:::::Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war. [http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/26/world/ho-chi-minh-city-journal-hanoi-hannah-looks-back-with-few-regrets.html] I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war. [http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/26/world/ho-chi-minh-city-journal-hanoi-hannah-looks-back-with-few-regrets.html] I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of [[systemic bias]] you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::::It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of [[systemic bias]] you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Fully agree with this: unless we know for sure she heard of and accepted the American nickname, her article should be at her given name, not the nick name (though obviously the redirect there is fine). It's a flat out BLP violation. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~[[User:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#005080">Mable</span>]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#700090">chat</span>]]) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~[[User:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#005080">Mable</span>]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#700090">chat</span>]]) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
::::Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
An apparent sectarian attack by two motorcyclists who open fire on a bus traveling to Hazara Town, Quetta, Pakistan, kills four women from Pakistan's ShiaHazara and injures two other people. (The Daily Mail), (Dawn), (Firstpost)
Turkish authorities suspend nearly 12,800 police officers from duty over their suspected links with U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen. (Reuters)
Turkish security forces raid the headquarters of IMC TV in Istanbul, cutting its transmissions while it was live on air, for allegedly broadcasting "terror propaganda". (Gulf News)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This nomination is bordering on wishful thinking, as none of the articles are remotely ready right now, but I'm hoping that by putting it up here it might help attract the attention needed to improve the articles before this grows stale. Dragons flight (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Chaba, now a super typhoon with winds of 145 knots (165 mph), heads for Japan's southern islands with storm warnings of torrential rain followed by mudslides and flooding. (AAP via SBS), (Weather.com)
The Obama administration through the U.S. State Department announces the suspension of bilateral talks with Russia about the cessation of hostilities in Syria, as Russia and the Syrian government continue to pursue a military course despite the ceasefire accord. (CNN), (UPI)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is centred on her role in the war, not much about her previous life, but doesn't seem to be anything else to add to that period of her life. MurielMary (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – though the article is clearly start-class, its sourcing looks fine and the topic is fascinating. I think it's definitely worth listing at RD now, though I wish the sourcing was a bit better. The lack of early/late life information doesn't bother me too much, though I wish we could have some information about her own political beliefs during the war. ~Mable (chat) 11:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the below discussion, I would prefer it to be posted under her legal name rather than her American common name. ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies may correctly be titled using a pseudonym if that is how the person is most widely discussed in reliable sources. See WP:STAGENAME. As for which name to use at RD, I'm actually rather conflicted. If this is a valid application of STAGENAME (and never having heard of her before today, I don't know if it is), then presumably Hanoi Hannah is the better known name and would be more recognizable to our readers. To give a more modern analogy, I imagine that if Katy Perry dropped dead, it would be more useful to readers to list her stage name than to post her legal name, Katheryn Hudson, at RD. Is there precedent for the question of pseudonyms at RD? I notice the Newsweek source uses her pseudonym in its title but introduces and uses her real name in the body of its text. Dragons flight (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. Has Trinh ever stated anything about her 'stagename'? Did she identify herself under that name, or was it a name given to her literally by her "enemies"? ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war. [1] I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of systemic bias you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with this: unless we know for sure she heard of and accepted the American nickname, her article should be at her given name, not the nick name (though obviously the redirect there is fine). It's a flat out BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain
Oppose for now. I'm underwhelmed by the two sentence update over the recent discovery. If the recent archaeology could be expanded upon (how was the new determination made? What new work has been done? Etc.) then I would support this. --Jayron3203:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I disagree that linking to autophagy as a main article is suitable. The Nobel Prize is specifically for Ohsumi's discoveries related to autophagy mechanisms. At present the autophagy article does not explain his specific contributions to this field of study. (Prior to the Nobel win his name didn't even appear in the body of the article.) I don't believe an article merely providing a general overview of autophagy is sufficiently connected to the Nobel prize to work as the main link. We often have difficulty with Nobel Laurettes, but nonetheless I believe the best approach is to improve his article to explain why he won the prize and add the missing citations. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Matthew, at Category 4 strength with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h), temporarily stalls as it heads towards Jamaica and Haiti. Weather forecasters expect tropical storm conditions today with landfall tomorrow. Further, they expect rainfall of 20 inches, with up to 40 inches in some parts of southern Haiti. (BBC), (NBC News), (The National Hurricane Center)
Voters in Hungary go to the polls for a referendum on whether to accept mandatory European Union quotas on relocating migrants. While an overwhelming majority of voters reject the EU's migrant quotas, turnout was too low to make the poll valid. (BBC), (Reuters)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Conditional Support Overall the article is not in bad shape and just needs some minor fixes. I've added a few CN tags and the tables aren't clear where their data is coming from. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant news from Hungary showing very strong opposition to EU quotas requiring member states to accept certain numbers of migrant refugees. Although it is likely to be declared invalid due to low turnout the over 90% oppose vote is certain to add fuel to the debate over Europe's immigration crisis. The article has been updated, looks well written and decently sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right-wing nationalism on the march. Whether enforceable or not, the article is solid (at a quick glance, at least) and this is noteworthy in the migrant crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see why we would post a referendum that is invalid because of low turnout and therefore is not going to have any effect. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree. But when you have upwards of 90% of the vote going against the EU quotas, legal validity is pretty much irrelevant. The referendum is sending shock waves through the EU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; it was predictable the vote would go this way. The majority of Hungarians are anti-immigration, and remember the vote was not "should Hungary accept a certain quota of immigrants?" but effectively "Should the EU be able to force Hungary to accept a certain quota of immigrants". Given that, the only surprising thing is that the turnout was so low. Black Kite (talk)09:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is sufficient reason. Celebrities getting divorced can be reported in those countries too, but doesn't mean it's worth being ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on impact. The plebiscite failed on turnout, and so nothing will change. And the thing sending shockwaves through Europe is the migrant crisis itself, not a failed plebiscite.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Unfortunately, my English grammar is quite poor, so I guess the article requires a susbtantial copyedit. In this light, I'd rather not support the candidacy. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons above. For a start, yes, the turnout is too low for it to be valid. Also, this was more an opinion poll than an actual plebiscite, the question was loaded very much with emotive language. Hungary will not be able to legitimately deal with the EU's rules while it remains an EU member - in the mother of all ironies, it remains very much in favour of the EU for the benefit of its own migrants in BritainValentina Cardoso (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the blurb is terribly misleading. Those who opposed the ruling party in this question were encouraged to boycott the referendum (which was widely considered illegitimate and pointless; the Constitution of Hungary itself states that "No national referendum may be held on ... any obligation arising from an international agreement" [2]) I would love to see the referendum mentioned on the main page, because it shows that the majority of people definitely refused to be part of Orbán's hate campaign, but the blurb should reflect this, and not the opposite. Thank you. HungaryNews (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because the turnout is too low. Can still be posted if we run into a serious lack of new blurbs, which was the case a week ago but we have several new nominations now. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Yes, this is big news and almost certainly ITN worthy. However, it is quite literally breaking. We have very little information and no idea of what this means. Also the articles have not been updated (as of my writing this). They will need to have this put in along with some RS sourced analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think the article needs to have enough of "what happens now" (do they go back to renegotiate? do they try to pass without a vote, etc?) to know the implications of this. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on impact. If the referendum failed, then nothing changes. The story here is people's disappointed expectations, not a change in law nor (as someone above pointed out) day-to-day life.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The failure to approve a notable peace deal merits posting; though I'm not sure if we should do so now, or if/when the war resumes. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb 2 – Due in part to extended, high-profile coverage of the FARC deal. Alt2 contains more information. (Vote needs more than one source, though. Two added above.) Sca (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uusally its just a referendum but this was a major surprise with massive ramification akin to Brexit. I imagine its more in the news in the Spanish language media. Anyways support ALT as it links to the details..Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more prose reactions: FARC, Santos, Cuba, (Venezuela?), and troublemaker uribe. Also more analysis on the fact that the troubled areas approved it while the central areas less affected rejected it (was on bbxC tv).Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally? Prose. Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 seems to be the best choice for a target article, but only a single sentence of prose has been added since the vote result became known. [3]. Having a map and vote tally is nice, but there is literally more discussion of what this result means on this page than there is within the referendum article right now. I understand that the consequences might be uncertain, but even then the article could at least cite some sources saying that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Colombian peace process is a ridiculously bloated 19,143 words, while the last section reporting the referendum result is a mere 27. However, Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 is a respectable 1,000 words, plus two charts, and seems just barely adequate. True, it would be better to have what in the news business we used to call "instant depth," but the referendum result alone seems very significant. Time's a' wastin'. Sca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Conditional Weak Support There are two relatively short sections near the top that need a reference and some of the tables are not very clear on where their data is coming from. And honestly, though I tagged it, I'm not sweating the TV coverage as that is not a claim likely to be controversial. Otherwise it looks good and reasonably well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This sounds like something we should have on ITN. Unfortunately there are currently only three sentences on the subject in the linked article. Those three sentences are not only short on details, but seem unsure of the ones they are providing. It's not clear exactly when this happened. Rocks were thrown, or they weren't. Fifty-two were killed, or three hundred. And there is only one source cited. While the BBC is indisputably an RS source, I'd like to have more than one news source if we are posting something to "In the News." It doesn't need its own article but if we could expand this beyond three sentences and add another reliable news source (or two) I think we could post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Oppose The article is really short and needs expansion. In particular it needs more on his personal life (which currently there is virtually nothing) and it does not even mention his death! I have added a few CN tags, which can probably be covered from the obits. Add some meat to the bones and fill in a few refs and I think we will be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is growing quickly, with more references, as the obits appear. I've added a personal life section, and started an article on his first wife. Edwardx (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've expanded the article and I believe everything there is now cited (I had to remove some material I could not source). A list of notable recordings would be useful but I don't have time to look into compiling one now. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb at a Mogadishu restaurant near the Jilaow detention center kills four people and injures another five. Al-Shabaab claims responsibility for the attack. (CNN), (Reuters)
A Somalian regional government demands an explanation from the United States after an airstrike kills 22 civilians and other soldiers instead of the targeted Al-Shabaab militants in Galmudug. (BBC)
Volkswagen agrees to pay its U.S. dealers up to US$1.2 billion to compensate them for their losses resulting from the company's emissions cheating scandal. (The Los Angeles Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
It's a rather regional event, and therefore not usually of global interest. The phrase "first time since 1977" is making me curious, though. Is this event significant? ~Mable (chat) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "retain" in the blurb is unclear. Do you mean that Dublin had the cup, and kept it as a result of the finals match, and that this is the first time that's happened since 1977 - so presumably they have had the cup before but always lost it/not been able to keep it for a consecutive period? Or do you mean that Dublin won the cup for the first time? MurielMary (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks sufficient for an ITNR event to me. I appreciate we're going to have three sports events at the top soon (the below, and the Ryder Cup) but that's what happens occasionally. Black Kite (talk)17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Inclined to support given that this is the club's first premiership win for 62 years and only its second ever, as well as being the first time any team has won from seventh position on the ladder. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I note that the match itself isn't covered in the article, and I think that would have to be rectified before this could be posted. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC) I now support this nomination as a match summary has been added. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITN/R. The article isn't perfect, but the quality is certainly adequate enough for ITN standards (long enough, referencing is fine, no other tags). It makes sense to mention the Bulldogs' premiership drought in the blurb, and I've added ALT1 accordingly. (Note: "defeat" rather than "beat" is standard for blurbs, and I've used "title" rather than "premiership" as the latter is an Australianism that might not be understood by all). IgnorantArmies(talk)11:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken the year out of each blurb, but please, let's try to avoid the usual ENGVAR debate here by selecting a blurb that is English-variant-agnostic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Overall article quality is not bad though it needs a little expansion per TRM's observation above. Referencing actually looks pretty respectable which is a pleasant change from the norm around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ten thousand pro-government troops, mostly Iranian-led Shiite militants, amass near Aleppo in preparation of a final assault on rebel-held parts of the city. (CNN)
President Rodrigo Duterte likens himself to Adolf Hitler saying he would "be happy" to kill 3 million drug users and dealers in the country. United Nations adviser Adama Dieng cautions Duterte that his use of language could lead to "crimes against humanity". (GMA News Online)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Now that it's happened. Not 100% sure "controlled crash" is the right term - it actually descended slower than the lander did, collecting data all the way - and most sources seem to be using "descend" or "land" (although some do use "crash"). Smurrayinchester11:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a unique event and a milestone of planetary science. I've added an altblurb, including switching to the 'controlled descent' terminology used by ESA. I've also added an image which would work at Main Page scale. Modest Geniustalk12:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly "all along". There was no plan for what do at the end of the mission - they originally considered putting it back to sleep for five years until the next orbit. It looks the decision to land it on the comet was made some time in 2014 or so. Smurrayinchester14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it "ended its mission by landing on the comet near a pit called Deir el-Medina." I haven't read a lot about this topic, but it's not entirely clear to me whether the vehicle achieved a soft landing or was destroyed. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now purely on article quality. I'm fine with the rational for the nomination. But there are just too many gaps in referencing in the Rosetta article. These need to corrected before this can be posted. The article on the comet has a couple of spots that could use a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There has been a clear improvement in referencing. There might be a few spots still in need of a cite, but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting something related to this event, which imo is far more relevant to an encyclopedia than much of what we post here. I agree with Ad Orientem that the comet article is more comprehensively sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, using the word "descend" rather than "crash". The event is global news and of high interest as it marks the end of a very major mission and because of the data that may have been collected during this event. ~Mable (chat) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Descend" seems inaccurate. Friday's BBC story said: "Europe's Rosetta probe has ended its mission to Comet 67P by crash-landing on ... the icy object's surface. Mission control in Darmstadt, Germany, was able to confirm the impact had occurred when radio contact to the ageing spacecraft was lost abruptly. The assumption is that the probe would have been damaged beyond use." Sca (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the local Philly news radio sees fit to describe this as a crash landing, I think it is both newsworthy and accurate. Under the RD criteria this would be up already. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as Ready I believe there is a consensus in favor of posting this and there are no longer any objections based on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't usually do opening of sports events (the Olympics being an exception). Assuming article quality is up to scratch we will post the winner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed (which is why I opposed myself), but I bet we wouldn't have posted the U-21 version either (which I would have supported) for the same reason ... consistency is something we need to look at on sporting events. Black Kite (talk)17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am less than enthusiastic about posting college level sporting events. But it's not a hill I feel the need to assault and plant the flag on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as noted, WP:IAR is a policy (!!) no less so whether former consensus or not established that we should not post junior events (just as it established we no longer judge "super notability" of RDs), it is still perfectly acceptable to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But I take a somewhat conservative approach to IAR. My view is that (with apologies to one of our former presidents) invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. I have done it a few times myself. But only in unusual situations where I really thought that an exception to an existing guideline was warranted but that circumstances did not justify changing the guideline itself. Here I have doubts about the guideline. If I was going to go down this path, I'd just propose removing most of the college/university level sports events from ITNR. And if someone made that proposal, I'd probably support it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but for consistency, with the RD entry below where IAR is quoted as a way of getting out of posting an RD even if it meets the quality threshold, it only seems reasonable to quote it here to note to others that IAR doesn't just apply as and when they feel appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Army claims it conducted surgical strikes on militant camps in Pakistan across the Line of Control, allegedly-killing several suspected militants. However, Pakistan rejects this claim and terms it cross-border firing that killed two of its soldiers. (India Today), (Reuters), (Dawn)
A video from besieged eastern Aleppo's al-Shaar neighborhood emerges showing the moment a young girl, identified as Ghazal Qasim, trapped beneath rubble of a five floor building blown to smithereens by a deadly Assad government's bunker buster bomb attack on September 27, is rescued by the Syrian Civil Defense, better known as the white helmets. (International Business Times)
The UN's children's charity UNICEF has called the effect of the war in Aleppo on children as the worst seen since the conflict began, and says at least 96 children have been killed and 223 have been injured in Eastern Aleppo September 23. (International Business Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment. Good job on the referencing, but I think more detail is needed on her style, works and critical reception before this can be posted. A list of some of her notable works is lacking, as is any detail on her sculpture. Pre-expansion there was a quotation that has been removed, which was useful; I assume this couldn't be referenced? The lead also could do with being a little longer. There's a long obituary in French from Le Figaro but embarrassingly I can't read the technical French.[4]Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In the news" means widespread/general coverage, not a mention in the subsection of a niche periodical. And, yes, the readership of the Saturday Arts & Design section of the NYT is a niche audience.
The revised RD guidelines presumes that anyone with an article is sufficiently notable to be listed on RD. The only valid grounds for opposition is article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I agree that Jaffe is not the most important, notable, or widely reported of deaths, but the community endorsed a quite permissive approach to selecting postings at RD. Also, her inclusion is far from the least notable or least prominent to be posted since the RFC. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] 2016 Hoboken train crash
No Consensus This nomination has gotten a lot of attention with the early votes breaking towards Support. However as time has passed the sentiment appears to have shifted in the other direction. Given the level of participation and the current split there would have to be an avalanche of support votes to get consensus, and I just don't see that happening. If someone thinks consensus to post is realistically attainable feel free to reopen the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Wait but lean support There's conflicting numbers but all have at least 1 dead, possibly more, and dozens in critical conditions, with the total number injured above 100. This is a significant commuter rail accident but let's make sure the details are firmed up before posting. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been following the story closely since it broke, now three dead with the toll likely to rise significantly as dozens are "critically hurt". A significant train accident from the looks of it. Prevan (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Conditional Support. Subject merits a blurb but the article is not yet up to scratch. It needs to be expanded and referencing needs improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not everything is about death toll. There are hundreds injured, that should suffice. Article is still quite poor at the moment, though. Banedon (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWait train crashes that kill 3 1 (as of this post) are not that rare, and unless there's a higher death count or evidence of a crime this rates at about the level of a multiple-car traffic accident. At this point the best place for readers to look is the area news, not a lagging encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While the level of fatalities appears mercifully low compared to other rail accidents, it's still a grave matter. And there's a wider story regarding the failure to implement Positive Train Control systems under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (The US lags considerably compared to Europe in such matters.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, the number of deaths appears low (fortunately!!! And that is the only thing about it anyone should ever say!) And many of the injuries actually appear to be not as sever as first thought. But this is still a major crash. Firstly, as Alex noted, theres the PTC angle. Secondly, the structural damage to the terminal is very large, with a partial roof collapse. And that terminal is a nationally registered historic landmark; the roof itself is actually the first example of the Bush-type train shed, and its destruction, even partial, is notable in itself. oknazevad (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BBC is now saying 1 dead and dozens injured.[5] The article is currently not much above a stub and does not mention the historic nature of the building, nor does it discuss the underlying safety issues. I'm not opposed to posting this (especially as the news it would displace is very stale) but an accurate, non-sensationalist blurb and a reasonably-fleshed-out article are first needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is headline news at this moment, mainly due to its location, but if I recall correctly, at least two recent railway crashes in Western Europe with multiple deaths/casualties were not posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searching through the archives, I found Dalfsen crash from Feb 2016 where the train was nearly empty and one death occurred (not posted), Hermalle-sous-Huy crash from June 2016 where three died, 40 injured (not posted), Andria collision where 20 were killed (posted), Amtrak derailment in April 2016 where 2 groundcrew were killed (not posted). There might be more and I do sorta see the comparison simply on the the death/injured numbers that this is nothing like a major incident (eg the Andria one), but there are points about the damage to the historic terminal and the failure of a major safety feature, rather than just human error, that seem to play to this too. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the latter point, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the train wasn't fitted with the so-called PTC (per the BBC, According New Jersey Transit's most recent PTC progress report, none of the 440 trains on the New Jersey Transit rail line are equipped with PTC, nor have any employees been trained on the equipment.), so it wasn't a failing of a major safety feature, more likely human error. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's human error - but now reading further, it appears that they were originally set to be required by 2015, but Congress extended the deadline to meet complaints by train companies. Now, I know we're not yet at the point to determine if the lack of PTC would have prevented this, so the political failing here is likely a sideline issue, but it could be significant. I would still consider all other factors equal that the damage to an historic building atop the incident makes this more than just another tragic train crash. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM. We are down to a single death. This is starting to look like a lot less than what we originally thought. Yeah there was some property damage and a high number of injured, but we have refused rail related accidents with higher casualties. Issues involving safety laws are extremely common with any transportation related accident. Sorry, but as the dust settles and things are becoming more clear I just don't think this rises to ITN level and posting this would be hard to square with recent precedent. Some consistency in standards would be kinda nice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A "run of the mill" raiway accident generally doesn't occur within a station while incurring significant structural damage to said station. - Floydianτ¢03:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was a significant (non-fatal but multiple critical injuries) crash near Watford Junction a couple of weeks ago on one of the main commuter routes into central London, right at the start of the morning peak period. We're talking 20 miles from the likes of Trafalgar Square, Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace etc. It brought the West Coast Main Line to a near-standstill for a few days, and it remained at a crawl for a while beyond that. A couple of fatalities in that crash would have brought that incident into a comparable bracket to this one. The only other difference being that Hoboken station is, size wise and proximity from the city centre wise, about half way between Watford Junction and London Euston.
This isn't an "other stuff exists" oppose. Quite the opposite - I would have opposed the above incident if it were nominated and had a handful of fatalities (though I'd undoubtedly have gotten off my lazy wiki-behind and gotten stuck in on the article). While high profile and tragic, my point is that if we were to post this, I think we'd be opening ourselves up to posting train crashes more frequently than I believe we should be. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] RD: Miriam Defensor Santiago
Closing without prejudice to reopening upon article improvement. This is a fairly long article with multiple orange tags and huge gaps in referencing. Dramatic improvements will be required before this can be seriously considered for ITN/RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose for now. Article has serious gaps in sourcing and multiple orange tags. Orange tags are a showstopper at ITN. This will require a significant tune up before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Amnesty International say dozens of children in Darfur are among more than 200 people estimated to have been killed by Sudan government chemical weapons since January. (BBC)
Typhoon Megi makes landfall in eastern China a day after killing four people and injuring 260 on Taiwan. (AP)
Rescuers save 15 people from a landslide in Sucun village in Zhejiang Province; another 26 remain missing. Six people are also missing from nearby Baofeng village. (Reuters)
The Royal Bank of Scotland announces that it will pay US$1.1 billion to resolve some of its mortgage claims in the United States. (Reuters)
A shooting at an elementary school in Townville, South Carolina, leaves two students and a teacher wounded. Police take the teenage suspect into custody. Authorities find the shooter's father dead. One of the students dies two days later. (The Washington Post), (NBC News), (Greenville Online)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article had orange maintenance tags, which I have resolved and removed. However there is an IP user on the article busily reverting my edits. MurielMary (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support While the article is not horrible, there are a few too many gaps in sourcing to post right now. These need to be filled in. Any claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, are you referring to the paragraphs of prose being under-referenced, or do you think the last two sections (lists of writing positions) need to be referenced?? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not TRM, but there are several uncited paragraphs with content that could be challenged; I'll add citation tags. The lists of writing positions right at the bottom don't appear encyclopedic & probably need cutting out altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re-assessment requested as article has been overhauled. Reply to Medeis OK, but as RD noms are not assessed on notability I don't think this is necessary any longer. MurielMary (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose The delay of a launch due to external conditions (manmade or not) is not really ITN. If it does launch, or if the fires somehow damage/destroy the rocket, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
But lord, ya'll will believe anything the MSM posits, wont you? Meanwhile World War III has now begun in South Asia too...someone should nominate that.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure why everyone is claiming this is "inconclusive". News articles say the opposite. Per CNN: "Speaking at a press conference in the Dutch city of Nieuwegein, Wilbert Paulissen, the head of the Dutch National Detective Force, said there was conclusive evidence that a missile from the Russian-made Buk 9M38 missile system downed the passenger flight on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people on board." Smurrayinchester07:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've undone Ad Orientem's good faith closure, since I'm not seeing a consensus. "Wait" isn't the same as "Oppose"; we've wound up posting many items for which "wait" was a perfectly reasonable first position (e.g. the Turkish coup). I have no opinion on the nomination yet. Banedon (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that the Russians were responsible is old news. The lead of the article says that the Dutch Safety Board concluded this in October 2015, and it wasn't even the first to reach this conclusion. All this does, it seems, is add a bit more detail to the Russian involvement. BencherliteTalk17:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Played 34 cricket tests for Australia, plus was a very good Aussie Rules footballer. Article sourcing needs improvement, but there are plenty of obituaries this morning that can be used as sources, so I will start addressing that. I don't know who to list as the "updater" because many IPs have made small contributions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no reason to believe that image is usable under fair use. Just because the individual died in the last 24 hours, that doesn't mean efforts have been made to source a free image. Otherwise, the current orange tag is stupid, the lead is alright. The rest of the article is mediocre but fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the article still require more citations. On the question of whether there should be a blurb, I tend to think that Peres falls just short of the threshold. He was certainly a very important Israeli leader, but I would not say he stands out as obviously more significant than other recent Israeli leaders, such as Rabin, Sharon, Netanyahu and Olmert. At his age, there was also nothing unexpected about his death. Neljack (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh man. This really needs to be posted at least to RD and I think a credible argument can be made for a blurb. Unfortunately, once again, we are confounded by crappy referencing. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk)
Support blurb sigh. I know he's not American, not from an English country, and he only won a Nobel Peace Prize rather than starred in Bicentennial Man. I just think it's sad In the News used to have genuine international stories, and now it's beneath the level of market tabloids. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN has its problems but I'm not sure that's a fair shot. The only reason this may not get posted is because of the lack luster quality of the article. ITN is not a news feed. It exists to highlight good quality articles whose subjects are topical by reason of current news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article about his death and state funeral could be plausibly be written, so this could get a blurb. (Though I don't really expect anyone to bother, given the woeful state his main article was in, though that's at least improving.) The way to do get it there is the same way to get it to RD: proper sourcing in the article, not frivolous complaints about other articles that were acceptably sourced. —Cryptic04:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I think it would be begging for an AfD nom as a content fork and per NOTNEWS. He died of natural causes at 93. And state funerals almost never get their own articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that for a blurb to be supported that a separate article on the death/funeral have to be made. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that a separate article needs to be made, just that it be plausible that one could be. And while there's no requirement for even that, there's no requirement that I not oppose a nomination for failing it, either. —Cryptic05:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements, RD for sure, general support for blurb - Some weak sourcing but this can be fixed. A former elected leader of a major nation should be given a blurb, the nobel prize pushes it further, but I would like to see a better article for that blurb to be supported. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is Israel a major nation, Masem? It is a mid-size country, albeit one that receives a lot of attention due to its geopolitical situation and controversy. We must be wary of systemic bias. And even in the case of countries that clearly are major nations, I'm not convinced that every former elected leader would warrant a blurb - would you really say that every former Prime Minister of Italy or Japan (and there are lots of them, some of whom held office for quite short periods), and every former President of Mexico or the Philippines, warrant blurbs. That would seem a big change from our current practice. Neljack (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - He was a tremendously important figure in 20th century history. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Update: it looks like several editors have already resolved most of the unsourced statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
by precedent we posted yitzak shamir (I did the update) and he was head of govt and sate. just reword blurb to remove nobel OR title as its too wordy. (btw- nobel deaths are also precedent here).Lihaas (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been adding sourcing as have some others. Happy to try to find a suitable source for anything still felt to need it. I would ask earlier commenters on sourcing to please re-evaluate and identify / tag anything still needing work. As for the blurb issue, I'm obviously in favour as a Nobel Laureate who helped to found Israel, was a leader for 50+ years, negotiated their nuclear program, was an instigator of the Suez war, etc. Have a look at his description in the New York Times. EdChem (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I asked specifically because I was unsure whether the 'updater' credit(s) belong to those who post the information updated in the blurb or all updates to the article to make it ITN-ready. Avaya1 did a lot of work after the blurb was posted. I did quite a bit of referencing, as well as adding material and references on the death, after posting the ITN request in response to well-justified criticisms of inadequate referencing. Others had already added some material on the death. Hence my request. By the way, with "giving credit", does that involve something on user talk pages, as I have had no notification. Just asking. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Very long political career (66 years!); probably the last major figure of the Israeli founding generation; Nobel Prize shows international significance. Article needs some work, but nothing precluding posting. Neutralitytalk07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PP support I don't often lump on, but in this case, a good call. Only issue I have with the article on a quick glance is the massively excessive use of External links. But meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been working on this article (mainly the section on the Suez crisis) for a couple of years. But as you can see, the referencing and historical sections (aside from the coverage of Suez) are really not great, including some parts I've added today (without access to the relevant books). The only part of the article which goes into real historical detail is the Suez crisis. Today I've re-ordered the lede and added some quotes from Peres (since he is famous for making memorable quotes or bon-mots). However, the article certainly needs a lot of expansion to cover the other parts of his career (the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc). Also, not everything in the article is well-cited currently. In terms of the subject's notability though - he is clearly one of the most significant figures in recent history, as evidenced by the fact his funeral will be attended by leaders from the around the world. He was one of the father's of Israel nuclear program, Rafael, the Oslo process, etc. Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO announces that measles has been eliminated throughout the Americas, the first time this virus has been eradicated in an entire region. The hemisphere’s last endemic case of measles — one which did not spring from an imported strain — was in 2002. (UN Dispatch), (The New York Times)
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: This is "the" project launch from the major "new space" company that has already delivered and there is already something done-ish about this also, like Raptor-engines. Usp (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nomination. Unless I am misreading this, what we have here is the latest progress report on a long term plan to colonize Mars. While the whole thing sounds fascinating, we don't really post these kinds of reports. If/when this thing actually is launched with Mars as its destination, I can all but promise we will post it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if I understand the sources right, nothing is actually happening yet or will happen for a very long time. It sounds like just plans - intricate plans perhaps, but still only plans. If and when the spacecraft is built and launched, then we can post it. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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] Three-parent baby
Soft Close This nomination and the proposed target article have far too many issues that need to be addressed before this can be seriously considered at ITN. This close is without prejudice and any editor who believes the issues identified in the discussion have been corrected should feel free to re-open the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose on article quality. The article has not been updated since July and does not reflect the story in the blurb. Additionally there are orange tags. The issues reported need to be addressed and the tags removed before we can seriously consider this at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aside from the issues Ad Orientem brings up, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the BBC article makes clear that this is the first successful use of a new mtDNA-donation technique, not the first 'three-parent baby'. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nergaal. It's incumbent on ITN to avoid falling into pop-science puffery, as in most cases the press release findings tend to be exaggerated.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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] Loma Fire
Consensus is against posting at this time. The article is a three sentence micro-stub. To the extent there is a news story at all it looks mostly local/regional. Barring some dramatic development there is no chance this will be posted on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose posting the mere beginning of a wildfire, which are quite common in California and the Western US. If there are things like very large scale evacuations, large amounts of damage or casualties, etc., something to hang our hat on, I would reconsider. Reporting on this seems limited as well. I would add Ongoing would only be appropriate if the article gets regular incremental updates that individually would not merit posting on their own, but would collectively. Lastly, the blurb would need to be globalized a bit, many readers might not know where the Santa Cruz mountains are. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom for now, per 331dot. Not at all clear this is going to become a major story. Also the article is a stub and would require significant expansion with solid sourcing to be seriously considered for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait ... for now, pending developments. Forest Service lists 25 wildfires in Calif., but the Loma fire isn't among them as of Wednesday morning. However, up to 300 homes said to be threatened. Sca (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
