for readers, and they're coming to us whether or not the articles are ready. All that being said, this is still a stub article, which violates ITN's guidelines—so it's very interesting to see some of the people above supporting it for the main page (especially The Rambling Man, after this and all of his desire for quality on the main page). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians coming closer together through mass stabbings and ramming attacks! /s. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The ed17 I didn't support it, I nominated it. And I didn't say it was ready. Please correct your false assertion and redact your attempt to drag me down once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I respectfully request that you now drop the stick, acknowledge that I have not uttered a word about the article quality, and resist the temptation to continue to bait me, you're an admin and you should know better than that. If you wish me to pursue a IBAN, that will be fine, then you can spend your time productively rather than attempting to reignite arguments with me when you know I can't respond in kind, without one of your cadre interpreting it in such a way as to ban me from the site. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The ed17: One more comment of this nature and I will place the i-ban myself. You have been around long enough to know that WP:BAITING is not acceptable behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The blurb at present says "A man is shot at the Palace of Westminster...". While that is literally correct, it implies to someone unfamiliar with the story that the shooting was the attack, rather than the police response to it. Suggest change to "A man is shot by police at the Palace of Westminster..." --LukeSurl t c 17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggest also that is being treated as be changed to was. Sca (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Three sources, Guardian, Spiegel (German) and Zeit (German), say a woman was killed. Sca (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Compare 2016 Normandy church attack which was not posted. One reason for that was that the 2016 Ansbach bombing wasn't posted either. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the treatment of these incidents. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just some random vehicle-ramming and stabbing. It isn't even declared as a terrorist attack as yet. Just some deranged person on about things. Its not a ITN material. Does 2 deaths in the West carry more weight-age than 20 in the East? mfarazbaig —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Now four deaths, and everything else you say is factually incorrect. It has been officially a terrorist incident for several hours already, and I believe this is the first vehicle-ramming and knife attack in the United Kingdom since the Murder of Lee Rigby in May 2013. It is major news in many countries. If this had happened in an eastern country that is not (effectively) a war zone then there is good chance it would also have been posted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, latest update from the Metropolitan Police was 4 dead and 20 injured. The examples of not-posted-but-similar-incidents provided by User:Andrew Davidson don't seem to involve this level of fatality, this significance in location (the Houses of Parliament and environs of the United Kingdom), &c. &c. so it's apples and pears. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it has been officially confirmed that it's a terrorist incident just yet. - The Bounder (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • No, the police have been careful to say they're "treating it as a terror attack" and did so pretty much right from the start. They're no idiots.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Even if it turns out eventually to not be terror related, treating it as if it is is absolutely the correct thing to do - the idea is to send a very strong message to other terrorists saying "don't even think about it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I suspect you only have to look at this editor's history at ITNC to see why they are whining about this (and other stories) being posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's ITN because it's London, it's Parliament, and it looks like terrorism. The number of victims isn't the key factor. Sca (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "3 people as well as the perpetrator" would been a better description. I read "At least four people are killed" as being people killed in the attack, not as 3 being killed in the attack and the perpetrator as a result of it. It wasn't an accident like a landslide. --Inops (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Best to avoid exact numbers entirely, as they inevitably end up out of date. Just say 'several people, including an attacker'. Pinging @There'sNoTime: who added the current number. Modest Genius talk 19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are far more deadly terrorist attacks throughout the world on a weekly basis. The only reason this one is getting so much media coverage is because it happened in London. Do we want to perpetuate the biases of the media (and our own biases) or act as a neutral world-wide news source? Personally, I prefer the later. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting this isn't in the news? Are you suggesting English-language readers won't be coming here to find out about this story? Do you not think this is working to demonstrate Wikipedia as a dynamic source? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I agree it is "in the news", but so is the terrorist attack that happened in Nigeria today that killed 8 people. It just seems really biased that we focus on one and ignore the other, but I suppose we are only reflecting the biases of the media and I should get used to it. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Did you nominate the terrorist attack in Nigeria at ITNC? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    No, because I don't think it's especially notable either. Small terrorist attacks are common-place on a global scale (i.e. the scale of Wikipedia). Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    But terrorist attacks, small or otherwise, are clearly not common-place in the UK, especially just outside Parliament. Equally, this attack is in the news pretty much all over the world. Hence the title of this page. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    With all due respect, it's very simple to complain about the status quo be it here at ITNC or any other part of Wikipedia. But to actually change it requires some effort, e.g. nominating other articles for inclusion on the main page, working up some niche articles to a high standard to make it difficult to turn them away, to make convincing arguments as to why a terror attack being reported globally that took place at the heart of London shouldn't be posted, just because you haven't nominated one about an attack in Nigeria. Until then, and until more people are active in addressing these perceived biases, nothing will change. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support — Highly unusual attack in the United Kingdom and in a high-profile area. Given circumstances I feel this is worth maintaining on ITN. Had it been in a more terrorist attack-prone nation, this likely would not pass the bar. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Don't forget, the British Isles had been subject to terrorism from the IRA for decades, with thousands killed in the process. Although that was a couple of decades ago, some of us still remember those days clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think that if the Troubles were still going on today, they'd most likely be in the 'Ongoing'. I think that an IRA 'terrorist attack' (in quotes because of my differing political opinion) would not receive the same treatment as an Islamic terrorist attack because Northern Ireland is part of the U.K., making it domestic terrorism. I wouldn't give it the same treatment, for an array of reasons (which I will not get into, because I don't want to start a political argument), and I'm sure others would as well. Just adding my 2¢. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    The point is that the UK isn't a stranger to terrorist attacks on its soil, it happened frequently and for years and years. Perhaps that's why we're so stoic and just crack on with life. That and the Blitz etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - problem with this is that the death toll is pretty low, so it can set a dangerous precedent. This is counterbalanced by the fact that the UK is a great power + the attack is occurring outside UK parliament. This event will probably be covered by most newspapers worldwide for quite a while. I will support this, but point out that next time we should not judge any such blurb by body count. Banedon (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

RD: Ronnie MoranEdit

Article: Ronnie Moran (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Liverpool F.C. legend. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now due to inadequate sourcing. There are no references at all for his playing career.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose woefully underreferenced, ironic given that the nominator is usually the one to note such things themselves. If TRM would get on that referencing, I would get on supporting this. --Jayron32 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    It's not exclusively down to TRM to get on that referencing. I was surprised by the lack of interest in this given his stature at one the world's most significant football clubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21Edit


[Posted] Abel PrizeEdit

Articles: Yves Meyer (talk, history) and Abel Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French mathematician Yves Meyer wins the Abel Prize for his work on the mathematical theory of wavelets.
News source(s): The Guardian

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, only on the fact that while Meyer's article is sourced, it seems woefully absent any serious discussion of his academic contributions outside of the recognizition. I'm thinking a para or two to describe his research and why it is important. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting and unusual. Wikipedia needs more math.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The blurb should say "French mathematician" since the Abel Prize is a mathematics prize. I don't understand why the article says "French scientist and mathematician" either, going to remove the word 'scientist' there. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but suggest that bolded article be changed to Abel Prize. There seems to be a wealth of prose on the DE version of the article, but I can't reliably translate from this.128.214.163.201 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." and it isn't otherwise noted here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Meyer's article is indeed sourced but very short. An alternative might be to add an update to Wavelet#History and use that as the bold link. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The quality of the linked articles is quite poor but the key fact – that Meyer has won this prize – is indisputable and we should strike while the iron is hot. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • ITN does not value timeliness over quality for a front page item. Meyer's article needs more details about his research, period. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The Westminster attack was posted about 90 minutes after it started and its article is still a work-in-progress. In this case, the wavelet article needs lots of work too - it has an orange cleanup tag, for example. It should get more attention now that it has been posted and that's a good thing. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely for ITN. Interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Meyer's article is a pitiful stub with a mere footnote detailing the reason why he won this award. Most of his academic career and publications are unsourced. Is a bit sad this can pass muster at ITN but would be rejected DYK and pulled at OTD. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Colin DexterEdit

Article: Colin Dexter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit of work.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose: Needs more sourcing, once that gets out of the way then its a go for me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many "citation needed" tags.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Zigzig20s, this has now been sorted, and the information is now either supported or removed. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a additional citations tag on top of the article. Once the problem with sourcing is cleared up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As per Capitalistroadster - support once the sourcing is sorted. - The Bounder (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Refs now added where required and no tags remain on the article - The Bounder (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good to be posted. --LukeSurl t c 13:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Marked ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Martin McGuinnessEdit

Article: Martin McGuinness (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland politician, dies at the age of 66. (Blurb added by The Bounder (talk))
Alternative blurb: ​Former Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and chief Republican negotiator in the peace process Martin McGuinness dies aged 66.
Alternative blurb II: Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin's chief negotiator in the Northern Ireland peace process that led to the Good Friday Agreement, dies aged 66.
News source(s): BBC News

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

Nominator's comments: I see no maintenance tags and article is updated. Jolly Ω Janner 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support with blurb Was edit conflicted in posting - The Bounder (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Added support for blurb. - The Bounder (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - a couple of minor cn's, but these shouldn't stop posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Better article than 99% at RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I think this deserves a blurb. He was a major figure in both the IRA and the NI peace process. This is the top story in the UK (BBC, Guardian), and also on the main page of major worldwide online newspapers, that I've looked at:Frankfurter Allgemeine, Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, Le Monde, CNN.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Major figure in the region; I think he was influential enough to merit a blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Has been headline news all day even outside of NI. GRAPPLE X 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We should give a little thought to the blurb. "Northern Ireland politician" is a little underwhelming. "Former deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" is descriptive (note that due to the bizarre nature of Northern Ireland politics, the deputy First Minister and the First Minister are effectively the co-leaders of the province). "Former IRA leader" would be informative, though it is only verifiable that McGuinness was a leader rather than the leader. --LukeSurl t c 11:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I agree that we should mention IRA and deputy first minister roles in the hook. WJBscribe (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb From what I can tell, his highest political position was Deputy First Minister of NI and he has already left office (if he were incumbent I probably would support it). He was an IRA leader, but I don't see how that distinguishes him from the leader(s) of the other innumerable terrorist/separatist groups around the world. Maybe I am missing it, but the article doesn't convince me that he is a world leader on the scale of Castro or even Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. EternalNomad (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Comparable to death of Ian Paisley in September 2014 - we posted as an RD but there was never even a suggestion of a blurb in the discussion back then.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Northern Ireland isn't even a country. Banedon (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Really. That's really your argument.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. See [14]. I quote: "with all due respect, she was not a world-transforming figure that merits a blurb"; the same applies here. Even if he did transform Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland isn't even a country let alone the "world", he was only one of two leaders of NI, and there've been lots of other terrorist / separatist group leaders (e.g. Chin Peng). If this ends up as a blurb I'll take it as a strong indication of pro-UK bias. Banedon (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the architects of a peace plan that brought an end to an armed conflict that dates back to the 1960s (and arguably back to 1609), which needed involvement from the governments of the UK, USA, Ireland and those involved in the conflict? A conflict that was thought around the world to be as intractable as that of the Middle East, and you see this as evidence of a "pro-UK bias"? I suppose the excuse for posting Princess Leia was that she was a separatist group leader? – The Bounder (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"One of the" is another dead giveaway that this should not be a blurb, since it indicates there are several others who are just as significant as he is. As for Princess Leia - her death not was not only reported, there were follow up articles like this and this, continuing for weeks after her death. These were obviously inspired by her death and went beyond mere "Carrier Fisher has died" news. That's not to say that pro-US bias does not occasionally surface in ITN, but pro-UK bias is stronger (this is not the only piece of evidence of pro-UK bias). Banedon (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Fisher? a decision to post a blurb was taken very quickly, certainly way before the claimed "continuing for weeks after her death" rationale you claim. - The Bounder (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
About 13 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As for "pro-UK bias" the way to address that is not to suppress UK related stories(and this goes beyond just the UK)> 331dot (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but the way the news panned out vindicated the decision to post. And of course there were similar articles in the immediate aftermath of her death. Example. Banedon (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't worry. I think that one's going to be quoted quite a bit in future. For example, when an ITN regarding, say, New York comes up. "New York's not even a country". Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • One day I'll nominate my father's death for a blurb, on the grounds that he had "great influence" on the "politics of my family", and wait for someone to respond with "your family's not even a country". Banedon (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support RD, oppose blurb. A significant figure in Northern Ireland, but nowhere near the global stature of Mandela or Thatcher, which should be the standard we apply. Paisley's RD is an exact precedent. Modest Genius talk 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
We just posted Chuck Berry. What do you mean global stature?--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You'll notice I didn't !vote on that candidate, which was posted before I saw it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Modest Genius talk 16:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb there's a reson why this is headline news across the whole world. The Paisley example is false as that was before the RD RFC. We've already established that blurb thresholds are now comfortably lower than they used to be, this is an ideal candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Precisely. Our guideline should be what sources are doing, not personal opinions or trying to compare to other cases. The RfC established the guidelines for how to do this, and for consistency we should stick to them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This isn't headline news across the whole world. You can find it if you look hard enough, but it's not headline news. For example in Malaysia, it's not even front page in the world section [15], let alone headline news [16]. For another example, take an Indian newspaper. World section, headline news. Banedon (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You can cherry pick sources as much as you want, but please do so in a less evasive way than this. If you want India: report in The Times of India, for example. (South Africa, maybe?) And yes, despite your claims above, even Malaysia (and that's a link from the front page). Please let me know how many other countries you'd like me to search for to show the global coverage. - The Bounder (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the sources you cite carefully. The front page of the Malaysian newspaper you cited is this: [17]. The headline news as of time of writing is "Wife dies, husband survives single-vehicle accident with minor injuries" followed by "Secondary school student, three teachers lost in Mount Santubong", "BAE Systems to support more M'sian graduates via Chevening Scholarship" and "Nazri to LPF: Don't ban Power Rangers, slap on P13 rating instead." This clearly refutes the idea that this item is headline news. You could make the lesser case that this is headline news in the world section, except that also falls flat on its face. The first item in the world section is "Google, Jigsaw to offer cyber security to election groups", followed by "S.Korea's Park goes home after 14-hour interrogation in graft probe", and then only "IRA fighter turned peacemaker McGuinness dies". Note I didn't say that this isn't covered; in fact I specifically said if you look heard enough you can find it. But it is not headline news. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll check your India source as well, just for the sake of it. Main page is: [18]. As of time of writing the top story is "SC calls for talks to resolve Ayodhya dispute", followed by "I’ll personally keep tabs on absentee MPs: PM", "CBSE unveils new exam format for classes VI to IX", "SC: Will Centre extend deadline for old notes?", "A man few knew of is richer than big billionaires", "Cash transactions over Rs 2L to be made illegal" and "I came between Rahul and Akhilesh, says Yogi". In the world section the top item is "Eye on China: Taiwan plans to build own submarines", followed by "Donald Trump: Different strokes", "UK bans laptop, tablet in cabin for flight from six" and then only "Martin McGuinness, Irish rebel-turned-politician". Clearly this is NOT headline news, no matter how you spin it. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The RD RFC is completely irrelevant to blurbs. It set the current guidelines for the RD section, where this is already (correctly IMO) listed. Modest Genius talk 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as one of the three most significant figures in Northern Irish politics of the late 20th and early 21st century (the others being Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams). I've added an altblurb but that is possibly a bit long. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
What about the Nobel Peace Prize winning David Trimble and John Hume?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb he has no real political significance outside the British Isles. Also we didn't posted Ian Paisley so why threat Martin McGuinness differentially. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Paisley was pre the RD RfC, so it's a false equivalence. Being an architect of the peace process that brought an end to The Troubles gives a much, much wider political significance outside Britain, as clearly evidenced by the news reports from global sources, not just from within the British Isles. - The Bounder (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support altblurb Because I'm on the wrong side of the pond, the name has little meaning alone (even though I can read how important he was), but the added context of the altblurb is necessary to establish the appropriateness of the blurb. I'd personally prefer on just keeping the RD as to avoid eroding the limited cases that we should have blurbs about people's deaths, but this is an edge case for certain. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Jenda H. If ITN were in one of our periodic dry spells I'd think about it. But really his significance was limited to the UK and Ireland and he does not rank in the top tier of any given field. No issue with RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the Blurb Ready heading. We are not even close to a consensus for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I would hope you wouldn't have an issue with RD, as the only two things keeping this person off RD would be 1) they don't merit an article and 2) if the article isn't updated, neither of which is the case here. He certainly is in the top tier of his field, that of peacemaking- especially from someone who had advocated armed action. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Given that much of the funding for the IRA came from America, this story is far from limited to the UK. Given The Troubles resulted in a similar number of deaths to 9/11, it's fair to say peace-broking to stop that would make him top of that field. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Dry spell" or not, the impeachment headline is out of date enough for removal, given it's been on the MP for 8 or 9 days and covers an impeachment that took place on 9 December last year and a court case that ended on 10 March. Have we had so many articles coming through that this remains in place (or isn't more appropriately placed in the "Ongoing" section. - The Bounder (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment so we posted a blurb for the guy from Fast and Furious and a blurb for the actress most notable for playing Princess Leia and a blurb for her mother, but we won't post a blurb for someone who was instrumental in the resolution of The Troubles? To whose widow the Queen has sent a private message of condolence? There's a theme here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, that just about sums it up, doesn't it? I seriously do wonder what the mentality on display here must look like to anyone watching from outside. Meanwhile, the main page still proudly displays a story about a statue that might be someone, or might be someone else (we're not really sure). Well done, everyone! Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course the elephant in the room is that the biography of one of the leaders of a terrorist organisation does not use the word 'terrorist' once. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and both are non-neutral terms to everyone. "Member of the IRA" says the same thing, without the POV. - The Bounder (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Fisher and Reynolds were global icons. This guy doesn't come close. Heck, he wasn't even president of a country. If you support a blurb so badly then why did you turn down Rafsanjani and Jayalalithaa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.75.240 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that the contrast is jarring. None of those should have had blurbs. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • IMHO none of them merited a blurb. Fisher in particular got blurbed on the basis of fan support, not the merits. But in any event past errors are a poor argument for new ones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
        • But it's not the "argument for new ones", it's just an example of the level we now accept. And actually the prominence of this individual far surpasses the guy from Fast and Furious, by quite some distance, so it's not making a "similar mistake" if you will, it's just demonstrating that this individual is by far and away more notable encyclopedically than a fun movie franchise actor. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I'd be absolutely floored if the total number of people who know who McGuinness is > those who know Carrie Fisher or Paul Walker. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't recall "the total number of people who know who ... is" as being part of the ITN criteria, nor how to judge a blurb. I thought it was more down to impact, longevity, encyclopedic value, etc. But then again, judging by the fact we load up the blurbs with American actors and actresses, I must be in the minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
              • If we posted everyone with a blurb who was "well known by Wikipedians" at ITN we'd be snowed under with minor American soap actors. The fact that the other 94% of the world exists appears not to be an issue, apparently. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb per Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose in history If Jayalalithaa and Rafsanjani didn't get blurbs, no way in hell. Jayalalithaa was sitting CM of a province with 80 million people (50 times NI's population), Rafsanjani was president of an independent country for 8 years and was a leader of the Iranian Revolution (more so than this guy of IRA). This guy doesn't come close to either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.75.240 (talkcontribs)
IP user who seems very familiar with ITNC, did those two people receive equivalent news coverage to Mcguinness? Were they notable peacemakers? Looks to me like apples and oranges. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Rafsanjani had nonstop coverage for WEEKS, and the whole globe reacted to his death. Yet he didn't get posted because he is not from US or UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.75.240 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Or, he wasn't finally posted because his article was not improved(he was briefly posted but pulled). Nothing to do with bias. Please sign your posts. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a good idea. Why not post under your normal account? Because the chances of an IP address that's never found this small corner of Wikipedia before posting here is vanishingly small. Embarassing, really. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In the IP's defence, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is really to do with deletion discussions. Deciding on ITN blurbs is about making judgements regarding the relative importance of different events. --LukeSurl t c 17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies anywhere, and while it isn't any sort of policy, it serves simply to remind us that because things were done a certain way for a certain article at a certain time, that doesn't make that thing ipso facto correct. As with anything, it's the policies and the sources that guide us, not previous decisions or editors' personal opinions about which things are more important than others.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - if it's a bit more provocative in its word choice, yet solemn in tone and without sacrificing integrity, possibly along the lines of alternative blurb II. Christian Roess (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - shouldn't it be "dies aged 66" rather than "dies age 66"? Or is that an ENGVAR issue?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, "aged 66" not "age 66" is the correct form in all versions of English. (Consider "my house is painted brown" vs "my house is paint brown", or "he is a middle aged man" vs "he is a middle age man".) The shortened "age 66" usage has crept into the language via print newspapers, who are in the business of saving characters, but isn't grammatically correct. ‑ Iridescent 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
indeed, and corrected above. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. One of the key players in Northern Irish political history. WJBscribe (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per WJBScribe and others above (note: I originally posted the RD, but there was no discussion about a blurb at that point). Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - I'm not completely against a blurb simply because I think we should be posting more blurbs as a general rule. That said, there's a pretty transparent UK bias in some supports above. Northern Irish politics and The Troubles just isn't that important on a global scale. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Topics associated with the Troubles are subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. An RD entry is safer and will suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is sufficient, proposed altblurbs add little of use to original blurb (essentially RD already) in terms of the importance of his death. Mélencron (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - It's not every day I see American news covering a foreign political leader's death to this extent. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20Edit


[Posted] RD: Robert B. SilversEdit

Article: Robert B. Silvers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR

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

 —Rhodesisland (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support good condition, pretty much ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marked ready Support on high quality and sourcing for a bio. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - very good article and agree that it's ready per TRM and Masem. Note: that I added the middle initial B, which is this article's title. Christian Roess (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: David RockefellerEdit

Article: David Rockefeller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 16:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Needs citations. I placed tags in various places. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Part of an extremely famous family, worth billions, died as a centenarian. What about him isn't notable? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The notability of the subject doesn't matter anymore for RD. Only comment on the updatedness and the quality of the article. HaEr48 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is good; I'll say what I want! Person is notable. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rated as a B class article but some citations needed. Support provisional on citations being added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose reminder: for RD, we're only looking at article quality, and it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in reasonable shape and several papers are reporting his death as the last in a generation of a famous family. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    The notability is not in question. The article has at least six [citation needed] tags which need to be resolved in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: looks like they've all been fixed. Only maintenance thing left seems to be the tone tag at the top. Elisfkc (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Afghanistan–Pakistan borderEdit

No consensus. Stephen 03:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Afghanistan–Pakistan border (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif orders reopening of Afghanistan–Pakistan border, a month after it was closed following the Sehwan blast.
News source(s): DAWN Al Jazeera Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A month long closing of one of the busiest migration routes[1] is notable enough to make it to ITN. mfarazbaig 19:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No it's not. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is. Very busy route and closed for a very important reason. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, considering we're talking about Pakistan, a country where explosions are almost commonplace. If this were most borders of countries their size, I would support, but this is not like most cases. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article not updated. I am more than happy to switch to support if a suitable update is included. This border directly affects more than 200 million people, and indirectly affects many more. The border has a fascinating and controversial history for which the article does justice. This is an excellent opportunity to bring an obviously encyclopedic topic to readers' attention, but it needs to have an update.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose end to a temporary border closing. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given by 128.214.214.67. One cannot say it is "just" a temporary border closing. The US travel ban was also a border closing of sorts, and that wound up on ITN and ongoing to boot. Banedon (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose temporary border crossing in unstable location. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Now that the article has been updated. In addition to the reasons given above, it should be noted that at least 24,700 people were locked out of their home country for over a month because of this. How many US citizens were denied entry during the temporary US travel ban? A few hundred? People describing such border closures as routine are badly misinformed.128.214.163.201 (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and 331dot. And because "This isn't headline news across the whole world". - The Bounder (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 19Edit


[Posted] RD: Jimmy BreslinEdit

Article: Jimmy Breslin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. There's a "citation needed" tag and the article as a whole could do with more references. This should be easy to do with obituaries though.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's a work in progress. I'll ping you when it's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: It's better now, and I'll keep working on it. Let me know what you think. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have access to Newspapers.com? It may be worth looking for more articles about his connections to restaurant owners like Henry Hill. In any case, I now Support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I do, I'll look into that later. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been updated and sourced very well! Good shape for posting I see. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support Though a very local figure, Breslin was a legend in New York for decades and transcended the role of a journalist and certainly known outside the city. He was known for generations for writing about working class New Yorkers. He wrote extensively about the mafia and police corruption which he helped exppose. He was beaten up by Jimmy Burke (Jimmy Conway in Goodfellas). The serial killer David Berkowitz wrote letters to Breslin which were reprinted in media--Breslin appeared as himself in the Spike Lee movie Summer of Sam. He wrote several bestselling books; at least one, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, was turned into a movie. He won the Pulitzer Prize and many other awards --Johnsemlak (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose indeed he won many awards including the "Golden Turkey Award nomination for "Worst Performance by a Novelist".", but the article needs more referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • How does a list of books with ISBNs need citations? Aren't they their own citations? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      • You yourself removed one, there's one left. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
        • It had a wikilink, which I thought sufficed? It has its ASIN now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I was talking about "1969 Running Against the Machine: A Grass Roots Race for the New York Mayoralty" which was removed about 20 minutes ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article in decent shape; personifies the avuncular guy-in-the-street newspaper columnist as much as the late Mike Royko did. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is well sourced, has no tags, all the works are fully cited, and opposition based on his having written a novel some foreigner doesn't like is irrelevant, given the RD RfC. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    There was no opposition based on "his having written a novel some foreigner doesn't like" (sic). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 13:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 18Edit


[Closed] RD: Trisha BrownEdit

Nomination is stale. Oldest current RD is from March 20th. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Trisha Brown (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 —Rhodesisland (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there has been no demonstrable effort to secure a free image within the three or four days since she died. That non-free image is, in my opinion, being incorrectly used and so we should not link to this article from the main page. It's pretty obvious she was commonly seen in public, and many images exist of her on Flickr, albeit they need to be re-licensed for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Chuck BerryEdit

Article: Chuck Berry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Chuck Berry, guitarist, singer, and rock and roll pioneer, dies at the age of 90.
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Article is GA – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support and consider blurb. Certainly as influential, if not far more so, than George Michael and Carrie Fisher, and her mum. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Much more influential than the examples you mentioned, but I thought RD vs. blurb was more about the nature and extent of the news coverage than the specific influence of the subject. In which case, a possible blurb for Berry is too early to determine, because the news is still breaking. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - per TRM.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb - Possibly one of the most influential rock and roll musicians ever. We have a good article and a good reason to post blurb. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Music pioneer of sorts. Thechased (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Known worldwide as a founder or Rock 'n' Roll, and I'm supporting a blurb.. Jusdafax 22:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Calling him a Rock 'N' Roll pioneer is an understatement. He was a true global icon. EternalNomad (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted - May be a blurb eventually. Fuzheado | Talk 22:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, Berry image has been added for cascading protection in case of this eventuality. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Has been added by Fuzheado. Would also support a blurb. — foxj 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly support blurb The article is GA quality, and the man was a major pioneer of rock and roll. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb One of the most important figures in popular music history, period. There are not many musicians whose unsurprising deaths would get blurb support from me, but Chuck Berry is definitely one of them. Kicking222 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb per above reasons. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support blurb, per above. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support blurb, especially given it's a GA. Absolute legend.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but Chuck Berry is one of the most influential musicians in the last hundred years. This deserves more attention that simply a mention in recent deaths. It belongs in recent news. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb Stephen 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Blurb Support! User:Medeis 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - C'est la vie said the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell. Kurtis (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting blurb support An example of when we should absolutely be using the blurb on an RD. Unlike some others... Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting blurb support, this is fully deserving of a blurb, per above supporters. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pile on support Hail, hail, rock and roll Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Rima KhalafEdit

Bureaucratic trivia. Stephen 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Rima Khalaf (talk, history) and Israeli Apartheid (talk, history)
Blurb: ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf resigns after the United Nations withdrew a report accusing Israel of establishing "an apartheid regime".
Alternative blurb: ​The United Nations withdraws a report accusing Israel of establishing "an apartheid regime".
News source(s): The Independent Al Jazeera Reuters APP

Article updated
 mfarazbaig 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - High level UN resignation is more than notable. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Alphabet soup ESCWA turns out to be the Economic Commission for Western Asia, which "provides a framework for the formulation and harmonization of sectoral policies for member countries, a platform for congress and coordination, a home for expertise and knowledge, and an information observatory. ESCWA activities are coordinated with the divisions and main offices of the Headquarters of the United Nations, specialized agencies, and international and regional organizations, including the League of Arab States and its subsidiary bodies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council." This is the very definition of low level UN agency, and barely notable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Subject is a Secretary for a Secretary for a Secretary at the UN. A comparable national position would not even be considered. Blurb puts emphasis on animosity between this subject's Commission and Israel, but because the Commission represents Sunni Arab interests this is entirely predictable.128.214.214.67 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor resignation. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. ESCWA is "one of five regional commissions under the administrative direction of the United Nations Economic and Social Council". Given that the UNESC is itself one of six principal organs of the UN, this is too minor for ITN. Banedon (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added the alternative blurb. mfarazbaig

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.

March 17Edit


[Closed] RD: Auntie FeeEdit

Nomination is stale. Oldest current RD is from March 20th. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Auntie Fee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AOL

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The article has yet to be written, but it seems to me that she was very popular. Count Iblis (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the fact that there's no damn article! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    Still Oppose - Due to the fact that the deceased was an Internet vlogger/YouTuber who isn't notable outside of her (relatively small) YouTube channel. I don't understand her notability when we don't have articles for significantly larger YouTubers like Leafy, Pyrocynical and Keemstar (to name a few that I can think of). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    Feel free to create these articles, providing the individuals meet WP:N. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is not article to the nominated individual. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - needs a SNOW close immediately because there's no article. Christian Roess (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Article has been created. Stephen 22:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good stuff we now have an article, yet it's a stub and not enough for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I spent a few hours revising and updating it after someone created the article. But in my opinion, there's not enough reliable info out there yet to get this up to ITN standards. Christian Roess (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Subject was an Internet video celebrity. A few obits or announcements on websites of her tragic passing does not really make her death 'in the news'. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Her death has been reported by the LA Times. There's no question that qualifies as "in the news." The only valid rationale for an oppose is article quality.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral – Article looks pretty good now, but still a bit short. If some more sources could be dug up, I think this could turn into a solid support. It's difficult, though, as online video celebrities just don't get the kind of reliable coverage they deserve... ~Mable (chat) 12:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs to incorporate more sources that existed before her death (which do readily exist, I just checked, heck we even have a Le Monde article) I really would want to see more of these past sources included and used to establish her notability before death rather than relying on too many obit pieces. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know we had an RFC about RD notability but I just don't think this is notable enough for ITN. The article was created as a result of the death. Seems kind of dubious.128.227.202.61 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Per my comment above, I have affirmed that she was notable before her death with major non-trivial coverage from about 2014 onward. It is just that no one created an article about her until now, and the article is reflecting too much of the post-death insight. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • According to the page history, the article dates from December 2014. That version must have been speedily deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
        • After some editing, five of the eight references are pre-2017, showing notoriety before the obits were written. However, this should not be dwelled upon as it is not one of the main criteria we have for notability. Similarly, the article being "created" only after death is also not a valid reason to oppose. In this case, it's even less convincing as the article existed in 2014, but was speedy deleted, which was then revived. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
        • The text of that version prior to deletion was exactly all of this: Felicia Auntie Fee O'Dell (pronounced as Ain't Fee) is an online cooking show guru. The homemade chef became a viral sensation in July of 2014 with a series of videos including "Auntie Fee's Baked Chicken" and "How to feed Seven people with just $3.35." All of her videos are recorded in her kitchen, mostly by her son Tavis Hunter. Since then, Auntie Fee has created over 50 videos (with 10 million views) and counting on her YouTube channel, titled 'Cooking With Auntie Fee.' Auntie Fee has made appearances on: The Jimmy Kimmel Show, The Steve Harvey Show and TMZ. She is known for making food and saying that it's "for the kids." In November, Auntie Fee created a cooking video sponsored by Dumb and Dumber To.. No sources, though all those details appear to be things that can be corroborated with pre-obit articles. It was speedied on an A7 claim... which given that text, probably was not appropriate, though w/o sources, definitely would be a potential promotional concern. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Agree - not the best starter text for an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
          • The presence of obituaries in highly-regarded publications is strong evidence of notability. I feel it is legitimate to question in ITN the notability of a person for whom an article was created after a recent death, however in this case I feel the answer is a clear "is notable". --LukeSurl t c 19:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
            • We have to be a bit careful, as sometimes it is the cause of death that is more of interest than the person, as to give a false impression that the person was notable. Not a major example, but there was a case of a video game stream who died in the middle of a 24-hr stream. The reason for death caught various media, but the stream himself was not notable (or least, to meet WP:N standards). There's no question here, though: Auntie Fee was notable before her death, just that we didn't have an article at the time of death. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that the article is substantial and well sourced. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Now no longer a stub and sufficiently referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Did a thorough check, and all the statements in the article can be corroborated via the citations used. The single exception is that there is no source verifying her birth day and year, and so I tagged that. Otherwise, weak support at this point. Christian Roess (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now sufficiently long enough and well-sourced. It probably still can be expanded but it's passed the bar needed for ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - still rather short - if she wasn't considered notable enough for an article until her death, I doubt this should be posted as an RD. Bob talk 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Derek WalcottEdit

Article: Derek Walcott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize-winning writer. Maybe even worth a blurb? EternalNomad (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support a few unreferenced claims but at a first glance nothing overly controversial. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added two "citation needed" tags and fixed a couple of grammatical errors. Once the citations have been fixed, I will support this. Please ping me when this is done. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The "citation needed" tags seem to have been fixed, so I now support this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support - when everything mentioned by TRM above has been fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull referencing is considerably worse than I first feared, an unreferenced section and at least five other [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You supported this, then added ref tags after it was posted? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was mistaken, there are too many issues with the article, hence my update. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      • But, whatever. It doesn't matter that much. Most of the inline stuff is fixed, the awards are still mainly unreferenced, but that's not important to most people here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[Pulled] Psamtik I statueEdit

Article: Psamtik I (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A colossal ancient Egyptian statue, discovered on 9 March, is preliminarily identified as depicting pharaoh Psamtik I.
Alternative blurb: ​A colossal ancient Egyptian statue is discovered in Cairo, believed to be depicting pharaoh Psamtik I
News source(s): [19]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: So as not to leave a nomination hanging ... Banedon (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - Note that the BBC article relies entirely upon a local news article,[20] which states: "Minister of Antiquities Khaled El-Enany said on Thursday that the royal colossus discovered last week in Matariya district, Cairo is probably a statue of 26 dynasty king Psammetich I not King Ramses II as believed earlier." The actual quote from the government Minister is: "If it belongs to this king, then it is the largest statue of the Late Period that was ever discovered in Egypt," I still don't think we have anything particularly strong. We also don't appear to have any quotes from the research team that is conducting the excavation. Last time they were more cautious than the government Ministers. All we really know for sure is that we made the correct call not to post this a few days ago. I wonder if we shouldn't exercise the same degree of caution again, or if we are to post it, to make the blurb appropriately qualified. (As a minor point, in the blurb "belonging to" would be better as "depicting".) --Mkativerata (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, probably the largest archeological discovery in a long time; until the British Museum takes it and then gets renominated here when they put it up for visitors near the golden torcs. Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Jesus Christ can you just stop talking about the Golden Torcs? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose better suited for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This time the ID clue looks more reliable (I've slightly tweaked the blurb per Mkativerata ). It's not every day that such major discoveries are made. If it turns out not to be Psamtik I, then it could be updated, just like other items, such as casualties. Brandmeistertalk 10:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've moved some text prematurely written in Ramesses II over, so now there is a decent paragraph about the statue in Psamtik I. --LukeSurl t c 11:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TRM - DYK. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Pull – In retrospect, the main news was finding the statue. Being "preliminarily identified" as a pharaoh whose name relatively few would recognize seems underwhelming. Sca (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, that's my feeling too, hence a suggestion to take it to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Sca: It was nominated at the time of the finding, yet not everyone supported back then. Brandmeistertalk 14:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I said "in retrospect." But at the time an ITN blurb about pieces of an unidentified statue seemed problemmatic. Sca (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Now if the statue were identified as Sam the Sham, that would be a different matter! Sca (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to close this before a fight breaks out. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @The Rambling Man: In all honesty, how is this objectively better suited for DYK than the golden jewelry a few weeks ago? Nergaal (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    This is trivial. The torcs were not and received global coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I am curious what is your definition of trivial. I mean this is a colossal statue, even by Egypt's standard, vs several grams of gold. Are you saying this didn't receive global coverage, because I remember differently a few days ago? Isn't this the perfect example of "Anglosphere-bias" suffered by ITN? Nergaal (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nergaal: - This nomination is just stating that the statue discovered last week was determined to be Psamtik I and not Rameses II. I'm not sure what the alt-blurb is trying to say because a new statue wasn't discovered. The Torcs were internationally recognized and therefore they were more than notable. They aren't even relevant as an argument now because they've been off of ITN for almost two weeks. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that we agreed last week to postpone this till identification. If it had been posted then, it would still be on ITN now, and it would probably get bumped up. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nergaal: - I didn't have a chance to vote on the other nomination, but I voted oppose per DYK because I think that it's interesting but not newsworthy. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I was not talking about you, I was talking about consensus. If it was up to people like you all trash archeological finds from Britain would get posted, while colossal statues and alike from elsewhere would never make the main page. Nergaal (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to close this before a fight starts and we both get in trouble. This has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull reported at ERRORS, the update is sub-standard, the hook is wrong, the "fact" is "speculation", it's not actually as "interesting" as it would have been if it were Rameses II, in conclusion it's a duff hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull – Per TRM and my comment above. (It's getting stale fast anyway.) Sca (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pull - This is an interesting find. And an ok article. Pullong it does not serve anyone any good.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think your summation is perfect, it's interesting/ok, but the one thing you didn't note was that it's no different from the Rameses II claim, not actually confirmed. Pulling does serve a good purpose if it prevents Wikipedia looking like a tabloid sniffing after a story without due diligence and just based on speculation, second time running. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    As the article notes, they found the name of Psamtik I inscribed on the statue, which was enough for them to make a preliminary identification, which is what the article/blurb claims anyway. In any case, the news is really the discovery of a massive statue of a pharaoh, not precisely which pharaoh it belongs to. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    In that case, why wasn't it posted when it was discovered? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Because people (reasonably) wanted a firmer identification than "this is a large statue of a pharaoh, so it might be the most famous pharaoh who did large statues" to know which article a section on the discovery should go. Now that we have actual evidence linking the statue to a specific pharaoh, it's okay to post. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Just noting that news is still coming in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. But the identification is speculative. And it's unclear why we posted this speculative guess rather than the previous speculative guess. I guess more evidence reduces the guesswork, but it's still guessing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose pull consensus was and still is quite clear. In this case we have a statue of a relatively unknown pharaoh, which was at the time by far the leading civilization in the world; very little is known about him BECAUSE this sort of discoveries have been lacking. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull per my comments at WP:ERRORS - the sources do not support that a preliminary identification has been made in any final sense, the experts are just speculating. WJBscribe (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 16Edit


[Posted] 2017 Syrian mosque airstrikeEdit

Article: 2017 Syrian mosque airstrike (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An airstrike on a mosque in the rebel-held al-Jinah village near Aleppo, kills at least 42 people and injures more than 100.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The event is regarded as "massacre" by Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.[21] Mhhossein talk 12:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose as cours de la guerre. It's a war, and a long and complicated one at that. I don't see anything here that would be any more ITN worthy than what happens over there on a daily basis. As an example, just today in a war going on nearly next door to this one, an airstrike just blew up a boat full of unaligned Somalians.128.214.163.201 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The Yemen/Somali boat thing is currently having contradictory info. Sources from the scene indicate small arms fire rather than airstrike. The mosque airstrike is being denied by the US - as would be expected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: please expand the article (it is barely more than a stub right now), and explain in the article why it is more than a routine part of war, to address 128.214.163.201's concerns above. For example, by citing responses from political leaders or international organizations, discussing the possible US factor (if RS'es substantiate it), etc. HaEr48 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why is this specific airstrike so special? The intervention has been occurring since 2014, over 7,000 have been killed (including 900 civilians) in over 5,000 strikes by the USAF alone. I don't see why one airstrike is more important than the others simply because a few more people were killed. The Syrian intervention isn't even in the 'Ongoing'. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Um, even in war you're not supposed to bomb a mosque full of civilian worshippers without a proper justification? Especially if it's a state actor, who are bound by various conventions HaEr48 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm knowledgeable on the rules of war, I'm asking why this specific airstrike is so notable when plenty of other things happen that don't get recognition, even if it is a big deal. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Probably because they are seldom nominated. In this case, the article is a stub. The event is tragic and shouldn't happen, and ought to be enough to get onto ITN but we have hard hearts, and have become battle-hardened against bombings in Syria, Pakistan, Turkey etc, shootings in America, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Also, 40+ deaths with mostly civilians are a lot. Going with UNSC Luke 1021's numbers, it's much higher than the average strike (900 civilians in 5,000 strikes) - so even within the context of US airstrikes it is already an outlier.. Also there's the fact that it's a house of worship. HaEr48 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man and HaEr48: I added more info to the article. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - high casualty and given the possible US involvement, it is potentially an international affair. Article has sufficient content. HaEr48 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose That it is a mosque is still disputed, and so is who was actually killed. Regardless, people are being killed everyday in war time. Whenever a large war occurs I would rather not have the entire ITN be filled with the daily bombings.75.73.150.255 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - high number of casualties..--BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it's ready to go, plenty of support, article is okay (at best), but probably enough for regular posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: A mosque is raided and many civilians are killed. US involvement is also probable per some sources. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 128.214.163.201 and UNSC Luke 1021. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Apparantly in my above comment I forgot to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been good to go for 36 hours now, could an admin address the issue, one way or another please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Stephen: - pls b0ss, just p0st already. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose reiterated. The US denies the mosque was hit, and apparently now provides pictoral evidence to that end. Footage showing rubble is of the building across the street, who people have just now asserted is also a mosque of the exact same name as the one still standing. This is highly dubious. The use of Bellingcat as an RS for this article is also worrisome because they are rubes who have been had before.128.214.214.67 (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You have already opposed this nomination. US has admitted that the mosque is raided. Read this this source to see other resources being skeptical of US innocence in this attack. --Mhhossein talk 13:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Not a single source in the article states that the US raided/targeted/bombed the mosque. In fact, they all note that the US denies doing this and instead claims to have bombed another building across the street. Source 11 (M.E. Eye) in the article even points out the odd paradox of two separate, identically named mosques in such close vicinity. Post-strike and pre-strike aerial photograms show a building that looks like a mosque, undamaged and standing, and the target of the strike, an unadorned building that looks like a warehouse.128.214.163.180 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you really expect US to admit the strike on mosque? ALL of the sources agree that the mosque is raided. -Mhhossein talk 13:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I just slash this out so it isn't accidentally taken into account by an admin? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am uncomfortable about RT being used a source for the US missile fragment. Can't we find a less controversial source to back up that statement?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. With what's been going on between the US and Russia, with the election and Trump and Syria, we can't rule out the idea of Russia cobbling together something to make America look bad and draw attention away from them. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
There are already other sources in the article confirming (or heavily indicating remnants of US weapons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @CaradhrasAiguo: - I'm just saying that we can't rule it out; The Russian state-sponsored news hasn't exactly proven itself to be honest or unbiased, especially when relating to North American and Western European affairs. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • RT is a state mouthpiece for the Russian government. There is a vested interest in them pointing fingers at the US since it was originally thought to be Russia/Syria responsible. So no, they are not a good source for 'who bombed a mosque' in a geographical area where the Russian state is bombing things. Fortunately its not necessary as other sources (not related to Russia) make the same claim. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just post already - Boi can somebody post this before it gets stale? It's been like 40 hours! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Ad Orientem: - On the verge of stale. Pls b0ss. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why was this posted? Didn't Russia kill like thousands already? Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem: Shouldn't we mention the perpetrator in the blurb? --Mhhossein talk 11:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Mhhossein: - While it is highly likely that the USAF or USN was the perpetrator of the mosque bombing, there is no real concrete evidence yet, hence why the article says 'alleged' US involvement. I don't think mentioning the US is appropriate until it's confirmed. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The perpetrator is not known with certainty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hasyim MuzadiEdit

Article: Hasyim Muzadi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Jakarta Post

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

Nominator's comments: former Chairman of Nahdlatul Ulama (Indonesia's biggest Muslim organization). I recently expanded the article to cover his career and death HaEr48 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to post. Good work. --LukeSurl t c 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It needs a careful and thorough check before posting. I fixed the bare url's and removed the tag. But the article still needs some copy editing. Also we need to ensure that it conforms to standardized English, particularly the last section "Illness and death." Christian Roess (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why use the word "Islamic" instead of "Muslim"?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Zigzig20s: - "Islamic" is an adjective referring to the religious denomination of Islam and anything related to it, while "Muslim" is a proper noun or adjective that identifies followers of Islam.[2] - UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree I don't think there's a problem here. As UNSC Luke 1021 says, those two words have a different meaning, and Islamic is certainly appropriate here. HaEr48 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - after the nominator of this RD has continued to improve and update the article with small, but significant, fixes. These would include additional sources in English. Also, the article's sentence structure is a bit clearer. Christian Roess (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added some more English sources and continued to update it. Multiple editors recently copy-edited it too. HaEr48 (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Very good work getting this ready. Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article is in a good condition balanced by the currency of the topic. I'm not sure I entirely agree with holding it pending the addition of English-language sources, but perhaps I don't understand the suggestion. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support - good condition article. RD worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good condition. -Yogwi21 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The article meets the qualifications. --Mhhossein talk 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15Edit


Whanganui RiverEdit

Article: Whanganui River (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Whanganui River in New Zealand is granted legal personality by the country's parliament.
News source(s): The Guardian, NZ Herald

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The decision was passed into law on 15 March, ending 140-year-old (at least) talks between Maori and the government. Legally unusual, but noble decision IMO. Brandmeistertalk 20:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is proper DYK territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is more DYK and not really ITN -- except that it would fail all DYK inclusion allowances (article long established, and this factor is nowhere close enough for a 5x increase in size of an already hefty article). I wonder if DYK allowances can be relaxed for these fascinating tidbits that get covered by news but clearly fail ITN standards. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be taken to GA, then it gets a pass at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Not really ITN-like. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - belongs in DYK or something of the like. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the Guardian article, this was the longest litigation case in New Zealand history, and the first case that granted legal personhood to a natural feature. William O. Douglas, vindicated at last. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in the news and something different from our normal fare. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems notable to me and the article is in decent shape.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment just a note, especially to the supporters, did any of you review the quality of the article? Since two of you are admins, you must already have seen that the article which is grossly under-referenced, poorly written, including whole sections without a single citation, and as such, entirely unsuitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the article again I agree the referencing isn't up to scratch. A shame as it is a great story.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - reading the Guardian article the first line provides good reason for support: "In a world-first ...". I would use "New Zealand Parliament" in the blurb though, instead of "the country's parliament". Banedon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - could run this in "on this day" in future if the referencing is brought up to scratch. WJBscribe (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Dutch electionEdit

Article: Dutch general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, wins the Dutch general election with 30/31/32/33 seats.
Alternative blurb: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, comes in first place in the Dutch general election with 30/31/32/33 seats.
Alternative blurb II: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy wins a plurality of House of Representatives seats in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb III: ​The VVD, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, wins the most seats in the Dutch general election, but the governing coalition loses its majority.
Alternative blurb IV: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy of incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte wins the most seats in the Dutch general election.
News source(s): The Guardian

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: When results are fully in, of course. Actual number of seats may vary, but usually not more than one seat apart from exit polls' predictions. EternalNomad (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Everything looks fine and the election was especially notable because of the ongoing Turkish-Dutch commotion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not updated. The results table is empty. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm still supporting on a basis of importance. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, the fact it's ITNR means that you don't need to support it based on its importance. Previous consensus has already established its importance. All this nomination now needs to do is establish its quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If I understand the Dutch/Turkey relationship issues, these elections were part of the problem, but there's not a mention of this in the election article. I don't expect the blurb to mention it, but I do think that if that diplomatic incident was at least a point of concern during the election, it should be mentioned in that article. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not ready Table needs to be filled in, I agree with Masem that the Turkey issue needs to be mentioned in the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's not much point in supporting an ITNR when it's clearly bereft of the detail required to bring it to the standard we require. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - when ready.BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note, the numbers circulating come from (historically quite accurate) exit polls and early projections, and by now news reports are certain that Rutte's party have the plurality. The actual vote count is likely to take on the order of a few days so those tables and seat counts in the article won't be ready for a while. We should consider the article ready once it adequately outlines the overall picture, but we will be implementing a long delay if we insist on the precise results. --LukeSurl t c 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • We're sure the exit polls are reliable? In the U.S., exit polls are terrible. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • They've historically been very good, and have been confirmed this time by the initial counts. The electoral system in the Netherlands (simple proportional representation) is more conducive to such projections than other systems. --LukeSurl t c 09:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for official results this time. Abductive (reasoning) 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, the results are not yet quite clear enough. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when ready - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the altblurb is more accurate - while it's true that PPFD has come first, that's not the same as a "win". They don't have a majority and will have to come up with a workable coalition to form a government. While that looks likely, if only because everyone else opposes whatever Wilders' party is called, it's not an outcome of the election per se. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As discussed here the current ANP projection is based on 95% precincts reporting, though the official results won't be out until 21 March. Waiting that long is inappropriate and we posted the US result well before the final popular vote totals were known. Our blurb should mention that the VVD have the plurality (which news orgs are reporting as a certainty now) but shouldn't be precise as to the exact number of seats. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Those graphs in the opinion polls section are very off-putting and take up a lot of space. Anyone else think so? I don't really work with images, so I'm not sure what's the best approach with them. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've written a one-paragraph summary and put the charts in a collapse box. --LukeSurl t c 12:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb 3. The VVD went from 41 to 32 seats, losing almost ¼ of its voters; I think it's potentially misleading to call that "winning the elections". VVD became the largest party but it's the smallest "largest party" in Dutch political history with just 21% of the vote. I would propose a slight change to the alternative blurb, with seats replaced by 21.2% of the vote (or whatever the final projection is). --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Blurb comment: how about 'remains the largest party'? That avoids the problems with 'wins' and the jargon term 'plurality'. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We should also mention that the coalition partners Labour Party (Netherlands) have collapsed, which means that a governing coalition needs to be reformed. I've added an altblurb Smurrayinchester 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – For Altblurb 3 or Altblub 4. No. 1 story in Europe. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Its time to write about it. 46.70.205.85 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Propose altblurb4. Mélencron (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with altblurb 3. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15Edit


Whanganui RiverEdit

Article: Whanganui River (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Whanganui River in New Zealand is granted legal personality by the country's parliament.
News source(s): The Guardian, NZ Herald

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The decision was passed into law on 15 March, ending 140-year-old (at least) talks between Maori and the government. Legally unusual, but noble decision IMO. Brandmeistertalk 20:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is proper DYK territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that this is more DYK and not really ITN -- except that it would fail all DYK inclusion allowances (article long established, and this factor is nowhere close enough for a 5x increase in size of an already hefty article). I wonder if DYK allowances can be relaxed for these fascinating tidbits that get covered by news but clearly fail ITN standards. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be taken to GA, then it gets a pass at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Not really ITN-like. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - belongs in DYK or something of the like. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the Guardian article, this was the longest litigation case in New Zealand history, and the first case that granted legal personhood to a natural feature. William O. Douglas, vindicated at last. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in the news and something different from our normal fare. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems notable to me and the article is in decent shape.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment just a note, especially to the supporters, did any of you review the quality of the article? Since two of you are admins, you must already have seen that the article which is grossly under-referenced, poorly written, including whole sections without a single citation, and as such, entirely unsuitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the article again I agree the referencing isn't up to scratch. A shame as it is a great story.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - reading the Guardian article the first line provides good reason for support: "In a world-first ...". I would use "New Zealand Parliament" in the blurb though, instead of "the country's parliament". Banedon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - could run this in "on this day" in future if the referencing is brought up to scratch. WJBscribe (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Dutch electionEdit

Article: Dutch general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, wins the Dutch general election with 30/31/32/33 seats.
Alternative blurb: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, comes in first place in the Dutch general election with 30/31/32/33 seats.
Alternative blurb II: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy wins a plurality of House of Representatives seats in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb III: ​The VVD, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, wins the most seats in the Dutch general election, but the governing coalition loses its majority.
Alternative blurb IV: ​The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy of incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte wins the most seats in the Dutch general election.
News source(s): The Guardian

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: When results are fully in, of course. Actual number of seats may vary, but usually not more than one seat apart from exit polls' predictions. EternalNomad (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Everything looks fine and the election was especially notable because of the ongoing Turkish-Dutch commotion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not updated. The results table is empty. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm still supporting on a basis of importance. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, the fact it's ITNR means that you don't need to support it based on its importance. Previous consensus has already established its importance. All this nomination now needs to do is establish its quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If I understand the Dutch/Turkey relationship issues, these elections were part of the problem, but there's not a mention of this in the election article. I don't expect the blurb to mention it, but I do think that if that diplomatic incident was at least a point of concern during the election, it should be mentioned in that article. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not ready Table needs to be filled in, I agree with Masem that the Turkey issue needs to be mentioned in the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's not much point in supporting an ITNR when it's clearly bereft of the detail required to bring it to the standard we require. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - when ready.BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note, the numbers circulating come from (historically quite accurate) exit polls and early projections, and by now news reports are certain that Rutte's party have the plurality. The actual vote count is likely to take on the order of a few days so those tables and seat counts in the article won't be ready for a while. We should consider the article ready once it adequately outlines the overall picture, but we will be implementing a long delay if we insist on the precise results. --LukeSurl t c 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • We're sure the exit polls are reliable? In the U.S., exit polls are terrible. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • They've historically been very good, and have been confirmed this time by the initial counts. The electoral system in the Netherlands (simple proportional representation) is more conducive to such projections than other systems. --LukeSurl t c 09:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for official results this time. Abductive (reasoning) 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, the results are not yet quite clear enough. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when ready - Sherenk1 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the altblurb is more accurate - while it's true that PPFD has come first, that's not the same as a "win". They don't have a majority and will have to come up with a workable coalition to form a government. While that looks likely, if only because everyone else opposes whatever Wilders' party is called, it's not an outcome of the election per se. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As discussed here the current ANP projection is based on 95% precincts reporting, though the official results won't be out until 21 March. Waiting that long is inappropriate and we posted the US result well before the final popular vote totals were known. Our blurb should mention that the VVD have the plurality (which news orgs are reporting as a certainty now) but shouldn't be precise as to the exact number of seats. --LukeSurl t c 10:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Those graphs in the opinion polls section are very off-putting and take up a lot of space. Anyone else think so? I don't really work with images, so I'm not sure what's the best approach with them. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've written a one-paragraph summary and put the charts in a collapse box. --LukeSurl t c 12:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb 3. The VVD went from 41 to 32 seats, losing almost ¼ of its voters; I think it's potentially misleading to call that "winning the elections". VVD became the largest party but it's the smallest "largest party" in Dutch political history with just 21% of the vote. I would propose a slight change to the alternative blurb, with seats replaced by 21.2% of the vote (or whatever the final projection is). --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Blurb comment: how about 'remains the largest party'? That avoids the problems with 'wins' and the jargon term 'plurality'. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We should also mention that the coalition partners Labour Party (Netherlands) have collapsed, which means that a governing coalition needs to be reformed. I've added an altblurb Smurrayinchester 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – For Altblurb 3 or Altblub 4. No. 1 story in Europe. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Its time to write about it. 46.70.205.85 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Propose altblurb4. Mélencron (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with altblurb 3. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 14Edit


[Posted] RD: André ToselEdit

Article: André Tosel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "André Tosel, philosophe niçois de renom, nous a quittés". Nice Matin. March 14, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017.; Barbancey, Pierre; Chaillan, Pierre (March 15, 2017). "Disparition. André Tosel, ou l'action avec Marx, Spinoza et Gramsci". L'Humanité. Retrieved March 15, 2017.

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

Nominator's comments: French Marxist philosopher and academic administrator. Former vice president of a major university (20,000+ students) and promulgator of Marxist theories in academia. Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Raja Ampat reef destructionEdit

Stale. SpencerT♦C 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Raja Ampat Islands (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Bahamian cruise ship accidentally destroys a large section of the Raja Ampat Islands' coral reefs
News source(s): [22] [23]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The updated section badly needs copyediting, and possibly rearranging as well. From first looks it seems more natural to put the incident into the "geography" section. Banedon (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The news reports are a bit unclear when the collision actually happened, but the Guardian reported the story on 10 March [24]. --LukeSurl t c 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Collision happened on 4 March and was reported at least as early as 7 March. [25] --LukeSurl t c 15:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale, The Guardian says it ran aground in an uncharted shoal in West Papua province after completing a bird-watching trip on Waigeo Island on 4 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TRM; Stale. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I imagine news doesn't travel very fast in that region of the world, and also it probably took time to determine the scope and impact of the damage. It's a bit presumptuous to call this stale.--WaltCip (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    It was a British cruise ship; I'd assume Britain would report quickly on it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    The story isn't the cruise ship itself. The story is the damage to the reef.--WaltCip (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    I understand that; I just assumed that since Britain was involved they would report quick. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    Point of order - the ship is Bahamian, not British. Blurb amended to reflect this. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    Getting back to the point, it was reported in mainstream press on 10 March, a whole four days before this nomination listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well two options. One, move this to March 10; two, close as stale. I don't mind either. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 13Edit


[Posted] RD: Henri CuecoEdit

Article: Henri Cueco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Duponchelle, Valérie (March 14, 2017). "La mort du peintre Henri Cueco". Le Figaro. Retrieved March 15, 2017.; "Le peintre Henri Cueco est mort". Libération. March 15, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017.; Dagen, Philippe (March 15, 2017). "Henri Cueco, peintre politique et écrivain, est mort". Le Monde. Retrieved March 15, 2017.

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

Nominator's comments: French painter, essayist, novelist Zigzig20s (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support nothing amazing about the article, but well-referenced, and covers major aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I worked very hard on it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready Well sourced albeit on the shorter side, but nothing amiss for posting RD. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posted support Nice work on the article. Thank you! Christian Roess (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RD: Eamonn CaseyEdit

Article: Eamonn Casey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose the article seems weak on what he actually did, the majority of the article being his "views", his "controversy" and his "health". A 66-year career in the church summarised in five or six sentences clearly isn't comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Danehill DancerEdit

Article: Danehill Dancer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN

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

Nominator's comments: Horse who was successful as a racer, and as a sire. Article is surprisingly thoroughly well sourced Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support very nice article, as the nom says "surprisingly thoroughly well sourced"! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready Well sourced and seems complete for a race horse. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted an animal name that might be mistaken for a human. I expect to be pulled up at ANI shortly. Stephen 22:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

March 13Edit


[Posted] RD: Henri CuecoEdit

Article: Henri Cueco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Duponchelle, Valérie (March 14, 2017). "La mort du peintre Henri Cueco". Le Figaro. Retrieved March 15, 2017.; "Le peintre Henri Cueco est mort". Libération. March 15, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017.; Dagen, Philippe (March 15, 2017). "Henri Cueco, peintre politique et écrivain, est mort". Le Monde. Retrieved March 15, 2017.

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

Nominator's comments: French painter, essayist, novelist Zigzig20s (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support nothing amazing about the article, but well-referenced, and covers major aspects. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I worked very hard on it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready Well sourced albeit on the shorter side, but nothing amiss for posting RD. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posted support Nice work on the article. Thank you! Christian Roess (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RD: Eamonn CaseyEdit

Article: Eamonn Casey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose the article seems weak on what he actually did, the majority of the article being his "views", his "controversy" and his "health". A 66-year career in the church summarised in five or six sentences clearly isn't comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Danehill DancerEdit

Article: Danehill Dancer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN

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

Nominator's comments: Horse who was successful as a racer, and as a sire. Article is surprisingly thoroughly well sourced Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support very nice article, as the nom says "surprisingly thoroughly well sourced"! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready Well sourced and seems complete for a race horse. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted an animal name that might be mistaken for a human. I expect to be pulled up at ANI shortly. Stephen 22:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

March 12Edit


Ethiopia landfill landslideEdit

Article: 2017 Ethopian landfill landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide kills at least 113 people at a landfill in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Unusual, and high death toll.

  • Comment Obviously we're going to need an article, but this is an ITN-appropriate event; I think we also did post the 2015 landfill landslide that happened in 2015 in China too. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub article, the event itself is covered in one sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Comment - I'm neutral on this because fifty~ dead is definitely notable but the article sucks. We've been getting a lot of shitty article in ITN/C lately; I'm not sure if it reflects the process as a whole but I wish people put a little more effort into articles that they are nominating. I'd do more myself but I'm not suited in scouring news sources, possibly in other languages, and paraphrasing as to prevent plagiarism. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a stub with barely more information than is already in the proposed blurb. Not of sufficient quality for posting on main page. --Jayron32 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In the past 5-6 hours barely any work has been done on the article, so I'm moving to oppose because the article is garbage (no morbid pun intended). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support based on noteworthiness, pending expansion of the article itself. It shouldn't take too long to churn out a half-decent page for ITN. Kurtis (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As above, notable but nowhere near ready at the current time. --LukeSurl t c 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lack of coverage on the landslide currently on Wikipedia is disappointing. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - when updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incidentEdit

Article: 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A diplomatic incident is caused by the Netherlands refusal to allow Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu (pictured)to attend a rally in Rotterdam and Turkey's response of calling the Dutch Fascists and remnants of Nazis.
Alternative blurb: ​Dutch and Turkish diplomats are banned in response to a diplomatic incident ahead of Dutch elections and a Turkish referendum.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Netherlands and Turkey bans each others' diplomats in response to a diplomatic incident ahead of Dutch elections and a Turkish referendum.
News source(s): Der Spiegel (German language)

Nominator's comments: I have started a discussion re the Multiple Issues tag at talk. Afd discussion so far is a unanimous keep. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose War of words so far, like in old times ("When the British came out and said Gamal Abdel Nasser is a dog, we can come back and call you the sons of sixty dogs"). Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose political mudslinging is not ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you point out where in Wikipedia:In_the_news it says that "political mudslinging is not ITN worthy"? The only criteria are that there is an update and that the event is significant. Note also: "Arguments that deal with the appropriateness of topics in general but also ignore the specific story being discussed are also usually not supported by the community." 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Switch to Support given the escalation of the situation. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a war of words. Not even sure it merits an article. If ambassadors are withdrawn or diplomatic relations broken, maybe. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that ambassadors are now, effectively, withdrawn.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Changing to post-posting support given the escalation. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN will get 30+ postings a day if we post every rhetorical back-and-forth at the national political level. That would not be a good thing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you provide evidence for this rather absurd statement. Should be discounted by the closing admin. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, my oppose vote should be discounted among the waves and waves of other oppose votes snowing in. Bugger off.--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    So in summary, no evidence for your absurd statement. Now I know why Trump won the election. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    If you are as familiar with ITN as you seem to be, you should know that we do not just parrot what is reported in the press, we weigh the notability of the nominations presented. People can disagree about what is notable in good faith- and the notability of something can certainly change over time. What all of those who oppose this are saying is that this does not seem notable at this time. If anything changes- we can all reevaluate our positions. Please stop personally attacking those who disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you point me towards the part of his statement where he is discussing notability? Thanks. And please, do not hararass me on my talk page. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    You have a very different definition of "harassment" than the rest of us if you consider one warning made in good faith harassment. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Hardly in good faith, if you use these template in content disputes, one-sidedly. But back to the content dispute, can you please point out where WaltCip is discussing notability in his statement? All I see are some alternative facts. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    You clearly have made up your mind-which is your right- so I see little point in further comment. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 331. Entertaining episode, but so far without substantive effect. Sca (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I argued to keep the article because of notability but it isn't newsworthy until something more than a shouting match happens. If we posted every notable event of mudslinging, Donald Trump would be in the news every five minutes. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the foreign minister refused a landing permit, another minister deported out of the country, the Dutch ambassador being refused re-entry into Turkey, that's anything but just "political mudslinging". 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose As diplomatic pissing contests go this one is a little more intense than usual, but for now that's still what it is. If there is an actual break in diplomatic relations I would reconsider supporting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Post-posting support I'm with Ad Orientem here; this is well above the usual complaints at each other but I think it would need an actual diplomatic break to rise to the level of ITN. Erdogan making a complete dick of himself (and pretty much wiping out any chance of Turkey joining the EU for the forseeable future) can of course be included in his article. Well, that escalated quickly Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Ad Orientem. Example of other "diplomatic pissing contests", Vietnam demands China stop cruises in South China Sea . If this kind of event isn't very uncommon then it's hard to justify posting. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
In order to make the comparison, Vietnam would have to PNG the Chinese ambassador, with China doing the same, and Japan canceling state visits, and violent protests breaking out. This is a little more than your standard piss and moan.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
True. I switch to support. Banedon (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding alt blurb 2 since I don't understand alt blurb. The information in alt blurb 2 isn't actually in the article though. Article only says that Turkey banned the Netherlands' diplomat, not vice versa. Banedon (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"Although not arrested, she was declared as persona non grata[9] and eventually escorted to the Dutch-German border"128.214.69.166 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like one particular ambassador is banned. Kind of like if one country's ambassador breaks the law, but claims diplomatic immunity, the other country can declare the violator persona non grata but do not break off relations. All the first country has to do is send a different ambassador. Betül Sayan Kaya is also not actually an ambassador. In fact reading the article again what exactly is the cause of this diplomatic incident is not well communicated. The first section makes it seem like it's got something to do with campaigning, but the "escalation" section says nothing about campaigning. Why is the Turkish government sending ministers to its consulate in the Netherlands, and why is the Netherlands refusing them entry? Banedon (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The questions you are asking are answered in the articles in the altblurbs. Briefly: the government of Turkey (contrary to the principles of the EU and its own laws) is trying to change the constitution in favor of a strongman, and is agitating amongst Turkish expats abroad. The countries where this is happening do not look on this kindly, as it makes a mockery of their sovereignty, creates security problems (riots), and involves them in a civil dispute of a foreign government against their will. Turkey was clearly notified that their government officials were not welcome to do this, but those government officials went anyway, abusing various diplomatic privileges and using outright subterfuge to enter the countries. These people were turned back, expelled or PNG'ed (a very serious designation that is usually reserved for spies). Turkish strongman takes offense to this, and here we are.128.214.163.204 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not well-communicated in the article, however. The background section ends with "campaigning is not allowed", but the escalation section begins with "Turkish minister entry denied". It doesn't say why the minister is going there, or what the rationale behind denying him entry is. The next paragraph says the minister requested for a gathering and the Netherlands retaliates by revoking landing privileges for his plane. Again it doesn't say why the Netherlands is acting like this. But in any case I expect the article to be improved quickly now that it's on ITN. If it isn't I'll improve it myself over the next few days. Banedon (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Dutch-Turkish relations are effectively severed, Turkish government visits to Denmark are postponed for the foreseeable future, and the event has opened up a rift in the German government. The article is quite nice (as far as developing news articles go), giving concise background which is digestible to the naïve reader. I would like to compare this to the US-Russian diplomatic back-and-forth in the waning days of the Obama Administration. In that incident (which was proposed here at ITN and rightly closed), it was merely the government of one side making claims and ejecting diplomats without a quid pro quo from the other, and there was little if any public demonstration. Here, we have quid pro quo abound, mass demonstrations on both sides and the incident spreading beyond the two principle states.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – as someone who is caught right in the middle of this, it is difficult to judge how major an event this is exactly. I need to point out, however, that this happened merely two days before the Dutch election, and this incident is caused by an upcoming Turkish referendum that is going to have a huge impact. Turks in the Netherlands is a very large minority in the country and this incident puts a negative light on all of them, I'm afraid. This incident puts EU-Turkey relations at risk as well, and may impact things such as the refugee crisis. I can't not support this news blurb. ~Mable (chat) 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know some of the opposes above were made when this was a little diplomatic spat between Turkey and the Netherlands, but it's got bigger than that. Turkey's relationship with the EU as a whole is now on the line. With the implications for Turkey's (increasingly unlikely) accession to the EU, and the context of the rise of populist / anti-immigration / anti-Islam politics in Europe, this is a significant development that we should post. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The original blurb is somewhat POV, and I don't think a specific diplomat is worthy of being singled out with a link and a picture since this now includes multiple diplomats from both sides. So, I added an altblurb.128.214.69.166 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the altblurb is indeed an improvement. ~Mable (chat) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support whichever way you look at it this is a very unusual powerplay at international level. Nergaal (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This has severely escalated since yesterday. On the other hand, holy fucking shit guys; we're all going to die. /s UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This has escalated beyond minor diplomatic tit-for-tat.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted a variation of Alt-blurb II, also shortened it up a bit. --Jayron32 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, that was unexpected. Thanks all, especially those who changed from oppose to support. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Photo- File:Turkish people protesting the Netherlands.jpg is available for use, could be presented as (protestors pictured). Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

March 12Edit


Ethiopia landfill landslideEdit

Article: 2017 Ethopian landfill landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide kills at least 113 people at a landfill in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Unusual, and high death toll.

  • Comment Obviously we're going to need an article, but this is an ITN-appropriate event; I think we also did post the 2015 landfill landslide that happened in 2015 in China too. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub article, the event itself is covered in one sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Comment - I'm neutral on this because fifty~ dead is definitely notable but the article sucks. We've been getting a lot of shitty article in ITN/C lately; I'm not sure if it reflects the process as a whole but I wish people put a little more effort into articles that they are nominating. I'd do more myself but I'm not suited in scouring news sources, possibly in other languages, and paraphrasing as to prevent plagiarism. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a stub with barely more information than is already in the proposed blurb. Not of sufficient quality for posting on main page. --Jayron32 12:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In the past 5-6 hours barely any work has been done on the article, so I'm moving to oppose because the article is garbage (no morbid pun intended). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support based on noteworthiness, pending expansion of the article itself. It shouldn't take too long to churn out a half-decent page for ITN. Kurtis (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As above, notable but nowhere near ready at the current time. --LukeSurl t c 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lack of coverage on the landslide currently on Wikipedia is disappointing. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - when updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incidentEdit

Article: 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A diplomatic incident is caused by the Netherlands refusal to allow Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu (pictured)to attend a rally in Rotterdam and Turkey's response of calling the Dutch Fascists and remnants of Nazis.
Alternative blurb: ​Dutch and Turkish diplomats are banned in response to a diplomatic incident ahead of Dutch elections and a Turkish referendum.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Netherlands and Turkey bans each others' diplomats in response to a diplomatic incident ahead of Dutch elections and a Turkish referendum.
News source(s): Der Spiegel (German language)

Nominator's comments: I have started a discussion re the Multiple Issues tag at talk. Afd discussion so far is a unanimous keep. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose War of words so far, like in old times ("When the British came out and said Gamal Abdel Nasser is a dog, we can come back and call you the sons of sixty dogs"). Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose political mudslinging is not ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you point out where in Wikipedia:In_the_news it says that "political mudslinging is not ITN worthy"? The only criteria are that there is an update and that the event is significant. Note also: "Arguments that deal with the appropriateness of topics in general but also ignore the specific story being discussed are also usually not supported by the community." 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Switch to Support given the escalation of the situation. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a war of words. Not even sure it merits an article. If ambassadors are withdrawn or diplomatic relations broken, maybe. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that ambassadors are now, effectively, withdrawn.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Changing to post-posting support given the escalation. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN will get 30+ postings a day if we post every rhetorical back-and-forth at the national political level. That would not be a good thing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you provide evidence for this rather absurd statement. Should be discounted by the closing admin. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, my oppose vote should be discounted among the waves and waves of other oppose votes snowing in. Bugger off.--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    So in summary, no evidence for your absurd statement. Now I know why Trump won the election. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    If you are as familiar with ITN as you seem to be, you should know that we do not just parrot what is reported in the press, we weigh the notability of the nominations presented. People can disagree about what is notable in good faith- and the notability of something can certainly change over time. What all of those who oppose this are saying is that this does not seem notable at this time. If anything changes- we can all reevaluate our positions. Please stop personally attacking those who disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Can you point me towards the part of his statement where he is discussing notability? Thanks. And please, do not hararass me on my talk page. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    You have a very different definition of "harassment" than the rest of us if you consider one warning made in good faith harassment. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Hardly in good faith, if you use these template in content disputes, one-sidedly. But back to the content dispute, can you please point out where WaltCip is discussing notability in his statement? All I see are some alternative facts. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    You clearly have made up your mind-which is your right- so I see little point in further comment. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 331. Entertaining episode, but so far without substantive effect. Sca (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I argued to keep the article because of notability but it isn't newsworthy until something more than a shouting match happens. If we posted every notable event of mudslinging, Donald Trump would be in the news every five minutes. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the foreign minister refused a landing permit, another minister deported out of the country, the Dutch ambassador being refused re-entry into Turkey, that's anything but just "political mudslinging". 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose As diplomatic pissing contests go this one is a little more intense than usual, but for now that's still what it is. If there is an actual break in diplomatic relations I would reconsider supporting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Post-posting support I'm with Ad Orientem here; this is well above the usual complaints at each other but I think it would need an actual diplomatic break to rise to the level of ITN. Erdogan making a complete dick of himself (and pretty much wiping out any chance of Turkey joining the EU for the forseeable future) can of course be included in his article. Well, that escalated quickly Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Ad Orientem. Example of other "diplomatic pissing contests", Vietnam demands China stop cruises in South China Sea . If this kind of event isn't very uncommon then it's hard to justify posting. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
In order to make the comparison, Vietnam would have to PNG the Chinese ambassador, with China doing the same, and Japan canceling state visits, and violent protests breaking out. This is a little more than your standard piss and moan.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
True. I switch to support. Banedon (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding alt blurb 2 since I don't understand alt blurb. The information in alt blurb 2 isn't actually in the article though. Article only says that Turkey banned the Netherlands' diplomat, not vice versa. Banedon (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"Although not arrested, she was declared as persona non grata[9] and eventually escorted to the Dutch-German border"128.214.69.166 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like one particular ambassador is banned. Kind of like if one country's ambassador breaks the law, but claims diplomatic immunity, the other country can declare the violator persona non grata but do not break off relations. All the first country has to do is send a different ambassador. Betül Sayan Kaya is also not actually an ambassador. In fact reading the article again what exactly is the cause of this diplomatic incident is not well communicated. The first section makes it seem like it's got something to do with campaigning, but the "escalation" section says nothing about campaigning. Why is the Turkish government sending ministers to its consulate in the Netherlands, and why is the Netherlands refusing them entry? Banedon (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The questions you are asking are answered in the articles in the altblurbs. Briefly: the government of Turkey (contrary to the principles of the EU and its own laws) is trying to change the constitution in favor of a strongman, and is agitating amongst Turkish expats abroad. The countries where this is happening do not look on this kindly, as it makes a mockery of their sovereignty, creates security problems (riots), and involves them in a civil dispute of a foreign government against their will. Turkey was clearly notified that their government officials were not welcome to do this, but those government officials went anyway, abusing various diplomatic privileges and using outright subterfuge to enter the countries. These people were turned back, expelled or PNG'ed (a very serious designation that is usually reserved for spies). Turkish strongman takes offense to this, and here we are.128.214.163.204 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not well-communicated in the article, however. The background section ends with "campaigning is not allowed", but the escalation section begins with "Turkish minister entry denied". It doesn't say why the minister is going there, or what the rationale behind denying him entry is. The next paragraph says the minister requested for a gathering and the Netherlands retaliates by revoking landing privileges for his plane. Again it doesn't say why the Netherlands is acting like this. But in any case I expect the article to be improved quickly now that it's on ITN. If it isn't I'll improve it myself over the next few days. Banedon (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Dutch-Turkish relations are effectively severed, Turkish government visits to Denmark are postponed for the foreseeable future, and the event has opened up a rift in the German government. The article is quite nice (as far as developing news articles go), giving concise background which is digestible to the naïve reader. I would like to compare this to the US-Russian diplomatic back-and-forth in the waning days of the Obama Administration. In that incident (which was proposed here at ITN and rightly closed), it was merely the government of one side making claims and ejecting diplomats without a quid pro quo from the other, and there was little if any public demonstration. Here, we have quid pro quo abound, mass demonstrations on both sides and the incident spreading beyond the two principle states.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – as someone who is caught right in the middle of this, it is difficult to judge how major an event this is exactly. I need to point out, however, that this happened merely two days before the Dutch election, and this incident is caused by an upcoming Turkish referendum that is going to have a huge impact. Turks in the Netherlands is a very large minority in the country and this incident puts a negative light on all of them, I'm afraid. This incident puts EU-Turkey relations at risk as well, and may impact things such as the refugee crisis. I can't not support this news blurb. ~Mable (chat) 08:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know some of the opposes above were made when this was a little diplomatic spat between Turkey and the Netherlands, but it's got bigger than that. Turkey's relationship with the EU as a whole is now on the line. With the implications for Turkey's (increasingly unlikely) accession to the EU, and the context of the rise of populist / anti-immigration / anti-Islam politics in Europe, this is a significant development that we should post. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The original blurb is somewhat POV, and I don't think a specific diplomat is worthy of being singled out with a link and a picture since this now includes multiple diplomats from both sides. So, I added an altblurb.128.214.69.166 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the altblurb is indeed an improvement. ~Mable (chat) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support whichever way you look at it this is a very unusual powerplay at international level. Nergaal (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This has severely escalated since yesterday. On the other hand, holy fucking shit guys; we're all going to die. /s UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This has escalated beyond minor diplomatic tit-for-tat.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted a variation of Alt-blurb II, also shortened it up a bit. --Jayron32 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, that was unexpected. Thanks all, especially those who changed from oppose to support. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Photo- File:Turkish people protesting the Netherlands.jpg is available for use, could be presented as (protestors pictured). Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

March 11Edit


March 10Edit


[Closed] Ramesses statueEdit

Consensus against, or at the very least, to "wait" which could take some time, so this is done for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ramesses II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Archaeologists find a colossal ancient Egyptian statue, believed to be that of pharaoh Ramesses II.
Alternative blurb: ​Archaeologists find a colossal ancient Egyptian statue at the Heliopolis site in Cairo.
News source(s): CNN, National Geographic

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Found on March 9, but still being reported. Brandmeistertalk 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think "believed to be that of Ramesses II" is too strong (as well as too vague). The New York Times says: "If they are especially lucky, the colossus will be determined to be a likeness of Pharaoh Ramses II, one of the most famous rulers of ancient Egypt. That mystery will not be solved until next week, when they hope to finish the excavation and can look for any inscriptions on the quartzite statue."[26]. CNN attributes the following to the head of the German research team conducting the excavation: "But Raue says although the statue was certainly placed there by Ramses II, the jury is still out on who it depicts." The bolder comments seem to be coming from the media (other than the always careful New York Times) and from Egyptian Ministers. I'm in two minds about whether to post, but if we do, any link to Ramesses needs to be drawn very carefully.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is an interesting discovery and a story full of information that deserves inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the British Museum going to come and take this one too like they did 100 years ago? Because if yes, we will get another media tour when they put it on exhibit. /s Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of whether the statue is of Ramesses II or not: we're still talking a key archeological find. But I agree with Mkativerata the blurb should emphasize the caution there's some confidence, but not a great amount, this is Ramasses. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's inappropriate to link to Ramesses II when there's this level of doubt about who the statue is depicting. I would consider changing my !vote if there was a standalone article on the statue. --LukeSurl t c 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away." Sorry, thought the quote was semi-relevant. I agree with Mkativerata and Masem that the blurb should be annointed to emphasize that there is doubt as to which pharaoh is being depicted, but that it is believed to be Ramesses II. Kurtis (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unclear how this is notable, especially as right now not even the age and provenance is clear. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The identify (and authenticity?) of the statue is yet to be established, and the target article only contains a paragraph on this particular statue. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest wait. This should be posted, but the links say identification will be done next week, once the statue is actually taken out. Even if it is not Ramses 2, it will still be worthwhile posting it. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - since the identity of the statue is yet to be confirmed, plus since the linked section is rather poor. I saw the "further information" redirect and thought there was a better article to link, but it turned out to be inappropriate. This can still be featured, but only after 1) confirming it and 2) an appropriate section or article. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing. (Perhaps eventually there'll be a photo of a restored statue.) Sca (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, but then post upon confirmation of identity. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Update and confirmation we got this right: [27] --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Samuel OgbemudiaEdit

Stale. Stephen 00:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Samuel Ogbemudia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Daily Post, Nigerian Tribune, The News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nigerian politician. Fuebaey (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support There's a CN tag and it could use an actual line or three about his personal life/death. But otherwise it's in passable shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Neila SathyalingamEdit

Article: Neila Sathyalingam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Straits Times

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

Nominator's comments: Singaporean dancer, GA quality EternalNomad (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs update, the article is currently in present tense. Brandmeistertalk 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted, after changing the tense. Stephen 01:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John SurteesEdit

Article: John Surtees (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport; The Guardian

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Only man to be World Champion in two-wheel and four-wheel motorsports. Article appears to provide good coverage of his career and is decently sourced. Bcp67 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. Several paragraphs of career section have no source. There's an honorary doctorate noted as well that has no source. Text about death in article is woefully un-encyclopedic in tone and could be expanded (if known) with cause of death. --Jayron32 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been improved with good references being included just to make the article in good enough shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support MBlaze Lightning has been doing some fine work. Needs two more citations that I can see (one CN and one open para) but overall good enough for RD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment — All the [citation needed] tags have been fixed. —MBlaze Lightning T 07:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The last two results tables could do with a reference as to where the official results are maintained. Stephen 07:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill LeakEdit

Article: Bill Leak (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Australian ABC News Sydney Morning Herald

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent political cartoonist, article looks comprehensive and well-referenced to me. dmmaus (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - there are three CN tags that need fixing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I have added two citations and removed the third. No tags remain. --dmmaus (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] South Korean president removedEdit

closing because people are now using this nomination space for inappropriate reasons, and heading that off. All further comments should be directed elsewhere. Errors in the blurb only should be posted at WP:ERRORS. Errors in article text should be corrected without the need for discussion, or reported at the article talk page of the article in question. Please do not continue WP:POINTy posts here anymore. --Jayron32 14:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Impeachment of Park Geun-hye (talk, history)
Blurb: Park Geun-hye is removed as President of South Korea by the Constitutional Court of Korea, with Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn assuming the office.
News source(s): NY Times USA Today The Guardian Le Monde

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: A change in head of state is ITNR. Not sure if or how to mention that this is a first for South Korea- as well as elections that must occur in 60 days. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb with current facets (1) former and succeeding presidents 2) link to impeachment article 3) judiciary affirmation of removal) takes highest priority, then time limit for next presidential election, then fact that this is the ROK's first such example. Blurb might be modified to '''[[Impeachment of Park Geun-hye|Park Geun-hye is removed]]''' as [[President of South Korea]] by the [[Constitutional Court of Korea]], with Prime Minister [[Hwang Kyo-ahn]] assuming the office, and a [[South Korean presidential election, 2017|new presidential election]] is to be held by 9 May 2017.
  • Support No question of importance for ITN, and impeachment article is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think the setting of a deadline for an election is more important than the PM temporarily assuming the office. So if space is going to be an issue I support including the date instead of the PM. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted with Masem's blurb, minus the PM. ITNR + article is well done, per above. No objections to posting a more improved blurb if/when others comment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Two sentences in the blurb is unusual. It's also somewhat surprising that Park Geun Hye's name is up there but clicking on it does not direct to her article. I'd do something like "South Korean President Park Geun Hye is removed by the Constitutional Court of Korea." Banedon (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, fixed by Stephen. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
post support this is massive. Another fight back against the globalist oligarchy. We should link to the new election in about 60 days or so. brexit, Trump, Rome (which we dint post), Bulgaria, Moldova, Ghana and now re-affirmed in Korea. Like father, like daughter.Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lihaas: You should know by now that this is not a place to make political statements. Let's keep things on the subject of this nomination. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yu should know I suggested the reasons for its notability as well addin the election link (suggestion)
procedural oppose the article has ONE sentene on the verdict update. D o yall read the blind posting of such artilces? TRM makes heck of a lot of sense here.Lihaas (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
After a 2 month trial (which was already documented), how much more of an update could you expect? In time, I would expect reactions and the like, but its the result of a trial, and both the lede and body reported that result. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)"Another fight back against the globalist oligarchy" is an unnecessary political flourish. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 9Edit


[Closed] RD: Marilyn B. YoungEdit

Stale. Stephen 11:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marilyn B. Young (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale - she died on 19 February...I'm not sure why obituaries are running now, because the one used in the article is dated 24 February. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Kabul hospital attackEdit

Article: March 2017 Kabul attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As many as 30 civilians are killed in an attack on a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, Al Jazeera

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This appears to be a notable attack, more so than other recent attacks in Afghanistan. The article is short but if anyone wants to help expand it that would be greatly appreciated. Andise1 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle of being an ISIS-linked terrorist attack of large # casualties, but article quality is very poor in both length and tone. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Per Masem, the event is significant but the article is crap. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the article; it's not extensive but should be suitable for posting. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree: while still short, the expansion is sufficient for an article now and ITN material --MASEM (t) 21:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Donald Tusk re-electedEdit

Articles: Donald Tusk (talk, history) and President of the European Council (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Tusk is re-elected President of the European Council despite opposition from his home country, Poland.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent election with an element of controversy Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – This is an interesting story, particularly for anyone trying to follow murky, quirky Polish politics. But I'm not sure the president of the European Council is sufficiently notable for ITN. Undecided. Sca (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This appears to be on WP:ITNR and is a highly prominent position, so it is assumed to be sufficiently notable. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I have nothing to add to the nominator's reasons. I agree with the blurb mentioning Poland's opposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If the blurb is going to highlight Poland's objection then the bolded article needs to have some prose explaining why this happened and what this means. Currently it simply states that Tusk didn't get the Polish PM's vote, which isn't sufficiently illuminating. --LukeSurl t c 21:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This has now been covered in Donald_Tusk#President_of_the_European_Council --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability if that's a question we need to answer. Fairly big geopolitical news, it's an important office in an important international institution. --LukeSurl t c 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, this isn't ITN/R. However if this passes (as I suspect it will do comfortably), I will make a proposal to add it. --LukeSurl t c 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this not a "European Union election" as ITNR states? 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree - this doesn't count as an EU election; that's referring to parliamentary elections. Therefore this is not a ITN/R item.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until updated with at least a paragraph. This seems like a curious story where a group a people choose in a room a position that is supposedly significant despite one party "vetoing" it. Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For those wondering why the one country voting against Tusk is his own, this gives you the basic background. Meanwhile, Weak Support once articles are updated; this is an influential position. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've updated the Donald Tusk article, which I think should be the bold link, as the President of the European Council article deals more with the position of the office rather than the holder, and has an inconveniently large and outdated section about the previous president. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It lacks far too many references to be the bolded article. Stephen 02:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Through judicious application of the delete key, I think all sourcing gaps have been addressed. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've made some additions. Should be OK now. --LukeSurl t c 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Howard HodgkinEdit

Article: Howard Hodgkin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, The Telegraph

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 14:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] US involvement in SyriaEdit

Consensus will not form for minor troop movements. Stephen 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States is sending an additional 400 troops to Syria to help prepare for the expected fight for Raqqa.
News source(s): NY Times The Guardian Salon
Nominator's comments: The articles have not been updated. --Adûnâi (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Troop movement from one country is not a significant ITN topic. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small a troop number. If tens of thousands of US troops were going, maybe. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no updated content to assess the quality of. --Jayron32 14:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not the first deployment in Syria, and not in significant numbers. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 9Edit


[Closed] RD: Marilyn B. YoungEdit

Stale. Stephen 11:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marilyn B. Young (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stale - she died on 19 February...I'm not sure why obituaries are running now, because the one used in the article is dated 24 February. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Kabul hospital attackEdit

Article: March 2017 Kabul attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As many as 30 civilians are killed in an attack on a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, Al Jazeera

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This appears to be a notable attack, more so than other recent attacks in Afghanistan. The article is short but if anyone wants to help expand it that would be greatly appreciated. Andise1 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle of being an ISIS-linked terrorist attack of large # casualties, but article quality is very poor in both length and tone. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Per Masem, the event is significant but the article is crap. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the article; it's not extensive but should be suitable for posting. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree: while still short, the expansion is sufficient for an article now and ITN material --MASEM (t) 21:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Donald Tusk re-electedEdit

Articles: Donald Tusk (talk, history) and President of the European Council (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Tusk is re-elected President of the European Council despite opposition from his home country, Poland.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent election with an element of controversy Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – This is an interesting story, particularly for anyone trying to follow murky, quirky Polish politics. But I'm not sure the president of the European Council is sufficiently notable for ITN. Undecided. Sca (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This appears to be on WP:ITNR and is a highly prominent position, so it is assumed to be sufficiently notable. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I have nothing to add to the nominator's reasons. I agree with the blurb mentioning Poland's opposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If the blurb is going to highlight Poland's objection then the bolded article needs to have some prose explaining why this happened and what this means. Currently it simply states that Tusk didn't get the Polish PM's vote, which isn't sufficiently illuminating. --LukeSurl t c 21:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC) This has now been covered in Donald_Tusk#President_of_the_European_Council --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on notability if that's a question we need to answer. Fairly big geopolitical news, it's an important office in an important international institution. --LukeSurl t c 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, this isn't ITN/R. However if this passes (as I suspect it will do comfortably), I will make a proposal to add it. --LukeSurl t c 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this not a "European Union election" as ITNR states? 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree - this doesn't count as an EU election; that's referring to parliamentary elections. Therefore this is not a ITN/R item.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until updated with at least a paragraph. This seems like a curious story where a group a people choose in a room a position that is supposedly significant despite one party "vetoing" it. Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For those wondering why the one country voting against Tusk is his own, this gives you the basic background. Meanwhile, Weak Support once articles are updated; this is an influential position. Black Kite (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've updated the Donald Tusk article, which I think should be the bold link, as the President of the European Council article deals more with the position of the office rather than the holder, and has an inconveniently large and outdated section about the previous president. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It lacks far too many references to be the bolded article. Stephen 02:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Through judicious application of the delete key, I think all sourcing gaps have been addressed. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've made some additions. Should be OK now. --LukeSurl t c 11:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Howard HodgkinEdit

Article: Howard Hodgkin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, The Telegraph

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 14:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] US involvement in SyriaEdit

Consensus will not form for minor troop movements. Stephen 01:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States is sending an additional 400 troops to Syria to help prepare for the expected fight for Raqqa.
News source(s): NY Times The Guardian Salon
Nominator's comments: The articles have not been updated. --Adûnâi (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Troop movement from one country is not a significant ITN topic. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too small a troop number. If tens of thousands of US troops were going, maybe. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no updated content to assess the quality of. --Jayron32 14:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not the first deployment in Syria, and not in significant numbers. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 8Edit


[Posted] Time crystalsEdit

Article: Space-time crystal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Physicists synthesize space-time crystals for the first time
News source(s): [28] [29]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like a pretty major thing in quantum physics, little coverage in mainstream media though. Maybe Masem & @Modest Genius: would know more? Banedon (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support There's little coverage in mainstream media but the Wall Street Journal has it. As this is quite a novel idea, the item provides good variety. The blurb should call them "time crystals", like the WSJ and other sources, as this is shorter, sounds better and seems to be the most common name. Andrew D. (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Andrew; this isn't top headline news, but it is covered, and the novelty of this makes up for the lesser coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest I don't understand the science here either. It seems like one of those weird solid-state quantum oddities, most of which go nowhere but some do lead to real applications (like quantum cryptography). The article looks good and is well-referenced, so we might like to feature it for that reason. But the concept is very technical and confusing for non-specialists. I'll refrain from !voting because I don't understand the physics. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Appears to be stale (since at least 2016). Brandmeistertalk 13:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like this is being reported now because they are confident about the merits of this. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Correct - the scientific papers describing experimental results have been around for a while, but the peer review process to check there is no obvious flaws in methodology can take some time, It was not until last week Nature published the papers.--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
For a science story such as this it's appropriate to post and date the story at the time of publication of the final, reviewed and revised, paper. I'm happy with the blurb as it stands but if we want to be more specific we should mention the research being published is the news story. --LukeSurl t c 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I guarantee that if this were somehow nominated at the time this story actually occurred, the primary complaint against posting would be "not a peer reviewed study".--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support with the only cavaets I have being some small gaps in inline sourcing and perhaps the lede being just a notch too high for the average reader (eg what practical applications does this have?) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Its a pretty important discovery: time translation symmetry is the only symmetry in nature thought not to be able to be broken and leads directly to the conservation of energy law, now it has been broken...--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support plus Comment on above: I fully support the posting. But in the light of some a seemingly misleading or incorrect points in the above comment by Sparkyscience, I'd like to mention that:
  • 0) Apologies for the lengthy wall of text, but in this case concision seems to be the enemy of verifiability, plus it's a lot shorter if you just read the bold bits.
  • 1) This is not the first direct observation of a T-symmetry violation. Space-time crystal#cite note-38 tells us that a T-symmetry violation was directly observed by Lees et al in 2012 (paper last revised in 2013). As item 3 below points out in more detail, the 1964 observation of a CP violation meant that T violation has long been widely expected under the CPT Theorem.
  • 2) As Space-time crystal#Quasienergy points out: "In either case the apparent non-conservation is in reality a transfer to the vacuum field (i.e. zero-point field).[25]" (Note: it earlier makes clear the apparent non-conservations are of energy in this case, and of momentum in another case). In other words breaking Time Translation Symmetry does not invalidate the conservation of energy law (as "and leads directly to the conservation of energy law" would at least appear to imply, even though it does not explicitly state this).
  • 3) As the lead of CPT symmetry points out: "Charge, Parity, and Time Reversal Symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under the simultaneous transformations of charge conjugation (C), parity transformation (P), and time reversal (T). CPT is the only combination of C, P, and T that is observed to be an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level.[1]" The cited paper was published in 1998 - in other words it has not been true for a long time that "time translation symmetry is the only symmetry in nature thought not to be able to be broken". However, it was reportedly once briefly thought to be the case - CPT symmetry#History states: "For a short time, the CP-symmetry was believed to be preserved by all physical phenomena, but that was later found to be false too, which implied, by CPT invariance, violations of T-symmetry as well." The lead for CP violation adds: "The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons resulted in the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1980 for its discoverers James Cronin and Val Fitch.".Space-time crystal#Broken symmetry tells us that P violations were theorized in 1956 and that P and C violations were discovered in 1957 (resulting in the 1957 Nobel Prize being awarded for the 1956 theory), before adding "At around the same time questions of possible asymmetries under time-reversal T and CP violations (the product of C and P transformations) were also raised, though actual experimental confirmation did not come until quite a few years later.[16]" - so any widespread belief in CP and T inviolability may have been even briefer than the 1957-1964 interval suggested by the experimental results.
Tlhslobus (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Lol oh dear, I appreciate your vigilance, but its pretty clear you don't really know what your talking about: T-symmetry i.e time-reversal symmetry and time-translation symmetry are not the same thing. More or less the entire time crystal article including the bits you cite above was written by me in this edit [30] so thank you for pointing out things I have written in order to try and claim I am being misleading :-) Take any remaining pointers you wish to raise on the time crystal talk page.--Sparkyscience (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OOPS. How embarrassingly stupid of me. My abject apologies, Sparkyscience (and my thanks to you for correcting me), regarding confusing Time Translation and Time Reversal, so my points 1 and 3 are clearly completely wrong, and I have now crossed them out.
  • But I still think point 2 (about the conservation of energy) is sufficiently valid to leave in (unless you later correct me on that point too), even though it turns out that I'm quoting lines you wrote in the article to clarify the seemingly misleading stuff you wrote here. At least it certainly misled me into thinking that the conservation of energy was being called into doubt (after which I foolishly failed to notice the difference between the 2 time symmetries). So I'm leaving it here (at least until if and when you correct me) for the benefit of anybody else who may have been similarly confused (although clearly what I wrote in items 1 and 3 would have been at least as confusing if you had not corrected me, for which once again thanks). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, Sparkyscience, I hesitate to ask this for fear of yet another booboo, but is it correct to say that "time translation symmetry is (or was) the only symmetry in nature thought not to be able to be broken", given that I would have thought the CPT theorem says that CPT is a symmetry that supposedly can't be broken? I'm aware there's a 2011 paper questioning its connection to Lorentz invariance, but I didn't think that implied CPT was thought to be breakable (except in the seemingly irrelevant sense that nothing is ever 100% certain in science) - perhaps it does? I'm asking this here rather than on the time crystal talk page because the confusing statement is here, not there.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • On point 2 - Any broken symmetry in nature will, by definition, cause a corresponding conservation law to be altered by the Noether theorem. However, we can consider any apparent violation of a conservation law as a transfer to the vacuum state so overall symmetry is restored, in normal situations we can generally ignore the vacuum as it is not considered mutable. For example a transfer to the vacuum can cause momentum to appear "from nowhere" [31] [32] there is no reason to suppose the same is not true for energy under certain conditions. The term "quasienergy" instead of "energy" is used in the context of time crystals because it is a technical violation of the "normal" energy conservation law in which the effect of the vacuum does not come into play.
  • On your last point - "Symmetry breaking is a pervasive concept in physics, explaining diverse phenomena such as spatial crystals, superconductivity, and the Higgs mechanism. Yet until recently, time-translation symmetry was the “lone holdout”"[33] Your point on CPT is a good one: the short answer is we just don't know. Don't hold me to this...but I understand it, one of the experiments created time crystals in a cold atom system being bombarded by lasers (to create an optical lattice), this same sort of set up is also currently being used to create gauge fields out of "nowhere" to test whether general relativity holds in such situations. I was reading about this the other week and... for the life of me... I cannot find the publications now. If i find them will update you on your talk page.--Sparkyscience (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Sparkyscience. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George Andrew OlahEdit

Article: George Andrew Olah (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP via ABC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: 1994 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry. shoy (reactions) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support A Nobel prize-winner. What are we waiting for? Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added references for some (all?) of the unreferenced claims and fleshed out his educational and teaching history; that said, there is more expansion that could be done regarding his work in organic chemistry. Currently there's not much about what he contributed to the field (maybe 4 sentences total?); perhaps two complete paragraphs describing his professional work would bring this up to an acceptable standard. SpencerT♦C 19:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ended up adding more myself; marking [ready], but additional look-overs on my additions are more than welcome. SpencerT♦C 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - a few CNs left in there, and needs info on his death. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Those issues should be resolved now. SpencerT♦C 17:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to go now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Azure Window collapsesEdit

Article: Azure Window (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The limestone natural arch Azure Window (pictured) on the Maltese island of Gozo collapses due to a storm.
News source(s): BBC, Times of Malta

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous landmarks of Malta gone in a storm. Bruzaholm (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't see how notable this is. I mean, natural landmarks collapse fairly often. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Although not a natural organism per se, would this fall under the purveyance of RD?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No. --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely not. We already push the envelope for RD; this would be simply inappropriate. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • RD specifically says biological organism, so this is excluded. Banedon (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The collapse of a famous natural arch is notable for me and a news of high encyclopedic value. I don't agree entirely that natural landmarks collapse fairly often or perhaps I fail to see them on the front page of the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coastal features erode all the time; every arch like this will eventually collapse (see Aruba Natural Bridge and London Arch as examples). Although this one was unusually notable, that was enough to warrant an article but not an ITN entry. Modest Genius talk 14:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Azure Window was notable prior to its collapse, so I don't agree with Modest Genius. The BBC article also says "The Azure Window was one of Malta's most famous landmarks". That should suffice to qualify this for ITN. Banedon (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - it was one of the most beautiful and known icons of Malta. --Holapaco77 (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, it's erosion and a natural process, but it is also a well-recognized landmark. Article is in good shape to post. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It was one of Malta's major tourist attractions, probably the best-known natural landmark on the islands. I just rewrote the article, almost doubling its size. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per UNSC Luke. (Cf. Wall Arch.) While the Azure Window was no doubt a famous landmark in Europe, it doesn't rise to ITN-level significance. Sca (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. I slightly reworded the blurb to avoid a false title problem. --Jayron32 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Not a UNESCO WHS or anything. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - "every arch like this will eventually collapse"... yes, and every person will eventually die, but we regularly post things to RD. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Sad news. It was an inevitability, but it's still sad and a blow to Malta's geographic heritage. Kurtis (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Striking yet another pointy comment. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • OpposeI agree with Luke, this has nothing to do with the UK, not visually appealing, not described by the British Museum as a "unique find" /s. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel sad about it. Sca (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 7Edit


[Posted] RD: Ron Bass (wrestler)Edit

Article: Ron Bass (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [34], [35]

Article updated

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

 —MBlaze Lightning T 07:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Solid, well referenced article. --Jayron32 11:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kamran AzizEdit

Article: Kamran Aziz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kıbrıs (sorry, could not find anything in English, the title here reads "Kamran Aziz hayatını kaybetti!" = "Kamran Aziz has died!") + BRT (Turkish Cypriot state TV)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Leading figure for Turkish Cypriot women and a key composer in the Cypriot musical tradition. GGT (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support — Short but well referenced. —MBlaze Lightning T 13:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As all references are in Turkish (which is not disallowed, I should point out), it would be helpful if someone who knows that area could comment on the sourcing quality, but this otherwise looks fine. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Since the nomination the Turkish Cypriot state TV released an article in English, linked above. There is also an English-language book cited in the article, which can be accessed online. --GGT (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Vince (rhinoceros)Edit

Consensus is to not post per WP:BLP1E and likely WP:AFD results everyone seems to expect. --Jayron32 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Vince (rhinoceros) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "White rhino shot dead in French zoo, horn sawn off". Reuters. March 7, 2017. Retrieved March 7, 2017.; Breeden, Aurelien (March 7, 2017). "Rhinoceros Is Killed for Its Horn at Wildlife Park Near Paris". The New York Times. Retrieved March 7, 2017.; Willsher, Kim (March 7, 2017). "Rhino shot dead by poachers at French zoo". The Guardian. Retrieved March 7, 2017.

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The first rhinoceros to be murdered inside a zoo in Europe. A stub, with potential to be expanded. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - This is an unexpected death and the circumstances surrounding it are noteworthy. --WaltCip (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – A good faith nom. about a bizarre story, but in general I haven't been comfortable with ITN blurbs about animal deaths. Highlighting such events in this way seems almost to cheapen the tragic human deaths in the news all the time. Sca (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the way Vince was brutally murdered (or "killed") is rather tragic, isn't it?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Savage and revolting, but again tragic seems rather too anthropomorphic. Sca (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS: The death of Fritz the polar bear in the Berlin Zoo drew this headline – Tragic end for Fritz – in guess what publication? – Sca (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that applying RD to non-humans is wildly inappropriate. That guideline has got out of hand. IMO this either needs to be a notable enough story for a blurb, on its own merits, or nothing. RD for an animal is frankly distasteful and disrespectful of the people we list there. Modest Genius talk 14:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Run an RFC and get the consensus changed. Until then it's the law of the land.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Good article and notable. On the other hand, what the fuck?! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We have consensus to post notable non-human organisms to RD so that's not an issue. That said, I'm not really convinced on quality. The article contains 132 words of readable prose – around 80 if you remove the quote and tweet (the latter of which seems of dubious significance). It's a stub with section headers. While I think a rhino being poached in a zoo is probably noteworthy and highly rare, the "First rhinoceros to be killed inside a zoo in Europe" claim to notoriety seems to be based on an emotionally charged comment from the zookeeper saying there has never "been a case [...] of such violence", which doesn't explicitly state it's the first time a rhinoceros has been "killed" (dubious wording – not even by accident?) in a European zoo. Not really comfortable posting in this condition. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your concerns. I have added "probably" with two references and direct quotes. Probably hard to get real data about this--for example it's possible rhinoceroses were killed during the world wars--but this is definitely "in the news" as a most unusual event.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way, in my "edit summary," I meant to type "re." Sorry about the typo.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - the only time I could see the death of an individual animal being blurb worthy is if it were the last of its species. --LukeSurl t c 13:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you support an inclusion in the RD section? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't the time now to review the article and reference quality, but if it's adequate then yes. The new RD rules on notability are clear that they include individual animals with articles. --LukeSurl t c 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I don't really like this "animal inclusion" aspect of the current policy and would support an effort to amend. But as the rules currently stand animal nominations are OK for RD. --LukeSurl t c 14:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC) -- after reading some discussions in this thread I have some further thoughts on this, see below. ---LukeSurl t c 14:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD. But I hope the publicity doesn't encourage anyone. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose We shouldn't have an article on the animal, under the logic of WP:BLP1E. The article was created as a result of the crime, and ignoring everything about the crime, the animal had no notability before that point; being the victim of a crime, were this a human, would not qualify the person for an article, and the same logic should apply here. This is not like Cevil who was notable before killed, or the situation around Killing of Harambe which was the controversy about actions taken to protect the kid over the gorilla; there's no indication that there's a major controversy here, just a sad crime. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment However, should this be posted as an RD, please make sure that since "Vince" is a common name, there is some clear labeling in the RD string as to distinguish this from any potential human named Vince. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Perspective: There are 7.5 billion human beings, but only less than 20,000 Southern white rhinoceroses on this earth. And this was apparently the first time a rhino was poached inside a zoo in Europe. It has also been "in the news" internationally, which makes it relevant to this section.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because we are "in the news" does not mean that just because a topic is "in the news" that we feature it; we are looking at the encyclopedic nature of the topic which requires less focus on immediacy and a longer, farther-out view of the world. I'm starting from the premise that neither the animal itself is notable in the long-term, nor the event around its killing notable as a news story as it currently stands (there's no serious outrage or changing of laws to prevent this); I'm sure there's a topic on WP where this can be mentioned (perhaps White rhinoceros) but that again begs how important that is. If you discount everything beyond this being an near-extinct species, this is a average crime, and while the rhinos are nearly extinct, this is not like the last of a dozen here, so a blurb doesn't make sense either. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Come now Masem, you can hardly describe a crime as 'average' which involves a white rhino being poached *inside a zoo*. How many crimes involve Rhinos? How many times have any animals been poached from inside a zoo in a built up 1st world country? Its one thing to poach on reserves, its another to waltz into a safari park enclosure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@OID, this is straying somewhat from the point but animals are poached from zoos in Europe all the time, to the extent that the big inner-city zoos like London Zoo don't even bother to report it to the police when they discover it but just send in a monthly tally. (Google animals stolen from zoo and prepare to be shocked at how many hits it brings up.) What's unusual here is that the animal was killed (usually, it's a case of stealing-to-order for the exotic animal trade). ‑ Iridescent 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. I have no problem with animals featuring in RD, if they are notable outside of their death. The article was created in response to the death and is the animal equivalent of a BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not notable outside of its death. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@AmaryllisGardener: The RD process has been changed to remove debates about notability from the process; if a person/animal/organism merits an article, they merit posting to RD assuming a quality update and being in the news. If you are arguing that this animal does not merit an article, please bring it up for AfD. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the problem, the article was created due to the incident, so there's been no evaluation of notability yet. It would be pointy to AFD this while the ITN/C is open. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Then I would ask if the intention is to nominate it for deletion after this discussion. As of now I don't think the article is in shape for posting. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I also suggest an article be created for Satao II (an article exists for Satao, but not the successor). See here: [36] 129.97.18.152 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not really the place to discuss this but for the record I believe you meant to link to Satao (elephant) :-)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, I guess there's no one to badger the oppose !votes opposing on the basis of notability since TRM got blocked, so it's up to me. Opposes based on notability for RDs are no longer relevant since the RFC on RDs. If there is truly an issue with notability, then nominate the article for deletion. Until then, the only thing that needs be determined here is the quality and sourcing of the article being nominated.--WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be sent to AFD, actually. I was going to wait until this debate has run its course. Did the RFC consider articles that were created on the same day they were brought to ITN/C? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Skimming the RFC it doesn't look like it was discussed in depth. The only mention of AfD in the proposal is that an article up for AfD would prevent its posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst I agree sending the article to AfD whilst this discussion would be pointy, that is indeed where it needs to go. This is the animal equivalent of a BLP1E and whilst the news story should be mentioned somewhere, it almost certainly fits better as part of Southern white rhinoceros or a poaching-related article. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. After reading these comments I think we've exposed an issue that needs addressing with the new RD criteria. The fact we're discussing an animal here is actually a bit of a distraction, the issue here is "BLP1E"-like noms (where the 1E is the death) that wouldn't meet blurb level.
For what it's worth, if an AfD on this animal came up I would suggest merging into Parc Zoologique de Thoiry (which would need to be created). As such, because I don't think an independent article should exist for this animal, I will !vote oppose with a side of WP:IAR for the by-the-letter following of the RD criteria. --LukeSurl t c 10:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This would be posted as a RD if the article was more than a stub. We wouldn't post a human RD in this state, it's not going to happen with an animal either. Stephen 23:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Vault 7Edit

Article: Vault 7 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a series of documents released by WikiLeaks, it is revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency has been performing electronic surveillance and cyber warfare since 2013.
Alternative blurb: ​On March 7 WikiLeaks began releasing a series of documents, called Vault 7, that details exploits and cyberweapons targeting smart TVs, smartphones and PC operating systems used by the CIA for surveillance and cyberwarfare.
Alternative blurb II: ​Documents released by WikiLeaks detail extensive electronic surveillance of smartphones and PCs by the U.S. CIA since 2013.
Alternative blurb III: Wikileaks releases a series of documents that include the Central Intelligence Agency's database of exploits.
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian, BBC

Nominator's comments: Per the New York Times, "If the documents are authentic, as appeared likely at first review, the release would be the latest coup for the anti-secrecy organization and a serious blow to the C.I.A., which maintains its own hacking capabilities to be used for espionage." The Guardian claims this is the 'biggest ever leak of secret CIA documents'. Andise1 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment if this runs, it needs a considerably better hook. The significance of the leak is that it details specific methodologies; if the CIA weren't engaged in intelligence-gathering activities I'd be asking some fairly pointed questions about why I'm still paying my taxes. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am not great at writing blurbs so any altblurb ideas are greatly welcomed. Andise1 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed with Iridescent. Current blurb reads like "The U.S. Army has been killing enemy combatants since 1901."--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – The content of the leak is the important part, not what it shows about the CIA. How about A series of documents released by Wikileaks reveals the Central Intelligence Agency's database of security vulnerabilities? KSFT (t|c) 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but not the blurb. Added an altblurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2, offered above. Serious stuff. Sca (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have a hard time answering the question "so what?". Should we expect intelligence agencies to engage in this kind of thing? I say yes, since that's what intelligence-gathering is about. Is there something special about CIA then? I don't see anything, since although they are obviously the biggest such agency, I'd be surprised if the intelligence agencies of other countries are not doing this. Heck, the fact that Kim-Jong Nam was tracked to Malaysia and killed is a sign of what the intelligence agencies of North Korea are capable of. What, then, is this leak worth? It's basically told us nothing we didn't already know. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Did you know before today the CIA could record conversations remotely from your living room television?--WaltCip (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
      • No, but it's not surprising. Like, it is obviously (?) conceivable that the CIA has the capability to do that, and the people working in intelligence-gathering agencies are among the best and brightest of humanity. If you are interested in this topic you could look at articles such as Aldrich Ames or Cambridge Five to see the level of deception these people go to in order to outwit the other side. I would be more surprised if the CIA had the technological capability to do this but elected not to, even when there was good reason to record conversations. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't get the importance about this new leak? Didn't Snowden say all this stuff years ago? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Many specific details makes this noteworthy. I am personally not that surprised, but many people are, and the revealed extend was not entirely predictable. Hence it is currently on the top of the front page of New York Times etc. One interesting angle is that the open security holes in e.g. the iPhone also affect Americans, but the intelligence services had largely promised to tell manufactures about security holes so they could be fixed. Thue (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Needs a couple CN's filled in. Beyond that, this is HUGE news not just because of what was being done, but because Wikileakds told everyone in the world how it was being done. This is probably the worst day the CIA has had since the Bay of Pigs Invasion. And conversely the champagne must be flowing in Moscow and Bejing tonight along with whatever the ISIS savages celebrate with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and oppose as nominated. As I understand this, the story here is not that the CIA is spying (which is the "so what?" mentioned above), but that the hacking tools used by the CIA were leaked (and not just to WikiLeaks). This means that a large number of unaligned and unaccountable entities are able to hack just about any communication. That is a serious threat to everyone, from the top line governments of the world all the way down to anyone using WhatsApp or Instagram or mobile banking apps. That's a big news, but it's still too early to know what's going to happen with this. Lacking that certainty leaves us with the current situation where we're trying to post "government agency duly perform tasks" which is a bit uninspiring. This could change rapidly, and if it does I would like to urge a new nomination instead of re-tooling this one.128.214.163.201 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support subject to the conditions that others such as Ad Orientem have laid out above. In this case the fact of the leak is significant enough; we need not parse or hypothesise about the consequences in the usual ITN amateur-guessing-game manner. I had a good read of the New York Times lead, which carefully and cogently explains the significance of the leak. If I can diverge from the topic for a moment, also of some significance to me is this fact, as stated by the NYT: "The codes names used for projects revealed in the WikiLeaks documents appear to reflect the likely demographic of the cyberexperts employed by the C.I.A. — that is, young and male. There are numerous references to 'Harry Potter,' Pokémon and Adderall, the drug used to treat hyperactivity." Sounds like the same kind of knob-brigade that runs wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable as per reasons given above. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to Snowden, "here's the big deal: first public evidence US Government secretly paying to keep US software unsafe." In another tweet, he says, "The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words." I think the story is notable, but I'm not sure the current blurb accurately reflects the importance. Great Dessert (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    [37] ... ? I still don't see this as anything we didn't already know. Heck, it's not even surprising. RSA encryption can be broken by brute force, and any software making use of RSA is inherently unsafe. If an entity with as much resources as the US government elects to hack my credit card, of course they will succeed. If the US government kept a hole that a hacker with limited resources can attack, and such an attack actually happened, then it'd be something to post. Banedon (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    There's a question for the reference desk. When, exactly, did this mentality arise where it's become fait accompli to assume that if the government wants to turn your home into a remote wiretap, it can do so at will with little more than a few keystrokes entered by a CIA programmer?--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I could ask the same question from the opposite angle. When, exactly, did this mentality arise where it's become fait accompli to assume that the government has evil intentions, including to its own citizens? Banedon (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Moreover, my comment was objective and did not suppose good or evil intentions.--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I recognize there's a story here whether it is the claim the CIA has been doing unauthorized hacking, or that these supposed CIA tools are now in the open making the potential for more threats. My concern is the legitimacy of WikiLeaks' claim; not that they are not reliable but no corroborating proof or peer-review to assure these claims that these are CIA tools are true. It gets into the area of political speculation that we here should be avoiding as ITN. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Well we should go with what WP:RS say. And they take it as legitimate. Also WikiLeaks has a good track record. Furthermore while the interesting part is the content of the disclosure the release in itself is also newsworthy itself. And I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "a story here whether it is the claim the CIA has been doing unauthorized hacking, or that these supposed CIA tools are now in the open making the potential for more threats" - this doesn't really matter as the blurb/s isn't stating anything about it. --Fixuture (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the biggest intel leak so far. ~nmaia d 17:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Some of us might no longer be surprised by anything the CIA does, but that's not the criterion; it's significance in the context of democratic-society norms. Sca (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, significance is in the context of coverage by reliable sources. Everything else is personal opinion and WP:OR. --Jayron32 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Significance in terms of import, actual or potential, also is a criterion – otherwise ITN would be full of blather about celebrities (and zoo animals?). Sca (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs to be expanded first. I suggested on the talkpage we should add a "reactions" section. Feel free to respond there.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think that it needs to be expanded further before getting added to the In the news? I think it's sufficiently good enough already, can still be expanded after getting posted there and as this (and reactions) develops and also already features some content that would be appropriate for a "Reactions" section. --Fixuture (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It would make it more "newsy" for ITN. Otherwise we'd be tempted to think, so what, the CIA tracks everything to keep us safe, who cares?Zigzig20s (