::::She's on the mainpage of the English Wiki too. As RD, as it should be. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
::::She's on the mainpage of the English Wiki too. As RD, as it should be. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, don't compare us to the other Euro-Wikis, they're junkyards of BLP violations. Why Sca continues to refer to them as a comparison of what is and what isn't posted is bizarre. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, don't compare us to the other Euro-Wikis, they're junkyards of BLP violations. Why Sca continues to refer to them as a comparison of what is and what isn't posted is bizarre. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::These supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technical WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant. You've expressed your view many times. I request that we agree to disagree and drop the issue. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
::::::These supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant. You've expressed your view many times. I request that we agree to disagree and drop the issue. [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Posted as blurb''' per consensus (appx 2:1 in favor). -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Posted as blurb''' per consensus (appx 2:1 in favor). -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Ad Orientem}} Consensus is not determined by counting noses but by assessing the arguments presented. I'm not at all sure how you could do that and say there is consensus in favour of a blurb? I know I'm biased here, but I'd put it in the grey area between no consensus and consensus against - most support votes have not attempted to address the points against. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Ad Orientem}} Consensus is not determined by counting noses but by assessing the arguments presented. I'm not at all sure how you could do that and say there is consensus in favour of a blurb? I know I'm biased here, but I'd put it in the grey area between no consensus and consensus against - most support votes have not attempted to address the points against. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:16, 18 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).
Citing a drop in demand, the Dubai-based, United Arab Emirates-owned airline Emirates Air announces a cut in flights to five of its 12 U.S. destinations. The airline’s Dubai hub, third-busiest in the world, is a major stop for travelers in countries affected by President Donald Trump’s travel ban, and is also one of several Middle East airports affected by a U.S. ban on tablets, laptops, and similar devices in the passenger cabin. (Los Angeles Times)
Nigerian spy chief Ayo Oke has been suspended by President Muhammadu Buhari after anti-corruption agents uncovered more than $43 million in cash at his flat in Lagos. (BBC)
The closely-watched CEVIPOF poll shows Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen clinging to a narrow lead heading into the first stage of the election, with Le Pen recently becoming embroiled in a spat with the European Commission after refusing to appear on TF1 while there remained a Flag of Europe in the background. (Reuters)
Alternative for Germany chairwoman Frauke Petry announces that she will not lead the party in the September federal election, citing other party leaders' insistence on remaining a "fundamental opposition party", unwilling to join a coalition. (Reuters)
A Forsa Institute poll shows the lowest level of support for the Greens in nearly 15 years, weakening the chances of a left-leaning coalition taking power from the CDU/CSU. (Reuters)
Libyan fisherman discover the bodies of 28 migrants in a broken-down boat off the coast of Sabratha. (Reuters)
Law and crime
The Supreme Court of the United States refuses to vacate a stay of execution issued by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Arkansas's highest court has also put on hold the execution of another inmate, Bruce Ward. The state had planned to execute eight inmates in eleven days. That schedule, as well as the use of the drug midazolam, sparked a broad range of legal challenges and humanitarian concerns about the executions. Today's planned execution of Don W. Davis would have been the state's first since 2005. (CNN)(The New York Times)
Steve Stephens, the suspected "Facebook killer" accused of killing 74-year-old Robert Godwin, kills himself after a brief pursuit with the Pennsylvania State Police. (CNN)
French Interior Minister Matthias Fekl announces that police have foiled an "imminent and violent" attack in Marseille, arresting two suspects and confiscating weapons and bomb material. (The Guardian)
Three people die in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno, California. The suspected gunman, who was already wanted for another murder four days earlier, and who expressed hatred of whites and the government, is arrested. (Los Angeles Times)
As expected, during a visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. federal agencies to take measures aimed at protecting U.S. workers, boost protections for some U.S. products, and examine the H-1B visa program which affords foreign workers opportunities for employment in U.S. specialty fields. (CNN)
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.
Comment: Under normal circumstances, an announced election would not be listed here, but this announcement is very surprising, as the media outlets I've provided show. The massive media coverage and the shock of the announcement are sufficient to including this on the main page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The election is surprising, and not routine, as other elections are. This is what makes it different from a scheduled election, the news story is about the shock and unexpectedness. This is of international significance, with media coverage to back it up. This makes it significant for the main page. In contrast, a routine scheduled election that people have known about and scheduled for years (eg the scheduled 2020 one) is not news - per se; news is new developments. This fact that this story is new sets this story aside from the others. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The 2015 general election is the only election in British history that's been "scheduled for years", and that was purely an artefact of the 2010 coalition agreement. The only surprising thing about this election is that it wasn't called on Cameron's resignation but was instead delayed a year. ‑ Iridescent18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, despite being a politically-engaged Brit myself. The announcement was surprising, but the point that it merits an ITN blurb is when the results arrive, not now. It's only six weeks away (assuming May gets the votes she needs tomorrow - note that currently the PM cannot actually call an election, just ask the House of Commons to vote for one), and there's really no reason why anyone outside the UK should care until the election actually happens. Modest Geniustalk18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of whether or not it actually is surprising or newsworthy, it's not the position nor purpose of ITN to editorialize, and accordingly I suggest omitting "surprising" from the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relable sources have described it as "surprising" or "shocking," including the ones I linked. I'm simply stating what the RSs stated. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to not be sensationalist for WP and our blurbs. Here, at least, the notion of what a "snap election" is implies it was unexpected so we certainly don't need "surprising" here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now As noted, this is only a proposal and needs approval by Parliament to move forward. If that approval does happen to pave for the snap election, that then might be appropriate to post. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 18 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose The only source is a single, mostly speculative article, which contains a single one-line quote from a minor official. There's no there there. --Jayron3216:17, 18 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.
Nominator's comments: This has been in Ongoing for weeks (months?), and while it is being updated regularly and the battle is not concluded, I do not see it at all in most news sources and the story has seeming moved on to other fronts. When I dig, the news reports that I do find concern events which fall far below the notability threshold. For what reason should this ongoing-yet-unreported article remain on the front page?
Keep There's a paragraph per day of solid and well-referenced text being added to this article. It's really a fantastic document, and as long as it is still growing, I see no reason to pull it. It is still continuously being updated, and is still a current event. "My newsfeed doesn't cover it" is a rather subjective view of the matter; and indeed the major source of systemic bias everyone complains about, as we base our decisions solely on our personal perspective on the world, which reflects our editorship and readership. Instead, we finally have an article on the main page which is outstanding, and still being updated. I say keep it there. --Jayron3215:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jayron32. My initial reaction was to pull, but it is an ongoing situation, it is consistently in the news – buried at times but consistently there – and as stated the article development is good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I will comment that I think having day-by-day updated might be a bit too much close to PROSELINE for the article, but it is still being updated and still in the news if not buried in Western papers. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a move likely to cause concern in India, China and Nepal commenced last Sunday the first ever combined military exercises, focusing on counter-terror operations. (South China Morning Post)
A Brazilian federal judge orders Petrobras to suspend the sale to Norway's Statoil of its stake in an offshore prospect, in response to the National Federation of Oil Workers petition there should have been an open bidding process for this transaction. (Reuters)
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.
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: One of the most accomplished progressive rock and jazz fusion guitarists of all time. Known for his work with groups including Soft Machine, Gong, U.K., Bruford, Nucleus, Tempest and his own extensive solo career. Theburlybush (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending sourcing of the couple of paragraphs. I'll see if I can help too. An enduring giant of jazz fusion and a great innovator. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. RD's don't get blurbs, even though the description is spot on.[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]
A yes vote will likely end their chances of joining the EU as the current administration support policies diametrically opposed to EU policies(like the death penalty). That isn't small potatoes - and any nation changing their governmental structure is likely significant. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per current article quality and importance. I may be biased because I live in the Netherlands, which will be impacted by the result of this referendum as well. Seems like of very clear importance, however. ~Mable (chat) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the officially reported result of 51.4% - 48.6%, I fail to see how "narrowly" is anything other than factual, or how its use could be considered POV. Sca (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was seriously considering posting this based on the level of supports, but on examining the article I am seeing significant gaps in referencing. As an Admin I can't post this in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness though, I can see one section where references are thin on the ground albeit no unusual claims made, but otherwise it seems pretty good at a glance. Not quite sure I see the basis for the assertion? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added multiple CN tags to two sections. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that we do not post articles with serious issues to the main page. This has always been understood as including a requirement that any candidate articles are well sourced. I have tagged the two sections for ref improve. Once that is taken care of, absent some other issue that I may have missed, I think we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I added sources to your CN tag. There was one paragraph, however, that I couldn't find sources for. The language was pretty generic so I'd assume it'll be really hard to find sources for that paragraph. So I removed it. Let me know if you need any other assistance. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was making a final check before posting this, and was about to, but the "Results" section is entirely empty. The article is rock solid otherwise, very extensive and well referenced, but we need something done about the "Results" Section before this goes live. --Jayron3213:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Just curious, why does the Result section need to be filled out anyways? I think that table provides more than enough information regarding the results. I don't think we can go into too much analysis (if that's what you're looking for) since it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it had to be filled out. I said that posting an article with an empty section was an issue. There's more than one way to skin that cat. If you want to comment out the blank tables until such time as they can be filled in, and leave a prose synopsis of preliminary results instead, that would work too. I'm not posting an article with giant empty tables though. --Jayron3217:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to AP, "The state-run Anadolu Agency said the 'yes' side stood at 51.4 percent of the vote, while the 'no' vote saw 48.6 percent support." Ditto BBC. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically this is one those times where I think blanking out the breakdown of results just to ensure this gets posted is a good idea. I imagine that it could take days for this data to be formalised, yet the overall result has been announced, job done. I would suggest a practical approach here, comment out the intricate detailed results, post the story, improve the article post-election. Jayron has covered that. Mablestrip has it 100% wrong, it'll take too long, and this won't be ITN. Post the "result" not the "intricate detail". After all, we had to wait a few days to get all of the US election results sanctioned and referenced, but we didn't fail to post Trump did we? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've unlinked it for now, any admin may feel free to revert without consultation if you think it is what is best for the readers. — xaosfluxTalk03:27, 18 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):[4] Credits:
Nominator's comments: The attack was not a usual one because it was amid an agreement brokered by Qatar and Iran for the evacuation of Fu'ah and Kafriya in exchange for the evacuation of residents and rebels in Zabadani and Madaya. 39 children were among the killed people Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an explosion in a war zone. Could you better explain why it should be singled out for posting to ITN? Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good faith nom, but sadly not unusual either in terms of where it happened, or number of casualties. Suicide bombings with >100 casualties aren't an everyday occurrence, but they're not particularly unusual. ‑ Iridescent12:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you already know that the answer to that is "yes", given that the conflict in Syria is characterised by indiscriminate attacks on civilians by both sides. It's tragic that something like this is so commonplace as not to be newsworthy, but "bombing in Syria" falls into the same category as "mass shooting in the US", where unless there's something especially out of the ordinary about any given event our default position is not to feature it. ‑ Iridescent12:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to support in principle, in light of the Pope singling this incident out in today's Urbi et Orbi message which will give this particular attack greatly increased prominence compared to others, including among people who don't normally take an interest in the Syrian civil war. Only "in principle", as the article needs quite a bit of cleanup. ‑ Iridescent12:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A tragic event, but not unusual for a war zone. The Pope likely mentioned it since it just happened, but that doesn't change the nature of this event. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would not call this a usual event specially that it happened amid the agreements between the governments and rebels. --Mhhosseintalk17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject to improvement. High-casualty attacks targeting civilians are, unfortunately, not unusual for this civil war. What is unusual is such a high-casualty attack on civilians being evacuated as part of the "four towns" deal negotiated between opposing sides in the conflict and (some of) their international backers (Iran and Qatar, specifically). However, the article is far from beign ready to post in its current state. -- Black Falcon(talk)17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle but oppose on quality. I agree with others that these being attacked on evacuating civilians is not normal in a war, and thus appropriate to post. but the article is woefully short on details that explain why these civilians were being evacuating. A paragraph to explain that there was an agreed-on evacuation of civilians from the area and the attack was against the convey evacuating them is necessary to give context. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Civilian target makes this more notable (read: atrocious) than it would be otherwise. There's just enough content in the article for it to be posted. Other admins: feel free to tweak posted blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted as blurb] 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 III: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 19th century, 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. Tone18:20, 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]
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]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources consider her the last person to have been born in the 19th century.[5][6][7] 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]
Sometimes groups that should know better do stupid things. We aren't going to repeat them here. The article you linked to is quite dreadful: look at 3rd millennium or similar articles for proper examples. I have removed the incorrect blurb: please do not add it again. Edit: you can also check MOS:CENTURY. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change blurb alternatives that people have commented on, thereby misrepresenting their comments. Add your own blurb alternatives after the existing ones. --Tataral (talk) 17:26, 17 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]
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]
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]
Still arbitrary. Something like "last WW2 veteran" is concrete and meaningful. This woman was alive for about 40 days of the 1800s. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD for the time being whilsut 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]
Support ALT3 – This edges on DYK-style quirkiness, but I believe enough people worldwide have a strong interest in this kind of news for it to be worth a proper blurb. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Although the notability of Morano's death does primarily lie with the fact that she was the last known person born in the 1800s, she is also remarkable among the category of supercentenarians. She was the fifth oldest person ever, and the oldest person to have lived during the 21st century. It is exceedingly rare to achieve the age of 117 (she was the sixth), and she is the first person ever to have passed the title of 'oldest living person' to another 117 year old, Violet Brown. Brown's birthday was in March; the past month has been only the second time in history that there have been two living peopled aged 117 or older (this last occurred in 1992/93). As to Morano herself, besides her longevity records, she is also notable in that she maintained her health and faculties until the end. She was still living in her own apartment when she died, and not a retirement facility.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of information, but none of it boils down to "very old person died of natural causes, other very old people still alive." I remain entirely unconvinced that this is blurb worthy. She wasn't the oldest person ever, so that's a strike against notability. Being the last person from an arbitrary time period and being the oldest person in another arbitrary time period is not notability either (just arbitrary). The next-oldest person being the same arbitrary age (only when the precision is 1 year) is also not notability but coincidence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb - it is "somewhat trivial" but it's also a general interest story that's likely to be interesting to everyone, everywhere around the world. Banedon (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – As last born in 19th C., Emma is a milestone, and her article is well illustrated with pix of her at (apparently) age 1 and at age 117, as well as several others. (Lake Maggiore must be a very healthful place.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, don't compare us to the other Euro-Wikis, they're junkyards of BLP violations. Why Sca continues to refer to them as a comparison of what is and what isn't posted is bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant. You've expressed your view many times. I request that we agree to disagree and drop the issue. Sca (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Consensus is not determined by counting noses but by assessing the arguments presented. I'm not at all sure how you could do that and say there is consensus in favour of a blurb? I know I'm biased here, but I'd put it in the grey area between no consensus and consensus against - most support votes have not attempted to address the points against. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf As I read the arguments the opposes boil down to "this is trivial" and the supports argue that it is significant news from the perspective of history and has received extensive news coverage. I think ignoring a 2:1 majority would demand an exceptional policy or guideline based rational which in this case does not exist. Both sides are essentially looking at the same thing and seeing different levels of importance which is unfortunately highly subjective. FTR my own opinion leans a bit towards oppose, but not strongly. It seems like a good human interest story to me but clearly most of the participating editors disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new approach for RDs that assure posting (as long as quality is there), and many many recent cases of questionable blurbs that were posted, blurbs about people's deaths should be more than a majority, it should approach near unanimous approval (ignoring the "i don't like it"-type opposes). RD can be assured being posted, so it's not about not covering a person's death, but dedicating a blurb line to it requires a much higher approval bar for it, which this didn't meet. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is an opinion. And for the record it sounds like a good idea, but at present it doesn't exist in any guideline or policy that I am aware of. I do not believe that my prerogative as an Admin extends to rejecting a solid consensus without some policy/guideline position to cite. If you want to suggest this as an amendment to our existing guidelines, I believe that would make for an interesting discussion. But at the moment what we have is a strong (if not overwhelming) consensus, and for now that is all I have to go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 18 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.
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]
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. Now that the page move has gone ahead I don't think this is a suitable RD candidate - article is about the event not the person.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 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 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]
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)
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: There's a few gaps in sourcing but it's not too far away from being at ITN quality. MASEM (t) 18:59, 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: 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:Ravivyas1617:55, 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]
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]
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:Ravivyas1619:25, 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]
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]
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]
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." [8] 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, 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.
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]
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. pbp20:55, 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, 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. ‑ Iridescent00:30, 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]
Oppose per RM and Nick-D. Being prominent on mainstream news is not the same as meeting our requirements here at ITN. -- Shuddetalk15:55, 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. ‑ Iridescent17:16, 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 [9], and its consequences [10]. In addition, the death toll has also risen to a significant amount [11], including international Daesh members [12]. 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
Support: This has received major media attention from pretty much every outlet, and the death toll is now believed to be 94 -- a large number.[13] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed: Posted to RD] Sheila Abdus-Salaam
Posted to RD; no consensus for blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 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.
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.png)
