| article2 = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| blurb = <!-- Add your suggestion of the blurb; should be written in simple present tense. -->
| recent deaths = yes <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| ongoing = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
| altblurb = <!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb2 = <!-- A second alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb3 = <!-- A third alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb4 = <!-- A fourth alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| sources = [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/15/veteran-journalist-javier-valdez-killed-in-mexico-sinaloa.html] <!-- Include one or more references from verifiable, reliable sources. -->
| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator = 171.118.58.73 <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt = <!-- Add the reason for nominating the item and/or any problems. -->
| sign = [[Special:Contributions/171.118.58.73|171.118.58.73]] ([[User talk:171.118.58.73|talk]]) 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
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).
U.S. intelligence officials had warned Israel not to share sensitive information with President Trump, out of fear that it could be leaked to Russia, and then from Russia to Iran. (Newsweek)
An Akron, Ohio fire kills seven people, including five children and two adults. (Fox News 8)
Health and medicine
A small study shows that two known carcinogens, o-toluidine and 2-naphthylamine, were found in greater amounts in the urine of e-cigarette users than in nonusers. Previous studies of traditional cigarette smokers have identified o-toluidine and 2-naphthylamine as the two most carcinogenic molecules for the bladder. (Medscape Medical News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. "Terminally-ill man dies of old age" is the very embodiment of "inappropriate for a blurb". Unless you're seriously claiming that he passes the "comparable to Mandela in terms of importance" test? ‑ Iridescent21:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I'm a little surprised that he doesn't have his own article, surely GNG enough? An RD listing would be sufficient for this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support for RD only. He doesn't have a standalone article, but there is no question that this is going to be in the news in the UK. He is one of the most infamous man in Britain. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent plus no stand-alone article. No importance outside of being a murderer so I don't think a standalone article is warranted... not entirely familiar with WP:BIO guidelines, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A while back I did propose invoking WP:IAR and creating separate biographies for Brady (and Hindley) to make the Moors murders article more about the crime and less dominated by his biography, but the discussion fizzled out, and this is such a sensitive topic it couldn't be done in fast-time. ‑ Iridescent21:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both blurb and RD. The article itself is not news (it happened in the 1960s), and he is not sufficiently notable to have his own article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but given we have standalone stubs about college basketball coaches, I'm perplexed as to why Brady doesn't warrant his own article by now (Hindley too) given the vast amount of coverage independent to the murders. It's somewhat anomalous that the UK news websites are all leading with Brady's death (and his refusal to expose the location of the last victim), yet Wikipedia doesn't deem him notable enough to have his own article or even note his death as one of the most notorious murderers in British history. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the comment above. This individual is responsible for the death of at least five children. I'm perplexed as to why there's no article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to bait me with that "college basketball coaches" crack again, aren't you? AfD said merge, so no notability, no RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb A despicable creature, yes, but hardly a major world leader in his "field". That being said, given the amount of coverage he got over the past several years, I think he does deserve a standalone article, so an RD is fine if the article is of decent quality. EternalNomad (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was closed at this point by Newyorkbrad with the comment "Closing. No support at all for a blurb. Not eligible for RD as there is no standalone article. Let's not spend more time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" BencherliteTalk23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-close Support for RD per IAR. This is an obvious case of someone who more than merits their own article but for pragmatic reasons had the bio folded into the main story of the murders. Further this is an FA article, which I would think we would want to promote on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening given that there are three calls on WT:ITN for an IAR exception to any apparent need for a separate article (given the circumstances in which the individual article about Brady was folded into an FA-standard article about his crimes) and that half an hour of discussion is insufficient in such circumstances. BencherliteTalk23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD, consensus that this individual should only have his biography within a larger (in this case Featured) article does not preclude it from being posted as a recent death. We don't need to legislate for such unusual cases. Stephen23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support That's a brave decision, and one I agree with - I have long been astonished that Brady and Hindley do not have individual articles - they are probably more notable than 99% of all of our biographical articles. If they were recent murderers of such ridiculous notoriety as these two, the articles would have been created in a flash. For those outside the UK that are not familiar with the case, I would point you towards this - at the time their crimes were seen as so heinous that they were world news, not just in the UK. And this is a Featured Article - we need more stuff like this on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk)00:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support for RD As I note in the separate talk page discussion, the RD criteria are not meant to be exclusionary, just a guarantee of RD posting if they are met. That gives consensus-driven or WP:IAR-type room for notable cases like this when some but not all criteria are met, where we have other policies in place like BLPCRIME that are meant to avoid the glamorizing of serial killers, but yet still would be a notable name and clearly appearing in the news to qualify for a mention on the RD line. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Although it's been updated recently, it looks like the most recent timeline event took place a week ago. Is this still really an "ongoing" event? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those events added to the article? If the answer is "no" my vote will be to remove until such time as you have added them to the article in question. --Jayron3201:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after the attack began a researcher found an effective kill switch, which prevented many new infections, and allowed time to patch systems. This greatly slowed the spread. Cyber security authorities discover new versions that lack the kill switch. (The Hacker News)(Der Spiegel)(Tech Crunch)
U.S. and South Korean officials confirm that North Korea launched a test missile from the west coast city of Kusong. The projectile travelled to the east for 30 minutes and 435 miles (700 km) reaching an altitude of more than 1,245 miles (2,004 km) before landing in the Sea of Japan, 60 miles (97 km) south of the Russian city of Vladivostok. (CBS via MSN)(BBC)(Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support in principle but needs referencing for the awards won (both in the table and the text), and for the list of movies released during his tenure, before it can be posted. ‑ Iridescent21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's verbal shorthand for "only a minor issue that needs addressing not a complete rewrite"; the awards are all high-profile so they shouldn't be difficult to source. (The "movies released during his time in charge" section being unreferenced is less of an issue, given that the dates in question are sourced and we know when each of these moves came out.) ‑ Iridescent22:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Venice Biennale awards its top prize, the Golden Lion for best national participation, to German artist and choreographer Anne Imhoff for her total totalitarianism exhibition "Faust." (The New York Times)(Art News)
A bus carrying tourists crashes near the resort town of Marmaris in southwest Turkey, killing at least 17 people and leaving 13 others injured. (Reuters)
Weak support. It's not the most significant of rail crashes, but hitting a house is unusual and we do appear to be in a slow news period. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – We have been in a slow news period for some time, but IMO that's not sufficient reason to post a comparatively minor event. Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are three basic requirements for every ITN posting (1) evidence that the event is in the news; (2) a new or updated article on the English Wikipedia; (3) a nomination on this page. That we did not post something that fails to meet those three criteria is not a reason to oppose a nomination that does. In the case of the bus crash you mention, no nomination has been made and I can't see any mention on Wikipedia (but I've only had a brief search). Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we don't decide based on how previous incidents were treated, but I still don't see this as particularly significant, and coverage appears to be minimal. (I found only one other story, from AP). Sca (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the criteria, why don't you guys go ahead and !vote on the 2017 Mastung suicide bombing ITN nomination below? Instead of just ignoring what actually fulfills the criteria. If this isn't systemic bias, I don't know what is? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's not that this event only relates to one single country. It's that this event doesn't even resonate in said single country.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too minor to be posted (and we aren't in a slow news period, given the most recent blurbs). If there is some kind of national outcry or lasting impact, then maybe. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor event. Only three people died. Should there even be an article about this? How many tens of thousands of train derailments have there been since trains were invented?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose purely on article quality. Too many unsourced claims. Otherwise Support on the notability of the topic. This is a big deal in religious news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the majority of the [citation needed]'s would be replaced with appropriate sources. I think the article is of good quality and I'm sure these things can be fixed. It's very close to appropriate quality for the main page in my eyes. The impact of this canonization is, as written by those above me, easily high enough for ITN. I do wonder if the blurb is too clickbait-y, thought the altblurb is definitely better than the original in that regard. ~Mable (chat) 16:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, we don't have a "please do not ... ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single [religion]" guideline. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When it affects only one religion, yes. This isn't even one religion - it's a branch of one religion. I am not an expert on Christianity, but I do wonder how many Protestants, Anglicans, etc, care about whatever Pope Francis does. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the same argument against any topic. For example, the Kentucky Derby is a particular event in a particular sport but there are many other sports; the Wannacry worm affects a particular operating system but there are many other operating systems; and so on. The idea that news isn't significant because it's about some particular thing or field is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had second thoughts about this after thinking about it for a bit too. Even though this is internal to one branch of one of the world's many religions, there are roughly 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. That's bigger than the population of most countries and almost certainly bigger than e.g. tennis players (and there are several tennis tournaments on ITNR). However given that canonization is not a one-off event, I think this should be something that should either be on ITNR in which case they're all posted, or not in which case none of them are. King of Hearts said that before I did. I'm striking the oppose and am effectively neutral. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:CREEP and WP:IAR, we not supposed to invent rules to try to cover every situation. The fundamental issues at ITN are whether we have an article of adequate quality about a topic which is in the news in a significant way. I nominated this topic because it appeared on Google's list of top 10 world news. I wasn't sure what it was and found that we had some articles about it. We should not need to get into theology and philosophy to determine that this is enough. ITN is routinely stale because of all such fussy pontification and pettifogging. We should not be making such a big deal of it because people read these articles in large numbers regardless. We therefore have no significant role as gatekeepers and so should just focus on keeping ITN reasonably up-to-date with what the world's media are reporting as top 10 news. Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our article about WikiNews says that it "has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day". ITN has managed to post just 6 articles in the last week. The Kentucky Derby took place 9 days ago and so it's not really still in the news, is it? This is not quality, it's quietus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pretty good fraction of the world's population is Catholic (1/5 I think?) and a canonization is notable, just like said above.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are Catholic canonizations inherently notable enough for ITN? Then propose to add it to ITN/R. Otherwise, I don't see why this is more important than any of the other canonizations that took place. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply based on what King of Hearts has just noted, there have been numerous canonisations during Francis' tenure thusfar, to cherry-pick this is undue. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chipping in: is this particular canonisation receiving widespread media attention? I saw something about it on BBC Online over the weekend, but I'm a news junkie interested in religion so I'm not a good case study. There is a decent argument that it's an unusually media-friendly story, but has it permeated? Incidentally, I'd strongly oppose ITN/R for all canonizations. Most pass entirely un-noticed in "the news" - even to a news junkie interested in religion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!10:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure about whether to support or oppose this, but just mentioning this for relevance since nobody has brought it up. May 13, 1917 is the date of the first reported Marian apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. May 13, 1946 was when the vision was recognized by the Pope. May 13, 2017 is thus exactly the 100th anniversary of the apparition, and I think the timing of the canonization is intentional. 171.118.58.73 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The anniversary was planned, as numerous sources make clear. For example, USA Today, "Today, Fatima attracts between 5 million and 6 million pilgrims a year, making it one of the most popular shrines in the world. The largest numbers come on May 13 — the anniversary of the first apparitions. Pope Francis’ visit will coincide with the 100th anniversary of the apparitions." The fact that it's a big-deal centenary, rather than just some routine church bureaucracy, adds to the weight of the story. Andrew D. (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm torn on actual notability for ITN, but it's currently irrelevant because there are still too many unsourced statements and citation needed tags in there. Black Kite (talk)16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If anything notable is agreed at the forum then nominate that when they agree it, but there are many international forums of all sorts and we don't post the opening ceremonies of any of them as a rule (even the G8 forums only get one blurb). Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd not heard of this and the article and blurb could use work to explain that this is a revival of the Silk Road. But it seems quite a big deal in geopolitical terms as more evidence of China's growing influence. It's certainly in the news -- see the BBC and FT, for example. And it's certainly more significant than the Eurovision Song Contest with its ridiculous yodellers and dancing gorilla. Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is improved - It is top news on BCC. Also good number of countries are involved. However neutrality issue needs to be resolved in one of the articles. And more information needs to be inserted. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's breaking news as, when I found the BBC article, it was only 25 mins old. When I go to a news aggregator like Google, and tell it to list the top world news stories, it currently gives:
Comment Don't want to directly argue about whether this is worth inclusion even though I am nominator but want to comment about uninformed comments made by some who oppose. This is by no means a "minor diplomatic chit-chat" or one of many similar international forums. This is China's biggest long term international project one with the explicit intention of creating an alternative world order and this forum is the first big one to launch this initiative or effort at another world order. So criticisms along the lines that this isn't notable is totally off. I'm disconcerted to see so many people who don't put in the time to research what they are commenting involve themselves in these discussions. Without informed participants this system of discussion to determine news headlines can't work well. Muzzleflash (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article contained this information in detail and more fleshed out, it would be easier to make an informed decision. Otherwise, the current state of the article does this nomination no favors. Not saying you don't have a point, but the quality of the article can go a long way in showing notability of a nominated item. SpencerT♦C13:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded to note significance based on media portrayal. However, I think the fact that a single country's project is attracting 29 heads of government/state (this is not some international organization forum like UN General Assembly or G7) should alone indicate unusual diplomatic importance. Muzzleflash (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable global news. I also wouldn't call it "a minor diplomatic chit-chat". And certainly more notable than sport events. The article needs to be expanded but it's of sufficient quality & length to post. --Fixuture (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the nomination is to post the "opening" of a "conference" in which we have no idea what will happen. Whether that's more or less notable than "sport events" remains to be seen. Even the massive Chinese announcement today barely made the primary news outlets main pages... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"barely made the primary news outlets main pages" -- "Behind China’s $1 Trillion Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order" was a front page article in the New York Times. That's just one example of what looks like a lot of coverage. It's hard to have high quality discussions and a good process when opinions are offered that are plain wrong. Muzzleflash (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now? Are these "proposals" in the news? Is the opening ceremony of this "get-together" in the news? Is there anything else to report besides the Chinese claims of mass spending? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but oppose as written because of the global & international coverage (not so much in the Anglosphere, but that's why we have systemic bias). The current blurb I don't agree with though. We could target Belt and Road Initiative once something happens. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I favor posting actual events, like a Moon or Mars landing, not talks about such plans. I've actually worked onarticles regarding the rail connections between Russia and China, so I find this of interest, but paper is paper, and air is air. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless something happens - ITN has moved away from "big conference opens" or "big trade fair opens" blurbs, towards looking at what actually happens at such events. BencherliteTalk08:23, 15 May 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.
Oppose This event has a poor reputation now and seems less significant than other reality-show song contests such as American Idol, X-Factor and the rest. One might as well report whatever singles are charting but my impression is that that scene is quite moribund now since the death of the 45, Top of the Pops and other 20th century staples. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all the case, then it should be easy for you to propose its removal and get consensus for it. Good luck to you 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would note the irony of you citing the fact that policies are not law to say that ITNR policies/guidelines should be ignored per the policies you cite. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays are a sprawling, illogical mess and I try to avoid getting sucked into that morass per WP:NOTBURO and WP:NOTFORUM. Our key principles are well-summarised at pages like WP:5, WP:TRI and WP:SIMPLE. If people think the Eurovision Song Contest has merit, they should please state their case rather than trying to fork the discussion. As and when we have a conclusion, ITNR can then be updated to reflect it. This is the point of WP:NOTLAW, "written rules themselves do not set accepted practice". Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R is both written and accepted practice for ITN. For foreseeable events, it serves a very good purpose of disassociating the notability discussion (which can be had, at length, at any other time of the year) with the time-sensitive article prep. As discussed here, disputing ITN/R items when they appear at ITN/C is unnecessary and disruptive. --LukeSurltc08:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR is a guideline and so says itself that it is subject to commonsense and exceptions. I have cited multiple policies in support of my position. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as noted by Kiril, the article (as always) is in excellent condition, something Wikipedia should be proud of generally speaking, and this is definitely something our readers will be looking for, so the opposition is completely misplaced. Last year's article drew around 3/4 million hits in two days, so to make claims that this isn't as significant as X-Factor (sic), really aren't relevant. Our readers are looking for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted without bolding Sobral; it is not customary to bold winners of events, whether it's elections, sports, etc. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just bolding the event seems fine to me - that's the story rather than the performer (who in all likelihood will fade back to obscurity in short order). --LukeSurltc09:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as we have generally not posted large scale hacks (eg the 1B Yahoo! account one) and this is a much smaller scale, but at the same time, this was a proactive attack rather than simply data/identify info, so there's a more immediate impact. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support & comment: we didn't post the 1B Yahoo! account one as we posted the earlier 500M Yahoo! breach. Furthermore I don't think both breaches can easily be compared in severity (as of right now) as both attacks' ultimate damages aren't clear. --Fixuture (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now apparent that this in not just an issue affecting the NHS. Lead story in many news sources, article at an acceptable standard. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was actually gonna nominate it myself once I thought the article had reached the accepted standard for ITN. Someone just beat me to it. —Gestrid (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An explosion outside a prominent post office in Rome causes damage to a car; however, no injuries or deaths have been reported. A preliminary investigation indicated it was most likely “a demonstrative act, showing that it could be done”. (The Guardian)
British author J. K. Rowling urges fans to refrain from buying a manuscript written by her, a Harry Potter prequel, which was originally auctioned off for charity but was later stolen. (People)
Law and crime
A judge in Alkmaar, the Netherlands, grants a 12-year-old boy the right to decide for himself on whether or not to continuechemotherapy. The ruling was based on a psychiatric evaluation of the patient as being "capable of a reasonable evaluation of his interests and realizes the consequences — including the negative ones — of his decision." (The Charlotte Observer)
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.
Ely Ould Mohamed Vall has 20 references and made it into the RD line. He was president of Mauritania from 2005-2007. Koivisto has 19 references and even a picture. Not much difference from someone who was on the RD line last week in terms of references. 1779Days (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A notable target and significant no. of deaths. Passes the so-called NYT and BBC test. In the news even in Paraguay. Mfarazbaig (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb, while terrorist attacks in Pakistan are not uncommon, this seems to be an assassination attempt. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything, we should just have an islamist violence ongoing section at this point. We ignore the use of the third largest bomb ever killing almost 100 people (if not more) but post such routine massacres weekly? Damnatio memoriae would be a better policy than immortalizing mass-murderers. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it was three supports plus the nominator when you removed the "ready"tag, which has now been replaced once again, simply delaying the posting by 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 May 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.
Suggest we wait until the end of the season on 21 May. Chelsea will be awarded the trophy on that day, and we will also be able to include the relegated teams in the blurb.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ITN ever posts who's been relegated from the Premier League, or indeed from anywhere else. Waiting for the formal trophy presentation or confirmation of all the relegated teams is unnecessary. BencherliteTalk07:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be posted now if the article is ready. Chelsea have clinched the title--that's the notable news event. I support on notability grounds when the article is ready for posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:01, 14 May 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.
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 Iraqi army's chief of staff, Lt Gen Othman al-Ghanmi, states that his security forces are only days away from completing the operation to recapture Mosul from ISIL. (BBC)
An unknown person or organization leaks a 45-page draft campaign manifesto, described as "the most left-wing," of the Labour Party, that is due for official confirmation tomorrow. (BBC)(CNN)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support more references now added - well-known and respected broadcaster and foreign correspondent in Australia with international connections including both sides of family JennyOz (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment If every entry in that "TV and film credits" section needs an inline citation then that is a Herculean task that I for one I am not going to volunteer for... --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lazy convention is that a bluelink verifies, that, of course, is completely fallacious as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Many of those blue links don't even mention Bayldon let alone have any reliable sources verifying his appearances.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 11 May 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.
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Almost all the sources are about his death, so even though the GNG tag was removed, I'm not convinced it would survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I hadn't thought of that until I read the sources, 95% of which relate to his death. Borderline insignificant and probably AFD-worthy unless proven otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 May 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: More than just the routine change in leadership given the controversy involving Clinton email and Russian involvement in 2016 US election. Of international interest, top story in many UK newspapers for example. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless Trump is impeached over this matter. The head of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President and the official reason isn't nefarious(even if the timing and unsaid reasons might be). I've nevertheless suggested a blurb with "fired" as that's the typical American term. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's big news because of all the conspiracy theories. This is an encyclopedia so I think we should avoid promoting this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is a very minor event, magnified by the sensationalist media. We are not USApedia. Someone lost their job, but who cares? If something significant comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post something about it, but it is too early to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and additionally because this is unsurprising. This guy was on thin ice with every player in the 2016 election; with Clinton for going public about classified emails on her personal server and failing to pass on espionage cases against Trump to the prosecutor, and with Trump for failing to pass on cases for the former and for making ambiguous statements regarding the latter. It's almost like he wanted to get fired.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is currently the lead story on the major English-language news websites outside the US, with unusual levels of coverage (eg, banner headlines, multiple follow up stories, etc). I'd usually not support an item like this given the risk of being US-centric, but the level of coverage is very significant. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the international interest as noted by nomninator and Nick-D (not that this has any chance of being posted as any story with a connection to US politics is shot down by the "USApedia" crowd.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel this way. Please assume good faith. We do post US stories when they seem significant, which does not appear to be the case here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Every analysis agrees this is saber-rattling, and certainly not a "final" result of the prior Russian hacking claims and the Hillary Clinton email controversy alongside other partisan politics. At the same time, while we can factually report on the firing, there is no way under RECENTISM we can write a neutral article on this (everyone is throwing a zillion reasons for the firing into the ring), which is why we are exactly not a newspaper for this very reason, and why we have to look past "its front page headlines in every newspaper" for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the wording on the blurb ("sacked") or the alternative blurb ("fired") could easily be understood if that person reads English as a secondary, or even tertiary language. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And added another as while I don't think this should be posted, a significant part of this story is that this was Trump's decision. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Justice Department's recommendation. There's too much nuance to just attribute this firing to Trump's whim.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be clear that this came from the executive branch; as I understand it, Congress through checks & balances can also impeach/remove the FBI director. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been the lead story on the television (local & national) news, & has been widely considered not only to be a surprise but to have ominous timing as this firing came as Comey was leading an investigation into Trump/Russian connections. (Note how the letter firing Comey mentions the former head of the FBI denied Trump did anything wrong three times. The lady protesteth too much.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The latest in the endless series of "Trump did..." nominations. And again, we don't post ordinary political stories from any country other than elections. If he is impeached I think that would have to be posted, but as of right now there is not even a credible claim that he has done anything illegal. I would point out that we avoided posts about the former South Korean President's troubles until she was actually impeached. What we have here is a media firestorm, largely manufactured by a nakedly hostile press. And I say that as someone who detests Donald Trump and (almost) everything he represents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you are downplaying the significance of this. The FBI director being fired whilst actively investigating the US President is unprecedented. It is not an ordinary political story, nor is it manufactured by the media.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This event is getting widespread coverage, but it doesn't pack the significance requisite for ITN, and outside the U.S. this story will fade quickly. (For some Americans of a certain age, it does smack of 'Trick' Nixon's infamous firing of Archibald Cox (1973), which led to his downfall, but the circumstances are quite different.) Suggest close. Sca (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest we WP:SNOW close this. It's an internal political post with no major international consequences. Yes it's making headlines, but we can't go posting blurbs for every comparable post around the world. Modest Geniustalk16:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is obviously a pivotal moment in the Trump story, reminiscent of Nixons Saturday Night Massacre. This is the top story of my local non-US media. I have sympathy for the people who say we should not post *everything* from internal US politics, but this is the make-or-break point, and we should post this. Thue (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To draw comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre is pure partisanship. For one thing, it's not even the same thing. An FBI director firing is not unprecedented; Bill Clinton did this in 1992.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is not under investigation now, per the letter. Or are you suggesting Trump lied? Can't imagine. *snicker*--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ITN is becoming one of the worst WP:IDLI and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS venues on the encyclopedia these days. I hear the thing about us not being a celebrity news ticker, and the value in covering less well known stories from around the world, but when something hits the headlines of all the major outlets around the world, and is new and unexpected, we should generally always be posting it. — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: There are primarily two reasons that this is not an appropriate story to post. First is that it is the type of story that we as an encyclopedia are not equipped to or don't cover well in the immediate time frame due to issues outlined at WP:RECENTISM. It is a fact he was removed, and we have brief reasoning in the dismissal letter, but every news and political analysis is throwing speculation at the true reason, which is something that, if we ever know, it won't be for months or years from this point. As such, we have to be aware of the media spectacle on this situation and how that impacts neutrality and permanence of information from an encyclopedic view. Second is that we really strive to avoid posting the same topic multiple times over, and this is just a long string of stories tied to Trump's election. We expect many many more, and this is a case of we must be necessarily selective to avoid ITN becoming the Trump-ticker. If this were to follow the pattern set by Nixon, then the larger story would be the potential impeachment proceedings, which clearly is much more of a world-changing event. But we don't know that, CRYSTALBALL and all. Hence its better not to focus on a midpoint of unknown consequences that has a very limited effect on the world; coupled with the first point about RECENTISM, we need to stay out of this day-to-day. If you want news, don't use Wikipedia for it. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't usually post government managers being fired. This is not even a cabinet-level post, so I do not believe it reaches the significance level required for an ITN blurb. We would, of course, post a successful impeachment if it comes to that. Mamyles (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose seems unconsidered. This is Trump firing the person investigating Trump, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Yout "oppose" only cites "government managers being fired", which suggests you are entirely missing the point. Thue (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a disingenuous objection. Were the head of MI6 or the Russian Federal Security Service fired without warning in the middle of investigating a high-level government official, that would make international news, even here in the rather insular USA. And last time a high-level official was fired during a similar investigation was during Watergate, which led the impeachment & resignation of the US President. This is a significant step towards that event. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. Mamyles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting any one of the proposed blurbs, which only mentions the FBI firing but not that accusation, is only telling half of the story. And it would be premature and possibly a BLP violation to accuse the president of corruption in a blurb, given that no one has been charged. Mamyles (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After reading the other comments here and watching the press briefing and the justifications of the firing I really don't see the legitimacy of the conspiracy that would make this event worth posting.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 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.
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.
You mean the seven citation needed tags and specifically marked weasel words aren't worthy of opposition? You're getting soft ;) Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is gone, but the article is clearly in no state to be posted. This is one of those I'd have a go at, but it's past midnight here - sorry. Black Kite (talk)23:11, 10 May 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.
Comment The "Registered candidates" section needs referencing and it will need some prose about the results when they are in (the polls don't close until 11:00 UTC). The "Nominations" section would benefit from improved formatting and some prose in the "Opinion polling" section would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Official results still coming in, but reported exit polls are showing that, as expected, Moon has won by a substantial margin. I've suggested a blurb. --LukeSurltc13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that each "Candidate" subsection needs expansion for this, at least a paragraph or two establishing a short BG on the candidate and the platform/party/whatever they ran under. Just supplying a picture looks like a lack of effort here. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will note again: while this is ITNR and the results are well sourced and established, there is very little about the candidates or the issues (outside of this resulting from the impeachment). Stats are great, but we need context too. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the recent international coverage of North Korean activities and the impeachment of South Korea's previous incumbent, I think this is appropriate. From what I see, the article looks substantial enough as well. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Included image is now nominated for deletion on Commons, as cropped from an image that belongs to Yonhap and is not freely licensed. Reventtalk23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral commission has confirmed the result (CNN). There are numbers in the results table in the article, but no reference for these. CNN cite their two-decimal place percentages to the National Election Commission but it doesn't look like these numbers have been published yet on the English language Electoral Commission site.
Also the article suffers from the "opinion polling bloat" (a term I've just coined) that afflicts many election articles. It contains inordinate quantities of data on opinion polls, which may have been interesting for persons trying to prognosticate the result over the past few months, but are much less interesting now the actual results are in. Much of this could be split off into a new article or even simply removed. --LukeSurltc09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: Sorry, but due to a request made to me by someone else to look at it, that image is now also at DR. There CC-0 license is not evidenced by the source of the image, and appears invalid. Reventtalk22:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is certainly notable, especially as today's e-mail newsletter from the Council on Foreign Relations suggests he is 'Open to Visiting Pyongyang,' which could change many things. But Moon Jae-in has too many "citation needed" tags for now. Feel free to ping me when they have been fixed, and I will probably support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support for alternate blurb, which is IMO more readable. High profile election on the heels of a presidential scandal and under the shadow of (yearly) nuclear threats from the north. Conditional on others deeming the article worthy of linking, though it seems ok to me. ansh66605:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an important election with enormous consequences for the world. I don't understand why this wasn't on the front page ages ago. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a national election for a head of state and satisfies WP:ITN/R requirement. I updated the summary and the results sections to make the information more reflective of the present status including the final vote tally. I will try to update the vote tallies for candidates from 'minor parties' over next few hours, but I believe this page is of satisfactory status to go onto the front page. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that most of "citation needed" tag on [Moon Jae-in]] page have been addressed. The official results will likely take weeks or longer to be updated on English version of the electoral commission website; if desired we can organize a full breakdown of results from the Korean version of the electoral commission website. I see that the opinion poll section has already been tied up, thanks to User:LukeSurl. There are paragraphs for major parties' primaries including the credentials of the candidates that ran in the primaries; I arranged the list of the candidates in these primaries sections to make them easier to read. I would argue that the detailed information regarding the candidates can be deferred to the pages dedicated to these individuals. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, election article seems good to go but the article on Moon himself is still littered with tags. Any chance that native Korean speakers/editors might be able to help resolve some of these issues? Mélencron (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with the syntax of the alt blurb (so it doesn't look just like the French blurb right under it), but without his party as I don't think it is typically included for presidential election postings. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pluses - wide international coverage, likely lasting impact thanks to the strong religious overtones. Negatives - not a head of state, and he's said he will appeal so sentence is not final. Still, given that it's in the news now, and the fact that the religious overtones are not going away, I think we should post this now. Banedon (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well-covered, encyclopedic, and an actually well-written and -referenced BLP. There's an article for November 2016 Jakarta protests. It might have a non-bold place in the blurb. That this has happened in the nominally secular Indonesia has given this a special kind of saliency.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An "appeal" is ex post facto in Indonesia. Subject is in custody and serving the sentence as of now. This isn't a case where he gets to lounge around on leave and groups of lawyers have at it; he's been sentenced and is serving that right now.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I didn't get a sense of the larger international context from reading the article on him. Also just removed some POV language, which isn't a deal breaker, but is a concern. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the lead paragraph is "Basuki is recognized to be a clean politician, with a strong stance against corruption and his straight-talking style" - sourced to ... an Australian student newspaper. Large amounts of poor English and grammar. "Awards and Achievements section" mostly unsourced. A number of other statements unsourced too. In no way fit to be linked at the Main Page. Black Kite (talk)18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this is simply an individual being found guilty of a crime which is written into law in his country. The longest sentence he could have received was five years. This is unremarkable, perhaps another DYK possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It needs some general cleanup and a little more sourcing. However this is significant news. Appeals are almost routine in major criminal cases and have never stopped us from posting convictions in the past. If the article can be brought up to scratch this should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it's very tragic that he has to go to jail for this, I'm not convinced that this is internationally-significant enough for a ITN blurb. I guess the reason it's in the news is the sensational aspect of a Muslim country jailing a Christian governor for blasphemy.. but that's not good enough for Wikipedia's ITN. He's a governor, not a head of state, and I'm sure more than a few governors are being convicted around the world. He's also a lame duck at his point, having lost the election and with a few months before his term ends. And in the grand scheme of things two years—while really tragic—is a relatively short prison term (I hope I don't sound cold-hearted when saying that!). HaEr48 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pluses: Far reaching implications for the history of our own species, even our own DNA. Minuses: the article could use some more details on the recent findings and edits to account for the update. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fascinating discovery, and the article gives a pretty good overview. The researchers used six different methods to establish the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Okay, so you guys never listen. This "news" is of a previous scientific dating being disputed. What makes you think this new date is correct? Scientists reported the previous date, and you would have breathlessly said, "fascinating", "interesting discovery. definitely for ITN" like little parrots. This story is an embarrassment to science. Putting it on the Front Page of Wikipedia is likely to turn out to be an embarrassment too. Keep in mind that the original discovery was posted to ITN in 2015. Abductive (reasoning) 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I can see his point. This is only a new dating, and only "suggests" coexistence with homo sap - it doesn't look like front page news to me. Black Kite (talk)23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first and only dating of Homo naledi. Previously, what we had were just age estimates based on the morphology of the fossils. The dating just reported was obtained using 5 different techniques carried out in multiple laboratories, with all the results being fairly consistent. The most critical datings were based on blind duplicate samples dated in different labs. It doesn't represent an ideal situation with easily datable volcanic deposits or coexisting fauna, but it is definitely not "extremely sketchy". WolfmanSF (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've found, this is the first time the actual team doing the research has published their dating results in serious academic journals. I'm not sure what previous dating you are referring to... maybe you can give a reference because the research team has specifically stated that they've taken this many years to publish their results because they wanted to be extremely thorough. Regardless, thanks for everyone's consideration. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose per Abductive. This is a debate that will not be settled over night, and has not been settled by this one paper. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extensive and careful work by multiple labs that has gone into the reported dating, there is little likelihood of the general conclusion being greatly modified by future reports. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fascinating finding because it shows an archaic-looking small-brained Homo species coexisting with much more modern human relatives and possibly modern human ancestors as recently as a quarter of a million years ago, not long before the time our own species first appeared. How they thus coexisted is a mystery. It indicates the diversity of recent hominins is considerably greater than most suspected. The only other indication we have of such a small-brained Homo species being alive so recently is the finding of Homo floresiensis in Indonesia, and these creatures went extinct when modern humans arrived, so there is no indication of prolonged coexistence in that case. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As far as I can tell, Abductive is just wrong here. This is the first time any physically derived date for these samples has been published. Previously, there had been speculation based on their anatomical resemblance to other species that these samples were likely to be a couple million years old, but there was no measured date to support or refute that assertion. Now that we actually have information about their age, the result is surprising and important for what it suggests about the history of early human relatives in Africa. As with any science, it is possible the authors may be wrong, but I don't see that as reason to withhold this. The evidence presented is reasonable, credible, and not disputed by any similar measurements. As important, the article seems to be in good shape and this seems like a story that would be of interest to ITN readers. Dragons flight (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for blurb. Very significant discovery and the article is in good shape (although it probably needs to be expanded further). This is the type of notable global news that this section is made for. --Fixuture (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did expand it a bit. To summarize, the arguments of the two opposing votes reflect a misunderstanding of the situation. The newly reported dates are the very first dates reported for this fossil find and there is no major controversy around them. The late dates for such a small-brained member of our genus represent a truly stunning finding that is "at odds with previous thinking about human evolution." WolfmanSF (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. It's a featured article, plus the tunnel is one used to store radioactive plutonium, a leak of which is not reported often. Admittedly, it's not a very big spill. 183.184.157.140 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb. It's a FA, but would personally like to see more news references and a more detailed update on this event in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite. Yes, they had to rush to take steps to fill in the collapse and minimize radioactivity leakage, but as it was already a site isolated from the public, it posed very little threat to anyone beyond workers already there and who were evacuated immediately. A cautionary tale but not a major event. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 May 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)
