*'''Support importance'''. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. [[User:StillWaitingForConnection|StillWaitingForConnection]] ([[User talk:StillWaitingForConnection|talk]]) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support importance'''. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. [[User:StillWaitingForConnection|StillWaitingForConnection]] ([[User talk:StillWaitingForConnection|talk]]) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - while the referendum is hyped by the media, the real impact is rather limited, even with a yes vote. [[User:Abovesky|Abovesky]] ([[User talk:Abovesky|talk]]) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (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).
Nominator's comments: Development for Turkey, results will impact its relationship with EU Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support importance. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while the referendum is hyped by the media, the real impact is rather limited, even with a yes vote. Abovesky (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb strikes a convoy of buses near Aleppo which were carrying evacuees from the pro-government towns of Al-Fu'ah and Kafriya. Over 100 people are killed. (BBC)(AP via Yahoo! News)
The death toll according to a Nangarhar official source now stands at 94 militants, including 4 commanders. Former president Hamid Karzai says the strike was in violation of national sovereignty. (TOLOnews)
Flash flooding caused by torrential rain leaves at least 17 people dead and 20 others missing in northwestern Iran, according to state television. (Al Jazeera)
Article:2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A car bomb terrorist attack near a convoy of buses carrying civilian evacuees from al-Fu'ah and Kafriya kills more than 100 people including 39 kids (Post) News source(s):[1] Credits:
Nominator's comments: Notably news for this day Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted as RD - discussion continues]: Emma Morano
Article:Emma Morano (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb:Emma Morano, the last person living person born before 1900, dies at the age of 117. (Post) Alternative blurb: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 1800s, dies at the age of 117. Alternative blurb II: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 19th century, dies at the age of 117. Alternative blurb III: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 1890s, dies at the age of 117. Credits:
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: Oldest living person, also the last living person born before 1900. The article is in a good shape. Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb given that she derives notability from oldest being the oldest person, and given that the blurb would be slightly more interesting than comparable "oldest people die" blurbs. Have proposed one. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have corrected the blurb. 1900 is in the 19th century and there are still people alive born in that year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, prefer altblurb II (the article on the century is also titled 19th century). The death of the last person born in the 19th century is an extraordinary event that deserves to be commemorated. --Tataral (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that as I just pointed out, she is NOT the last person born in the 19th century. Violet Brown was born in March 1900.Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely: it is surprisingly common to see these mistakes. I have removed the incorrect blurb to avoid confusion. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources consider her the last person to have been born in the 19th century.[2][3][4] I don't think a person born in 1900 would be commonly considered to have been born in the 19th century as the term is usually used by reliable sources. For example, the current century/millennium is overwhelmingly considered to have begun on 1 January 2000, while only "purists" claim it only began a year later, as the article New Millennium notes. For our purposes, based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century. --Tataral (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you give are sloppy journalism. It is a very common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. We cannot put "19th century" in the blurb when our our own article begins, "The 19th century (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1900)..." Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only I don't find this to be significant enough for a blurb. Talk of the "end of an era" is over the top cruft on the part of Wiki editors and journalists alike. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only Arbitrary set point about the last known living person born in the 19th century, given the problems we have had with blurbs lately. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. Very old person dies of natural causes is not blurb worthy. If they were significantly the oldest person ever then there might be some justification for a blurb, or if they were notable for reasons other than being old, then a blurb might be appropriate but I see neither here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request RD posting now with further discussion on blurb - article seems there quality wise so no reason to delay RD. Premature to judge on whether a consensus for a blurb will emerge or not. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb this is headline news worldwide, precisely because she was the last born in the 1800s. It's more than just a run-of-the-mill olddar person death. For people who lived when there were many such this is a seminal moment. Please don't say 19th century, though. It absolutely is not that. — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. "Elderly person dies of natural causes" is exactly what RD was intended for. ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also note that this is the last person known to have been born before 1900. A random person born somewhere on Earth at that time would have a rather low probability of having a verifiable birth certificate such that in the event that person would survive till today, we could verify that this person was indeed born before 1900. So, statistically it's rather unlikely that there are now no longer any persons alive who were born before 1900. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. Not the last person born in the 19th century (based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century - guh?). Even then I wouldn't support a blurb, it's just an old person dying. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. This isn't notable because it is the oldest person dying(which isn't typically received well here) it is notable because this was the last person from the 1800s(though not the 19th century, as stated). Unlike just being the oldest, this is a notable benchmark. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary cut point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary so far as it's based on the calendar used by most of this planet's population and indicates a loss of connection to a period in history. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD for the time being whilst discussion continues on whether to post a blurb. (I don't have any strong feelings either way, personally). Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb When Kimura died he got a full blurb. If Morano had been a man the blurb would've been posted at least 6 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.6.177 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jiroemon Kimura was the oldest verified man ever, which is significantly different to this case. I'm also not sure exactly when the recent deaths section began, but it is possible that Kimura's death in 2013 predated it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (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: Such a cute story! It's making the news and social media everywhere. WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, good faith nomination but this is really not ITN material. --Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds?--WaltCip (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kardashians also make the "news" and social media. They're of similar significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it was a case of an near extinct species, with less than a dozen left, this might be something, but no. We don't run "feel good" stories even if they are widely covered. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Oppose good faith nomination, but this is ridiculous. Honestly the article looks like a good candidate for AfD as it fails NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and massively fails the WP:10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it rare for giraffes to give birth in captivity? I don't see much reason to post this otherwise.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have implicit significance thresholds and it's obvious this doesn't make the grade. --LukeSurltc 20:37, 15 April 2017 (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.
Nominator's comments: This is late nomination but this murder of a student over allegations of posting blasphemous content online is getting enormous press coverage from across the world so I wonder if this could be a possible RD candidate here? Saqib (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The death was on 13 April, and it was first reported on that date so this nomination should probably be moved to that section. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD The article could do with a copyedit by a native speaker (I don't have time) as some of the grammar is a little off ("he was then throw from..."), but the main objection is that the article is really about the incident not about the person (there is barely a full sentence of biography unrelated to his death), so if it were to be featured I think it would be better as a blurb than as an RD item. I'm undecided whether I'd support a blurb or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD per WP:IAR. Article's creation appears to be as a result of the incident itself rather than any notability of the person involved.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A British student is stabbed and killed during an attack on a light-rail train in Jerusalem, Israel. Two other passengers are injured. A Palestinian man with a history of mental problems and other issues is taken into custody by Israeli authorities. Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon linked the attack to terrorism. (Haaretz)
Oppose, by definition, a ceasefire is something not happening. Abductive (reasoning) 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm confused, the article is about a ceasefire, yet the blurb is all about it not being observed. The article doesn't seem to cover that at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - One line in the whole article. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One student is murdered and another injured in Mardan, Pakistan over alleged blasphemy. The student who died, Mashal Khan, was known on social media for his secular and liberal views. (BBC)
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: Breaking news of the MOAB bomb (nicknamed 'mother of all bombs') being used in combat in Afghanistan. This is the first time such a large non-nuclear bomb has been used in such a manner and could mark the beginning of more bombings. Since it is so recent, I expect stories to develop and perhaps even an article dedicated to this single event due to the severity of it. Yet, it is a big event and should be reported on the main page. User:Ravivyas16 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Essentially Pentagon military propaganda.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I am smiling as I type, but that's like saying the mailman's brought a delivery when he drives through your door. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what purpose does declaring that you just dropped the so-called "world's largest non-nuclear bomb" in combat serve?--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just after you've admitted to yet another friendly fire incident..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And on the heels of threatening North Korea with warships.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting piece of trivia, better suited for a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the magnitude suggests this is a big attack, and certainly something more then Pentagon propaganda. Mar4d (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's the first time this bomb was used. This is pretty big news. Trump's not messing around. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the world's most powerful detonation of a conventional weapon, and the first of its kind. If we dropped the next level up it would unquestionably be on the Main Page; I have to think this (and any other use of the Big Blu arsenal) holds close enough notability to be mentioned as well. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian a larger bomb (the GBU-57) exists, but remains unused in war. Blurb needs to be careful to be accurate. --LukeSurltc 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. As the news was so recent, the blurb may have lacked accuracy. The argument still stands though, it is the largest of its kind ever used in combat. It brings with it a set of implications that paint a very bleak picture of the Afghan conflict, alongside other current conflicts ending soon. It is also the first large scale weapon used in a long time, possibly since the Cold War. It is a very important event that is sure to have consequences in American domestic, as well as International affairs. --User:Ravivyas16 19:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support First, TRM the claim is that's it's the biggest ever used. But also, it's a first, and has a pre-standing article. It's on the front page of overy website in the world. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading that in either blurb I'm afraid, maybe it's an ENGVAR thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't gathering that it was the largest used either, so I've suggested a more accurate blurb to clarify this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as propaganda, for now. Unless a high-priority target was killed, or there's massive backlash for the use of this weapon, there's nothing particularly notable about a bomb being dropped during a war. It was used to collapse a tunnel complex to "maintain the [United States'] momentum" as far as I can tell. The "largest non-nuclear bomb ever used" line makes for great headlines though and the media is having a field day with it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A widely covered development in warfare/weapons, with a decent article. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Take that, tree-huggers! Holding hands and forming drum circles doesn't work. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 19:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PROJECTILE, n. The final arbiter in international disputes. – Ambrose Bierce — Sca (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. It's notable as a thermobaric bomb but the size as "largest non-nuclear bomb ever used" is silly. The cruise missile strike earlier this week had the cruise missiles in a holding pattern until they could be detonated simultaneously. It was 60,000 pounds total (1,000 lbs each). Even the weight is not clear as ordnance is often expressed as TNT equivalent for comparison purposes. It's not really a big event and it's use can be both psychological as well as tactical. It's not an escalation as it's about the explosive equivalent of 10 iron dumb bombs which isn't newsworthy. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could be persuaded either way here. Would be interested in the explosive power compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (nukes nowadays are orders of magnitude more powerful), can see the argument that this is effectively the largest weapon that could be launched without causing a world war, ending a world war, or ending civilisation. On the other hand, there's the argument that this is just an arbitrary threshold and that we've known for at least 14 years that this weapon was available and was simply a bigger version of what already existed. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, the MOAB is 10 tons. The atomic bomb dropped on Japan was 20,000 tons. Modern hydrogen bombs are 20,000,000 tons of equivalent TNT or more. What makes the MOAB interesting is the percussive effect of having the fuel-air mixture ignite all at once as a detonation and the effect it has on confined spaces like tunnels as the pressure wave moves through it. They are used for a particular purpose like the Daisy cutter used in Vietnam. It too is a large single explosive second to the MOAB in conventional munitions. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Wait at least until results are independently reported. Re "the largest non-nuclear bomb," as TRM notes above, our own article says Russia claims to have a much bigger – or at least 'better' – bomb (of course). Sca (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what respect do the sources used above not amount to the claim being "independently reported"? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I've seen, reporting has been based on official sources. For example, AP, the MOANA (Mother of All News Agencies), attributes it thus: "Pentagon officials said." Sca (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the blurb(s) should be changed to describe the bomb as the most powerful non-nuclear device in the U.S. arsenal, or something to that effect, as most sources don't say it's the largest/most powerful such bomb in the world. E.g. Wired says "The GBU-43, known as Moab—short for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or, colloquially, Mother of All Bombs—is the largest non-nuclear, non-penetrating bomb in the US arsenal." [5] Also, are oppose !voters here expecting us to believe that the Pentagon might fabricate an attack like this? Everymorning(talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I personally expect the Pentagon to release this information to dwarf the friendly fire attack in Syria's coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Pentagon dropped the MOAB. The issue is that the "largest non-nuclear, non-penetrating bomb in the US arsenal" is good for being scarily worded but it's a bit like being the largest dog in the toy group. The Mk-82 dumb iron bomb is 1 ton. The MOAB is 10 tons. If the Pentagon said they dropped 10 bombs from F/A-18's, no one would blink. By contrast, the atomic bomb dropped on Japan is 20,000 tons and the hydrogen bombs 20,000,000 tons. Comparing the MOAB to a nuclear weapon is silly and the purpose is along "shock and awe" propaganda by trying to impress fear that something has changed when in fact it hasn't. Tactically, it was the right weapon for caves; strategically the press release is intended to intimidate rather than inform. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interestingly the BBC report here notes that not only is it not the largest in the US arsenal, nor anywhere near the largest in the world, it's only a mere 30% larger than the BLU-82, several of which were used decades ago. So it's an incremental change which is truly insignificant in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – because the blurb is inaccurate, and because it lacks clarity and specificity. Even the nominator admits (quote) "the blurb may have lacked accuracy." Also, I don't find the target article especially helpful in clarifying how or why this is the "largest non-nuclear" bomb ever used? What metric is being used to make that determination? And who decided that this is the "scale" that should be used, instead of another metric? Where are the dependable and useful citations, in the article itself, confirming these things? Christian Roess (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is US action going on to combat IS forces in Afghanistan they just happened to pull a larger weapon off the rack for this one type. Given the questions related to its superlative-ness, I don't think this is really appropriate ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted IP trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support because I support ISIS. Show the world how evil US is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.67.207 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Routine air strike, which happened to use a very large bomb - possibly for PR purposes. This event probably isn't notable in isolation, much less worthy of appearing on the front page. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I accept the way this discussion is going but stating this device is just "a bomb" would be like calling the Mona Lisa just "a painting". This is no ordinary bomb. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no substantive evidence on what sort of impact this device has other than it's just a very big bomb. If, as mentioned above, it was used against a high-profile target, or its use resulted in many hundreds of civilian or military casualties, that might be newsworthy. As it is, the Pentagon declaring that it just used a very big bomb serves no other purpose than as a McNamara-esque military press release.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition we risk running into "benchmarkitis". Historically, ITN has declined stories that state that the Dow Jones Industrial Average or Hang Seng Index or other market indicators have hit record highs. Relatively speaking, this new bomb is just another benchmark. I would not put it past the military to develop, test, and use an even bigger bomb in the not-so-distant future. Would we post that? Similarly, would we post the development of new fighter jets or hydrogen bombs? There needs to be some sanity here.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It depends on the news coverage. I guess we should tell the media all of this and that they made a mistake in running this as a top news story. I think posting would help readers learn more about it, which is one of the purposes of ITN. However, I concede it probably will not be. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think that the purpose of ITN is to provide a level of oversight on the day-to-day media news cycle, and not to just post everything the private news corps spew out.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between copying what the media does (which we should not do) and responding to what readers might be interested in due to what they see in the media, especially when there is a decent article on the subject. I do appreciate your views on this matter. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is specifically comparing this conventional bomb with nuclear weapons. I've already found errors in the news as they try to pump up the size of it. One fact box had the MOAB at 10 tons and the WWII atomic bombs at 15 tons. That underestimates the atomic bomb by 3 orders of magnitude and apparently missed the "kilo" in front (20,000 tons). Comparing the MOAB to nuclear weapons creates a gross misconception about its yield. I don't mind including the strike as a news item but we should not perpetuate a comparison to nuclear weapons. They aren't close. --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not even close to the atomic weapons used in 1945 let alone the weapons currently held in the US arsenal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Changing vote because death toll of 36 – ostensibly all members of so-called IS – is prominently reported by most mainstream news outlets (AP, BBC, NYT, Guardian and Spiegel among them). Even though they quote either U.S. or Afghani official statements, such widespread coverage qualifies the topic for ITN. Sca (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: because it's YUGE and because it may signal a resumption of major U.S. military activities in Afghanistan. pbp 20:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The attack was a continuation of long-running US activities in the country. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shame This is the third largest wartime explosin in world history, and the largest in 70 years. It has been headline news worldwide since it occured, yet we have no direct link to it on our front page. The opposition is entirely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#US_MOAB_bombing_in_AfghanistanOV (a bomb is compared with a missive) and an entire disservice to our readers. Post this immediately. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the third largest explosion in world history. Not even close. Many ships in WWII sunk when a bomb hit their magazine. Any ammo dump has more explosives and plenty have been destroyed during war. The cruise missile attack earlier this week had 3x more explosives than the MOAB. --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, news outlets who are propaganda mongering aren't reporting the actual truth or fact behind this. It's easy to get carried away with "big bomb!" but realistically, it's not actually of much encyclopedic value even if it was the third biggest explosion in wartime (which we know it's not). This is just another big bang. Bombs go off all the time, around the world, killing many more than this MOAB, with much less force. Who cares about this one just because it's got a sexy name and it's American? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were British, would that be different? Sca (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were British, it wouldn't even be noticed—it's multiple orders of magnitude behind the largest British non-nuclear military explosion (3200t), which itself doesn't even get its own article. Despite the US military's hype, this is really not a big deal—as has already been pointed out above, this wasn't even the biggest explosion this week. ‑ Iridescent 00:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Opening discussion per a request on my talk page. I remain highly skeptical about the likelihood of reaching consensus but the number of estimated casualties has risen sharply and this remains rather prominently "In the News." So let's give it another day and see if any consensus can be reached. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In my view, continuing to exclude the 2017 Nangarhar airstrike from ITN is not reasonable when it remains a prominent topic on mainstream news outlets and the death toll, according to Afghani officials, has risen to more than 90. Sca (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RM and Nick-D. Being prominent on mainstream news is not the same as meeting our requirements here at ITN. -- Shuddetalk 15:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since I haven't actually done so explicitly and someone has seen fit to re-open this. This is not a big deal but just the Pentagon trying to make it sound like they're doing more than they are—as already pointed out, this is not even the biggest US bombing this week, let alone in history. On a brief skim of assorted non-US news sites, this is not on the front page of any of them—even TASS, which usually wastes no time in seizing any opportunity to paint the US as warmongers who massively overreact militarily, is ignoring it. ‑ Iridescent 17:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention RT. – Sca (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This single event is important in that it is an act of aggression and a symbol of American dominance [6], and its consequences [7]. In addition, the death toll has also risen to a significant amount [8], including international Daesh members [9]. Also, it seems quite hypocritical for ITN to show the imprisonment of an Indian in Pakistan, which just supports the already sour relationship between the two nations (and isn't that significant of a news story since it mainly concerns two countries), yet we are debating this large event that not only affects the USA and Afghanistan, but as aforementioned, leads to an international discourse.- User:Ravivyas16
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.
Not Opposed to blurb, given the nature of the death, and not the name itself will inform more readers.
Not Opposed to blurb per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD / Oppose blurb for now. If this turns out to be something other than an accident or suicide I may reconsider my opposition to a blurb but right now no one really knows. I don't think she is sufficiently important to justify a blurb otherwise. Note that we are discussing a state judge, not Federal or US Supreme Court justice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb just for the avoidance of doubt. Initial reports show no indication at all of foul play, so while it's tragic, it's just one of those things. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD / Oppose blurb per Ad Orientem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD. Blurb discussion may continue if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Associate judge seems like a minor role to me?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She was on the highest court in the state of New York, the New York Court of Appeals (the proposed blurb links, wrongly, to the New York Supreme Court which is, confusingly, the trial court level in that state). It's not minor, but it's still only state level and not federal level.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a possible AFD to me. Not even a full judge, an associate judge apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judges of the highest courts of states are considered notable. And all the judges of the New York Court of Appeals, other than the Chief Judge, have the title "Associate Judge"; describing her as "[n]ot even a full judge" would be inaccurate and inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: AFD? Really? Ignoring any specific guidelines, there are enough references in the article for the article to pass GNG. pbp 21:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. I usually lean towards a blurb where the circumstances of death are a bigger story than the notability of the deceased. But for me this doesn't extend to cases where some of the most plausible causes, whilst tragic, are not out of the ordinary. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support for blurb notable. 45.116.233.34 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb On what level does this even compare to Bowie or Mandela? People want to claim notability due to race and perceived religion? LordAtlas (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Local politician, apparently no foul play according to reports. While a sad case, countless local politicians and even MP's die around the world, and it is simply impractical to post them all. EternalNomad (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A suicide bomber kills at least five people and injures ten more near government offices in Kabul. ISIL claims responsibility for the attack. (Al Jazeera)
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: He's with Rick James and Prince now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No obvious issues with the article. caknuck° needs to be running more often 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose typically lazy article about actor, filmography unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz issues an apology for the removal of a passenger from an overbooked flight on April 9, which has since gone viral. United Airlines stock drops more than 4%, a loss of £800 million to the company's value. (BBC)
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.
Nominator's comments: Airstrike intended for an ISIS fighting area which ended up killing 18 Syrian Democratic Forces members (who are on the side of the US). The reports of the airstrike just came out today but it happened on April 11. Andise1 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stub (although not marked as one), and in all honesty, I'd be surprised if this can sustain its own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Tragically, this friendly fire incident amounts to one line in a larger encyclopedia article on the Syrian conflict, and somebody might be able to make three sentences out of it in a multi-volume series on the Syrian Civil War. Abductive (reasoning) 01:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (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.
Support article seems ready to go in terms of sourcing and update. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. Gaps in coverage or insufficient depth. Article is very brief on his career as a member of the The J. Geils Band; is it possible to incorporate some information from that article? For example, the first 10 years of the band is covered in a single sentence in his biography, while there's four paragraphs in the Band article covering that. While it's not that the info should be copy-pasted, surely there is more to say about Geils than the 4 sentences currently there along the lines of "band founded. has music in X, Y and Z genres. has number 1 album. band has drama and breaks up." SpencerT♦C 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree: per WP:SS, I don't expect to see a big huge discourse on the Band on the page about the person. If the band did have any notable achievements, those should be summarized here, but they didn't. Could there be more about him overall? Sure, but it's not gaps of information missing, just short and wouldn't immediately pass any GA standards, but fine for RD. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a little tidying up of the article's organization and added a few additional references. caknuck° needs to be running more often 15:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until maintenance tag addressed and dab category of German Americans is resolved. I'm okay with the depth of coverage to a degree, a lot more is covered in the band article I suppose. It's above start class, so would scrape by. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead and removed the category. Is there anything else you think could be done in short order? --Jayron32 15:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:15, 12 April 2017 (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: The development gained wide international news coverage. mfarazbaig 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Although this individual is notable in her own right, we do not tend to post U.N. Messengers of Peace on ITN; as an honorary role it does not seem to have a great deal of widespread notability.--WaltCip (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WaltCip. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2017 (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.
[Re-opened and re-closed] United Airlines Flight Incident
Closing for a second time. Still no consensus to post --Jayron32 14:57, 12 April 2017 (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.
@Pawnkingthree: with respect, that is not a reason to oppose. Sure, it won't be posted whilst the AfD discussion is running. If the article is not deleted via AfD, then it is considered on the merits of the event, article quality etc. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a valid reason for WP:ITNRD? That seems to be contradictory.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. No, no, no, no, god no.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this event may have lasting significance after all, and the AFD is trending towards a fairly decisive keep. So I think we may need to revisit this nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would still say oppose. I mean, what the blurb be? "Airport police injure a man removing him from an overbooked plane"? If we did what the German Wikipedia does, and had a few links to articles about more minor but interesting news stories, this would be a nice fit there, but as it stands I don't see how this can be posted. Smurrayinchester 12:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly in this context it makes sense for it to be ongoing, since the incident is now only part of the news - the global reaction and PR damage control are what is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major PR disaster for United and Oscar Munoz. In the news worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose We're giving into media sensationalism that feeds well on stories of large commercial entities getting their comeuppance against the average joe. Yes, there are several questions that United needs to address, this isn't going to disappear for them quickly, but until new FAA regulations are passed that significantly alter how airlines are allowed to overbook (Which is the most likely result), there's nothing here, and even that endpoint is not ITN-worthy posting. This is the type of news we (WP) need to avoid per RECENTISM and absolutely should not be on the front page. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Masem. Aside from that article still being under AfD procedurally, I don't recall posting price changes after any incident, let alone this one. They got what they deserved, but this better suits Financial Times or Investopedia. If there were more significant consequences, like court rulings, then maybe. Brandmeistertalk 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not of much significance. A guy was yanked off a plane and it was understandably a bad look for the company. Not really an ITN-worthy event. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Minimal if any lasting impact. Better suited for DYK. SpencerT♦C 14:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: the Chicago Police were not involved. It was the Chicago Department of Aviation Police. Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a few people are talking about it over here (in the US) but it's just one of those things. I like the DYK idea, although sympathise with Walt's example hook, I'm sure a different, less questionable hook could be derived... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Another over-hyped story of little significance, except perhaps for UAL stock. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2017 (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.
A suicide bomber attacks a military training camp in Mogadishu, killing at least nine soldiers. Al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for the attack. (Al Jazeera)
People's Republic of China detains Taiwanese political activist Lee Ming-che on suspicion of endangering national security and revokes his wife's travel permit. (Voice of America)
An elementary school teacher and an 8-year-old student were shot and killed by the teacher's estranged husband, who then killed himself, at North Park Elementary School in San Bernardino, California. Another student, a 9-year-old boy who was also behind the teacher, was wounded. (CNN)(NBC News)(Fox News)
Starting this spring, the state of New York will offer free four-year public college tuition for residents whose families make less than $100,000, the first state in the country to do so. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: Reports of arrests have been gradually developing for a month, but the tipping point for Western media - the discovery of the concentration camp - was on 10 April. Per the NZ Herald and other papers, it's the first concentration camp system for homosexuality since the Holocaust. Amnesty, who I guess would be the more reliable source, prefers the wording "secret detention site" to "concentration camp". This may be splitting hairs, but I'll rewrite the blurb. Smurrayinchester 10:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 3 deaths in a protest like this, alas, is no longer news in this world. Brandmeistertalk 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with a protest, it's police and security forces rounding up and arresting men and sending them to a torture camp. Smurrayinchester 13:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The event appears to have happened in March when these people were imprisoned, the "news" only being a larger reporting of it. This would make this stale. However, I would be open if the protests planned for April 11 were large enough in scale to be a blurb something like "Protests against the Chechnian imprisonment and torture of over 100 LBGT men are held in X, Y, and Z. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Amnesty International isn’t able to independently verify the allegations made by Novaya Gazeta" would be the deal breaker for me. My bar for inclusion tends to include multiple references rather than claims made by one newspaper (and the rest of the media using it as a sole source). Fuebaey (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources (article cites Human Rights Watch and Russian LGBT Network). According to the US State Dept "there have been numerous credible reports indicating the detention of at least 100 men on the basis of their sexual orientation". Smurrayinchester 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, two. Even if you were to take those initial reports (4 April and 1 April), like Masem said, it is stale. That it is blowing up now unfortunately shows how slow Western media is in non-native English speaking countries. I'll also take note that the political response is somewhat muted; we have general condemnation of sexual discrimination and calls for investigations, but not an outcry like in the Syrian scenario last week or even the United Airlines flight a few days ago. Fuebaey (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support coverage is rather scattered but I'd guess that's because of western bias (per Fuebaey), not lack of significance. Still only weak support though, since the coverage only quotes activists, implying that the ordinary Chechens don't care (wouldn't be surprising, given attitudes towards LGBT in Chechenya). Banedon (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are multiple quality sources now covering this story and the resultant protests. Persecutions in a concentration camp on the borders of Europe have to be slightly more important than the regular reoccurrence of a golf tournament. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article indicates that this news story was "confirmed" by the US on 7 April, six days ago, rendering this almost stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions are not stale, so we could simply change the blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ongoing story as opposed to the Stockholm and Syrian airbase attacks both of which are more than a week old. Let's post it now. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's what you believe, we have Ongoing for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a new blurb, and we don't reset the clock on existing blurbs just because another story is published. This was reported on 7 April, i.e. a week ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the news worldwide, with protests and reactions everywhere. If the policy works against us, we need to be strategic and make it work for our readers.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know how ITN works, thanks. This isn't in the news in the same way that, say, the MOAB, is. It's off the mainstream by a long way. It may come back, or you may wish to nominate this as ongoing, but as a blurb, it's stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please look up "Chechnya" on Google News.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you disagree, thanks for your advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Topical and currently making news. El_C 04:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reporting is being silenced [12] which is affecting news reports regarding the situation in Chechnya. Considering this has been an ongoing story since April 1 or before, the situation has not concluded other than Putin and Chechian denials. Gmcbjames (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2017 (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.
Nominator's comments: Britain's first billionaire car dealer Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose seems to be an issue over the use of primary sources (and a few dead ones) that needs to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still one reasonably important claim unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for checking over the article again. I have clarified some of the descriptions and made sure the claim that was tagged is now sourced. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, now we're good to go, I support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Article is fairly under-developed, except for the substantial but somewhat spammy section about his company that relies heavily (exclusively?) on primary sources. No biography info between 1959 and 2008 is jarring to say the least. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment - interesting character, but as mentioned no biographical information for half a century. Would support if expanded.Support, I think this is OK to go now. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned the article up. I changed the material about his company to be based on reliable sources, removed the primary sources that were in his biography and expanded details of his earlier life. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's still not going to win any awards, but recent improvements have brought it up to an acceptable level for main page posting. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major development resulting in tense relations between the two nuclear armed neighbors, with wide international coverage. mfarazbaig 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak support it's likely that this sentence will not be carried out, what with the related international disaster that would create, but this does have substantial news coverage and the article is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above Sherenk1 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first political act of many. May reconsider if there are serious diplomatic repercussions, like the last Syrian story or the NK-Malaysian spat. Fuebaey (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support has continued to generate news, days after the sentencing. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Six people are killed in clashes between protesters and police near Srinagar in the disputed region of Kashmir Valley, during a by-election for a vacant seat in the Indian Lok Sabha. (BBC)
Voters in the breakaway state of South Ossetia go to the polls for an election and a referendum. The referendum will ask voters if the country's official name should be changed to "Republic of South Ossetia–the State of Alania". (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)
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.
Note Referencing has improved since yesterday but still lacking for filmography and books. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All the films and books look referenced now, and I've removed the redlinks. --dmmaus (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support referencing is much better now, just overlinked Stevenson, and linked to a redirect too... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed those issues. --dmmaus (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Good work with the references. SpencerT♦C 11:07, 12 April 2017 (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.
Nominator's comments: Spanish politician, minister of defence 2008-11. Died of a heart problem aged 46. Modest Geniustalk 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose off the bat as the death is not even referenced. The rest is mostly there, one or two other refs missing and some tense problems to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The mention of her death doesn't cite a soorce, which is a major problem. Plus I see a cn tag. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all those issues: the death is now sourced to the Guardian article above, one claim has been removed as I couldn't find a source, and all other {{cn}} tags have been sourced. I also did a copyedit. Modest Geniustalk 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Bagoto (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the claim that she suffered from " dextrocardia and a third-degree atrioventricular block." doesn't appear to be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was added by an IP editor just before your comment. The same IP has now provided a Spanish-language source; I don't speak Spanish so can't check, but have no reason to doubt it. Modest Geniustalk 11:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was there when I reviewed the article the first time around. The source used is an interview with her in which she says she has "heart upside down, complete atrial and ventricular block". Whether that translates into "dextrocardia and a third-degree atrioventricular block" I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what we're waiting for here. All the concerns raised were addressed 36 hours ago. Marking ready. Modest Geniustalk 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well edits made since my last comment here have significantly improved the concerns, that wasn't 36 hours ago, so the good news is that this is now good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been good to go for many hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2017 (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: Last round needs a referenced summary. Image might be a bit dated. Fuebaey (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article needs updating to reflect the fact the tournament has concluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As of now, article is sufficiently updated and the problems TRM may have seen look to have been resolved. --Jayron32 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tables should have row and column headers per MOS:DTAB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (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: Reiterating what I wrote last year - I don't think the British equivalent of the Tonys have ever been posted at ITN, but it is on the recurring list anyhow. The play/musical articles are somewhat decent but the awards article is pretty bare bones at the moment; could do with a ceremony summary and references. Fuebaey (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may wish to include in blurb that Cursed won record number of awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been nominated before, but the problem is that the article does not get a significant update beyond identifying the winners. We do expect some type of prose around the awarding show (host, any special ceremonies/etc.) and any commentary leading into the awards. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not presently in shape to be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack on Christian churches on Palm Sunday. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is sufficient with enough details at this point. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Receiving international coverage; article could use some minor copyediting (and working on that) but for the most part it's in good shape; deadliest day for Christians in Egypt in many years. SpencerT♦C 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above and the numbers are high even for that region. Brandmeistertalk 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous. (See 'talk' note re recent-event template.) Sca (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Normally I would not post my own nomination but as there is no opposition I am treating this as a non-controversial edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and you even waited for more than one hour (1h6m!), before you posted your own nomination. Standards are really going down. Abovesky (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is oddly fast, but I have no protest. This attack is, of course, much more significant than what happened in Stockholm last week, and the article looks good already. ~Mable (chat) 15:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother supporting because it seemed superfluous. This was a fine posting, the article was in shape and the consensus is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: the circumstances under which The ed17 has been "dinged" are very different, your actions are beyond dispute and you have nothing to be concerned about. You have not abused your position, many others have, many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment state of emergency was declared. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking to modify the blurb, ERRORS is the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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
.jpg)
