Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2017

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

Contents

September 30Edit


[Posted] RD: Monty HallEdit

Article: Monty Hall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes

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: There are about 4-5 CNs noted on the article but beyond that it seems fine (those CNs have to be resolved first obviously). MASEM (t) 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

September 29Edit


[Closed] RD: Tom AlterEdit

Stale. BencherliteTalk 09:12, 4 October 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: Tom Alter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India

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: Citation issues, Indian actor of American descent Sherenk1 (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
support was gonna nominate myself (but Catalan took precedence). One of two regular foreign/whites in the second biggest film industry. Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:03, 1 October 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] 2017 Mumbai stampedeEdit

Tragic, but no consensus. Stephen 01:49, 6 October 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 Mumbai stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 22 people are killed and 39 others injured in a stampede at a train station in Mumbai, India.
News source(s): NYT, BBC, CNN, Guardian Al Jazeera

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A significant no. of deaths and the incident received global news coverage. Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is (rightly) tagged for deletion. Way down the list of top stories by the aggregators. Nothing here except the tragic death of 22 people. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, such incidents are common in overcrowded areas like Mumbai. It was an unfortunate situation. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragic yes, but a low fatality count. In addition, the stampede occurred in an area prone to such disasters. Kirliator (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article which should not be at AfD. Twenty-two is not a low fatality count. If it was in London or New York it would dominate news coverage. Do we have different standards for third world countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We don't post domestic gun crimes in the US because that happens too frequently here. Similarly, in countries that do suffer from overpopulation, stampedes are a common danger and we don't regularly post those. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We have posted shootings where death toll is 22. The Columbine High School Massacre had 12 victims. Indeed it would be rare for a US shooting with 22 victims not to have an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not about the death toll, it's the uniqueness of the incident in the country where it happened. Stampedes are unfortunately common in that part of the world List of human stampedes lists 8 this year. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose– per Kirliator, low fatality count. And as Masem states, we don’t post disasters that are virtually common in a nation that obviously suffers from overpopulation. If this did reach the triple digits in fatalities, then I would reconsider. 2600:1015:B10D:BDC3:6842:9203:F789:B5F (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose tempted to snow close, the smallest stampede we have posted had 77 casualties if I remember correctly. Horrific, but not out of the ordinary, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A shooting or terrorist attack that kills 22 people would definitely be posted. 208.54.86.142 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, stampedes routinely kill more than shootings (even in the US) and this is not a huge one. I would not be offended if it were posted, but don't see it as newsworthy enough to support. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Mass shootings are pretty common in the US. There would be one a week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that mass shootings causing 22 deaths and 39 injuries are all that common. We have a number of articles on shootings in the US but none have a death toll of 22. Admittedly, one involved a senior figure of the US Congress namely Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support reasons for opposing look pretty unfair to me. Low coverage is because of geographic bias. Death count @ 22 is not low (comparable to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing which killed 23 people, and we posted that without question). As for this being common, I'd like some evidence: how many stampedes have there been in Mumbai this year? Banedon (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – both sides have legitimate points, however I favor the Opposition, largely because this is a small, not so serious disaster compared to to similar incidents in contemporary history (e.g the 2015 Hajj had a much bigger stampede which easily reached several hundred deaths compared to this). Also, while the Manchester bombing had a similar death toll, that was a terrorist attack compared to this, and was thus more serious in nature. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this isn't unusual by Indian standards (Patna, Mumbai, Datia, Allahabad, Deoghar, Sabarimala, Kunda, Jodhpur, Bilaspur in India alone in the last decade). It certainly warrants an article, but doesn't rise to the level of ITN. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
[1] There've been 12 terrorist incidents in the UK in the last decade, too, and we still posted the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Heck, there've been five in this year alone. I hope we don't get to the point where we oppose these nominations because "yawn yet another terrorist attack, those are dime a dozen in the UK". Banedon (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I also hope we don't get to that point, but only because I hope that terrorist attacks in the UK, as with anywhere in the world, become a very rare event again. However if we were to get to that point, I would hope that we would be treat the UK as we treat other countries. As it stands, a terrorist attack in Afghanistan or Iraq killing 3 people isn't likely to be on ITN barring something special beyond the death toll and it would be patently offensive if we treat the UK as special. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 2 October 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] Sun Zhengcai investigation concludedEdit

Even considering only those who indicate an understanding of Chinese politics, there is no consensus to post this. Considering all !votes that show either an understanding or do not show a misunderstanding there is a weak consensus against posting. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 5 October 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: Sun Zhengcai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sun Zhengcai is expelled from the Communist Party of China after the conclusion of an internal party investigation.
Alternative blurb: Sun Zhengcai, a former member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, is expelled from the party after the conclusion of an internal party investigation.
News source(s): (Washington Post) (SCMP)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I nominated this item in July but received resistance from some quarters that we should "wait for the results of the investigation." Now that the results are out, I am relisting this for nomination. To be clear, this is the most senior sitting Communist Party official to be expelled from the party since Bo Xilai (which was posted on ITN). The expulsion of a sitting Politburo member is a momentous political event - having happened only four times since Tiananmen Square in 1989. Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not important enough to be on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. I do believe this disposition of this investigation is notable, given the person investigated. This is rare in China. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support upon update per 331dot. Davey2116 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It is updated under heading "expulsion".Colipon+(Talk) 22:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Who? I can't imagine we would post the expulsion from Congress (which they can do) of a US Representative. Has Sun been sentenced to be hanged? Otherwise this is an internal, and rather banal political matter. μηδείς (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I would probably support posting an expulsion from either house of Congress; you can literally count on one hand the number of expulsions from the House(three of which were related to the Civil War) and every Senator who was expelled was so because of the Civil War as well. Expulsion is even more noteworthy in a single-party system like China where the party is expelling its own members. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat disheartening to have to explain repeatedly the significance of an event such as this in the face of systemic bias. Sun is a member of the 25-seat Politburo. An expulsion of a Politburo member for any reason, especially if they are still in office, is exceptionally rare. By the way, this story was already posted on Chinese Wikipedia's main page as a 'no-brainer'. Colipon+(Talk) 19:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the equivalent of a cabinet minister being expelled from the ruling party in a Western democracy. Sources also indicate that like Bo Xilai, he was a leading contender to be a future leader of China. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That argument makes a better case for opposing. A cabinet minister being kicked out? The US has had several in the last few months. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A cabinet minister (and state governor - Sun Zhengcai was in charge of Chongqing) widely touted as the frontrunner to be the next leader of the country purged months before they were expected to step into a leadership-in-waiting position and then arrested and charged for corruption, nepotism, sexual deviancy? I guess the proper American equivalent would be Barack Obama kicking Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic Party and having her charged with everything the fringe-right think she's actually done when she was still Secretary of State. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Support, from what I understand this is really big news. Also, the opposers don't have as strong arguments. Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't vote more than once, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 17:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The "really big news" came when the investigation was announced, the CCP practice being not publicly announcing such investigations until they know what the result will be, but this will do. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Although like what Colipon said, emphasis should be put on the Politburo in the blurb. Alex ShihTalk 17:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a change two tiers below the top level (top being General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, next being Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China). Banedon (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Can an admin please look at this before it gets stale. Honestly, that one has to 'justify' this item at all, and has to find analogy to something US based, is reflective of the systemic bias that one faces when nominating this type of item. In any case - there is clear precedent to post this type of item - with the ouster of Bo Xilai and Chen Liangyu (Politburo members in similar positions) all having been posted to ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I would have updated it myself but I've voted already. Alex ShihTalk 05:08, 5 October 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.

September 28Edit


[Closed] Russia and WMDEdit

I ivoted, but the total lack of support makes closing this a no-brainer even if you disqualify my vote. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 30 September 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: Russia and weapons of mass destruction (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian Federation completes the destruction of its chemical weapons
News source(s): VoA NYT

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Going in the opposite way of North Korea ... I'm leaning towards not mentioning the US in the blurb (see sources), but up to ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has this been verified, or just reported? And who needs sarin when you've got Polonium and the Satan 2 Missile "powerful enough to take out The UK, Texas or France? μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose A single sentence in our article, tied to a single source, being Putin and Putin alone, reported by Russian State Media (Russia Today), who's not exactly a reliable source for these things. When neutral international inspectors come out with a report, come back at us. This is blather. --Jayron32 01:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Err Medeis & Jayron32, see sources in the nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    OK. Oppose on quality: the only source cited in the article is unreliable, and the updated content is too short on details. --Jayron32 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Chemical Weapons Convention needs to be linked in the blurb, but which to that point, the US and Russia are but 2 of the 190some signing nations bound by it and both are waaaaaaaaaay late to complete. I would also say that if Russia is actually stating this, we shouldn't be playing the "but did they really?" line here. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it is not a notable issue by itself.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The update to the article is one line, "On 27 September 2017, Russia announced that it had destroyed its entire chemical weapons stockpile." Surely, the conclusion of such a massive and important endeavour should have some strings attached to it? I don't believe this article is a "howcase quality Wikipedia content on current events," that it "emphasize[s] Wikipedia as a dynamic resource", or that it helps readers find the exact content they were looking for. There just isn't enough prose. Of course, the thing I am wondering the most is if this has been confirmed in any way. Our article doesn't really comment on it, so I'm just assuming we are taking Russia's word for it while writing this blurb? ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose whether this is genuine or just an exaggeration is unclear. We don’t have solid evidence that suggest Russia is being honest. As far as we know, they could still have stockpile hidden from the public eye. Kirliator (talk) 17:17, 30 September 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.

September 27Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Hugh HefnerEdit

Posted as RD, unlikely to generate enough consensus for a blurb. --Jayron32 01:16, 29 September 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: Hugh Hefner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Playboy founder Hugh Hefner dies, at age 91.
News source(s): CNBC

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'm 50-50 on the blurb myself, but I think his immense cultural presence warrants it. SounderBruce 03:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Blurbs shouldn't be fore "immense cultural presence", but the reaction to the death becoming a story in and of itself beyond the death. Too soon to know about that. This needs a few more citations before I can support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. He apparently died of old age, so the blurb doesn't have anything to add beyond the fact of the death. While I'll agree that he had a large cultural presence, I am skeptical that he rises to the very high level of someone who deserves a blurb to report the mere fact of his death. Dragons flight (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a 30-year gap in the career section from going to court and appearing on The Simpsons. Stephen 03:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle Obviously not usual ITN blurb material, but then again, Hefner was not a normal person. He had a massive cultural influence in founding and running Playboy, which (under his direction) was the highest-circulated magazine in the world at a time when magazines were actually a thing many people bought. It and the various spin-offs helped fuel the sexual revolution in the western world; normalize pornography and homosexuality; booked African-American artists despite segregation laws; and more. Esquire once called him "the most famous magazine editor in the history of the world"; Hollywood Reporter says "Hefner became the unofficial spokesman for the sexual revolution that permeated the 1960s and '70s ..."; The Los Angeles Times says "[Hefner] redefined status for a generation of men, replacing lawn mowers and fishing gear with new symbols: martini glasses, a cashmere sweater and a voluptuous girlfriend, the necessary components of a new lifestyle that melded sex and materialism." That said, the article needs some help. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Hefner is an intrumental figure in the business world perhaps on the global scale. He was very influencial in the American business sector.Article does need a bit of a face lift so I'll get to is tomorrow. Fixed and added citations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very well known publishing icon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb not a personal fan, but how many magazine publishers can you name? Highly influential, before RD would definitely have been posted as blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. He was an iconic figure and the article is in good shape. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Being "iconic" doesn't mean he should get a blurb. IF the reaction to the death was so massive that it was a story beyond the death, it'd deserve a blurb. A man in his 90s dying isn't likely to meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, being iconic is the exact reason why someone would be featured on the Main Page when they die. How distinguished or notable do you have to be than 'iconic'? This certainly isn't the case of just being a "man in his 90s". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This kind of news coverage is typical of many RD noms. Doesn't make this one different. And no, it's the specific response to the death, the outpouring after Bowie, Michael Jackson, Carrie Fisher that made it a story beyond the death. That went beyond obituaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only I see the article has been improved when this first was nom'd, so the quality is fine and ready for RD. I don't think this is the type of blurb worthy death, as he was 91 (was a matter of when, not if), and was far outside prime of life. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Uncontroversial death at 91. Not a world transforming leader. If a blurb is posted it would amount to WP:BIAS. Also death section needs expansion before posting. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – article looks decent. Hefner has had an incredible cultural impact in North America and Europe and I think a blurb is aprropriate. ~Mable (chat) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD - No real opinion either way on the blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Mainly for the juxtaposition with the Saudi Arabia story. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I'm not convinced he is quite at the very high level of significance we require for a blurb. RD will suffice. Neljack (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. He was tops in his field. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only unless a media circus erupts around this (doubtful) RD is appropriate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. This guy actually changed the world. That's what the ITN blurbs are for. Nsk92 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only Old man dies. Although it is amazing given his lifestyle he wasn't dead 20 years ago, the fact he lived to his 90's is pretty impressive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Why do we keep having this debate every time a minor celebrity dies of old age? This is not a world-changing event with major repercussions. The standard for a blurb is Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, and Hefner is nowhere near that level. RD is fine. Modest Genius talk 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. An RD mention alone might not make a connection with readers of the man's legacy, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy. It's not like Playboy was a local rag. — Wyliepedia 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it was a national rag. Sca (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This map says it was an international rag. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: Posted to RD, leaving open for evaluation if "upgrade" to blurb is warranted. — xaosflux Talk 11:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Massive cultural influence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Although the digital age really swept him under the rug, Hefner had a significant cultural impact back in the day. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Per Modest Genius above. Given that we have limited lines available for "In the news", and Hefner would instead be appearing in RD, I would prefer us to be able to highlight another story. Jheald (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, maybe tinker with the blurb a bit pbp 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    What should be changed? ~Mable (chat) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb 91 year-olds dying of natural causes is what RD is for. Unless his death is leading TV bulletins worldwide, it should not be a blurb. "Widespread coverage" is not enough; it needs to be exceptional.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only: It's arbitrary, but this comes on that side of the line for me. --LukeSurl t c 13:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Support RD only. Hefner, an inveterate self-promoter, is an interesting footnote to U.S. cultural history but not significant in any broader sense. Sca (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Support if we just count ivotes, the tally is about 12 to 12 with two undecided/unclear supports for posting. But the criterion for a blurb is the nominee's influence in his field, and I think User:The ed17's post in favor of a blurb is determinative. Opposes based on "just because he was iconic doesn't..." Contradict the guidelines--iconicity has always been a reason for a full blurb. Likewise "he was old" is entirely irrelevant. An unexpected death at a young age is one reason to support a blurb. But a long successful life has never been a reason to oppose a blurb. Most of the opposes can be discounted as not relevant reasons to prevent a blurb. Again, had he died before the establishment of RD, we wouldn't be having this discussion--he'd already have had a blurb yesterday. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:ITNRD. Look at those three bullet points. (1) The news is mostly obituaries and the article update is just a statement of his death. (2) The cause of death is not a major story. (3) Is he a "major transformative world leader"? He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech, but was he truly a "major transformative world leader"? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
See the full bullet point, there's a problem with your argument. "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." As you just said, "He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech ..." 174.193.128.139 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay you're right, I did leave off the "in their field" qualifier which is important. However, it starts with "in rare cases" and I don't see how this meets the "rare case" standard of a Bowie, Mandela, or Fisher. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As I type this, it's on the front page of CNN (US), BBC News (UK) and news.com.au (Australia), and the New Zealand Herald - just to name a few. In fact, this isn't just on the front page, CNN has 3 front page stories on Hefner, BBC News has 3 front page stories and news.com.au has 2 front page stories and the New Zealand Herald has 2 front page stories on Hefner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    Most news websites tailor the stories on their front page to the geolocation of the IP used to access them. They're showing you more stories about Hefner because they don't have many other articles related to your country right now. For comparison, as UK reader I see only one story about Hefner on the BBC front page, and it's well below the fold. Modest Genius talk 10:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I think that he's just another person known because of the success of his product sold to a specialist group of consumers, which puts his notability in line with that of Mikhail Kalashnikov because of AK-47 or Liliane Bettencourt because of L'Oréal whose deaths we didn't post. Importantly, we have never posted the death of an actor/actress because of a single movie or the death of a singer because of a single album. After all, it's not Hugh Hefner who has exerted any tremendous influence to the [loosely defined] field but the Playboy magazine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above, it's more than just a magazine. — Wyliepedia 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, it's the brand, not himself. And he's not Steve Jobs, nor is Playboy comparable to Apple to make me reconsider my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it helped to inspire the creation of the web - and without killing child workers or strip mining in Africa, so its got one up on Apple for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, as others have stated, RD, not a blurb, is suitable for the death of a 91-year-old. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only, oppose blurb famous but not famous enough for a blurb, with coverage simply not dominating the news as it did for e.g. Bowie, Thatcher. It was the "and finally" item on BBC Radio 5 news this morning, not even the lead story. A Quest for Knowledge counted 3 stories about this a few hours ago on the main page of the BBC news website, but it's now just the one, and that is way "below the fold" rather than being anything approaching an ongoing lead story. Saying that "pornography" is a "field" for the purpose of being a "transformative world leader in their field" sets the bar too low. BencherliteTalk 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb To warrant a blurb on a global encyclopedia an individual must have enormous significance. That would mean in my view someone such as a long-serving or transformative national leader or an artist of international renown, such as Michael Jackson. I just cannot see that Hefner meets that very high bar. While it has been mentioned by outlets globally (as with Liliane Bettencourt), it certainly has not led stories - and we didn't post Bettencourt. AusLondonder (talk) 20:45, 28 September 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.
  • For those who are interested: the Hugh Hefner article had 3,371,095 page views yesterday, Sept 28. I know that we don't care what our readers want to read because we here know better what's good for them, but still... Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    You DO know there is currently, and before you wrote this, already a link on the main page directing our readers to Hugh Hefner's article, right? Because there had been, for some many hours, already been so. --Jayron32 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, of course I do know that. But that's an RD link for which we have the lowest possible notability threshold: just the existence of a Wikipedia article, and that article being in a well-referenced state. My point is, that for the ITN blurbs (if ITN should exists at all) we should be more respectful of what pages Wikipedia readers are in fact reading and take some cues from that in terms of what stories they consider important. For example, the story about the New Zealand general election, 2017 has been an ITN blurb for quite a while. But, despite being given this highest degree of visibility in the ITN section of the main page, New Zealand general election, 2017 the most page views that the article generated was 41,207, which was on Sept 23, 2017, two days before the story was posted to ITN. The fact that over 3 million people on September 28 viewed the Wikipedia page about Hugh Hefner shows that he was much more than just another 91-year-old celebrity finally dying of old age. If that's all he was, several million people would not be reading a Wikipedia article about him in a single day... Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Zuzana RůžičkováEdit

Stale. BencherliteTalk 09:12, 4 October 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: Zuzana Růžičková (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: Harpsichordist and Holocaust survivor. Lots of citation issues Sherenk1 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs a lot more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has several maintenance tags and unsourced paragraphs. However, should these be rectified, then hit me up and I'll switch this to a support. Miyagawa (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article can not go to the first page due to its tags.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many orange tags and woefully under-sourced. Article really needs attention and cleanup. Challenger l (talk) 03:36, 1 October 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.

[Withdrawn] Deep Space GatewayEdit

I find the arguments to wait convincing, so I'm withdrawing this. If anyone wants to reopen it, feel free. Banedon (talk) 21:47, 28 September 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: Deep Space Gateway (talk, history)
Blurb: The USA and Russia agree to cooperate on building a lunar space station
News source(s): [2] [3] [4]
Nominator's comments: Article is pretty barren right now, but there's plenty of scope for improvement. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose NASA has been talking about this since March/April, but the only thing changed today is that they secured that Russia's agency will also help build it; the way it reads is the if Russia didn't join, it was still a long-term plan to be built but would take many more years to get going. And since we're looking to something that won't launch until 2020, this is just a bit premature. (Also regardless, the article does not have a discussion of these agencies' actions, which it needs to reflect this update) --MASEM (t) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not really fair, is it? Earlier this month we posted blurbs on the host city for the 2024/2028 Olympics being selected, and those events won't happen for even longer. Banedon (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Olympics are pretty much sure things (within a scope of NOT#CRYSTAL), the announcements of host cities sets committments in motion to build and prepare the cities. This is very preliminary stages without any immediate set schedule or commitment of funds. It's not a sure thing that it will happen. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose while a lunar space station being built is a major step to space exploration, an ITN for such would make more sense once the actual space station is completed. As Masem notes, there's been talk about this thing for roughly 6 months now, posting a message stating that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to build the station is Current News worthy, but not ITN worthy. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose primarily because the article is still a stub. The article hasn't even been updated in accordance to this news. I agree that running a blurb on this topic when the only news is that the two countries have agreed to work on it together is pretty weak as well. ~Mable (chat) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They've agreed to combine expertise in a study and to come up with some joint standards so their spacecraft can work together. Nothing is even being built yet, and the recent history of planning manned space missions only to cancel them before getting close to launch means it could very well never happen. We can post this if/when a mission actually launches. Modest Genius talk 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. The idea of the Soviet Union Russia and the United States collaborating on a space project is significant, given past history and current events, but I think we should wait and see if something concrete actually comes out of this. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait this is like all those announced mergers we post that never actually happen. Post this when the first modules land on Luna. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 28 September 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.

Ongoing: Hurricane MariaEdit

Article: Hurricane Maria (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CNN, USA Today, Reuters, BBC

Nominator's comments: Ongoing humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico with aid not reaching people fast enough. Today is one week since the storm and many have yet to even see aid workers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose This has the potential of being a 4-6 month long ongoing at minimum (due to power restoration issues), and that's well outside the nature of what we consider ongoing usually. Also, with the story becoming more a political mudslinging ("is Trump doing enough?" type questions) it seems more sensationalist news. I'm not entirely against it if we say that it is kept ongoing for one or two weeks, and then pulled unless there's a new angle to the story that comes up. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Trump stuff aside, take a read through this article by NBC. "This is a big S.O.S for anybody out there" - San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz. Hospitals are running out of fuel for generators, bedridden elderly don't have access to water, supplies not being moved. The bigger story is the suffering going on. Mudslinging will be present as someone is at fault for how slow things are moving, but the is indeed a massive crisis unfolding. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree there's a crisis, but there's a crisis after any major storm disaster like this (Houston had there's a month ago). This is more severe in that because it is an island territory and that their power infrastructure is down, it is making relief efforts much more difficult as something like Houston, but this is a common story to any major disaster. Hence why I'm not against a short-term ongoing as long we recognize that once they can secure regular flights into the country and get the Comfort there for hospital care, its going to have a long, long tail. (Hence I would even anticipate that when the power infrastructure is restored, that itself would be a potential ITN). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not certain Hurricane Maria is the best title here as it implies Hurricane Maria is currently an ongoing threat. Current projections have it dying out out in the Atlantic Ocean. I'd suggest adding something like Aftermath or Rebuilding Efforts to show that the focus is on rebuilding and/or the problems in Puerto Rico after the storm. I think a short-term ongoing is ok as long as the scope is clear. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose only because this kind of situation is not uncommon. Similar situations in Syria led to the European migrant crisis, for example, and the humanitarian issues there have persisted for years as opposed to weeks in Puerto Rico. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 26Edit

Fortnite: Battle Royale was Released for free


[Posted] Women driving in Saudi ArabiaEdit

Article: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi Arabia ends its ban on women drivers
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Quite a no-brainer for notability, the end of a dinosaur rule that was unique around the whole world. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Generally support, oppose on quality of update I think it's fair this is a drastic shift in women's rights in the Arab world, and significant in that fashion. Unfortunately, the section of the target article about mobility has all but a one line update (I just reordered it in an edit) and should have a bit more to explain any reasoning or if there are any major reactions to this. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Note that I've expanded and also did a bit of narrative ordering for that section, but there's still glaring CN tags right before this new news. The rest of the target article is nearly there. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • News only recently came out. I'd give it at least a few more hours for until more news is out. Master of Time (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia has a very dedicated team of editors who address the balance by editing on topics relating to women's history and women's rights, so it will not take too long Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - has only taken four years since the mass protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support this major news in women's rights. — Crumpled Firecontribs 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support no-brainer. EternalNomad (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's a historic decision, and I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when the CN tags in the Driving section are addressed. There are only three left as of right now, but I don't have time to source them myself. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's a landmark decision. Sources are somewhat weak on the page, but that can be easily fixed. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Big Support and Comment This is very historic for women's rights. Is there any way we could indicate that Saudi Arabia is still a major violator of women's rights? TenorTwelve (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We can recognize this, but it would be POV-ish to call SA as a major violator of women's rights in this manner - that's a controversial statement that would need attribtion that would not be possible for ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • People would see that if they were to click the bold link in the blurb. The fact that the country legalized women driving in 2017 may also tell people that women's rights in this country are still limited. Either way, I think the blurb is fine. ~Mable (chat) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very historic and remarkable event for women's rights in the middle east. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Historic event. Like when the company I worked in the US for allowed women to wear slacks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Ready - I'm marking it ready, after having provided citations to above mentioned CN tags in the article. Posting admin is requested to review my edits. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Posted Smurrayinchester 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Question - is "women drivers" good enough? The article does say "women drivers" a few times, but it's mostly not written like that in the reliable source. RS also don't tend to say "women drivers", and "female drivers" for that matter. I wonder if it should be reformulated. Wumbolo (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know that it's already been posted but I just want to voice my support. This is a significant break through for women's rights in a very oppressive kingdom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice to know they've decided to join the 20th century. Sca (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25Edit


[Posted] RD: Tony BoothEdit

Article: Tony Booth (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC 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: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, looks in good shape. BencherliteTalk 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is much improved from when I looked at it this morning pre-nomination. Good work.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @The ed17:: The Tony Booth article right now is linked to a disambiguation page. The article article is Tony Booth (actor). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Elizabeth DawnEdit

Article: Elizabeth Dawn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC 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: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support looks sufficient cited. BencherliteTalk 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - no issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Aiken D 06:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Eman Ahmed Abd El AtyEdit

Article: Eman Ahmed Abd El Aty (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Khaleej 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.

 Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. A couple of uncited claims (I've tagged them), but I don't expect they'll be too difficult to source. Other than that, the article is basic but there are no obvious missing gaps. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 North Korea crisisEdit

Closed again as there has been no further comment. This isn't going to be posted as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 30 September 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 North Korea crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC NYT
Nominator's comments: I don't understand why it's fashionable to close nominations with suggestions for a new one, but wait for someone else to create it. Banedon (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because there's WP:SNOW chance of this being posted, and the closers are WP:UNINVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm slightly more tolerate towards an ongoing nomination, however like I said before, the source used in this nomination (as well as the previous one) is misleading, De Telegraaf mistranslated the report, stating that North Korea or the U.s. has declared war, however in actuality neither side officially made a declaration, as mentioned by other major news such as the New York Times, BBC, and Fox News, all of which covered this event but did not say it was a true declaration of war. I suggest changing the source to a more reliable source such as one of the ones I mentioned. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the nomination. I don't own it, and don't mind you changing it. Banedon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's better, at least that issue's resolved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until someone makes a Celebrity Deathmatch involving Kim Jung-Un and the orange warmonger. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tweets and insults do not an ongoing make. Missile launches and the like can be evaluated on their own. Warmonger? As in against the NFL? The bigotry is stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not really a crisis per se, it is heightened tensions between the US, NK, and other countries. It's a war of words, which happens all the time. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. No official declaration of war has been made and no significant actions have occurred aside from a lot of grandstanding. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - fits all the criteria for ongoing. Regular updates to the article, recurrent topic in the news, serious, real-world impact as evidenced by diplomatic efforts. And please, next time a) the closer should determine consensus based on the merits of the oppose/suppose and b) editors like Ramblingman or Muboshgu should provide a rationale instead of just posting some juvenile nonsense.
Preceding posted by IP user 81.204.120.137, who arbitrarily reopened discussion. Sca (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
And closed again, as there is no consensus, notwithstanding the grumblings of an anon user.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
As I provided reasons, this is hardly arbitrary. This should run its course, not be closed prematurely. The nomination deserves a serious discussion, not the nonsense posted by the likes of Waltcip, Muboshgu or RamblingMan. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I've attempted to reclose this, but have been reverted by the above IP user. Given this discussion and the prior discussion, there seems little chance this will be posted as it stands now, and I believe this should remain closed. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 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] 2017 North Korea crisisEdit

SNOW close, at least with these blurbs which are inaccurate. --Tone 18:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, concur with User:Tone) Close without prejudice - if there is interest in this appearing in ongoing, that should be done in a new proposal. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:52, 25 September 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 North Korea crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea decares war against the United States/
Alternative blurb: North Korea says that the United States has declared war against it.
News source(s): De Telegraaf (in Dutch).

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major development! Source headline translates as North Korea: This is a declaration of war. Mjroots (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Misleading - North Korea has claimed that the U.S. has declared war on North Korea. Nothing has actually happened. NYT--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suggest close - the reality is that Norea Korea is saying that the US has declared war on it, not the other way around, and it "will have every right to make countermeasures." [6]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - War of words, it looks like. 42.109.130.44 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. X saying Y went to war with it without Y actually formally declaring it is not "going to war". Yes, there are things to watch for but let's not jump at a misleading statement here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still a Trump/Kim dick measuring contest. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but would strongly prefer ongoing. The crisis is clearly ongoing and significant, given that this war of words has clear real-world ramifications. Unrelated, the quality of some of the oppose votes here is shocking. Fly-by graffitis. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This screed right underneath another support vote which doesn't even provide a rationale. But forget about that; those opposes are "fly-by graffitis".--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose this is 100% misleading, other sources have stated that North Korea has only 'accused' the US of declaring war. Besides North Korea does this regularly during the annual military exercises conducted by the U.S. and South Korea. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Der Telegraaf really screwed up and misinterpreted the actual statement, this is what happens when you translate a foreign language into English, you get poor...well...translations. Besides the BBC report on the CE page states that North Korea is accusing the flyby of U.S aircrafts as a declaration of war, however no official declarations have been made by either side. Kirliator (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • De Telegraaf is fairly tabloid-y as far as Dutch newspapers go, but regardless, this incident is in the news at plenty of places. A quick Google search brings up NBC News and The New York Times, among others. The quality of the source listed in the template shouldn't be too big an issue. ~Mable (chat) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose When North Korea actually shoots down an airplane we can reconsider. For now this is just tough-talk. EternalNomad (talk) 18:39, 25 September 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] Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017Edit

Article: Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Iraqi Kurdistan votes in favour of independence, though the vote is dismissed as unconstitutional by the Iraqi federal government.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: World news. Landmark decision by the Kurds. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • At least wait until the results are in ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. The results, either way, will be ITN-worthy and any significant violence or other events during the polling might be, but that the vote is happening is not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak support. Most of the article is fine, but the "reactions" section is misleading in that it mixes reactions from before and after the results. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as a notable, important news story. Wait till results. It'll be important to note in the blurb that the referendum is not considered legal by Baghdad. The probable "yes" vote shouldn't be reported in a way that makes it seem like a new, de jure, internationally recognized, sovereign state is to be created. --LukeSurl t c 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - now there are results, I've tweaked the blurb to match the Scottish referendum blurb. Smurrayinchester 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Important story, and article looks ready bar the final results. Although votes are still being counted a big "yes" is expected.[7]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Major development covered by the global media houses. Albert Dawkins (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once official results are declared. Important poll, even though it's unlikely to come into effect. The article looks sufficient on a brief look. Modest Genius talk 11:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

September 24Edit


[Closed] [Posted] German federal election, 2017Edit

Errors with the blurb belong at WP:ERRORS. The blurb not reporting interpretations or implications is not an error. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 25 September 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: German federal election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, wins plurality in the German federal election.
Alternative blurb: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, wins the most seats in the German federal election.
Alternative blurb II: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, retains plurality in the German federal election.

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: Preliminary results are in, it may take some time for the article to get in proper shape, but it's ITNR, so it should go up eventually. Tone 19:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment "... wins a plurality ..." again, this isn't common parlance outside some jurisdictions. For instance, I looked at the BBC article and that term isn't used at all. Can we either link or rephrase appropriately? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, "wins most seats" is probably the better alternative, as indicated in the NZ nomination below. --Tone 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that "wins a plurality" is better here. In NZ, it's plausible that either Labour or Nationals will be able to get a coalition majority. Here, the only possible coalitions are CDU-led ones (CDU-SPD grand coalition or a CDU-Green-FDP Jamaica coalition - numerically, there's no coalition that makes Schulz Chancellor, since traffic light and red-red-green both fall well short), so the election is Merkel's win. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this POV blurb. A quick look at the FT suggests Merkel is significantly weakened ("Merkel set for fourth term but support weakens") and "Nationalist AfD make historic breakthrough in German elections". The blurb should reflect that.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The originally proposed blurb does not express a POV (in any direction) it simply states facts. whether Merkel is weakened (or not) is a point of view however and so not appropriate for a blurb - the article can and should reflect the balance of opinions about the election noted in reliable sources, but there is not space to do that here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there may be space to reflect reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We should definitely reflect that the AfD has become the third-party in German politics. It's the first time in more than half a century that a far-right party has entered the German parliament, and with a significant proportion of the seats (The Times of London predicts about 90), which, in and of itself is significant, not PoV and also fact --Andrew 23:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The AfD, a small party that received 13% of the vote and that isn't expected to form a government, doesn't belong in the blurb. The main story is that the CDU/CSU became the largest party (allowing Merkel to continue as Chancellor). --Tataral (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
How is "win plurality" POV? It's a positive fact. --bender235 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – No-brainer: No. 1 political story in the world. That the results were predicted doesn't lessen its importance. (It will be interesting to see how a coalition including, presumably, both the traditionally business-friendly FDP and the environmentalist Greens functions.) Sca (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly an event of international significance. Angela Merkel is regarded as one of the three most powerful people (and most powerful woman) in the world; with some even regarding her as "leader of the free world" I support the current proposed blurb or something along the lines of "most seats" or "largest party". I oppose mentioning the AfD in the short blurb, that is something readers should go to the election article to read about. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Should be mentioned as major news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – How about "retains plurality" in the blurb? I think that's more accurate to the sources. Regardless, the article looks good! ~Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I'm not entirely sure why but we seem to avoid the term 'plurality' here. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, it's called a "relative majority" in the UK, so I suppose that's a more European-focused alternative? What dialect do we usually use on the front page? ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you are right that "plurality" is not understood or familiar to all readers. I believe we usually just state the winner "won the most seats". 331dot (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's very odd that a word like "plurality" is apparently not well-known. "Won the most seats" looks both unspecific and awkward to me. It could mean either a majority or a plurality, after all. Readers can always click the link to the election if they are unclear on how many seats the party won exactly. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I've followed UK elections for 25 years and I have never heard the word "plurality" used in any media coverage or analysis of them. Sorry, I'm just not familiar with the term and I know I'm not alone in that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Remember folks that this is ITNR and as such does not need support on the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. No-brainer. --Tataral (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. --Jayron32 11:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    So we're just not going use the word 'plurality' on the frontpage? "Relative majority" isn't a good replacement either? ~Mable (chat) 11:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Is the word "most" confusing to any English speaker? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, one could easily read it as "over 50%". Are the two alternatives confusing to any English speaker? They're not used often, but they are accurate, specific, and easy enough to comprehend. I don't have reason to believe these terms are confusing. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I suppose if you didn't know what the word "most" meant, then anything is possible. Most means "more than anyone else". It has never been a synonym for "majority". Can you propose a word that means the exact same thing as "most" in all English countries but which is not the word "most" then? Because we've never found one. But I'd like to see you try. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, if you ask it like that, "majority" does come to mind first. This would be a good replacement in sentences like "most countries" or "most planets"; "the majority of countries" and "the majority of planets." In this context, "plurality" is probably a better word to use, as "plurality" and "majority" have two different meanings when it comes to vote counting. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Majority means ONLY more than 50%. The word "plurality" is largely unknown outside of the U.S. Keep trying though. It's fun to watch. The universal word that means only "more than every other one" without meaning more than half is "most". --Jayron32 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – I'm posting this here rather than at WP:MP/E because there it would be summarily dismissed as "not an error."
The current blurb's phrase "wins the most seats" is the most bland, misleading and uninteresting choice possible. As all major news sites have reported, the news is that the CDU/CSU's share declined by almost 21 percent, from 41.5 percent of the vote in 2013 to just under 33 percent, and that as a result Merkel will have to form a new coalition – presumably with the Greens and the resurgent FDP – while the right-wing AfD will be in opposition. Complicated for sure. But how about a blurb that at least gives a hint of what happened:
The CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, loses ground in the German federal election. — ??
Sca (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bland is not misleading. Did any other party win more seats? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You must have misread something Sca, the CDU "only" fell by 8.6% to a total of 33% of the vote. Still a big loss but not by 20%. The 20.5% figure in the results of the election is for the SPD, which lost 5.2% from the prior election.91.49.76.32 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 • Take 41.5% of vote (2013 share), subtract 32.9% (2017 share) = 8.6 fewer percentage points = 20.7% drop in percentage share of vote.
 • Take 311 parliamentary seats (2013), subtract 246 (2017 result) = 65 = 20.9% drop in number of seats.
Sca (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh it appears i am stupid and misread your comment... oops. Sorry about that haha. Although it is a bit weird to give a relative percentage drop of the two results instead of saying they lost 8.6% of the vote.91.49.76.32 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The news – the main news story as covered by reliable sources – is that CDU/CSU won the election (as expected) and that Merkel will continue as chancellor (presumably with a new coalition). That Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. That the CDU/CSU lost some seats compared to the unusually good result back in 2013 doesn't change the fact that they won this election. Furthermore, as all other parties consider the two extremist parties on the far right and the far left to be toxic and are unwilling to form a government with them, the CDU/CSU hasn't necessarily lost that much, if any, influence, when it comes to the question of forming a government, or adopting government policy. The extremists can show up in the Bundestag and rant and shout, but if no other party is willing to cooperate with them, they won't have any influence. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sca: Indeed it would be closed at WP:ERRORS as "not an error", this is because it is not an error and changing the venue does not change this and I'm rather tempted to hat this, but will leave it for now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not an error Wikipedia is here to report bare facts, not slants on those facts as directed by certain factions of our usership. This should be closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Tataral: Re Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. Absolutely not, it's a fact, and one all the mainline news sites led with. The fact is that the CDU/CSU lost 20.7% percent of it's share of the vote compared to four years ago. Not unepected, but very significant since, with the departure of the SPD, it means a new government. Thus, the blurb is misleading in that by itself, it implies no change. Sca (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
That's bordering on nonsense. It does no such thing, you have simply inferred "no change". There is no implication of such. Has any one single general election resulted in an identical outcome to the status quo? I doubt it. To start adding a slant on it is not Wikipedia's job, leave it to WikiTribune or WikiNews or some such other doomed project, I'm certain they'd welcome input from such an experienced Wikipedian. That stuff doesn't belong on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 25 September 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.

2017 Spanish constitutional crisisEdit

Article: 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): (BBC), (NY Times), (Independet), Guardian, (Euronews), (Bloomberg)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: From below, courtesy of Jenda H. Banedon (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose ongoing, as before. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is receiving adequate, regular updates, about every day or other day as new information becomes available. That's all we really need for ongoing. --Jayron32 02:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major constitutional crisis occurring in a significant European country generally regarded as democratic. No credible reason to ignore any longer. AusLondonder (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Major news of international interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as before. ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Focus on the Spainish/Catalonia tensions rather than the pending vote is the right way to present this as ongoing. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing perhaps pointlessly but this is way down at the bottom of the bing and google world news sections, and not even ranking on the top stories. Maybe a weak benchmark, but it's one I use to judge "in the news" vs "in the I think this is important and should be on the main page". Even a blurb is questionable since the referendum is non-binding, but we'll see if it makes headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose hardly being updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Many recent updates, very major news story. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as before. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment interestingly the ES wiki does not have this very important item in it's "events" feature of the main page. Same with the DE and FR wikis. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Es.wp does not seem to have the same criteria for "events" as we do (I think?). It's front page on ca.wp, though obviously that's a smaller language. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we should decide one way or another before the vote, which is intended to take place in less than 48 hours. Davey2116 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 23Edit


[Posted] New Zealand general election, 2017Edit

Article: New Zealand general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The National Party, led by Bill English, wins plurality in the New Zealand general election.
Alternative blurb: ​The National Party, led by Bill English, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The National Party, led by Bill English, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election but falls 2 seats short of a majority.
News source(s): RNZ

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.

 This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment the article still seems to need some final updates, which is understandable, but in the meantime, we do tend avoid terms like "pluarilty" which are meaningless to a vast majority of readers, or if necessary link. Do you mean a "simple majority" or similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This is my first go at nominating one of these, and I based this entry on the one for Merkel so apologies for any misunderstanding. The party is the largest party in the NZ parliament, but doesn't have a majority so would either need to form a minority government or have some kind of confidence-and-supply agreement. Perhaps it's easier just to link the term, or wait till a decision is made on who will form the government. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
      • No wuckers, just a case of not using odd terms for such elections. I'd say at least link the term, but BritEng, (and I thought maybe NzEng) would never use such terminology. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
        • As I mentioned in one of these two threads, relative majority is the UK version of this. ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • comment I've suggested a couple of alt-blurbs using "wins the most seats" rather than "plurality". The article does use the term "plurality" in the lead, but I've got no idea how commonly used that term is in NZ English. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, both sound pretty good. Not sure whether the term is used in NZ English, but like The Rambling Man I suspect it probably isn't. This is Paul (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should wait until the government is confirmed as there is a reasonable possibility of it being Labour led. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 1 – I do believe "plurality" is a perfectly fine word to use, at least in international English. As for New Zealand's dialect, I would not know. Either way, any of these blurbs is fine, really. "Wins the most seats" is a bit awkward and difficult to parse for me personally, but oh well. ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    Apparently, a plurality is called a "relative majority" in the UK. Is that term used in New Zealand? If so, that may be a logical alternative. We may want to standardize our wording, though, seeing as the front page is "one page" and using different dialects on it may be unusual. ~Mable (chat) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    No one has even commented upon the "relative majority" option in either of the threads, and now the above thread is closed because of a different reason, I'm not even sure what to do. Bring it up at WP:ERRORS? I figured issues brought up before the blurb actually went up should reach somekind of consensus before the blurb goes up, but I guess not? ~Mable (chat) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Altblurb. --Jayron32 11:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Charles Bradley (singer)Edit

Article: Charles Bradley (singer) (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.

 Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. More citations are needed (I've tagged several places) and at least one of the citations that is there doesn't verify the adjacent text - I've tagged the one I spotted but I haven't got time to check all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a little more tweaking required around the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 22Edit


[Closed] Uber banned in LondonEdit

Consensus is clearly against posting unless it develops into a story larger than a single city. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 22 September 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: Uber (company) (talk, history)
Blurb: Transport for London announces that Uber's license to operate in London will not be renewed.
News source(s): Telegraph

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Just putting this out there, as it's a slow time for news (and what there is mostly disasters). Uber is a large and well-known company, London is a world capital, and it seems to be very widely covered (even outside the UK). Smurrayinchester 11:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Decent breadth of coverage, article in !good condition, and if nothing else, it's nice for us to be able to post some good news on the front for a change. — fortunavelut luna 11:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, story is in the news, a sad blow to consumer choice and competition. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose local story. It isn't even Uber being banned in the UK, only in London. Comparing with e.g. this, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Interesting news item. I believe it's just a bit too local for ITN - if it were the entirety of England/the UK, I may have !voted differently. Article looks good, but I don't believe this news is signifact enough. The article also doesn't spend much time describing the situation. ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose but only because they can appeal and Ubers are still free to roam London. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It wasn't clear from what I was reading, can they continue to operate during the appeal process? They have 20 days to file, but their current permit expires 9/30. I'm not trying to sway you, just wondering. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes - if they appeal, they can continue to operate until that appeal is dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This could be the first domino to fall for Uber, considering the excoriating publicity the company is receiving for its corporate culture.WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd rather wait for some of the later, bigger dominos to fall. WP:CRYSTAL, after all. ~Mable (chat) 13:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is hardly the first place to ban or restrict Uber, as Uber (company)#Legal status by country should make clear. Many of the previous challenges involved much bigger territories than London (e.g. Germany / France). Given that context, I don't see how potentially being driven out of London rises to the level of ITN. And even if it did, I would want to see more than a 2 sentence update to the article before considering it for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Uber has said it will appeal this, we have a legal battle ahead of us and that will take time to resolve. And this is just one city, and certainly not in the US where Uber's main business is in. Minor drop in the bucket. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Banedon notes, it is only London, not the U.K. as a whole. Besides people can still get around via taxis, buses, and subways, so it would only have little impact at most. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per various comments above. Not ITN material. Sca (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not yet at a significant enough level for ITN. Especially since an appeal is inevitable. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This really isn't global ITN-level material. It's already banned/voluntarily withdrawn from places as diverse as Hungary, Alaska and Japan. This is the perfect example of systemic bias. As a whole we're more likely to live in London and use Uber; we shouldn't let that cloud editorial decisions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:31, 22 September 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.

September 21Edit


[Posted] RD: Liliane BettencourtEdit

Article: Liliane Bettencourt (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: The world's richest woman – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment You can't take it with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article isn't great, it's sort of an organizational nightmare, it's Joycian in its approach to non-linear storytelling. But it seems factual, comprehensive enough, and sufficiently referenced. Nothing to keep it off the main page, strictly speaking. --Jayron32 03:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah this is a drive-by nom. I just fixed a few small things. I had never heard of her before and want no part of reorganizing that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Aaron Hernandez's brain severely damaged by C.T.E.Edit

WP:SNOW --Jayron32 01:55, 22 September 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: Aaron Hernandez (talk, history) and Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (talk, history)
Blurb: Aaron Hernandez diagnosed with C.T.E.
News source(s): NYT

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: "Jose Baez, Hernandez’s lawyer, said Hernandez’s brain showed a level of damage that was seen in players with a median age of 67 years." Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose One more piece of evidence to add to the massive pile of how gridiron football is bad for you. Doesn't significantly impact anything, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It puts his legal case in a different perspective, a murder was committed, so football may also pose a risk to other people. Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This will undoubtedly affect the legal case, but we should wait for the court to make that determination. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The affected suit (against the NFL and Patriots for withholding risk info) isn't mentioned in any relevant Wikipedia article, so it mightn't matter here, even after it's settled. The murder case is unaffected; Stage III CTE isn't linked to aggression or dementia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
It's now mentioned at Jose Baez (lawyer), if that makes a difference. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is to be posted it needs a blurb that gives some context. My initial reaction is "who?", "what?" and "so what?". Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Huh? Hernandez died in April? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
CTE diagnosis involves slicing up the brain, so is reserved for dead people. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, September 22, 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this postmortem diagnosis that doesn't change his first conviction, and the second case against him died with him. If this somehow has some effect on the NFL or football, the final determination made would be what is notable here. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect most people won't recognize the name "Aaron Hernandez". Banedon (talk) 01:30, 22 September 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.

[Close] 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis [ex-Catalan independence referendum, 2017]Edit

This nomination has changed so much it is a metaphorical WP:TRAINWRECK with what people are supporting or opposing entirely unclear. This closure is without prejudice to a fresh nomination should anyone want, but a blurb may stand a better chance than ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 22 September 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 Spanish constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): (BBC), (NY Times), (Independet), Guardian, (Euronews), (Bloomberg)
Nominator's comments: Even if there will be no referendum on 1st October. This is allready significant story. Jenda H. (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. If the referendum is not until October 1st, what is the reason for nominating this now? We also need a blurb to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It si nominated as ongoing. There is already significant unrest in Catalonia which is in the news. --Jenda H. (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The template does not indicate this is ongoing, though it is in the wikicode itself. Is this getting incremental updates? 331dot (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please, do it.--Jenda H. (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If you mean update the article, my time and knowledge of the subject is limited. I also am unconvinced this merits ongoing and I think the end result will be a more suitable candidate for posting. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – This may be worth posting once the result is known, but it depends entirely upon the actions of Catalonia and the reactions of Spain and the rest of the world. Nothing to post now, though. Nothing to even really discuss yet, because the full impact of this referendum is unknowable. ~Mable (chat) 09:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the referendum causes Catalonia to proclaim UDI, or Madrid sends tanks onto the streets of Barcelona. Yes, we posted Scotland and Brexit, but those were referenda in which both sides had agreed to abide by the result; this is an unofficial poll which is a pure piece of posturing, given that neither Spain, the UN, the EU or the UK will recognize the result if there's a vote for leave (and Catalonia isn't going to commit economic suicide by declaring independence without EU/UK support and severing diplomatic relations with the countries which drive Barcelona's tourist trade), and the independence movement won't recognize the result if there's a vote for remain. Running anything now would be pure crystal-ball gazing; if this does lead to independence, then run it on independence day. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, there is a good argument the current shenanigans (police on the streets, arresting catalan officials, raiding local government and political party HQ's etc) are past the point where it becomes ITN worthy. Those are the actions of a totalitarian government, not a modern democracy. Even if the referendum does/does not happen, there is already significant unrest and actual events affected by the current crackdown. (The UK gov of course would *love* Catalunya to secede quickly, its a hole they can shove in a wedge to leverage brexit.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It si not about results in referendum but about significant ongoing unrest which is happening in Catalonia. --Jenda H. (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This ^ all is crystal balling. Unless there is an outcome where somebody important declares the results as some sort of valid this is just posturing. 79.116.215.20 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • If the news is about the riots and chaos, then the blurb should reflect that. ~Mable (chat) 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Why would it be "economic suicide" for Catalonia to declare independence without the approval of the British government? This isn't 1717. @Only in death: How would Catalonia leaving Spain be a "wedge" the British government would love in relation to Brexit? All this personal analysis is bollocks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
See my talk page if you wish to discuss further. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have read of issues happening between Spain and Catalonia as Spain is clearly against this, however, this referendum article doesn't seem to cover that, nor are these events major news stories that I can readily find. I think at this point the ITN point is either that the referendum result, or if Catalonia halts/cancels the referendum process. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ongoing, not seeing this bubble up to the top of any news feeds. The article is orange tagged for neutrality anyway (ZOMG!). After the vote, if it makes headlines, nom it for a normal blurb. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait – Situation unclear. Sca (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until after the results are in. The standard for votes is that we wait until after the votes are counted, not before the voting starts. --Jayron32 15:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, Wait on blurb the referendum isn't suppose to occur for another 10 days, I really don't think this would be suitable of an ongoing event as the referendum will only last 24 hours maximum. As for the blurb, I say wait until actual results come in, then it will be ITN worthy. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose ongoing We could've put the Trump/Clinton sideshow up as ongoing, but didn't. No reason to do that here. It's probably significant enough to post when we have a result. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This is far different from two political candidates sparring. It's closer to Brexit, but complicated by a lot of unorthodox actions going on between Spain and Catalonia. The scale makes it much more important on a world view than Trump/Clinton battles. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I could've just as easily said "Brexit" instead of "Trump/Clinton" and my point would remain the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose ongoing. This should be a blurb now, if there is something blurbworthy happening now. If there is nothing blurbworthy happening now then we should wait until something blurbworthy does happen - most likely when the results are in. I reserve judgement about a blurb until one is presented for evaluation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. What is going on here is a very serious slow moving constitutional crisis. The vote itself doesn't matter, according to Spain's constitution it's illegal and the Supreme Court has already made rulings that have set clear precedents here. What matters is that the Catalan government has now vowed to continue with the vote and said that they'll defy whatever rulings the Spanish government or the courts are going to make against it. So, even if the vote were to go against independence (which is quite likely given recent opinion poll results), you'll still have a local Catalan government that's operating within Spain but using its own rules that are in direct violation of the Spanish constitution. And both sides agree that the law is violated, as the Catalan government has said that they are not sticking to Spanish law. Count Iblis (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb or ongoing, undid the close. The story here (until the referendum is held, possibly) is really at 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis—which one newspaper has called "one of the worst political crises in modern Spanish history." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Its not more ongoing than the UNGA with the indian comment today, which is trending on twitter and flashing on news. (5 years of updating the article, ive never seen more vitriol, including b/w Armenia-Azerbaijan).Lihaas (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Medeis has indicated on my talk page that re-opening this discussion was disruptive. My apologies to them and anyone else who felt that way. You can see my reasons for doing so here. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Medeis is not a "him". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Ach. Assumptions, assumptions. Thank you for the correction, I've edited my comment above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – This nomination has been edited so much since my first comment that someone really should have created a new nomination for it. For clarity: I support putting 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis on ongoing, as it is a good article about a significant constitutional crisis. ~Mable (chat) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support notable, and it's clearly worth continuing the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing (as 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis), this is a notable ongoing event and the article is good. When 1 October comes around we can replace the ongoing item with a blurb about the (attempted) vote - a story which will almost certainly be more complicated than a simple vote tally. --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If the vote turns out to have an actual impact, we can do this. If not, we can keep this on ongoing for a bit longer. Either way, I think that would be best to discuss when the time comes. ~Mable (chat) 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing, clearly dominating Spanish news and has international consequences. Banedon (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • POINT OF ORDER. When this thread was started, we were asked to assess one specific article. Then, midstream, someone changed to a completely different article. It would have been MUCH better to start a new thread, as it is entirely confused as to which particular article was assessed at which particular time. Can someone go through and indicate when such a change took place, so we can know what people were assessing at the time they made their comments?!? --Jayron32 15:41, 22 September 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.

September 20Edit


September 19Edit


RD: Jake LaMottaEdit

Article: Jake LaMotta (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: Legendary boxer, the "Raging Bull". EternalNomad (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Handful of CN tags floating around. Also would be better to avoid using the primary source to source the fight history (this should be something easily in a sports record book). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now; for only the clean-up issues noted by Masem above. These should be easy fixes for anyone with access to some basic boxing sources. --Jayron32 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a lot of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Far too many gaps in referencing. (Note: I'm currently on an extended wikibreak and may not respond quickly to comments directed to me. I trust TRM's judgement and if he switches to Support my own vote may also be considered as moving to support.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: David ShepherdEdit

Article: David Shepherd (artist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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

 Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - fail to see any issues with the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Coment One paragraph is presently marked with a CN, it needs something to source, but otherwise nearly there. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No {{cn}} tags, one clarification needed, but it is clear enough to me what is meant. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah, right, but still, that para where the clarification tag is in is otherwise unsourced. Either way, resolving that tag should fix it. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        •   Fixed Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm still seeing the first para of "Life and work" unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work all, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 23:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Puebla earthquakeEdit

Article: 2017 Puebla earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A magnitude 7.1 earthquake strikes the Mexico City area on the anniversary of the 1985 earthquake.
Alternative blurb: ​A magnitude 7.1 earthquake strikes central Mexico, killing more than 134 people.
Alternative blurb II: ​A magnitude 7.1 earthquake strikes central Mexico, killing more than 134 people on the anniversary of the 1985 earthquake.
News source(s): Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion, but that should come quickly. A national earthquake drill was scheduled for today. Buildings have collapsed in Mexico City, so mass casualties are expected. This comes only days after the stronger (but offshore) Chiapas event, too. SounderBruce 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on principle, wait for just a bit more detail BBC is reporting mass casualties, so this is a no-brainer to post, but let's sort the news coming in into a reasonable article first. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Noting that I think the article is in a good-enough state for posting now. It will clearly grow with more reports, but core details are in place. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not ready yet The significance for ITN is clear, but we need more info and article expansion before posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously relevant for ITN. Article is beginning to look good. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support either blurb, or a combination or both. Titoxd(?!?) 22:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks like it may end up surpassing the previous earthquake's death toll at this rate. I would have requested it be posted to the Main Page myself had SounderBruce not already done so. I don't think I'd include the comma on the first blurb, though. Master of Time (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Was looking for it "in the news" on WP. Hope to see it soon. Our article is decent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 00:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane MariaEdit

Articles: Hurricane Maria (talk, history) and Dominica (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Maria has totally devastated Dominica
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Maria makes landfall on Dominica as a Category 5 hurricane with sustained windspeeds exceeding 160 miles per hour.
News source(s): The Guardian, [8]

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Eye, dead center over Dominica Dominica has experienced at least 3 hours of sustained winds of 260 KM/H with gusts in excess of 315 KM/H. Count Iblis (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but oppose on quality There is no update on the strike in Dominica (I can't find any source affirming deaths, but there definitely was damage), and the supplied blurb is clearly sensationalist. However, as this storm seems all but ready to hit Puerto Rico (the first time a hurricane has struct there in a few decades, it seems), this should be seeded into ITN early to be updated as we did with Irma. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    The storm is still on top of the island, damage reports from reliable sources might take a bit more time. Titoxd(?!?) 06:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb all over the news, although the article is about an hour out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support some kind of blurb when article ready This is only the second year since the start of records in 1851 (1920?) with 2+ different Atlantic hurricanes hitting as Cat 5s. The first was 2007. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb of some sort once effects are known- perhaps one mentioning the fact that this is a 2nd Cat 5 storm as SMW notes above. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. An historic landfall. But should we be using miles? 38.88.111.129 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted modified version of Altblurb for brevity. We can update blurb when damages/deaths come in. --Jayron32 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 18Edit


[Posted] RD: Afzal Ahsan RandhawaEdit

Article: Afzal Ahsan Randhawa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): DAWN, Hindustan Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I marked it ready to speed up posting before it gets stale. Mfarazbaig (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Some of the phrasing is rather odd (what is a "love marriage" for example?) but nothing I can see that would get in the way of the main page. @Mfarazbaig: You really shouldn't be marking things as "ready" before there is a clear consensus to post, that's not what it is for. We have the "[Attention needed]" (when there is a possible consensus that needs assessing or more input is needed for a consensus to emerge) and "[New]" (for a new nomination older than a couple of days) tags available when you want to attract attention. I've not removed it as is ready now there are two support !votes and no opposes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: - I got your point but in this instance, the sourcing was fine and RDs are ITNR, so no consensus required. Hate to say it but as I have observed some nominations are intentionally ignored & atleast require 2 days without a reason before getting posted or are just left aside till they get stale. While others are posted within a few hours. So you gotta do, what you gotta do. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That's why we have [New] and [Attention needed]. Even if the sourcing looks good to you, that is not the criterion for posting. The criterion is that there is consensus that the article is of sufficient quality. Sourcing is a significant aspect of quality but it s not the only factor - completeness, readability and balance (i.e. nothing is given significantly too much or too little weight), dead links, etc, are other reasons that people might feel an article is not of sufficient quality to post. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
To add to what Thryduulf said: Mfarazbaig, even if the article in question were an FA, it would be bad practice for you, as the nominator, to mark it ready. You nominated the page: it is up to other editors to review it. Mind you, you are certainly not the only editor I have warned about this. Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 17Edit


[Posted] EmmysEdit

Article: 69th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In television, The Handmaid's Tale wins Best Drama and Veep wins Best Comedy at the Emmy Awards.
News source(s): [9]

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: Article seems in good shape, including coverage of the presentation itself (outside of viewership) MASEM (t) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose No prose synopsis of the event itself (the ceremony, etc.) just a lead section and a bunch of tables. Generally, we expect some sort of sourced prose about the event being posted. There's none of that here. --Jayron32 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks fine to me. There is a four-paragraph lede with lots of prose.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    What happened during the ceremony? The lead contains no prose except a synopsis of what's in the later tables. --Jayron32 19:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Sean Spicer happened. I'm sure you could add more referenced info if you wanted to...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not the one who wants to see this posted. I'll leave it to a person who is asking for it to be posted to make updates as they want, with the understanding that it won't be posted if the updates aren't added. It's no skin off my teeth if this doesn't make the main page because it isn't up to snuff, and I have no particular desire to see it posted, though I will happily re-assess the quality of the article if anyone comes along and fixes it. --Jayron32 11:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I imagine many people had too much to drink and some fell asleep. But, yes, it looks chillingly similar to last years'? etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
And to the previous year too, which I know we didn't post for the same issue. There is the fact that the Emmys aren't as "performance driven" in the ceremonies (there's no best song presentations, which generally are highlights on Oscar award shows). We do have the presenters and in memorandium, but I do agree we need more text, I would just need to search out descriptions becuase I wasn't watching it. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a brief summary of the actual presentation (read: Spicer), and the overnight #s to show it was poorly viewed like last year. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose lowest-ever rated self congratulatory consumptive spasm of dying industry. Meanwhile, more than 20 million cable subscribers are expected to cut the cord in the US this year alone. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Given this is ITNR, opposing on this basis is not appropriate. Further, it should be noted that streaming services Hulu and Netflix won big, showing that the idea of television entertainment is shifting from "fixed time" broadcasts to on-demand - the industry isn't dying, just the broadcast network concept. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • ITNR can go stuff itself. Link to the RfC that established the Emmy's on that list, or admit it was placed there by unsanctioned fiat. I don't see someone making up a random list of items as in any way a "policy", anything worth posting is worth posting on its own merits. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's ITNR and I see no quality issues that would prevent posting. As Masem says, with Hulu winning big with Handmaid's Tale it's clear there is still life in the industry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Sean Spicer cameo was refreshing given the level of criminality of the current administration and the depravity of it's most ardent supporters. I'm not sure what prose updates are expected here. It's not like a sporting event where you can write a paragraph about how the results were attained. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really of broad interest. Simply one of many award shows. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As it is ITNR, this is not a valid !vote. (I do suggest if you this this shouldn't be ITNR, to start discussion over at WT:ITN/R but that won't affect this nomination. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • ITNR can go stuff itself. Link to the RfC that established the Emmy's on that list, or admit it was placed there by unsanctioned fiat. I don't see someone making up a random list of items as in any way a "policy", anything worth posting is worth posting on its own merits. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • There was a discussion in 2013 to remove it which did not pass, so that's validation to be on the list, regardless of how/when it was added (probably after 2009 judging by other discussion). Again, you're free to open a new discussion there to remove it. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah okay, missed the recurring events policy. As this has become less notable with dropping viewership might be worth discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure the viewership metric is necessary the "highlight" here moreso to the comment above that "fixed time" broadcast lost big to on-demand (which could be sourced), but gets far too long-toothed for an ITN blurb. However, this may be something to make sure is highlighted in the article. --MASEM (t) 03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
          • ...which I have now added to. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mary FairfaxEdit

Article: Mary Fairfax (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SMH

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: Polish-Australian philanthropist. EternalNomad (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Article needs more sourcing and a nice section about her death would be good so the article doesn't look like a stub. Support --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Start-level article with lots of references.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support good enough, just. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Mahant ChandnathEdit

Article: Mahant Chandnath (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India

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: Indian MP. EternalNomad (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Well sourcing indeed, but perhaps his career section could be expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose unlike Fairfax, this really is a stub. Not good enough yet, although everything there is well sourced, so that's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is actually longer than some articles that run on DYK, though I'm aware there are some that would see those changed. Sourcing is good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose There needs to be some mention of how he died. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per Ed Sherenk1 (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose at the moment. Sourcing is okay. But, we have three events from the last years of his life: his election to parliament, his conviction and sentencing, and his death: that must have affected one another. At the moment the article says he was elected, and that he was convicted, and does not describe his death. Was he still an MP when he died? Was he serving a sentence when he died? Both? Neither? This strikes me as an incomplete article, given that the entire reason we would feature him is for his death. Vanamonde (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough detail. Opening line says that Chandnath is a religious leader but the article only dedicates a single sentence to that. SpencerT♦C 23:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Added, pulled, re-added] RD: Stanislav PetrovEdit

Article: Stanislav Petrov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Soviet Cold War military officer Stanislav Petrov, credited with averting nuclear war, dies aged 77.
Alternative blurb: ​The death of Soviet Cold War military officer Stanislav Petrov, credited with averting nuclear war, is announced.
News source(s): 9 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: Death occurred on May 19 but was only made public today. Would definitely support a blurb if reliable obituaries say he truly averted nuclear war. EternalNomad (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support full blurb Duh. If preventing a nuclear war is not worth a full blurb I don't know what is. 50.30.144.29 (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What's worth a full blurb is extensive coverage of the death. In this case, his death went unreported because nobody cared. Abductive (reasoning) 23:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RDweak support blurb The article has been well sourced and updated good enough for RD tag, but he was a remarkable person who did prevent a nuclear war so maybe blurb? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There is an article on the incident itself, 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, that should maybe be linked in the blurb instead of the general nuclear warfare one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Blurb there isn't anywhere near the media coverage of this story to warrant a blurb, contributors opinions of "importance" do not sway me in the least. RD is fine for this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted as RD. As for the blurb, there are 9 close-call incidents in the List of nuclear close calls, regretfully this was not the only case the world came close. --Tone 14:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean "regrettably"... Abductive (reasoning) 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
True! Happy to see this re-posted. --Tone 07:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Merely stopping a nuclear war does not arise to the importance required for a blurb, e.g. Thatcher or Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This is not getting anywhere near the levels of media coverage to justify a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is stale. Although he died in May, it was reported in September, which makes it count. However, the source appears to be from 9 September, which makes it older than the oldest current RD. My bad. Pulled. --Tone 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Disagree that this is stale, only surfaced in most news outlets today e.g. Guardian, Moscow Times, New York Times etc. Article looks in good shape. Oppose blurb, but support RD. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD per Yorkshiresky. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD which source says 9 Sept? The two in the article are 17 and 18 Sept. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re-added per comments above. It may be worth clarifying the RD rules for situations like this, however, hopefully with only a single line. (Eg "If a subject's death has gone unrecognized for some time, it is eligible for inclusion in RD on the first day a major press outlet publishes an obituary."?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    That seems far too precise, as though we were sitting with a chronograph trying to guage exactly the moment when it was published. It'd be sufficient to say "When the death reports are in recent media" or some such. There's no harm in being usefully vague here. --Jayron32 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    My main goal would be encompassed by "major press outlet"—this isn't the first time similar arguments have happened (from memory, RDs have been dropped because a local obituary appeared before national news got to it). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD Treating recent reports of May deaths as recent deaths in September is absurd. Readers expect to find the recently dead here, and this hoodwinks them. Not only that, but it bumps an actual recent death with timely coverage out of its rightful spot. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, September 19, 2017 (UTC)
    • If the death was not widely reported in May and only got coverage now, we do consider that this qualifies as recent deaths. We're bound by when the story is noticed in papers, not when it happens. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this needs to be clarified or not yet but I support this as an IAR exception. If it wasn't reported until now, that shouldn't hurt readers who might be interested in this topic, especially with the threat of nuclear war in Asia right now. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree, we don't need more rules, no one is banging down the gates demanding it be pulled, article is good enough for MP. Just leave it. I think Tone was correct in reverting himself, but in this case we're fine with Ed re-posting it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The BBC does address this in its story (dated 18th) - a German filmmaker only found out by chance when he rang to congratulate him on his birthday on the 7th and was informed he had been dead for some months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-reposting support – Petrov's story is quite fascinating. He deserves to be listed even though his death wasn't reported for months. That's not important to readers. Sca (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Adding to the "support" chorus. We aren't psychics. Like most of the world, we did not know of his death until it was publicly announced. Arguing that because the death happened months ago, even though the public didn't know about it until now, it doesn't qualify as "recent", strikes me as the kind of pedantry only a lawyer could love. The point of the Recent Deaths section is to highlight people whose deaths have recently been reported, not to construct a historical timeline of the dates of people's deaths. If you think entries get bumped off it too quickly, that's a separate issue that should be raised elsewhere. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't take a lawyer to read "recent deaths" and assume these are deaths that happened recently. It's just plain English. If a non-recent death is a topic in the news, it makes sense directly under "topics in the news". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Bobby HeenanEdit

Article: Bobby Heenan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]
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: WWE Hall of Famer, amongst the most well known and beloved personalities in Pro Wrestling history. Spman (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Far too much unsourced material. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've gone to town on the article and it's in much better shape.LM2000 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article in good shape now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note In checking the readiness to post this, there are still some more sources needed in the "In wrestling" section (wrestler's managed, some awards). Either source them or comment them out until they can be sourced. If someone with good access to Wrestling media and an interest in wrestling articles can get on that, I or someone else can post this. --Jayron32 11:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone keeps reverting it Spman (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope. See [11]. Not sure what you're seeing, but it's not been removed since I added it. --Jayron32 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] All-Ireland FinalEdit

Article: 2017 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Gaelic football, Dublin beat Mayo in the final to win their third consecutive All-Ireland title.
News source(s): RTÉ

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: Listed on ITN/R. Will add prose later, as I don't have time now. Prose added. Tagging those who opposed on prose grounds. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What about hurling? dammit I didn't see it this year.Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose article doesn't contain enough text to qualify for the main page. When there is more text, we can re-assess. --Jayron32 23:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current state. It's generally a good idea to try to expand the article a bit first and nominate a bit later. ~Mable (chat) 07:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Seems adequately updated now. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Plenty of text now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose World Cup sure. But not convinced this is notable enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Doc James that's twice now you've raised notability issues with a WP:ITN/R item. We don't debate significance in these cases; we only focus on the quality of the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, IMO in the news is for major news events. How good an article is, is only one factor. But the way up above it says "In particular, address the notability of the event" in voting instructions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: UNGA 72Edit

I don't care how many letters they sent/Morning came and morning went/Pick up your money pack up your tent/this ain't going nowhere--Jayron32 16:52, 19 September 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: Not sure if this has been nominated, but nevertheless consensus can change (could be ITNR too??). Anyhoo it starts Tuesday at about 9:00 (they'll miss the market opening so sad ;)).
I've been keeping the article updated for the last 5 or so years (since the General Debate pages started), with the exception of last year as I was travelling and missed some of the possible prose).
Article will be updated with prose when Right to Reply begins (about 2 days later) but the intro prose is done and I will keep abreast of the list.
my annual raison d'etre more than superbowlLihaas (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no notability concerns, but the article is a stub at the moment, and needs to be upended altogether to be fit for the main page in my view. Referencing is also uniformly poor.Stormy clouds (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an ongoing nomination, meaning that the article must get incremental updates aside from notability in order to be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that I have been doing for 5 years. It has to begin first (my computer indicates it is Monday since I am in asia at the moment, but I figured a day of discussion will not hurt).Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing. The UNGA is largely toothless, the real action is in the Security Council. If the GA does actually do something of note, that can be nominated. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh Tuesday will make waves, I can be sure...
Its also basically a "state of the world" annual address by official leders.Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
We haven't been posting other world leaders summits unless something of note occurs at one, don't see why this should be different. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
[Formeryl] BRICS and G20/G8, even though only a statement comes out.Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose firstly the article is a stub, it has approximately two sentences of prose directly about this particular bunfight, and one of those (the lead) is completely wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You are aware of the date? or do you go off on your regular tangents of your way or the high way?Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The lead was wrong. I assume you've fixed it by now, but seriously, that sort of fundamental stuff should be in place before you make a nomination. Your comment makes no sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there's an authorization of military force or some major overhaul of the UN itself we can post that. A mere annual conclave of nattering nabobs, mostly from small dictatorships, is of no inherent newsworthiness. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We're not C-SPAN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 19 September 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.

September 16Edit


RD: Nabeel QureshiEdit

Article: Nabeel Qureshi (author) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Christian 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: American Christian speaker and author, and convert from Ahmadiya. Deaths from stomach cancer. The article needs a few additional improvements, which I can help with. 184.151.36.10 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've updated the article with some more citations. It's still not perfect, but it's in workable condition. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arjan SinghEdit

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

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: Well known Indian military personnel and war hero. Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Well referenced article on the highest ranked person in the history of the Indian Air Force. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 15Edit


[Posted] RD: Violet BrownEdit

Article: Violet Brown (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Mirror.uk

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: World's oldest living person. Has been updated reflecting her death and article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose brief article, but mainly referenced, apart from that Daily Mail citation.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man:: Replaced Daily Mail citation with CNN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - short article, but referencing is fine. This is RD, so as long as a decent article exists, it should be good to go. Marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Adequately referenced, and there's not much more the article can really say about someone who is notable only for their longevity. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 14:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Harry Dean StantonEdit

Article: Harry Dean Stanton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
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: Rarely a leading man but somehow always recognizable over a 60-year acting career. The Irvine, Kentucky native was memorable in 'Paris, Texas,' 'Repo Man,' 'Alien' and 'Big Love.'. He died of cancer today at age 91.

[Closed] Iceland government collapsesEdit

Lack of consensus to post. Results of imminent election will go up pending quality concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Next Icelandic parliamentary election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iceland's government collapses after Bright Future quits the coalition government, triggering snap elections
News source(s): [12] BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The linked article's the only one I found with an update on this. Do we post the government collapsing or do we wait until the inevitable elections are complete? As of right now, the update is one line as well. Banedon (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we mostly post elections but I would lean toward government collapsing meriting a separate blurb, since this is the key event. Ideally, there would be an article about the cabinet or the government crisis, covering more content. --Tone 20:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Per Tone, I would be amennable to posting an article about the crisis leading to the collapse, but the elections article is more suited to posting the results rather than the cause. Do we have such an article? --Jayron32 20:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not significantly in the news. It's below "Swedish politician Patrik Liljeglod 'raped for his beliefs'" and "Catalonia referendum: Spanish state poised to seize Catalan finances" on the BBC World News page. Is there any tangible impact? Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Very tentative support, pending an article Given this is news that literally broke today, I think that we may need a separate article on this scandal and result, which should make it clear that with the Bright Future party's departure, a call for snap elections was needed to restore the gov't. Yes, the result of the snap elections will also likely be ITN, but that's in a few months. However, all this is hard to judge without a more detailed article on the situation and what happened. The BBC article I linked implies several potential problems, but the "next election" linked target doesn't help too much to understand that. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM; we can post the election results which are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above Sherenk1 (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 331. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - minimal impact beyond the triggering of a snap election, which will be posted per ITNR. Closing given consensus against. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:43, 17 September 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] 2017 Parsons Green tube bombingEdit

Consensus is clearly against posting this unless there are very significant developments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 15 September 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 Parsons Green tube bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least twenty people are injured in a terrorist attack on a train at Parsons Green tube station, London (pictured).
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated
 Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as of now. I know terrorist attacks are usually more notable, but if no one has died or the number of injured remains relatively low I think it would reflect systemic bias to post this. Willing to change my view based on updated circumstances. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – The lack of deaths make this not particularly notable. ~Mable (chat) 11:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know this nomination faces an uphill battle because there were no deaths but we still saw an attempt to inflict mass casualties on the transport system of a major capital. It was only because the IED failed to explode properly that there were not many deaths.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it was an ISIS-planned attack that failed to go off completely, the lack of any deaths (those injured are being reported as not in serious condition so no likely deaths there), compared to more recent EU attacks as well as the Iraq attack that actually killed 60 ppl listed below, this is a non-event for ITN's purposes. If it were a slower news week, perhaps, but not presently. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose more or less per Masem: terrible as this is, I don't see this rising to the level of significance needed to post. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the currently-available information, though I suppose that might still change if this leads to something more substantial. A small explosion that killed no-one isn't ITN material, and everything else (motive, perpetrators etc.) is just speculation at this point. Best to stick to the facts we have, and those don't reach ITN level. Modest Genius talk 13:07, 15 September 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.

September 14Edit


[Posted] Bakhshali manuscriptEdit

Article: Bakhshali manuscript (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Carbon dating of the Bakhshali manuscript reveals that the zero symbol was first described between 224 and 383 AD, about 500 years earlier than previously thought.
Alternative blurb: ​Carbon dating of the Bakhshali manuscript reveals earliest known use of a zero symbol in ancient India.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, Deutsche Welle National Geographic ABC

Article updated

 Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Well referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Relevant topic. 184.151.37.217 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the earliest use of a "zero" concept in Indian text, but not the world (Egypt had it in the 1700 BC era), and other cultures "beat" Indian to it as well. That absolutely needs clarification in the blurb, and thus I do have some question of how relevant this discovery is ITN. Yes, the article is otherwise sourced appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits as important to mathematics, which we don't often cover here(as it isn't usually newsworthy). While not the earliest use of a zero concept, it does seem that the Indian symbol evolved into the modern zero used today and the blurb should reflect that. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that the blurb reflects Masem's point accurately. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, the first blurb makes it look like the document describes zero, or the concept of the zero, but it is just using a symbol for zero. Abductive (reasoning) 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were prior symbols for zero as a placeholder, which this is (Indians are thought to have originated the use of zero as a numeber, but that is not seen here). The point (rim shot) here is that this was the precursor to the modern symbol. I'm not sure the evidence holds that to be conclusive, as Ptolemy was using a symbol based on a circle earlier. GCG (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that the sources given in this nomination are incorrect in their claims? 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb / Ready - The Altblurb now reflects what Masem pointed out. With 5 support !votes including my nomination and 1 oppose, marking ready. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hang on No, we need a better blurb. "earliest origins in India" is both redundant and confusing. We could say "earliest known use of the zero symbol in India" but I'm unsure if that is supported by the sources, and don't have the time to check. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the wording is weird now. All that this news item does is shift the date of where the zero symbol first appeared in Indian history. Remember that the concept of zero existed as early as 1700 BC, the Indian one is the case of the actual "0" symbol being used instead of just a concept. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Alt blurb modified as pointed out. 'Ancient Indian mathematical document earliest known use of zero, carbon dating reveals' - Source: ABC News - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it's just a symbol. The symbol isn't important, the concept behind it is. Besides, the ancient world involved multiple distinct civilizations, and what's groundbreaking in India need not be groundbreaking in (e.g.) China. Banedon (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • “This zero in India is the seed from which the concept of zero as a number in its own right represented by the same dot or circle will emerge some centuries later, something many regard as one of the great moments in the history of mathematics,” said lead researcher Marcus du Sautoy. - Source: National Geographic - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Went with altblurb for conciseness. --Jayron32 11:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Nasiriyah attacksEdit

Article: 2017 Nasiriyah attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 84 people are killed and 93 others are injured in twin attacks targeting Shia pilgrims in southern Iraq.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 84 people are killed and 93 others are injured in two attacks targeting Shia pilgrims in southern Iraq.
News source(s): BBC Washington Post Al Jazeera English

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Twin attacks. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support in principle – pending expansion of article. It may be the new normal, but horrendous nevertheless. Sca (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I created the article and just wanted to check in for a moment - I edited the blurb above to reflect the new information, and I just significantly expanded the article and updated the information within. Skycycle (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks good, just add some sources to the last paragraph (marked with cn), then ready to post. --Tone 20:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It would be hard to find a source for that paragraph, I compiled it based on my personal interest in the conflict since 2003, as well a running tally of all major attacks in the south of Iraq since then. Since Karbala is considered south-central Iraq, it is highly probable that these ones are indeed the deadliest in the south 'proper', certainly in the last several years. Not sure how we can approach that other than shortening/removing the paragraph, but I thought the information to be interesting enough to warrant an inclusion. Skycycle (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I know. Well, I guess since the tally of major attacks has sources, this is fine (and is relevant). I'll ask another admin to post. --Tone 08:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Alright, I removed some bits and re-worded others so it is less ambiguous, added a brand new source from today with an updated death toll and a quote we can use - deadliest attack since the recapture of Mosul. I updated the blurbs above as well to reflect the new casualty toll, it should be all good to post now. Skycycle (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is a terrorist attack with a lot of casualties. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a major incident. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Article looks alright and is sourced fine. The impact of this attack makes it worthy of ITN either way, though it would be nice if the article were expanded some more. ~Mable (chat) 11:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for featuring this, if someone could give me an ITN credit to feature on the user page that would be very much appreciated. In the meantime, I will look for updates in order to expand the page a bit, but information is limited so far. Skycycle (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Grenfell Tower Fire InquiryEdit

Strong consensus against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 14 September 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: Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire (burning building pictured) is opened.
News source(s): (BBC)

Article updated
 Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If the inquiry does show that the fire was caused by purposeful acts of negligence or similar liability for the owners, that might be an appropriate story for ITN. But any such disaster is going to get an inquiry or similar (eg commercial airline accidents, for example). Posting what is otherwise a routine action from a disaster is not ITN material. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems much more natural to post the results of the inquiry rather than the beginning of it. Dragons flight (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a mere inquiry. If people are charged criminally as a result of this, or some notable conclusion is drawn at the end of the inquiry, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait The story is clearly an important one, and we did already post the initial fire, but the correct time to post this again is at the conclusion of the investigation. Not at the beginning --Jayron32 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As with criminal trials, geopolitical conferences, etc, we should post only the outcome (if notable, and it is likely this will be) not the opening of inquiries. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose Would the opening of an inquiry have been nominated if it wasn't the U.K., or U.S. (to be fair regarding our systemic bias)? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I recall we had a similar nomination not to long ago about Trump issuing an investigation into finding if Iran was violating a nuclear deal, but everyone voted to oppose it because the investigation only started and there were no results in the findings. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 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: Grant HartEdit

Article: Grant Hart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone, 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.

Nominator's comments: Hart was the drummer in Hüsker Dü. He died of cancer today at age 56. SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Significantly more references required (I've added a good dozen tags). Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, @Thryduulf: We're down to about a half dozen. I'll keep working on this today. Kindly reconsider your !vote. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
My opposition still stands while there are unsourced statements in the article. I didn't spot any other problems, but I'll take a look when the citation is complete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I'm done. One citation needed stayed in for date of his posting a song to MySpace. The song was later released on the album Hot Wax. Maybe somebody else will do his discography. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The discography does need to be referenced before this is ready for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Discography is done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 13Edit


[Closed] RD: Slavko GoldsteinEdit

Article: Slavko Goldstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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

Nominator's comments: A prominent Croatian historian, writer, and a politician. The article is a bit short but covers the main aspects, and the works are sourced. Tone 11:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The article has been further expanded. I'd post but I nominated it, could someone else take care of it? --Tone 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Seems a little under-referenced to me. There is only one citation in the "Early life" section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Given when and where he lived his early life, that is unsurprising. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
That comment makes absolutely no sense. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for poor, hyperbolic phrasing. I was alluding towards User:The Rambling Man's concerns. As a Croatian born over 80 years ago, there exists little curable information about his early life that is in a language that we can use on en.wiki. Thus, either we remove this information or make do with just one citation given the circumstances. Hope that helps clarify it somewhat. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Well if we had someone capable of reviewing the duff templates, let's do that, fix it up and then it's almost good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Reference templates fixed. --Tone 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me at this stage. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I've made a few edits, we have a number of citations that aren't being rendered properly because they're using (presumably) a foreign-language template (Citiranje www) which en.wiki does not support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pete DomeniciEdit

Article: Pete Domenici (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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • One citation needed, but other than that it's in good shape now I added the ISBNs to the bibliography. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Frank VincentEdit

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

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

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

[Posted] Cassini–HuygensEdit

Article: Cassini–Huygens retirement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Cassini–Huygens mission ends with the probe descending to destruction into the atmosphere of Saturn.
Alternative blurb: ​The Cassini–Huygens mission to the Saturn system ends by deliberately crashing into the planet.
News source(s): [13] [14]

Nominator's comments: Been 13 or more years stalking Saturn and her satellites. got a lot ofdata and first(??) to penetrate her atmosphere. Cameras go off tomorrow and shell "die" Friday morning EST
weve posted non humans to RD, so why not an inanimate object? (blurb is not great, but feel free to suggest another) Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Condensing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment please try English for your nomination comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
please relax.
and thanks to the altblurb creator.Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I am relaxed. Please write in parsable English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
If you were, youd see it has happened. Anyhoo, nonsense conversation this is.Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I am, and yes, thanks for correcting your incomprehensible nomination. Although you've followed it up with more of the same... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Blurb, but wait the probe is scheduled to fall into Saturn on Friday (15 September), so its best to wait for the actual descent to occur before posting. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    No, we wouldn't do RD and blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    We did that for the Pioneer Cabin Tree back in January. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Simultaneously? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    We only posted to RD, and we posted to RD because it was a former living object. The probe is not living. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    It is Artificial Intelligence. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    It's a space probe. Not covered by RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    The Cassini probe is not a living, breathing organism unlike that tunnel tree back in January. It is thus not eligible for RD per what the policy states. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ugh, fine but I'm still supporting the blurb, albeit waiting till the day it falls into Saturn. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    The reason they are crashing it is that there may be living breathing organisms somewhere on it ;) But yes, sure, this goes up as a blurb, not as RD. --Tone 07:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments Several points:
    • NASA lists the End of Mission as Sept. 15, so clearly we should wait until then. [15].
    • Let's not start putting RDs for inanimate objects. If we know something important was destroyed (purposefully or not), then we should be using a blurb to talk about it and not pretend it is a "death" even if we humanize such things.
    • While I would support a blurb for this (lots of good information from the probe's Grand Finale), the article is in poor sourcing shape. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
All sounds very reasonable to me.
I just changed the article.Lihaas (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Also to add : plenty of free images here to chose from, some of the pictures from the Grand Finale would be best if they're clear what they are, like Saturn ring images. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until probe descends into Saturn on Sep. 15. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd Support this (as a blurb, not an RD, that would be silly) in a couple of days per the above. Oh, and obviously subject to article quality. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose RD. This is not a death, but the end of a space probe mission and the probe itself. I support posting the final descent of the probe per Hornetzilla, once the article is OK. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The expression "dead satellite" (in quotes) gets over 49,000 hits on Google, so it's not obvious to me that a RD would be as ridiculous as some here seem to think. But I expect a blurb will make the question academic on this occasion. As for possible future occasions, they are presumably best discussed as part of some suggested tweak to the policy wording at the Talk Page where that policy is stated (WP:ITNRD).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes tell people that my car died, but I know it isn't alive. If we open up RD to nonliving things, it ceases to be RD and would just be "things that ended". 331dot (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
See here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Blurb only - pretty sure recently we agreed that non-living entities should not be eligible for RD. Banedon (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Blurb - We always provide blurbs for significant space exploration events. Given that all 3 of my local papers mentioned this two days early, and given the significance of Cassini, this is of clear significance. I'm almost wondering if we should mention that the intentional burn-up is because of suspected life on Enceladus and Titan. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb once the crash has happened. Historically significant mission with a clear end-point, with a bunch of high-quality articles to highlight. I've added an altblurb2, which I think is more accurate (the mission targeted the entire system, not just the planet; Huygens was the probe whilst Cassini is a spacecraft; and I don't think the retirement article is good enough to merit bolding). Modest Genius talk 10:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, and the article on the retirement needs to have a great update, but I would definitely support this on its merits. Blurb, that is. RD is not useful for a space probe. ~Mable (chat) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Support – The article has been updated a little bit and I'm sure it'll be updated more in the next few hours. This can go up very soon. ~Mable (chat) 09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The RD criteria is extremely explicit - humans, animals, or other biological organisms. THIS IS NOT A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM!!!--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Geez Walt, you don't have to get so aggressive, besides the dispute was already settled before you commented. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Significant long-term mission, both articles look ready. 45.74.77.105 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – this is all over the news right now in my area and possibly much of the world. Cassini made significant accomplishments in our understanding of Saturn and its moons, particularly Titan. However as users such as Hornetzilla78 and 331dot point out, I agree we should wait until tomorrow to post since that's when Cassini completes its mission and dives into Saturn's atmosphere. Kirliator (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Her (??) cameras are down though, just the radio data to go...I imagine the radio telescopes around the world are in over drive..
remved RD as nominee since its clear where this is going as per Hornetzilla78.Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • NASA has EOL happening at 12:00 UTC (under 12 hr from when I post this) , give or take 10 min. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Saturn is 10 AU away. Is that 12z in ♄ time or ⊕ time? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
UT, which is by definition time on Earth. Modest Genius talk 10:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Going down now. Time to post or shall we wait for the signal (or the lack of thereof) to come back? The article is already updated with past tenses, the retirement article probably needs some work so it should not be highlighted at the moment. --Tone 11:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's gone, final signal received. Time to post, marking ready. Modest Genius talk 11:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the bolded article is incorrect? It should target the retirement article, not the article on Cassini. Banedon (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Summer OlympicsEdit

Articles: 2024 Summer Olympics (talk, history) and 2028 Summer Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The IOC awards the 2024 Summer Olympics to Paris and the 2028 Summer Olympics to Los Angeles] by unanimous consent.
Alternative blurb: ​The IOC awards the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics to Paris and Los Angeles respectively by unanimous consent. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
News source(s): [16]

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.

 Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • If I remember, we did not post it when it was made clear that those will be the host cities, as "it was not official yet". I guess it's the last time to post this now. --Tone 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's unclear to me why this is ITN/R. So the announcement of the host city for a future Olympics is ITN/R? - Christian Roess (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
My bad its not ITNR. but we did post past announcements lke Tokyo/London (if memory serves)Lihaas (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is INTR: "Announcement of the host city for the Olympic Games". --MASEM (t) 20:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not my bad then ;) it just changes I don regularly keep abreast.Lihaas (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
yes it is an ITN/R, the very last section (#47 - Multi-sport events) indicates this. I'll reconsider my "oppose" vote. Christian Roess (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's the right time (the vote is complete) and both articles are in good shape. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose venues sections of each article are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This has been a meandering story that we've considered at various points but didn't post because it wasn't yet finalised. Now the IOC has finally made this official we should post. We would be better off making Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics the target article - it's far more extensive and better referenced. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, the bids article is in a good shape. --Tone 10:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with the bids article as the target per Modest Genius. I've proposed an altblurb to this effect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - saber-rattling, nothing has truly happened yet, this is all just speculation until the event actually occurs. And the hype will way surpass the actual spectacle. (that's a joke, folks - post-posting support) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
WHAT? it is a joke, agreed and sensible people realize it is a stupidity to host something like this (3 Olympics in 4 years by cash-rich east asia should porove that) and a total ripoff (a la Athens and the debt hangover) ...still it HAS been given and unlke Mexico in the 70s (forget if it was the Olympics or world cup) it will happen.Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a very hard time even understanding what the above statement says. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I agreed with him it is a joke (but different reasons) yet it fall under criteria for postng.Lihaas (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Singapore presidential electionEdit

Articles: Singaporean presidential election, 2017 (talk, history) and Halimah Yacob (talk, history)
Blurb: Halimah Yacob wins the Singaporean presidential election, 2017 by walkover after being declared the only eligible candidate
Alternative blurb: Halimah Yacob wins the Singaporean presidential election, 2017 by default after being declared the only eligible candidate
News source(s): [17] [18]

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: An unusual one since there was no actual election. On the other hand changes in head of state are ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added an altblurb as "walkover" is not used in this context in British English (it is used to mean a very easy victory, but only when there was an actual contest and almost only in a sporting context). Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    Well you could always check out (and link) Walkover which makes it very plain indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Whilst it can be used that way, 'by default' is far more common in non-sporting contexts. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality the article about the election I've had to add several CN tags and one update needed tag to, it is also inconsistent with the Halimah Yacob article - the former states she is president the later that she is "expected to be" president. This is ITN/R though and I would support on the merits even if it weren't. Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if properly updated – The article on the election currently includes three citation needed tags, which I hope will be fixed soon. The main issue is that Yacob's article isn't properly updated yet, which will need to happen first. Other than that, nothing stands in the way of these articles to go up, really. The article on Yacob looks a bit awkward, but it's well sourced, and the article on the election looks very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talkcontribs) 07:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe the article is currently properly updated and nothing is in the way of this blurb going up. ~Mable (chat) 12:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Muslim women head of state in a non-Muslim majority is pretty damn big, they've had Christian, Buddhist, Hindoo and nonw Muslim...with update this is a big story .Lihaas (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's not forget though, the election was intentionally rigged to allow only Malays to stand for election, and Malays are almost by definition Muslim. Banedon (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
True, but still a first. The Chrisians re-converted to Buddhism (Atheism?) . I grew up there (elementary/early middle.Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Its a bit more nuanced than that, it was rigged so any ethnic group who haven't had a president in 5 terms gets a reserved election. This happens to be Malays, but obviously now they wouldn't get another reserved election for quite awhile. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: A white prez in a non-white majority country (a la Zambia)...should be interesting...Portugal and Ireland have not white heads of state..(both indians)
Interesting tag in your signature...especially wth Cassini. Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, Singaporean presidential election, 2017 looks fine to post as a bold link. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. I de-bolded the candidate article, as there seems to be some questions about the quality there, but all quality issues seems to have been resolved from the election article. --Jayron32 14:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 12Edit


[Posted] RD: Siegfried KöhlerEdit

Article: Siegfried Köhler (conductor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.wiesbadener-kurier.de/lokales/wiesbaden/nachrichten-wiesbaden/wiesbadens-ex-generalmusikdirektor-siegfried-koehler-im-alter-von-94-jahren-gestorben_18174934.htm

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: conductor in Wiesbaden and Stockholm, professor (and great person) - day of death not yet confirmed, 12 September is day of (printed) publication, must be earlier --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This article is in good shape. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The citation in the Awards section does not verify anything other than the very last claim made (and was a deadlink, but I've found and linked the archived version), I've tagged the others. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm also not certain that reference 2 verifies anything it claims to as it appears to be a dynamic page that will have changed since the 2013 access date recorded (assuming the accessdate is the same for every time its used) and doesn't presently mention Köhler but I haven't got time to look individually at every claim. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the "ref 2", I should have known that the paper restructured their website, - before, at least you got the header of older articles with a message that to read further , you'd have to sign in, - one day all old articles disappeared. I was a bit cross with Mr. Milch that he mostly repeated in the obituary what he had written for the 90th birthday, but looking closer, he hadn't, - it's more anecdotes. I found another obituary, though, which I used more. I dropped the names from the Saarland Verband (the article was translated from German), - both honorary memberships are now sourced. Sorry that I didn't notice there was an awards section, - combined now. Should I perhaps drop the url from the older ref 2, to not confuse readers? It was then checked at least by a DYK reviewer. I don't want to drop it completely, because to have an article for your birthday or not makes a difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I haven't got time to look at the article again right now, but to answer your question about dropping the URL - if it links to relevant content then keep it, if not then see if archive.org has it - if so, link to that like I did for the award ref I fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I couldn't find any archive, so commented the url out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Support. My objections have been dealt with. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Edith WindsorEdit

Article: Edith Windsor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/us/edith-windsor-dead-same-sex-marriage-doma.html

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

 Brianga (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. Party to a precedent-setting case in the U.S. Article appears well-referenced. Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to be in solid, potable shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in great shape. She was a very important figure, and given the coverage she has received, she may also be worthy of a blurb. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No; the expected death of someone in their late 80s is only blurb-worthy in extraordinary circumstances. Rough rules of thumb are "has more than ​13 of the world's population heard of this person?" or "have the major television networks of multiple countries cancelled their scheduled programming to run tributes to this person?". The death from old age of somebody significant in a niche area but of little or no interest to the wider world is pretty much the textbook example of what RD was intended for when we introduced it. ‑ Iridescent 07:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That second one is a tall order and open to some bias toward entertainers and elected officials (at least in the US). How about "Though they may have equals, there is no living person more prominent in their non-niche field?" What constitutes niche would be open to debate, I suppose. GCG (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Discussion of a blurb can continue if anyone wants. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting RD support, oppose blurb Let's keep in mind that we're talking a champion of same-sex marriages in one country that at the time was running behind the rest of the world in terms of allowing for same-sex marriage. If it were to be the US being a leading country chronologically, thus setting a pattern for other countries to follow, that might be different. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 11Edit


[Stale] RD: Peter Hall (director)Edit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Peter Hall (director) (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: Needs heaps of referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I started linking operas, - quite unbelievable what was missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Noted issues aside, this is borderline blurb, no? GCG (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No. Nowhere near the level of prominence required for a blurb. I've not evaluated the article yet. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • He founded the Royal Shakespeare Company and was instrumental in the establishing of the UK's National Theatre amongst many other achievements - surely he warrants a 'Recent deaths'? JezGrove (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Right, and for me, he was a legendary figure. However, all that counts here is article quality, - can you improve that? Sections are missing references. I took care of opera, but am not competent for film, awards etc. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @JezGrove: everybody who has an article merits a recent deaths entry, but the article needs to be of good quality before it is posted. Being fully referenced is a minimum requirement for posting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 14 September 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.

[Stale] RD/blurb: Abdul Halim of KedahEdit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Abdul Halim of Kedah (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysian monarch Abdul Halim, the Sultan of Kedah, dies aged 89.
News source(s): Malaysian Star
Nominator's comments: Extremely influential and high-ranking monarch; he was the Sultan of Kedah since 1958 (!) and also served 10 years as Malaysia's head of state, including as recently as December 2016. EternalNomad (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only unless widespread world coverage of this can be shown; additionally, this person doesn't seem influential to the scale of Mandela/Thatcher or even Queen Elizabeth. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of data listed that is completely unsourced. If the article is fixed up a bit more, I'd agree with RD only. ~Mable (chat) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only, per 331dot. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much of it's unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for RD given the importance of the late monarch, only person to serve as Yang di-Pertuan Agong twice and second-longest reigning living monarch. --Varavour (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Varavour: Just FYI, RD does not require support on the merits, as anyone that merits an article qualifies for RD- the issue for posting to RD is only making sure the article gets a quality update. I don't believe that has occurred yet. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 13 September 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.

September 10Edit


US OpenEdit

Article: 2017 US Open – Women's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Sloane Stephens beats Madison Keys to win the 2017 US Open – Women's Singles.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, Sloane Stephens and Rafael Nadal win the women's and men's singles titles at the U.S. Open respectively.

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: tomorrow should be Africa's first grand slam winner..
My Sloanie wins, alas! Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Lihaas: What do you mean by "Africa's first grand slam winner"? Keys and Stephens are both from the US. Vanamonde (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
He's referring to tomorrow's men's finals. If Kevin Anderson of South Africa wins over Rafael Nadal, he'll be the first Grand slam winner from Africa.--Jayron32 04:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose zero prose about the final, almost no prose about the rest of the competition and most of the tables are not obviously sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Article is 100% lists and tables after the lead section. Zero prose. ~Mable (chat) 08:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb as well. (2017 US Open (tennis)) – I had to press "PageDown" 30 times just to get through the excessive lists and tables that are completely useless to any dispassionate reader. It is impenetrable and wholy uninteresting to a non-expert like myself. This is not an encyclopedic article, this is a list of results. I'm honestly impressed that people collected so much data regarding this event, but this is entirely unsuitable for the Wikipedia mainpage, and honestly Wikipedia itself. ~Mable (chat) 07:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, what I'm most interested in for articles like this one are 1) who won and 2) what the score was, in which case the list of results is excellent and the prose description is unimportant. Banedon (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You can see who won and the score of the final match in the infobox of these two articles. Are you arguing the rest of the article isn't needed? :p I'm surprised that I'm not able to find any guidelines or essays regarding "writing about sports" on Wikipedia, like we have on fiction. I think this is generally something that deserves to be discussed. Either way, personally, I would like to see more sports articles that look like the ones I haven writen (such as Evo 2016 or Capcom Cup 2016) because that's what I believe an encyclopedia is all about. All of these tables look very inside baseball to me. ~Mable (chat) 08:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The infobox only gives the results & scores for one match. I could, e.g., be interested in who eliminated Andy Murray. There's nothing wrong with prose, but if I can only have one I'd rather have the tables than the prose. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I completely disagree - the entire reason I would read a Wikipedia article about a sporting event like this is for the prose, I can find tables of results in many places. The ITN consensus that sports articles need to have prose before posting has been around longer than I've been here, so I don't think I'm alone. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I can find news reports on sporting events easily, but not so easily the results for less-covered players. Prose is overrated, especially when we're constrained to write in "encyclopedic" language and newspaper-style writing is more exciting to read. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a long way from being posted, as others have noted. Blurb should now reflect that Nadal won the men's singles as well. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb, I've added a little prose about the finals. I don't think it's too bad. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose none of the proposed targets are sufficiently well written. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least until somebody explains the [WC] beside Maria Sharapova and the [PR] beside Sloane Stephens - per Inside baseball. (Obviously others will also insist that lots of prose is also needed, perhaps so that we can try to deceive a few of our readers that we are that kind of encyclopedia when we aren't really, and in practice can't really be, but are still very useful despite this - but here is not the place to try to reverse the ancient and in my view outdated consensus on that).Tlhslobus (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WC is "Wild card" and PR is "Protected ranking." I'm surprised you would consider such minor details a deal-breaker for your !vote.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Len WeinEdit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Len Wein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Gizmodo

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Nominating this for 108.49.85.158 on WT:ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:09, 10 September 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.

September 9Edit


[Posted] RD: Pierre PiloteEdit

Article: Pierre Pilote (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I'll work on this tomorrow to get it up to snuff, but nominating now in case anyone else wants to get started. Hall of Fame NHL defenseman. Teemu08 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose lots of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is now sourced. Teemu08 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Now fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted despite being involved as it's been sitting ready for nearly 18 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 8Edit


[Stale] RD: Jerry PournelleEdit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Jerry Pournelle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Verge

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: Sci-Fi author, believed to be the first to have used a word processor to prepare a published novel. There are sourcing issues with the article. MASEM (t) 16:44, 9 September 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.

[Stale] RD: Don WilliamsEdit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Don Williams (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WaPost

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 for sourcing in this. MASEM (t) 05:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article does need more sourcing as you stated, but good updating. Make sure the awards section is sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too many unreferenced claims for a BLP to feature on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: File this RD next to Glen Campbell's and other multi-decade artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.20.29 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 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.

[Stale] RD: Troy GentryEdit

Stale - all 4 entries at RD died more recently than him. BencherliteTalk 05:53, 15 September 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: Montgomery Gentry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WaPost

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: Seems sourced save for discography. Please note that we'd need to wikilink here, as Troy is covered as part of the duo and lacks a separate article (still maeans he's notable alone) MASEM (t) 05:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Is it still permitted to nominate an RD even when the article is a redirect or when the subject has to individual article? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I am pretty confident we discussed this before that this is how we would handle the situation of RD of a notable person who, for encyclopedic purposes, is best discussed as the duo/small group they are predominately known for. (eg if either Coen Brothers died, we'd be nominating in the same fashion. It would be a different situation if he was one person out of a 20 piece band and he wasn't a front person, but when part of a due, trio or similarly small group, this makes reasonable sense. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't recall having this discussion before but thank you for clearing things up. Support from me then. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We posted Ian Brady only a few months ago. [19]. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And Charlie Gard as well. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
IIRC the conclusion was that they are not automatically eligible, but they can be posted if there is consensus there is sufficient biographical information about them on a larger article. In this case I have no objection to posting when the article is in sufficient state, but it is not yet ready (see comment below). Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - there is only a stub's worth of information about Troy Gentry in the article, and only about half of that is cited. Particularly glaring is that the currently-unsourced sentence "Gentry is survived by wife Angie McClure Gentry, his 14-year-old daughter Kaylee, and Taylor, a child from his previous marriage." is the only indication anywhere in the article I can easily see that he had a previous marriage. Not worthy of an oppose on it's own, but I'm not sure "Death of Troy Gentry" needs a separate section to "Personal lives#Troy Gentry", certainly with the amount of content currently in both. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • WeakSupport nearly there, a few claims need references. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a couple more references. I think this is good to go now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I still oppose. What's there is adequately referenced, but the one hunting incident being half of the entire personal life section about him makes this a BLP failure for me per WP:DUE as out of proportion with its significance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    No, I disagree, it's sourced, it includes all the pertinent points of a legal case that is relevant to this individual. If there's nothing else to say (and this is a Good Article so it's clearly been reviewed for this kind of thing), I don't see why it should be prevented from going into RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    If the hunting incident were one-half, or even one-quarter, of the article as a whole, I would agree with Thryduulf. However, it's only a small and reasonable fraction of the article as a whole, so I don't see a BLP issue. (The fact that it is a sizable portion of a particular section is more an artifact of how the article editors have structured the sections than anything else.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 12 September 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: Pierre BergéEdit

Article: Pierre Bergé (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: French businessman and Partner of Yves Saint Laurent Sherenk1 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support No obvious problems. --Jayron32 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Commment I tagged two statements that are unsourced that need sourcing. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The statements Masem tagged as unsourced are still outstanding. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The article looks thorough, and I've added more in-line references.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no more issues with the referencing, posting. --Tone 14:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Chiapas earthquakeEdit

Article: 2017 Chiapas earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A magnitude 8.0 earthquake shakes southern Mexico, the strongest since 1985.
News source(s): BBC CNN NY Times

Nominator's comments: Nominated for significance of a mag.8 earthquake, although the article is still quite underdeveloped. It should be much more detailed by the time (if) this gets approved. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait until estimates of death toll, injuries and damage come in. The article will also need massive expansion. SounderBruce 06:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose apparently the strongest earthquake of the year so far, but seems limited in its impact at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - 8.1 + 26 deaths Sherenk1 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There will likely be more details to come, but it definitely has a significant effect now with reported casualties, and the article covers enough of the basics. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - what does 'the strongest since 1985' mean? It's not the strongest globally; but it's the strongest in Mexico for a century. what's the context there? Radagast (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

September 7Edit


[Posted] RD: Gene MichaelEdit

Article: Gene Michael (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY 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: As I nominate this, the article is 'almost' ready. But not quite. I'll keep working on it. Should be ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - no issues. Marking ready in the absence any dissent. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support No major issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The MLB statistics are not sourced in the infobox and don't appear anywhere else in the article so are not referenced elsewhere either. Everything else is fine, but it's not ready until the sourcing is resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You're being a stickler about statistics in an infobox? The ones that you can easily see are verified by the external links? I've added a sentence on his stats. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That's a start, but what about the other statistics? There is no indication that the external links verify the statistics - not that we regard the of external links that verify content as sufficient in any other case. If requiring everything to be sourced before I'm happy to post the content on the main page is being a "stickler" then, yes I am being one. I'm actually very surprised that The Rambling Man didn't pick up on this as they're usually equally attentive to this sort of unsourced content. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Because the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. It wasn't unsourced, it just didn't have an inline citation. There's every indication that the external links support it, as the {{baseballstats}} template spits out "Career statistics and player information from" as its default. I added another bit for the one stat I forgot to include to that sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A baseball manager's won-lost record is readily checked in so many accessible databases that it is arbitrary to select just one. I do not perceive the lack of a reference for such an item as a negative precluding mainpaging. And in any event, one seems to have been added now anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The win-loss record is indeed adequately sourced, and was before my comment above, it's the (still mostly) unsourced statistics in the infobox about their playing career that I believe stand in the way of posting this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • A Major League Baseball player's playing statistics are not reasonably subject to question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
        • By those familiar with baseball perhaps, but for those like me who know little of the sport it seems perfectly reasonable to require the statistics for baseball players to be subject to the same sourcing requirements as all other sportspeople. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who wouldn't blindly accept statistics for a cricketer for example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Newyorkbrad. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

September 6Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Kate MillettEdit

Article: Kate Millett (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American feminist writer and activist Kate Millett dies aged 82.
News source(s): Advocate

Nominator's comments: One of the most prominent figures in second-wave feminism, arguably up there with Betty Friedan and the like, with a GA quality article. Possibly even worth a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RD, oppose blurb Blurbs shouldn't be given just because the article is of good quality. Which this is. Blurbs are for if the death is a news story in and of itself, beyond just the obituaries. This won't be a Bowie/Mandela level of story. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support for blurb RD for certain, but the blurb decision is tricky. She was hugely influential as a feminist; I'm not a feminist scholar, but I'd heard of her many many times before this. Still, not a Mandela or a Bowie; but more influential than Carrie Fisher, I'd say. Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Blurb support Millett is considered to be a feminist icon as the "principal theoretician of the women’s liberation movement". As Vanamonde93 said was true that she is more influential than Carrie Fisher and she got a blurb. The article is in great condition along with good updating. Her book Sexual Politics is being hailed by the NYT as "a central work of what is often called second-wave feminism". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Blurbs aren't based on "influence", they're based on how the death is reported in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Per Mobushgu, blurbs are for when the death is the main story, not necessarily when their life was the main story. This death and the reactions to it are unremarkable. RD is sufficient here. --Jayron32 14:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Blurb support One of the best-known and most influential feminist figures of all time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb summary: notable old woman dies; I don't see the death having any ramifications whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: It's rare indeed for a death to have implications, though, isn't it. We posted Leonard Cohen, Mandela, and Bowie as blurbs; but what impacts did their death have? Not much; mostly their lives which mattered. Vanamonde (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, we also posted the guy from Fast and Furious, no-one said this place gets it right all the time. Cohen definitely erroneous, Mandela obvious shoo-in, Bowie's death was unexpected so I guess that was the point there. This is just business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RD didn't exist when Paul Walker died. Also, there was consensus to do so at the time. "Didn't get it right" does not mean "Didn't agree with me". --Jayron32 14:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • So even moreso... --Jayron32 19:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yawn, so this is worth a blurb or not or is this just a long correction? Looks like both Jayron and me can't remember yesteryear.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - her death is in the news if one looks for it, but is not especially highlighted. If I search for "Kate" using Google, by far the more common result is regarding Kate Middleton. Banedon (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed, I can't even find it on the BBC News site. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the film credits are entirely unsourced and the first of the book chapters needs a citaiton - I've found a PDF copy of the issue [20] but have run out of time to add it to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, I see no consensus for a blurb. --Tone 10:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull - the filmography is still completely unsourced, this was never ready for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for RD. Sources for the filmography would be welcome, but the article overall is in strong condition and there is no actual dispute that she was involved in the films listed, so refusing to post on this basis would be unnecessary and pulling at this stage would be unwarranted. Agree there is no consensus for a blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Why is this different than any of the other people we have not posted because the filmography was unsourced, whether disputed or not? Even 6 hours after posting we still have sourced content on the main page - well below what we normally regard as acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It is different because the article is particularly long and strong with numerous sources, including any and all statements could be considered controversial or open to question. But in any event I disagree with the idea that we need a source footnote for each and every item of a filmography before we post to RD. I understand the desire for good sourcing on the main page but this should not be enforced in an unduly rigid fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
        • We'll have to agree to disagree then, as I do think it important that all aspects of an article (particularly a BLP) are sourced before we post it to the main page, and that "all" includes statistics, filmographies and similar lists. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Sourcing for the films in this case is even more importance as they do not have stand-alone articles where at least some basic facts of the film could be checked. This section fails WP:V and WP:BLP, completely. I'd have some leniency here if those were all films with stand-alone articles and her role was clear from those pages, but that's absolutely not the case here. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Pray tell, if you or any other editor has a problem with the sourcing for said section, can't you just remove it? WP:V clearly states that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which means you can't even be reasonably reverted. If you don't like it, remove it, problem solved. It's not like this hasn't been done before, I actually remember an editor removing certain blocks of text from an OTD article because it was being featured today, and then restored the text the next day. Banedon (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
              • And then that would leave a gaping hole in the article since these seem notable film appearances. Removing text just to clear for posting on the main page is extremely poor behavior, that's the same as sweeping the problems under the rug. Also, other editors really dislike people removing statements that aren't controversial but that do require sourcing, such as these film appearances. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                • Other editors can dislike it, but they can't dispute it, unless they source it in which case all the better, no? The other way of looking at it is, if other people dislike removing these non-controversial-but-unsourced text, then maybe we should ignore it entirely and post? Banedon (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • Unlike a featured article, a good article doesn't have to be comprehensive, just broad in its scope. So it is acceptable to not have a filmography. Since Kate Millett not renowned for movie appearances, the omission of the filmography is hardly a gaping hole. In fact, all but one of the appearances are in documentaries, so her article needs it like a blind elephant needs roller skates. Also, and I'm surprised no one has brought this up, WP:BLP does not apply because she is dead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • BLP absolutely applies for a few months after a person's death, this is standard practice; even then, WP:V still wholly applies. And given that the prose mentions a handful of the films (but not all), not to have the filmography section would be clearly lacking. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • @Hawkeye7: You need to reread the BLP policy, specifically the Recently dead or probably dead section (WP:BDP) which states, "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.". Anyway, I haven't got time at the moment to look for sources so I've tagged what needs to be added in the hope that someone with time might actually do this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                      • The BLP policy includes the recently deceased primarily because we don't want people thinking, "okay, this person just died—so now it's okay for me to introduce negative, unsourced information or unduly weighted facts into his or her article." That doesn't mean that not having a sourced footnote for a recently deceased, or for that matter a still living, ballplayer's batting statistics can reasonably be categorized as a BLP violation. If you or anyone believe that an article has too much unsourced information to qualify for posting to RD or elsewhere on the mainpage, that's certainly a valid point to make, but describing this as a BLP issue doesn't really add anything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                        • Technically all unsourced information in a BLP is a violation of that policy, but in practical terms only controversial or potentially controversial information is treated as such. If batting figures for example were changed to be significantly different than is true, that would be something potentially controversial. If someone is noted as appearing in a film they did not appear in, that is potentially controversial (depending on the person, the nature of the film and of the (alleged) role - the latter are not easy to check when the entry doesn't have a blue link or external source). All this though misses the point that items appearing on the main page are meant to be examples of good Wikipedia content, which absolutely does not include BLPs with unsourced information. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
                          • Film credits are a valid primary source for who worked/was involved in a film and their role. Even on a BLP/BDP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
                            • No they aren't. It just presents a name and names are not unique, particularly when we are talking about an off-screen role. This idea may be okay for a major film where there's no denying a starring actor's visual appearance and name, but anything away from that is presumptions that we can't work from and need a source, other than IMDB, to use. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
                              • Even starring roles in major Hollywood blockbusters need a blue link to a sourced article about the film at the absolute minimum, and even then I'd prefer to see an inline source. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane IrmaEdit

Article: Hurricane Irma (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Irma (pictured) makes landfall in Barbuda as the strongest ever hurricane to make landfall in the Caribbean.
News source(s): Guardian, Weather.com, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Irma is among the strongest Atlantic basin hurricanes ever recorded, the strongest to so form outside of the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico, and the strongest to make landfall on a Caribbean island. Article (as all cyclone articles usually are) is extremely well written, detailed, and up to date. Jayron32 11:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support-When a regional paper of India rushes to report an international event. It is commonsense for wiki to post it— RADICAL SODA(FORCE)TM 11:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I suspect the Irma article and blurb will need many updates over the next several days, but I don't see a necessity to wait. Article seems good and this is already major news. Dragons flight (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support posting this now given the significance of the storm, though I do not feel we should make another posting for when this storm makes landfall in the U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but with admins needing to be ready to update it frequently enough when the main event starts. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant hurricane, reported to be the size of France. Should be posted ASAP. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support significant event and article is in good shape. As mentioned the blurb will need to be updated over time. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait Just making landfall is not enough, in the past. It is very much likely to cause much damage and lives, but we should wait to access some preliminary scope of that. It could very well be of inconsequential damage and that would make this a non-story, though I realize this is not a very likely scenario. Waiting a bit would also account for a potential US landfall and updating the blurb to reflect that. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    We're not locked into a blurb even after it is posted. We can always update it as more relevant information becomes available. --Jayron32 13:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    I know, but we're also not a news ticker; once we have point where there is clear damage and destruction here, we should post, but not before that point. EG right now as I read, the storm did some structural damage to Bermuda but no direct deaths, not the type of thing we'd post if that's all the storm did altogether. I'm sure in a day or two, when it is supposed to pass over the Virgin Islands, PR, and Cuba, there will be a lot more to report on there and that'll likely be where appropriate to post a blurb and update it as the storm progresses. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Most powerful hurricane ever recorded over the Atlantic Ocean. I feel it's significant enough to post now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted but without the image as that isn't protected yet (I've put it in the queue so it shouldn't be long). I see consensus to post as the strongest ever to make landfall, the blurb can updated if it does more damage elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    The caption had been added, however the pages it was transcluded on needed to be purged. I've done that as well, so it should be displayed properly. See WP:PURGE. --Jayron32 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: what is the source for the claim of Irma being the "strongest hurricane to make landfall in the Caribbean"? To my knowledge, the 1935 Labor Day hurricane made landfall in the Florida Keys at lower pressure (thus "stronger"). --17:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Per the Guardian, it looks like they are basing it on windspeed, not pressure. They pointed out the 1935 one but like 3 months also noted, those were farther out from land when they hit similar windspeeds and weakend by the time they made landfall. Irma's still remaining this strong as it continues west this close to land. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Cuba the boundary of the Caribbean Sea and "Bahamas is Caribbean" is more of a "Sinai is African"-type thing? So west tip of Cuba to Yucatan Peninsula is the boundary between Caribbean and Gulf and the Keys don't touch the Caribbean anywhere (unlike Cuba) so aren't Caribbean islands. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
See Caribbean#Definition, the only group of islands which are unambiguously Caribbean are those which form the boundary of the Caribbean Sea. For socio-political reasons some island groups nearby, such as the Bahamas, Bermuda, and others, are often members of Caribbean based organizations, even if not strictly "Caribbean". --Jayron32 18:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if you don't count the Florida Keys as Caribbean islands, there was also the 1924 Cuba hurricane, which too had lower pressure than Irma. It didn't form over the Atlantic though, if that is the distinction. --bender235 (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Which word is most commonly used for wind speed and least not giving the impression of meaning pressure? Then use that. Maybe wikilink it to maximum sustained winds. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
By convention, wind speed is used to rank hurricanes by strength. See Tropical cyclone scales. There are a hundred other measures of magnitude one could use I suppose. The official bodies that rank these things don't use those other measures, they use wind speed. So we do the same thing. Discussions of other metrics, which are not used in ranking storms, are mostly irrelevant. --Jayron32 01:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the National Hurricane Center very much uses minimum pressure in their intensity rankings, so that's not a claim we can reasonably make. Titoxd(?!?) 01:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Intensity and strength are different measures, it appears, and correlated to pressure and wind speed, respectively. Not a full expert here, but intense storms are ones that have a potential to linger for a longer period of time and/or keep long periods of high wind speed (while the low pressure system equalizes), whereas strength relates to the destructive nature of the system as measured by how fast it sustains high wind. --MASEM (t) 12:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is all a fun exercise, but it's intellectual masturbation at this point. Unless and until all of the reliable sources describing it as such have printed a retraction or correction, we go with what they say. Everything else is original research. The Guardian has not yet retracted its assessment. --Jayron32 14:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Holger CzukayEdit

Article: Holger Czukay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian

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

Nominator's comments: Influential bassist and co-founder of German group Can. Suspect need a couple of additional references. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose discography and some of the bio is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've referenced the discography and the bio looks well referenced now. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

September 5Edit


[Posted] RD: Nicolaas BloembergenEdit

Article: Nicolaas Bloembergen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Universiteitleiden, Nasonline

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winner, article well updated and sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support It is all sourced and seemingly ready to go, but there's nearly nothing about his scientific work compare to other Nobel winners; it's likely only two sentences covering this major part of his career. I would see if this could be expanded. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I expanded to help with the issues I saw. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Masem: How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support Lead's too short, doesn't adequately summarize him. Should say where he worked, what he won the Nobel for, etc. But, this isn't GAN, the article appears comprehensive, sourced, and updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Muboshgu: Thanks to Masem, the intro has been expanded and I added the detail with his Nobel Prize win in the lead. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I have done a bit of reworking on the article to be a bit more clear about his Nobel contribution (nonlinear optics), as well as trying to boil that down to plainspeak since it's an area I can speak to. It could easily be expanded more but now I don't feel its missing what I noted before. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Masem: Thank you! Still weak or solid support? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Solid. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Great work. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to RD. Blurb?] Gauri LankeshEdit

Article: Gauri Lankesh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Gauri Lankesh, Indian journalist and editor of Lankesh Patrike, is killed in Bangalore, India.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Guardian Washington Post

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Unusual death that is being reported on three continents. Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support RD in short-term, wait on Blurb The article is in good shape for RD posting and is updated. I would agree this is an unusual death and potentially blurb, but it would be good to know if they can figure out the intent. The AP language suggests this was definitely planned and intended as gruesome ("The assailants pumped bullets into...") and the article makes it clear she had views that some took offense at so that being targeted in this manner is understandable, but I would wait to see if there's any preliminary results that can be obtained from the investigation to get an idea of whom or what group. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Article is in great shape and she was a leading figure in publications about Hindu extremist. I would suggest we do not wait for the perpetrators' identities to be released since this might not even happen. Impunity is common in India, and especially with crimes against journalists. MX () 23:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait on blurb article is OK for RD, but if the media doesn't turn this into a story, then it doesn't get a blurb. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb for now, on significance. If the media keeps reporting on this then perhaps, but for now, she seems quite obscure. There're lots of newspaper editors and activists out there, after all. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted RD discussion about blurb can continue for now, since some folks seem to support such. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, RD is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support for a blurb. I'm inclined to think RD is enough here, perhaps due to my own biases, but this death as an event seems to be significant itself based on the news coverage I see. I certainly learned something about this person and what they stood for, and I think others would benefit from doing the same. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The news coverage is surprisingly blasé to this (including from BBC), which tells me this death, while tragic, does not come all that much as a shocking surprise, given the situation in that region. At least the sources I've seen aren't making a big deal out of it. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. I don't think she meets the high bar for a blurb--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Support on basis of new facts-If and only if it is proved that she was killed for her non-conventional (read anti-hinduvuta) veiws will i support it as a blurb.Or else a RD is fine— RADICAL SODA(FORCE)TM 09:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support blurb - The coverage is quite good: CNN, BBC. Vensatry (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
A few more: France 24, Gulf News, BDNews24, The Express Tribune, The Globe and Mail. Vensatry (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - coverage and scenario is reminiscent of Veronica Guerin, and the circumstances surrounding her death seem to be significant and important, allowing her to vault the Mandela-Bowie high bar. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not surprisingly, this one fell out of the news while the article is still in RD. If the riots are making headlines, do an article for 2017 Indian unrest and nom it accordingly. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's very much still In the News, 3 days after the incident. Related coverage in the past few hours include ToI, FirstPost, NDTV, TET - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb--Per Vensatry and Mfarazbaig!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm still seeing news coverage about this: this was the BBC a few hours ago. Under the circumstances, I'd just about support a blurb. I'm counting seven support and four oppose at the moment. @Masem and CosmicAdventure: You both wanted to wait to judge impact: do you have a current assessment? In any case, the least this deserves is a proper assessment, rather than falling off for lack of attention. Vanamonde (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • 15,000 ppl is not really that significant of a protest compared to what we've posted protests for in the past (generally 100,000s+) --MASEM (t) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not a good comparison, Masem, we're not discussing the rally here; if we post it, we'd be posting the murder. The rally is an indication of the significance of the murder. Like I said above, this is borderline, but let's at least debate the relevant stuff. Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
        • The murder part of the news is nearly stale (>7 days), the more recent articles are the outcries for justice/etc. like that BBC article, and while that could be non-stale ITN news if the protests were large enough, I really don't think these are large enough to show this to be a major worldwide story. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is fine for this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

2016–17 Rohingya persecution in MyanmarEdit

Articles: 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (talk, history) and 2016–17 Northern Rakhine State clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 123,000 Rohingya are displaced into Bangladesh due to alleged attacks by the Myanmar Army.
Alternative blurb: ​More than 370,000 Rohingya displaced into Bangladesh following renewed violence in Myanmar.
News source(s): BBC, (Reuters), Yahoo, Washington Post

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This is already in Ongoing, with a less POV title. ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: It's a different article, albeit one that we have featured as a blurb earlier this year. The discussion below was about an ongoing item, but there was some support for a blurb; we should consider it, at the very least. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion about a blurb or ongoing at the moment, but the same event should not be both at the same time so consensus for a blurb here is automatically consensus to remove it from ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is a specific attack(and article about it) being nominated. I might also suggest that the Ongoing listing should be reworded to better reflect the event; its current listing means little to those not in the know. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd love to see this go up as a blurb and then slot down into ongoing until the media drops it, but the article isn't all that great. Background and crackdown are ok, lots of proseline in the rest. It's hard when you see #s like "92,000" to read a whole line about 32 people detained on a boat. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - at the very least, as Cosmic said "to see this go up as a blurb and then slot down into ongoing". Described as a "humanitarian crisis" by Reuters. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an ITN-blurb type event (specifically, as there is no key date to the event), but the type of thing that does work at Ongoing. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – Agree with Masem. Also, conflicting reports about details make the situation murky as a news story. But it might work at Ongoing if eds could be found to keep it up to date. Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support would prefer promoting the currently-ongoing 2016–17 Northern Rakhine State clashes into a blurb, unless there's a good reason to use 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Extreme support for blurb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG2LWf3M8mo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZv0EZRsQu0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIqEg8cuy9s.65.95.136.96 (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - With 4 supports including the nominator and 2 opposes, marked it ready. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Given the non-directional comments above, I dare say this is ready. The article still has proseline issues and there's nothing to tie a blurb to this date. It's why its in ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed the ready tag for two reasons 1) This article has quality issues which prevent it from being main-page ready 2) The topic itself is already on the main page in a better article. --Jayron32 14:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - already in ongoing, rightly so, given that the event described in the blurb is ongoing since 2016. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

September 4Edit


[Closed] Star India IPL cricket television rightsEdit

WP:SNOW: Unlikely to develop consensus to post this. --Jayron32 12:27, 5 September 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: Indian Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The BCCI has bagged INR 16,347.5 crore (US$ 2.55 billion) for its IPL television and digital rights from a single bidder, Star India, effectively the biggest television deal in cricket.
News source(s): Cricinfo

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Biggest television deal in cricket Sherenk1 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rights were always going for roughly this amount, and while it may be the biggest rights deal in cricket, it's small beer by the standards of sports coverage deals. This deal covers a five-year period, so is roughly $500 million a year for global rights—compare that to the NFL deal of $4.5 billion a year for the US alone or the English Premier League's £1.8 billion ($2.3 billion) a year for domestic rights and roughly the same again for overseas rights. The US$330 million per year rights deal for AFL is comparable in size to this deal, and that's for a sport which generates virtually no interest outside a country with a population of just 25 million. ‑ Iridescent 07:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment-.The blurb is confusing. Star India bagged the deal .BCCI bagged the money .What most newspapers are reporting is that with the deal Star India gets a monopoly over sports entertainment broadcasting in India(which I guess is regional).--122.163.91.249 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of money changing hands for an exclusive sports broadcasting deal is not unusual, and these numbers are not particularly big in that context per Iridescent. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We post the final result of the IPL i.e. the winner of the actual sporting contest. The other stuff around it (player auctions, TV deals etc.) is only of interest to fans of the league and shouldn't appear in ITN. Besides, we would have to start doing the same for every other major sport, and that's a huge number of TV deals... Modest Genius talk 10:43, 5 September 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.

[Stale] RD: John AshberyEdit

Article: John Ashbery (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: Pulitzer Prize-winning poet, among other honors. Article reasonably well-sourced and presented. Jusdafax 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Several unsourced paragraphs, all awards need sourcing, and the collections should have reference information (eg publisher, year, ISBN if possible). --MASEM (t) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle (the NY Times was all over his death), although Masem makes a fair point about the article in its current state.--Chaser (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose a support "in principle" is unncessary for RDs, we only judge quality of article, and this one is far from ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Vastly unreferenced. That's a shame.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the unsourced paragraphs get references PDQ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I didn't have time to revise the Ashbery article, so take this for what it's worth. But ITN (and that includes me) dropped the ball "big time" on this one. So just for the record: John Ashbery deserved a blurb, folks. An argument could easily be made that he was the most influential poet of the past 50 years (obviously we're talkin' 'bout the English language here). Would a blurb nomination have gained enough support? Doubtful. But there it is, just for the record. Christian Roess (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Prince William's third childEdit

A good faith nomination, but there is no chance it will get consensus to be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 4 September 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: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (talk, history)
Blurb: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is going to be father for the third time.
News source(s): [21]
 --Abutalub (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume this is a standard oppose and we should at least wait for the baby to actually be born? Also, the current blurb makes it look like he has become a father twice before, but both time the child died, hence "becoming a father again." ~Mable (chat) 13:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose maaaaaaybe if this was to be the heir to the throne of England, but even then this point would be far far too soon. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Good faith nom, but even after it is born, it will be umpteenth in succession to the throne. Oppose. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 5th I believe. (Charles, William, George, Charlotte, foetus. Although I am not sure the 'women equal heirs' stuff kicks in until *after* George inherits, so it might be 4th currently? Fairly high anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. 'Couple announces they're expecting a third child' is not a story of major encyclopaedic importance. I don't think we should post even direct heirs (instead just post when they take over), let alone younger siblings of the third in line. Modest Genius talk 15:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Daily Express. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 4 September 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.

September 3Edit


[Posted] RD: Walter BeckerEdit

Article: Walter Becker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone Variety

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of the American band Steely Dan. Andise1 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - still quite a bit of unreferenced material included here. Each section of the article needs additional citations. - Christian Roess (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait - hopefully all the unsourced information will be able to be cited to obituaries that are coming out now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - a modestly-sized article, but really very few gaps in sourcing and nothing which is obviously contentious. Many more tributes likely over the next hours, to a real icon of popular music. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's close but the early life stuff needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to be updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to have all been fixed up now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's nearly there, but I've tagged a couple of places where citations are still needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
.... and fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] September North Korea Nuclear TestEdit

Articles: 2017 North Korea crisis (talk, history) and 2017 North Korean nuclear test (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea says it has successfully conducted its sixth nuclear test.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It tested a hydrogen bomb + This would make it the most powerful nuclear test to date for the country. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Obvious support on the merits; most any nuclear detonation merits posting. Should the blurb mention that NK claims the bomb tested is meant to be fitted to a missile? 331dot (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, the bomb has been estimated as having a yield of 120 KT by US experts, making it about ten times stronger than anything they've tested so far. Count Iblis (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No brainer. I think deserves stand alone article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support makes the wrangling over the Japan missile flyover seem minor in comparison. Banedon (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending update and once the top tag is resolved. Not ready so far. Brandmeistertalk 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - notable for being really serious business. Can blurb mention North Korea claiming it was a hydrogen bomb? starship.paint ~ KO 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The yield ranges from 50 - 120 kilotons according to South Korean and U.S experts, so it could actually be a hydrogen bomb, but only a small one. In comparison, modern hydrogen bombs can easily surpass a megaton, which is roughly 10 times more powerful than the one North Korea tested. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Hornetzilla78, I just thought it was significant it was their first fusion bomb, progressing from fission. starship.paint ~ KO 00:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a new article on this 2017 North Korean nuclear test. Feel free to update the blurb with this one. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support given importance and in my view an article on 2017 events should focus on 2017 events with some background material. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support they can fire missiles all day long, but the last test was in Sept 2016, and this is getting leaders to prompt for some type of sanction/talks going. --MASEM (t) 11:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it's repetitive, but we've done this with the other 5 tests in the past, and this is usually the only news about North Korea that makes it on the ITN board, with few exceptions. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Per Count Iblis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Largest test ever. Marking [Ready]. 172.98.156.64 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Keep in mind that the claimed thermonuclear character of this device hasn't been substantiated. Also, if it was actually an H-bomb, its estimated 'yield' of 120 kilotons is comparatively small. Sca (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sca that was my point in the comment just below Starship's vote, at most, the nuclear device North Korea tested this morning was, at most a small, simple thermonuclear bomb, as modern ones can easily reached yields well into the megatons (1 megaton = 1000 kilotons). Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yup. The Soviet Tsar Bomb, largest ever tested, yielded an estimated 50 megatons, or 50,000 kilotons. (Still, being close to a mere 120-kiloton detonation could ruin your whole day.) Sca (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I know, right? And Castle Bravo, the largest thermonuclear bomb the United States ever tested reached roughly 15 megatons, or 15,000 kilotons, although dwarfed by the Tsar, it still makes this test dwarf it by roughly 150 times. (indeed.) Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that the Hiroshima device was only 16kT and still killed 100,000+ people, I'm unsure that haggling about the yield is useful here. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
But you have to give them credit, this is a good comparison with modern nuclear devices. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Who's haggling? Just putting things in perspective. Sca (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • comment the yield is consistent with a multistage device. If that was the case, it's a major technological breakthrough for NK. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
But in comparison to other nations that own stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the yield is inferior in size. In other words, North Korea is still well behind other nations in the arms race. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, but I was wrong, this appears to have been a boosted weapon, not multi-stage. Still, it's a technical achievement for NK, even if the yield doesn't rival advanced nuclear powers. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about "well behind". They want a weapon for a SLBM. Polaris had a 200 kt warhead, and Trident Mk.4 a 100 kt warhead. So a NK ~120 kt warhead is in the mix for a compact modern weapon. The claimed NK photos clearly look like a thermonuclear weapon. Rwendland (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well they build a convincing bomb case and too a picture with Kim beside it, doesn't mean that was the device tested. The facts of this event are significant enough without speculation. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support North Korea wants attention, I'll give them that, and I do recall we posted the previous test on here when I viewed Wikipedia's homepage from time to time over the years. But the problem is two of the users above have noted, this is small yield if it truly was a hydrogen bomb. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 16:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Recently rejected ITN story may come back to haunt us. Count Iblis (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Or it won't, because, you know, North Korea does this sort of thing all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
When I saw this blurb go up, I figured that meant that it was good that we didn't put up the blurb regarding the rocket launch. I do kinda wish that we put the Korea crisis on 'ongoing' at the time, but of course at the time it didn't qualify at all. ~Mable (chat) 07:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this happens all the time. </snark> :-) (obviously strong support) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow it's almost if standards differ depending on whether the half-dozen regulars are here to give their usual spiel. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
LIKE How do you put a thumbs up?Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3 users like this. 205.234.124.70 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lihaas: ({{like}}) 205.234.124.70 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2Edit


September 1Edit


[Posted] European x-ray free electron laserEdit

Article: European x-ray free electron laser (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One of the most powerful X-ray machines ever built has officially opened in the German city of Hamburg.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: One of most powerful xrays + cost more than a billion euros to build Sherenk1 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment the claim that this is "one of the most powerful xrays" or "one of the most powerful x-ray machines" is not made in the article and so is not cited. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It is made in the BBC article. We can cite that in the Wikipedia article if necessary. --mfb (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The blurb should not make any claim that is not cited in the article. If you want this blurb then add the claim and source to the article somewhere relevant, otherwise suggest a different blurb. A blurb making a claim the article doesn't is misleading, regardless of accuracy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't nominate it. I just updated the article recently. --mfb (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not as much concerned about the "one of the largest" claimed, but a 4+ km accelerator is of significant scope to be fundamentally viable as a key instrument. This is equivalent to the launch of a major space vehicle. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support article could use a copyedit for natural English language, but it's interesting, real, not war or terrorism and it looks like it might be quite handy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM whether "world's largest" is mentioned or not. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks ready. 99.254.220.224 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support story per TRM, but oppose current blurb per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pull - DYK material. Not really 'In the News'. Other than BBC, no other news source provided to prove coverage or significance. - 103.82.120.42 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Plenty of sources. We don't require them all to be in here, just at least one good one so we can cross-check if needed. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Cormac Murphy-O'ConnorEdit

Article: Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Independent, 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: Former Archbishop of Westminster, head of catholic church in England and Wales. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - meets the criteria. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support still a couple of unreferenced sentences in there, but otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I've referenced one of the 2 sentences I saw unreferenced, but I can't find reliable sources for "He was granted the title of Monsignor on 10 March 1972." so I've tagged it with citation needed. I suspect someone with knowledge of where to look will be able to find a citation pretty quickly though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Everything that was uncited has now been sourced or removed, so marking this ready. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Shelley BermanEdit

Article: Shelley Berman (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.

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support All good on sourcing and quality. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: 2016–17 Northern Rakhine State clashesEdit

Article: 2016–17 Northern Rakhine State clashes (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Washington Post, BBC, BBC, BBC

Article updated

 Vanamonde (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Ugh, terrible WP:PROSELINE problems with writing. Painful to read, but it's comprehensive, updated, and well referenced, and updates are happening every day or two. Clicks all the basic "ongoing" boxes for me. The writing is pretty dreadful, though. --Jayron32 14:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I would even support a blurb. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The Washington Post link says 400 dead, and this BBC link said 40,000 had to flee this week alone. IMO it warrants a blurb, but a good blurb should also mention the context (ethnic persecution) instead of just describing a random series of "terrorist" (according to the government) attacks. HaEr48 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Careful how you phrase the blurb, as it may raise some eyebrows among the opposing sides of the political "arena" in Myanmar. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 04:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If it is ongoing, there's no blurb. But we do need to only use one article for ongoing and two are presented. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • FWIW the Reuters headline I saw passing through Canary Wharf earlier used "Northern Rakhine" as the primary identifier. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support- conditional on the POV problems being fixed. Nowhere ready to be posted on the mainpage. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has now been substantially cleaned up; still not fantastic, but good enough to be posted, I think. Let's try to get this up before the story disappears again? Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready. 172.98.156.64 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not yet. The POV problems have not been fixed. We might not agree with Myanmar state media (probably rightly so), but should at least mention that some of the alleged incidents are disputed by state authorities. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We do mention the views of the Myanmar government, in several places, particularly with respect to the clashes between insurgents and security forces. We even mention their denial of human rights violations, even though it's pretty much a flat denial with no evidence provided. Ultimately, though, our article has to be based on what independent sources say, which it currently is. Vanamonde (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kenyan presidential election nullifiedEdit

Article: Kenyan general election, 2017 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Kenya nullifies the results of the Kenyan presidential election and orders the election redone, citing election irregularities.
News source(s): CNN Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ordering a presidential election to be redone due to improper activity is notable. Open to blurb changes. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Undecided presently, as the re-vote has to be done within 60 days which we will certainly post, and the rationale behind the decision by the Court seems unclear and could be subject of political whim. Just putting out a few points for discussion. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Support on reconsideration. This and the new election results won't weigh down ITN, and the article is updated (though I'd recommend breaking a new section out for the court challenge). --MASEM (t) 14:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment we posted the annulling of the Austrian presidential election in July last year - Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2016#[Posted] Austrian presidential election result annulled. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Support – This is part of a significant story that has played prominently in recent days. Since Kenya now faces another election (Oct. ?), it might be appropriate in ongoing. OTOH, an annulment of an election is unprecedented in Kenya, so I'm leaning toward a blurb. Sca (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This would not be appropriate for Ongoing unless there are incremental updates to the article. The mere occurrence of an election does not qualify; if it did, all elections would be posted there all the time; technically the 2020 US presidential election started on January 20, 2017 at noon. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, significant development, this has been a top