| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator = Lihaas<!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = yes<!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt = Dunno when the announcement was first made, but they were awarded it today and, as i recall, weve not posted this. Goes along with the Aleppo story today as a fight back against Daesh.<br/><small>Nadia should be my wife</small>
| sign = [[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)<!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
:'''Oppose'''. This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2016#.5BPosted.5D_Sakharov_Prize posted back in October], when it was announced. No reason to feature it twice. <small>PS. I find your postscript sexist and distasteful.</small> [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
::Withdrawn (although it was awarded).
:::Hows that secist? Because it wasn't to a guy??[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 19:39, 13 December 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).
The warring parties reach agreement on a ceasefire, now that the fighting has ended, to allow civilians and the remaining rebel fighters trapped in the besieged Syrian city to evacuate. Five buses will start moving to pick up passengers at 5:00 a.m. EET Wednesday (03:00 UTC). (NBC News)(Reuters)
Gambian security forces take over the headquarters of the electoral commission as the current president, Yahya Jammeh, refuses to accept the recent election results. (BBC), (The New York Times)
Oppose stale - the article states He was appointed as the prime minister by President Dalia Grybauskaitė on 22 November 2016 so I'm not clear why today is a day that's more significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major development in the Aleppo offensive. It has been in ongoing for a while now, but the rebel resistance has collapsed, and the Government forces are in control of all but a tiny sliver of the city. This happened suddenly over a few hours of December 12-13. Given the major development, it may be worthwhile to move this from ongoing to a blurb. Also open to reworking the blurb, I'm not a great blurb writer. Jayron3212:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with adding some information about that. But a) we have a really good article on the offensive and b) it seems like a major development that needs a blurb of some sort. --Jayron3213:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is in good quality, and this is extremely big news. I think the summary executions should be mentioned - although the civilian toll of this war was already high, this seems like a new kind of horror. It's also the one that most news agencies are leading with (main headline on BBC for instance is "Aleppo civilians 'shot on the spot' - UN", for instance). Have added two altblurbs - one slightly succincter, one longer but avoiding the arguably-loaded term "massacre". Smurrayinchester14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with mention of the civilian casulaties. Horrifically, any precise number is going to be a massive underestimate, so a more qualitative term such as "heavy" would be appropriate: Syrian government forces take Aleppo, with heavy civilian casualties including many summary executions. --LukeSurltc17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong support, original blurb I mentioned it below too. Although, I read the announcement is imminent and am not sure if its 100% yet. Also add re- to the blurb. They did have it before. At least this sordid saga should be ending now.Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 or alt 2 original blurb too emotive, let's stick with "summary execution". We perhaps ought to involve the UN in the blurb too, for precision. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says he is hoping he is wrong stating that the United States "orchestrated, coordinated" the Islamic State's recent capture of Palmyra in order to "give a break to those bandits that are in eastern Aleppo." (Reuters)
National Amusements announces CBS Corporation and Viacom media companies will not be merging. CBS shares rose 1.8 percent closing in on a nearly 2-1/2 year high while Viacom fell 6.9 percent. (Reuters)
President-electDonald Trump says he sees no reason why the U.S. should continue to abide by the One China policy unless a bargain is reached with Beijing involving trade. (The Guardian)
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman says these comments raise the possibility that U.S.-China relations could be adversely affected, and that the One-China policy is the political foundation of the ties between the two countries. (CBS News)(NPR)
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.
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.
Support upon major improvements I know we posted the resignation but this still is a typical news story we post (changing of the top executive position of a country's gov't). Major referencing is needed as well as some proseline removal to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may merit posting especially since we posted Key's resignation, but a change in head of government is not ITNR unless it is part of a general election(which this isn't). 331dot (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to think that, because usually it is seen as part of a general election posting. It has been suggested before to include all changes in head of government in ITNR, but it has never found consensus, I think because with a parliamentary system it is essentially a change in a party's leadership and does not usually result in dramatic changes for the relevant nation. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support if improved. The ITNR rules are pretty stupid when applied to cases where the head of government and not the head of state essentially holds all the power such as Canada, Australia, NZ, and several other countries with ceremonial presidencies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions02:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even stranger when one considers that the actual head of state of all three of the countries you listed is Queen Elizabeth II. I believe there is someone who represents the Queen in each of these countries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed roughly a year ago. I'll restate something here that I posted there: Changes in head of government are generally posted upon the result of an election, and rarely do they change outside of that. When they do, there is no reason ITNC cannot be used. Even in parliamentary democracies the head of state at least technically has some sort of power(even if not in practice or by convention only). Heads of state represent their nation to the world and its people; it's also a chance for every nation to get an ITN posting, whereas heads of government of smaller countries could be rejected on the grounds it is a small country with little power/influence. I still feel that way. Changes to head of government outside of an election rarely result in significant changes to the relevant nation, as the change is essentially the change of a party leader. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Key's resignation announcement came as a total surprise. Nobody saw it coming. Therefore, that was news on an international scale. When he announced his upcoming resignation, he endorsed English as his successor. This succession has now happened; no bombshell, but simply what's been in the making over the last seven days. It's big news in New Zealand, but I can't see how it's of much interest beyond maybe Australia. Schwede6610:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another oppose from another Kiwi. Not big news, no change in government, it's really only a change in party leadership. The big news story was Key's resignation a week ago, which has already been posted. MurielMary (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why such offense was taken at Schwedes oppose. I am leaning that way myself. About this time next year, depending on how long it takes Winny to make up his mind, we will have the posting for the New Zealand election. I would think it would be better to add English then if he makes it, not for what was a relatively routine leadership swap. AIRcorn(talk)22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cardell Hayes is found guilty of manslaughter by a Louisiana jury in the road rage shooting death of former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith. (CBS)
In West Virginia police officers executing a bailpiece shot and killed a man who "operated a motor vehicle in an aggressive manner" towards officers at a Walmart parking lot. (ABC News)
A man is killed and two wounded in a triple shooting in Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans(NOLA)
A person is sought who left after he accidentally dropped a gun which fired and injured a store employee at a Home Depot restroom in Sunset Hills near St Louis Missouri. (St Louis Post Dispatch)
In Miami Gardens Florida, one was killed and one wounded when a gunman approached and fired at two people in a parked car. Wounded they drove while still being shot at and crashed into two parked cars. (WSVN)
In Brooklyn New York, 2 brothers were stabbed, 1 fatally in a dispute after a school soccer match. (New York Daily News)
Nominator's comments: Not sure how long it will take to drive out those bastards again, but looks like major loss (the city is a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Brandmeistertalk21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (yet another takeover by either side) and Oppose ongoing. The whole issue with ISIS and events in that part of the world is that it is so long and drawn out, that it does not work well as a Ongoing (where we are expected daily if not more frequent updates , as well as a reasonable point where the ongoing should end in a limited amount of time). I do note that it is properly covered in the Current Events portal, but as an ITN that is meant to feature on quality articles, I'm not sure it qualifies. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not? It's a significant milestone in the war. In World War II for example, Kharkov changed hands three times; that doesn't mean each individual changing of hands isn't notable. If the place changing hands is a major population center, industrial center, of psychological importance, etc, then I don't see why it isn't notable. Banedon (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Aleppo is about 98-100% in government hands (SOHR says 100% but Russia/Syria are saying 93-98%)...that's FAR more notable. Pretty much the end, if not there, but near.Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are oil wells around Palmyra. Only oil wells on ISIS controlled soil, now. Also it is a strategic location in the centre of Syria. ISIS is pushing Syrian forces more that 70km back from that "archaeological site" conquering airbases and capturing heavy military equipment in process. Seems pretty major event to me --Jenda H. (talk) 19:37, 12 December 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.
Nominator's comments: I've expanded it, and there isn't much to be added right now (waiting for the investigation results). This is the first church bombing in Egypt in over six years, the last one being the 2011 Alexandria bombing, weeks before the Arab Spring uprising. Saint Mark's Cathedral is the most important Coptic church in the world and is the seat of the Pope. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bombing in the most prominent Christian Church in Egypt is unquestionably an ITN worthy topic, but the article is really thin right now. That said, I do think it meets the minimum standard and it's adequately referenced. I would expect expansion as more details become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support though for consistency, I think the article should be at Cairo church bombing (we usually don't include the named place unless it's clearly recognizable). While thin per Ad Orietem above, I think it is sufficient and sourced appropriately at this point for posting. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I was updating images for the main page using this really useful route that David enabled for us, I'd reckon on a 15-minute turn-round-time, on the 0, 15, 30, and 45 "minutes past the hour" markers. Plus or minus a few seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose. Two sections have no references, three if you count the discography section that more or less just links to the other article. I've also added a bunch of citation needed tags to paragraphs that either lack citations entirely or have trailing sentences w/o refs. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon improvements Several CN tags appear to have been added post Patar's !vote, and additionally as none of the awards or works are blue-links, these need to be sourced too. It is not too far off, but does need that last bit of polish. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As of this this version, references 4, [1] 25, [2] 27, [3] 37,[4] 49, [5] and 50 [6] are all dead links; these are used to cite 8 things in the article. Hopefully these can easily be linked to archived copies if possible, especially 25, which is used to cite lawsuit against living people. IMDB, which isn't a reliable source is also used to source eight things, including two things that aren't just items on a list. Hopefully, these are easily sourceable. Other than that, there's nothing ostensibly wrong just from a quick overview of the sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for now. A bad day for African Christians. This is certainly worthy of ITN on its merits but right now its a stub. It needs expansion before we can post it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think this is going to grow much larger today, as the bulk will be about the investigation on construction practices, but the current article is sufficient and sourced for ITN at this point. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 11 December 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 for now. I'm not overly impressed with the quality of this article as of right now. It needs expansion and there are significant gaps in referencing. I will be happy to reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. IIRC of previous consensus is that there are way too many domestic Association football leagues around the world. If we include Major League Soccer (MLS), we'd have to include all the other ones. Only the Premier League has consensus because, as mentioned in that article among others, is "the most-watched football league in the world". The nominator, after posting here, attempted to add MLS to ITNR,[7] then reverted himself.[8]Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality and current consensus of league's status. I think, as MLS continues to grow in importance/TV ratings, it warrants new discussion on WT:ITN/R about making it a recurring event. The league is poised to become one of the football/soccer leagues in the Anglosphere (which this site covers). SounderBruce05:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. MLS isn't in the top echelon of world association football leagues, doubt many Americans were aware this was going on (and even less from other countries). ¡Bozzio!11:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on merits and article quality. Not a top tier sports league, either in the US or within the sport of soccer. I agree that most Americans likely weren't even aware of this. Article quality is, as already mentioned, not the greatest. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 December 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.
Oppose good faith nomination, both on merits and article quality. It's not listed at ITNR and we just can't be posting every awards ceremony, there are too many of them. If we were in one of our periodic dry spells for news I might consider an exception but ITN is not lacking in major news events right now. Beyond which the article quality is well below our standards. There is little text and referencing is... um... not acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When a Wikipedian is uneducated about a topic, that doesn't mean it's not news-worthy, sorry Ramble. Other than that, what's considered newsworthy at ITN these days? All I can see is catastrophes, crime and hatred. Come on, we can do better. In addition, you can help improving the articles. (Most others currently linked aren't linkworthy either). Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I'm "uneducated", I've just never heard of this in the context I've already described. It sounds like a fourth-rate film award ceremony. Plus, if all you have to offer is complaint about other ITN content (plus the sad but enlightening claim that "most others currently linked aren't linkworthy") then you're wasting our time. If nothing else, a quick glance at European Film Awards will enlighten our readers as to how much emphasis is globally placed on this "ceremony". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose principally that I don't see these awards discussed as being of the same high level as the Oscars or the BAFTAs. There are dozens of film award festivals, and we have to be rather selective and can't post every single one. I also agree that the article quality is poor, just barely explaining the ceremony here. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many important topics that aren't properly covered at Wikipedia. Which doesn't mean they aren't news-worthy. The EFAs are an institution in Europe and the only continental award of significance in this regard. Anyway, rather help improve the articles. English Wikipedia is increasingly taken by negativity it seems. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow this repeated "topics that aren't properly covered at Wikipedia" discussion, particularly with relation to this item. It does have an article, it is covered, there's just absolutely no consensus to post it to the main page. Even the Guardian's take on the awards is a little scathing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 12 December 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 A singular college football game that's not part of the championshop series is never significant enough for ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: A long streak coming to an end gives some reason for support, but the fact of the matter is that college football is barely watched outside the United States and this particular game wasn't even a bowl game. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While a notable rivalry, ultimately this game means little. As stated above, the Championship has a better chance of being posted than this game with little meaning. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 10 December 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.
Support Major attack at the heart of Istanbul (very close to Dolmabahçe Palace, a major tourist attraction as well). Unfortunately, the death toll and number of injuries could be higher. The broadcast ban is severely limiting the flow of reliable information at the moment but details will be added as they emerge. --GGT (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I'm unsure if we should go ahead and remove one or two of the older entries, or even remove the photo of the Pakistan International Airlines plane. As it stands now it doesn't look too cluttered, methinks — MusikAnimaltalk03:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be a significant disaster in Bulgaria(given that the PM visited and that there will be a national mourning day). Article seems appropriately sourced. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support on improvements - There's a few CNs, and a I see a completely unsourced quote. Also would encourage the bibliography to be put in an consistent format, and anything that lacks a ISBN, we should have a reference to affirm the work .--MASEM (t) 20:10, 10 December 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.
Nominator's comments: This maybe a long shot but its a notable conclusion to what was already known. And even JBN has cited it. Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support this is definitely interesting and a half-decent article to boot, but this news story is the conclusion of just one group, i.e. it's altogether possible another study may result in a different conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree about Press TV(being Iranian) but the Jewish Business News seems to agree with them. Story in Politico as well. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm in agreement with TRM; while the opinion of just one group, this is a reasonably decent article about a notable event, and determining who was responsible for it would be notable. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oddly enough, per TRM. We look at the same reasons and come to different conclusions. Since it is too early to draw conclusions this should not be posted (in the same way, breaking news theories of any kind ["researchers in _____ conclude that MH370 was due to aliens from outer space"] should also not be posted). Banedon (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is interesting, but reading the Politico piece (it's very good and worth a read!), written by the duo that published the paper, even they do not say that the documents conclusive proof that it was a nuclear test (e.g. look at the last 2, 3 paragraphs). The authors say that it showed that the US government did seriously consider the possibility that it was a nuclear test. As the Politico article makes clear, it was a view that existed since the very start of the controversy surrounding the Vela Incident, and openly expressed by several senior US governmental officials for years. The Israeli news sources on this new revelation also include statements from people saying that the credited sources of Israeli leaks could not have known this information. Given these issues and the fact that ITN is very lively in recent days, I would have to come down on the oppose side. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Suggest waiting to see if any mainline news orgs pick up the story, perhaps even 'confirming' for our purposes that Israel and Apartheid-South Africa were responsible. The sources cited above seem rather iffy. Sca (talk) 16:41, 10 December 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.
Oppose The quality of an article that does not yet exist cannot be assessed. Create the article and then we'll have something to assess. --Jayron32 02:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Vote was made on a version of the blurb linked to a red-linked article. I am reassessing based on changes made by the OP to highlight a different article. --Jayron3202:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still for the new article. Completely missing prose narrative about the election itself. No results for parliamentary elections. Missing reference for change of election date. Please add prose narrative about the election itself, with references, and complete results for all parts of the election, before we can post this to the main page. --Jayron3202:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support Just need the update 'cause this is important in the ranks of the global insurgency against the establishment from brexit to Bulgaria and moldova to Trump and Italy and Gambia (perhaps) Korea and now Ghana. Millenials are changing the world orderLihaas (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay, please do support. It is important Wikipedia avoid Western bias and give due focus to what is an important election in an emerging African nation. -- Varavour (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Unusual case where the sitting, longtime President conceded the election and then rejects the results a week later. Page is mainly updated, since it made it as a blurb that was on ITN until recently. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not opposed to reposting this item, but there's only a few sentences of update about this development, with one reference. It would be useful to have more clarity on what the situation is legally (does he have the right to do this?) plus reactions/analysis, not to mention broader references. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we posted the original. Every step is not notable but les wait and see what comes of this before re-nominating. I always suspected hes waiting on a coup opportunity as he is from the military.Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lihaas; when some tangible step is taken, such as a new election being scheduled, use of troops to prevent the change in power, etc., it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Troops have been deployed and have taken up sandbagged positions with machine guns in both the capital and the country's largest city. Jammeh's rejection of the election results has been condemned by the U.S., Senegal, the African Union, and the United Nations Security Council (unanimously in an emergency session). The chair of ECOWAS attempted to come to help resolve the situation, but her plane was not allowed to enter the country. Jammeh's party has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the election, but the Court is not sufficiently staffed with judges to review the petition. Four West African heads of state are traveling to The Gambia today to try to dissuade Jammeh from his course of action, and a fifth African head of state has announced his intent to lead a delegation there on behalf of the African Union. Do you need more than that? This is a complete breakdown of the process. The story is on the front page of Google News and Bing News in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) – Updated several times including up to 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support not every step is notable but this kind of outright rejection of election results is very rare. This is also the kind of news that will totally dominate local headlines for the immediate future. If the blurb were still on ITN I'd totally support changing it, but since it's no longer there it should be reposted. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A 7.8 magnitude earthquake strikes off the coast of Makira in the Solomon Islands, causing infrastructure damage, yet no casualties have been reported in the hours following the quake. (ABC News)
Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren issues a report claiming that 1,000 Russian athletes have been involved in or the beneficiaries of "manipulations to conceal Positive testing". Germany and the United States have called for Russia to be banned from international competition. (Yahoo! News)
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.
Oppose. I'm a bit troubled by the quality of the sourcing. eg "[W]here they were both abused by caregivers" is sourced to a review of an adaptation of her memoir. (And these days "abused" is generally interpreted as sexual abuse, cf "deprivation and beatings" in the source.) Her list of roles is partly cited to a wiki and the sources don't seem likely to cover all the roles given. I'm also unconvinced this death is really in the news; national level coverage would be helpful, and A single good-quality obituary would clear up the referencing issues. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately The Mirror's reliability can be gauged by its reference to "The Weeney". The Mail obituary might be slightly more reliable but it doesn't have the same list of roles.[9]Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks like there's still a few citation needed tags, and iffy sourcing like [10] (is this reliable?) and to the Mirror, which AFAIK is a tabloid. Also not sure about the phrasing "disturbed' children, which seems antiquated. The first source cited for example, uses the term "disadvantaged children." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourcing is also surprisingly weak. The claim that she used her own money and corporate sponsors in her endeavour, is only sourced to some chemist industry advertisement trying to raise money for the house and which says nothing about the acting fees. Her first marriage is completely unmentioned in the provided sources, and those sources are also used to improperly synthesize that Atkins had a son named Harry with Peter Whitehead (the sources show she had a son named Harry and that she had a son with Peter Whitehead, but do not connect the two in any way). These issues, especially the last two, which are BLP issues, need to be fixed before posting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions03:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the chemist advertising campaign is still borderline WP:OR, surely there's some source that would say she reached out for sponsorships that are better? The claim that Atkins self taught herself to become proficient at psychiatry is only referenced to an advertisement and an interview statement by a former spouse. Is there a better source for that? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article itself is bit premature but I don't oppose for that. (I actually support the article being ITN.) — regards, Revi08:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query? Is this "impeachment" in the American sense, meaning formally charging with offenses that could lead to her removal if convicted, or is it "impeachment" in the more internationally common sense meaning the actual judgment that has the effect of removing her from office? The bit in the article about the involvement of the Constitutional Court makes it sound like it could be former, but I am unclear on the process. Is it essentially already over for her, or does today's action just begin a process that might see her kicked out of office after a trial and/or other opportunities to contest the outcome? Dragons flight (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We did post when Dilma Rousseff was in a similar position, so I'll support posting when the article is good enough. The blurb will need to be clarified so that readers don't ask the same question as Dragons flight above. -- KTC (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: The quality of the article does matter; a poor quality article will not be posted to the Main Page of a global encyclopedia seen by hundreds of thousands, no matter how much this may merit posting. This is not a news ticker. I invite you to improve the article if you want to see it posted quickly. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements. We did the same for Dilma Rousseff, and the head of state of a G20 being suspended from their duties for corruption-related reasons is definitely ITN-worthy. Park has also recently offered to resign if the legislature voted against her, so this could develop much faster though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on improvements, per several points above, that this is the right time to post this (as well as whenever the Court ends up with their decision). Wouldn't do this for any other case, but this is a world leader we are talking about and factors heavily into regional and international politics. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Although the topic is undoubtedly ITN worthy, the article quality is currently far below our standards. There are all kinds of unsourced claims that run afoul of BLP. Serious improvements will be needed before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull What the hell is going on!? This was posted to the front page despite clear consensus against posting and with an orange ref improve tag right at the top! The tag was subsequently removed w/o consensus that the problems have been resolved with the rather lame explanation that the article is now on the front page. This crap needs to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Consensus here was to post on improvements. We are not a news site. There is no rush to get this to the main page and having it there in its current state makes the entire site look bad. Pull it. Pull it now. --Majora (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have the same problem, just on the other side. I don't see a great deal of difference. We also haven't heard from King of Hearts on their reasoning. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem's approach is better: I'll be sure to always say I oppose if quality isn't there, and only change to support once it is. I would love to know why an admin posted an article with a big orange tag as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The version at the time it was posted has a big orange tag on top. That should have never been posted, regardless of how the admin interpreted the votes. The admin posting should be not just vote counting but checking to make sure any issues identified in !voters were addressed, and that clearly did not happen. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The orange tag was most definitely appropriate. This is an article covered by BLP with all sorts of inadequately sourced claims. The tag was removed by another editor because the article had been posted to the main page (improperly). As of right now I stand by my oppose !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready. Merged, copyedited and sourced some poorly translated material from kowiki. Not seeing any other issues at this time. Fuebaey (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the ready tag just added as there is not yet a consensus here to post. That said after taking a quick look at the article I see it has been much improved. While referencing is not ideal, I think it is adequate for posting and so I am moving to Support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems okay now, just needs an appropriate blurb, with redirects, and the [who?] to be fixed, and also some of the English to be copyedited, but nothing major. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As of December 1, the total death toll for the war stands at an estimated 9,758 people according to a United Nations report released today. (United Nations)
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 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: Longtime Canadian MP (32 years) who spent nearly a decade in Trudeau Sr.'s cabinet. As Solicitor General, passed legislation that abolished the death penalty in Canada. Also was a prominent Canadian human rights activist. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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: Dutch cartoonist, one of the most famous in the Netherlands and Flanders, honorary doctor from the University of Leiden, had a career spanning more than 60 years. At first glance only the sentence "which became a huge success and even inspired a TV series." needs sourcing. Fram (talk) 15:52, 9 December 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.
Nominator's comments: Used to be "Least concern", and there's a long way still to go from "vulnerable" to "extinct". On the other hand, it's an easily-recognized animal, and the topic is completely different from the current ITN blurbs. Previous similar discussion here: [15]Banedon (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, the amount of animals is not that big a deal when considered as a group. Its the change in status of such a high profile one that makes this interesting. As wikipedia is an educational project, it does behoof (ha) us to keep the public informed when such a high profile animal becomes more endangered. 'Slippery Slope' arguments are by their nature weak, and I am pretty sure most of the world is ignorant of the actual status of the Giraffe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Follwoing from Only in death's rebuttal above, just because it is a well-known animal doesn't making an otherwise relatively common event more newsworth for us, particularly with how full ITN is. Maybe during a slower news period it might be worth considered, but not presently. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was very surprised by that, and I imagine others would be. It's a great example of something an encyclopedia can report to people that standard news organs might omit. And the articles it leads to should be examples of our core work as well. — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully. Are we going to do this for every animal that makes it onto this list? I like Giraffes but I think this just doesn't rise to ITN level. This is especially so given, as others have noted, that ITN has been unusually busy of late. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when such a (seemingly) common safari spot becomes "vulnerable", we know we're destroying our planet. Of course we don't do this for every animal that moves to that list, unless of course the move is widely reported in reliable sources around the world, as is the case here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TRM. It seems fine to post ITN blurbs for items like this concerning especially well-known animals such as the giraffe. The same principle laid out by TRM is already applied IIRC to animals coming off the critically endangered lists. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IUCN doesn't use the same species classification as our article on wikipedia, and acknowledges that things not settled when it comes to taxonomy. Notice how our article removed the IUCN status a few months ago. Narayanese (talk) 05:23, 11 December 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.
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 does need some work. Considering someone of his stature, reactions to his death may be forthcoming and warrant addition to the article.--WaltCip (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering it, but I figured the fact that he was very old and his grave condition was previously announced would hamper his chances. I would not be opposed to one at all, though. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for blurb: first American to orbit the Earth, oldest astronaut in history, "the last true national hero America has ever had" wrote Tom Wolfe. A 62Kb article with 66 88 solid refs, a few minor no more CNs, 2K readers/day average, is a no brainer IMO. --Light show (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it worth reconsidering a blurb? He's been at the very top of Google News since his death. Of the 5 current ITN blurbs, two are people-killed disasters and three are political leader events. Glenn, as an icon, would help balance the section with a notable bio. It's also been a constant on TV news with some specials, and others to come. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD with fundamental improvements, weak support blurb There's clearly some referencing issues with the current article, that has to be fixed to get the RD. I definitely see the rational for a blurb, but beyond the referencing issues, the article needs a LOT of work to get to a point that a blurb would be appropriate (one section is entirely in proseline) that I don't think can be done in a timely manner above and beyond sourcing. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too much of the article is just unverifiable. We shouldn't even go close to saying "support", especially when RDs are now posted based on quality alone. All preceding "support"s should be disregarded until such a time that the article is 500% improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, world famous, oldest living person to ever go to space. The fact that he was old and had health problems don't diminish his noteworthiness in 20th century history. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've assisted your quest by noting the unverifiable claims in this BLP. If you wish to ignore them, that's up to you. Your position, particularly as an admin, in supporting unverifiable material on a BLP is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about badger? Of course the article is good enough if it was properly referenced. No requirement to state the bleeding obvious is there? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment look, I know there's a knee-jerk reaction here, it's "John Glenn, that astronaut bloke, obvious support!" but he's got an article and all we care about now is that the article is decent enough for the main page. That I'm seeing at least three unconditional supports above, including from admins, is truly worrying. Are we getting the message across that article quality is paramount before we post to the main page? If admins don't see that, perhaps we're missing something. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. The article quality, and in particular the referencing is well below our usual standards. I appreciate that this is a very famous person and a national hero here in the US, but we can't throw our standards under the bus. Let's do this right and get the article up to snuff so we can post something that reflects well on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the standard here supposed to be whether John Glenn was sufficiently newsworthy, or whether his article is of high enough quality? It seems to me that millions of people are probably going to search for and find his article today and over the next few days, whether we think it is of high enough quality or not. So we may as well include his death as "news", because it is "news", even though the article may be currently sub-par. Neutron (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing is improving and I think all but one of the paragraphs have at least a single cite. The awards and honors section needs more though. The article doesn't need to be FA or GA but there should not be really glaring gaps in referencing. It's getting there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Support for RD. Article quality, while not yet ideal, is greatly improved. The Awards and Honors section needs some refs but I think the article now meets the basic standards. More work is needed before I will support a blurb though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the paragraph missing a reference that you noted above. In the Awards section, it may help to replace the general verification needed tag with {{cn}} on the specific statements that need them. JehochmanTalk22:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to try again, it's been edited since I reviewed it when it said that ref 20 was " Cite error: The named reference CBS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb for now – if we're supposed to judge this strictly on article quality, then the article I read was a long series of statements heavy on praise related to titles and honors, but came up quite short as a coherent biography. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which sections are incoherent? All the early year, education, military, space, and political career sections seem very complete and biographical. --Light show (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other parts are fine and improved since my !vote, but the personal life section remains primarily WP:PROSELINE, and rambles between elements. This absolutely needs a cleaner approach to consider including this as a front-page blurb, to start. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – From a strictly U.S. point of view he would be blurbable, but from a wider perspective RD seems appropriate. Aside from being the first American to orbit Earth half a century ago, he was one of those people who was famous mainly for being famous. And the man was 95. Sca (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb He wasn't even the first American in space. A significant figure, but not at the exceptional level required for a blurb. We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias towards the US in assessing significance. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Unless we're putting forth that David Bowie and Christopher Lee were more significant personages? Both died as old men, neither were Nelson Mandelas, but both had tremendous blurb support here. Maybe we should change the title of this section to IEN - In Entertainment News? - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I think RD is fine in this case. The story reporting his death was not even a breaking news and was quickly removed from the front page of the media. Since there is a comparison with David Bowie and Christopher Lee, I can't say anything about Christopher Lee but David Bowie's death received far more attention and there is even a separate article about it. If we're looking for a standard for posting death blurbs, take for example the most recent one about Fidel Castro. The article we have on his death and funeral is twice the size of the one about John Glenn. Not to mention how his death was reported in the media and how many news articles were published.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. The article quality is far above what is normally posted on ITN, and links out to a plethora of other encyclopedic articles. The guy was one of fewer than 200 people who have walked in space, was a Senator and a highly decorated war veteran. His public life was high profile and lasted for over 40 years in a number of different fields. That's more prominent than this or that crotchety old rocker.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Article quality is higher than many articles posted in ITN, and his varied (and impactful) career brings him over the notability bar in leaps and bounds. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst an RD posting was certainly appropriate, I oppose a blurb. There are not major repercussions of his death - this was an important person who died of old age long after they retired. Exactly the sort of thing RD was created for. His life was notable, but his death has nowhere near sufficient impact to raise to a blurb. Modest Geniustalk19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Union leader Chuck Jones criticizes Donald Trump's announcement of kept jobs saying that the numbers mentioned are lower. Jones says that 550 workers would actually lose their livelihoods, while other workers were never scheduled to leave. (Washington Post via MSN)
U.S. stocks closed higher Wednesday with the Dow industrials and S&P 500 notching new records. (Market Watch)
At least 96 people are killed following a 6.4 magnitude earthquake in Indonesia's Aceh region. Hundreds of people are injured and several buildings have collapsed. (BBC), (AP), (USA Today)
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 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: (*) Please note that Jamshed was one of those aboard the Pakistan flight; I tried to point it out there, but it got lost before it was posted, so this is by way of highlighting that. Note that he was the only individual for which we deem notable for an article. For that purpose, I also open up what I initially suggested , that the air crash blurb be modified to include his name as we did with the other crash that took the football club; otherwise, this is still a proper RD nomination. In terms of article quality, there are a few lingering CN tags and the discography should be sourced better, but it is not far from being postable. MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no indication where you'd find he on the main page, as compared with the other crash, the football club (not all dozens of members directly for obvious reasons) was specifically named in the crash blurb. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? The argument was that the football club as a whole was mentioned in the blurb, so to necessarily call out any individual would have been a problem (otherwise, we shouldn't have mentioned the club at all). The last time this type of case happened before then, last year [16] we included the notable names of three individuals killed in a crash. That's why I note this should be amended to the blurb, rather than a separate RD. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amended Blurb. 47 people died. I think amending the blurb to name just one of them makes it look like we value his life more than the others. In other words, I think it is rather crass. I'm okay with including him in RD, though I wouldn't be upset with leaving him off either. Dragons flight (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that for the aforementioned helicopter crash, we included 3 notable names but there were 8 on board, and that for the recent Columbian plane crash, the football team weren't the only people aboard. This actually mirrors the approach the press takes - that they will highlight anyone they deem famous/notable enough that has died in an accident, but generally ignore any non-notable passengers or otherwise just lump their names in a passenger manifesto without comment. We would not be doing anything different from the regular coverage of such incidents by the press. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was wrong to name the three people on the helicopter as well. I don't object to mentioning the football team since they were the ones who chartered the plane in the first place. Notable people who died in a crash can of course be included in the article itself, but pulling out a few "special" people for the headline (i.e. the ITN blurb) is inappropriate in my opinion. We don't necessarily need to ape the attention grabbing instincts of the news media. Dragons flight (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he was a highly notable figure in his country therefore it merits a mention. If not in the RD section, it should at least be covered in an amended blurb. Mar4d (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Question: would he have qualified for RD if he had died in another way? Answer: yes, and the article is pretty good. So he should qualify for RD. I realise there's the issue of the football team plane crash but that was mentioned in the blurb. Black Kite (talk)00:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support amended blurb, or failing that, RD. As Black Kite said, he would have qualified for RD if he had died another way, so at the very least his article definitely ought to be directly linked from the front page. I think if we are going to mention his individual death (as I strongly believe we should), we should amend the blurb to do so, simply to demonstrate that these two items are the same event. Otherwise, they will be separated from each other in the ITN box, making it seem as though they were two separate events, and also adding to clutter in RD. — TORTOISEWRATH01:15, 11 December 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.
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: Noted former Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Interior Minister, Football team manager etc. Nub Cake (talk) 17:42, 7 December 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.
[Posted] Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661
oppose for someone who complains about earliy postings and articles not bein ready it would help to put it up to scratch and make it worthwhile! Lihaas (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and as we all three of us know, these events attract a lot of attention, and I am certain this will be ready to go in two hours or so. Unlike many of the election nominations which are posted prior to even the election completing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from zero to postable article in less than two hours. Might be prudent to wait until some view on casualties is given, although it doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the crash site and read the reports to hazard a guess that no-ones walking away from that one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but I note that they have confirmed Junaid Jamshed was aboard and among the causalities. That article is actually not in bad shape (a few CN tags, and list of works is unsourced but otherwise leading to blue-linked articles). Might it be worth extending the blurb to include this? --MASEM (t) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Though I would note that as of this moment the text and the infobox are inconsistent about fatalities. Please make sure things are consistent as the article is updated. Dragons flight (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support high enough death toll, high magnitude at a low depth is going to cause damage. article is also well updated for only being 12 hours in.Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support, article quality as at the time of posting was more than sufficient, and no-one has queried the encyclopaedic newsworthiness of the event. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Six Pakistani nationals fishing in the Red Sea, off the coast of Mocha in the Taiz Governorate of Yemen, are killed and another six are unaccounted for after a Saudi air raid on a boat carrying 12 Pakistani sailors. (The News), (The Nation, Pakistan)
The Iraqi Army bears down on a strategic bridge across the Tigris River in Mosul. Fighting is occurring in the Salam neighbourhood less than 1.5 kilometres from the Tigris. (Al-Jazeera)
Airlines serving the regional hub cancel 87 flights into and out of Sea-Tac airport, due to ice on airport runways. Among the affected air carriers, Alaska Airlines has cancelled 35 flights. (KTUU-TV)
Amnesty International criticizes a Saudi court decision to impose the death sentence on 15 people in a case involving 32 people including 30 Saudis, one Iranian and one Afghan national in an alleged Iranian spy cell. (The New York Times), (Amnesty)
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds an appeals court decision in an insider trading case, Salman v. U.S., holding that there is no requirement that a tipper receive any pecuniary consideration for a breach of faith in order to predicate the prosecution of the tippee. (Scotusblog)
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 the minute, until I (or anyone else) have finished supplying citations for all the unsourced parts of the article. I have an excellent in-depth book source interview with Greg Lake that can cite almost everything, but I will not be in a position to access it until very late this evening when I get out of the studio. (FWIW I was going to add this candidate at that point if nobody else had done) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:17, 8 December 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.
Article needs updating 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.
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.
Tentative oppose - the PM of France doesn't have the same prestige as the PM of Italy, UK, Australia or NZ. France is semi-presidential, which means the president is generally the head of the government, unless he or she is from a different party than the PM. And it's not like this change is of political significance, it's just so the previous incumbent can seek the presidency. Happy to be persuaded otherwise if there's some significance to this though. — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is probably an ITNR nomination, but the quality of both target articles is far below our standards. Referencing is quite poor with orange tags at both articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 7 December 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
