**Added altblurb. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup> 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
**Added altblurb. [[User:Brandmeister|Brandmeister]]<sup>[[User talk:Brandmeister|talk]]</sup> 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' very interesting (although this technique is not going to raise the dead, mend broken coffee cups, or send us back to yesterday so we can make a killing on today's stock markets), plus it's making the news. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' very interesting (although this technique is not going to raise the dead, mend broken coffee cups, or send us back to yesterday so we can make a killing on today's stock markets), plus it's making the news. [[User:Banedon|Banedon]] ([[User talk:Banedon|talk]]) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' not the top story in any of the major media outlets, will likely be forgotten within the next few days. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B058:9A84:907C:F100:31A5:93DE|2600:1015:B058:9A84:907C:F100:31A5:93DE]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B058:9A84:907C:F100:31A5:93DE|talk]]) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
==== Suzano Massacre ====
==== Suzano Massacre ====
Revision as of 23:14, 13 March 2019
Page for discussions regarding potential items for "Ign the news"
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.
Tropical Storm Trami
Tropical Storm Trami(satellite image shown) leaves more than 120 people dead in the Philippines.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The SOHR reports that Syrian government shelling and Russian air strikes occur in several areas in Idlib province, in the first such raids since a September truce deal, killing at least 15 civilians including eight children and wounding around 60. (TRT World)(Al Jazeera)
Canada and the United States ground all Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft and ban the jet from their airspace until further notice. It is now effectively grounded worldwide, with no operators remaining unaffected by grounding orders. (CBC)(BBC News)(CNN)
An avalanche on Ben Nevis kills two French nationals and a Swiss national. A fourth climber is injured and is receiving treatment at a hospital in Glasgow. (BBC News)
Health and environment
At least 111 schools in Malaysia are shut down following the treatment of 200 children, staff, and others being poisoned. Authorities suspect that a chemical dump in the southern state of Johor is responsible for the sudden illnesses. (Reuters)(CNBC)
Ali Bashar confesses in court in Germany to killing teenager Susanna Feldmann. Bashar is a failed asylum seeker from Iraq. The case prompted national debate and a pledge by Angela Merkel to call for improvements to the deportation system in Germany. Counterterror police traveled to Iraq in order to return him to Germany, as he had already been deported when he was identified in connection to the murder; Iraq has no extradition treaty with Germany. (BBC News)
Two former military police officers are arrested in Brazil for the murders of Marielle Franco and her driver Anderson Gomes. One of the suspects was arrested at home, in a Rio de Janeiro gated community where PresidentJair Bolsonaro also resides. Franco was born in a Riofavela and became a politician and activist against violence in the slums, which are often controlled by paramilitary groups. Her assassination prompted widespread protests. (The Guardian)
Two men, aged 17 and 25 years, attack a school in the Brazilian city of Suzano, São Paulo, with a revolver and a knife, killing eight and wounding 23 people, among students and staff. The two shooters committed suicideafter the attack. Police have found a crossbow, Molotov cocktails and a "suitcase with wires" at the scene. (G1)
Minutes after Manafort is sentenced in federal court, New York state prosecutors announce 16 criminal charges against him related to mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records. (CNBC)
Mexican authorities announce a national search operation is underway after revealing masked gunmen with a list of names stormed a bus on March 7 as it was traveling along a highway that connects the town of San Fernando with the city of Reynosa. The perpetrators kidnapped 19 people and they have not been seen since. (KTLA)
The UK's parliament votes against a no-deal Brexit. This greatly increases the chance of a delayed Brexit, to be voted on Thursday, as well as opening the door to the possibility of a second referendum. (CBC)
Not really a new nomination, but as commented in the previous one, there was a suggest about the Boeing MAx 8 being grounded in response to the incident. Now, there was a valid concern that this was a few countries and not Boeing grounding them or some international organization. Just now, Trump says the FAA with agreement with Boeing are ordering all Boeing Max 8 + 9 planes grounded, which, between all the other countries with these still in the air, effectively grounds the entire fleet. [1]. I think that satisfies the concern of the previous nom, in that now it is appropriate to mention this as a response to the crash. --Masem (t) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT my concerns are now by-the-by since the grounding has the formal backing of several large aviation authorities, albeit not Boeing themselves. Much more substantive than a few airlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb ... since the EU, the U.S. (on Trump's order) and Canada have joined countries grounding the 737-Max 8. It's still only a precaution, but in terms of impact it's significant. – Sca (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT blurb only No reason to focus on U.S. and EU alone when the PRC (also home to two of the top 10 airlines by revenue) preceded them. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality of the new target article. Support ALT blurb only, in principle. I do not mind most of the tables and later sections. But the section on "Regulatory response" must be changed to prose before we proceed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the airlines section could be a bit of prose, I do not agree that the regulatory agencies should be converted: these are all basically "X grounded the planes on date" form which would get extremely burdensome in prose (that's close to proseline problems). --Masem (t) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Context and nuance is lost in a bulleted list. It is not as difficult as you say: "China was the first to ground MAX 8 on ... X, Y, Z quickly followed suit on the same day. A few hours later, A, B, C, annouced similar decisions. The following day.... E, F, E also announced similar measures. US, UK, and Vietnam? were the only remaining. On March 12, the United States....". Otherwise, the US being a hold-out is crucial information included in the lead that is not treated in the body. I like rALT2--- Coffeeandcrumbs22:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: While the estimated probability for an electron and the actual time for it are small, the experiment was published in Nature and received significant coverage. Brandmeistertalk17:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only on article quality grounds. The target article requires an update to answer the question: "why are posting today?" The article also requires an upgrade in referencing. I will try to help this evening when I have time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs19:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting (although this technique is not going to raise the dead, mend broken coffee cups, or send us back to yesterday so we can make a killing on today's stock markets), plus it's making the news. Banedon (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article has just been created and therefore is a stub with several issues. The event just happened a few hours ago, so many information are still unknown. It's a very rare event in Brazil and very significative too. SirEdimon (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved back, because a quick search will show you that it's called the Suzano massacre in Portuguese sources and the Suzano shooting in English sources; the school name is barely mentioned in most sources of any language. Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(quick search) yes, that is widely used. My one issue is a nitpicky thing - Brazil is a BIG country, and Suzano is a city of something like 300,000 already: it would be a little Western-centric (non-specific) to refer to it by the country, especially since most major English news sources at least narrow it down to Sao Paulo. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why there is no room. That said, if we must choose... the battle is likely to be far more consequential than the protests in Algeria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove not headline news anymore (never really was) and it's getting one update a day with the daily body count. This battle is going to rage on forever. Blurb it when ISIL gives up. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's still seeing coverage. All the things that are on ongoing are going to continue for a while, so that's not a reason to remove. Keep it there and blurb it when it's done. Banedon (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Nationwide blackout that so far is six days long. 26 deaths attributed to the blackout according to last estimate. Jamez42 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Biggest blackout in Venezuelan history - close to nobody has any water or power - and almost definitely not directly part of the crisis already in ongoing before anyone mentions that. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because a blackout is caused by political disputes, definitely not a country that hasn't funded its electrical infrastructure for 5 years. Did you not read my comment? Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a news story, this is the longest and largest blackout in Latin America, not only in Venezuela, and it is ongoing, as well as having international coverage. I was thinking about suggesting, if possible and if other editors agree, with replacing the presidential crisis article with this. It can be discussed if the former article should be restored afterwards. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the presidential crisis, though? More than one thing can be ongoing in the same country at once. Surprising, I know. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if other editors consider it convenient. I would love that both articles are included, but others may not see it practical, which is why I see the replacement as a hypothetical solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is not comprehensive. What is the affected region (article says "most") and what is the cause ("sabotage" of what? crumbling what?). If this does get posted it should be as a one-off blurb not another Venezuela themed ongoing entry --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either 22 or 18 states, out of 23, depending on who you listen to; and there was an entire section on Cause at the time you posted that comment. Perhaps it would be better as a blurb, but when? When it's over? Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to ask people from every state of a country without electricity or phone service? Or get the politicians to agree how bad it is? Getting accurate news out of official Venezuelan sources is hard at the best of times, putting up all the information we know is at least close and accurate. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, tarticle needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Other than bumping the death toll, what pertinent info could be added Thursday, Friday...? GreatCaesarsGhost18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per power~enwiki. This is clearly seeing ongoing coverage so it's a viable item, but we already have another entry on the same topic. One or the other - if we post this, we should remove the other entry about the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK, would you remove Brexit to add it to ongoing? No, no you wouldn't. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK with no connections to anything else, would I support it for ongoing? No, I wouldn't. This is only a potential item because it's tied to the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have suggested it for a blurb, realistically. But there is the energy crisis in Venezuela (there's a lot of crises) and it could go on for a long time. If the UK had a week-long complete blackout, imagine. It would already be up there. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, as long as the blackout is tied to the presidential crisis, I think there should only be one item. In the same way if the UK had a week-long blackout and the government blames "anti-Brexit activists" + news articles refer to it as such, that should not be posted as a separate item from the main Brexit article. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Banedon: I would say that the presidential crisis is tied to the blackout, if you catch my meaning. The dispute has been ongoing for two months and most of its important events have happened: Maduro's inauguration, Guaido's oath, recognition by other countries, US sanctions and the shipping of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, in a week a lot has happened with the blackout: Pinging @GreatCaesarsGhost:, deaths, lootings, shortages of food as well as water and fuel supplies, etc. If you ask me, I think the presidential crisis is on a second level now.--Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see there's a lot of disagreements here. Today I started a lootings section in the Spanish Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, one estimate of the economic losses was over $700 million. I invite anyone who wants to, for the time being, to translate while I include other sections, and if it seen better, I could nominate a blurb. In that case, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination of the option that wasn't agreed on. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In an annual report, the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service warns that Russia will "very likely" try to intervene in European parliamentary elections this May to undermine unity within the European Union "by sowing disorder and disbelief" within and between the 28 European Union member states. (Sky News)
A college admission scheme across the United States results in the indictment of over 50 people including athletic coaches, CEOs, and two Hollywood actresses, accused of using bribery and fraud in order to cheat their children into universities such as Yale and Stanford. (CNN)(Reuters)
CardinalGeorge Pell, the most senior official of the Catholic Church to be convicted of sexual abuse to date, is sentenced to six years in prison for the sexual assault of two children in the late 1990s. (CNN)
It is reported that CaliforniaGovernorGavin Newsom will sign an executive order placing a moratorium on the death penalty for all 737 inmates on California's death row, ensuring that no executions will take place while he is governor. (Los Angeles Daily News)
Prominent Venezuelan journalist Luis Carlos Díaz is released after being taken by SEBIN, the national intelligence service, on Monday; he has been ordered not to speak of his time in detention or publish anything. (The Guardian)
The UK's parliament rejects Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal by 149 votes. A vote for leaving the European Union without a deal is scheduled for the thirteenth of March. If Parliament rejects the decision to leave with no deal, the UK could request its withdrawal from the EU be postponed with the unanimous consent of the other 27 member states. (The New York Times)
Support It's clear that those protests are going to change the Algerian politicis after the resignation of Bouteflika to continue in office. He can be considerated the last "authoritarian" leaders of Magreb countries after the falling of Mubarak, Gaddaffi and Ben Ali. It's seems that Algeria is going to open a new era...maybe. (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but no significant long term impact; furthermore, indictments generally aren't posted at ITN, and sentencing for all of those indicted (if they indeed end up being sentenced) would likely occur at a variety of different times. Seems like something better suited for DYK. SpencerT•C04:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are zillions of similar bribery scandals in many countries of the world. I'd have even questioned its notability had it happened in one of the least corrupted countries such like New Zealand or Finland.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support doomed I know but it's in the news, the article is ok, and the fact that it's a coordinated scheme involving numerous top ranking universities in a country not known for this kind of corruption is what makes it interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reporting on this has been so lurid, we have the opportunity to provide real value by organizing the facts in an encyclopedic manner. The broader topic of college admissions (and its seedy underbelly) has global interest. GreatCaesarsGhost11:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not really notable outside USA. In Spain we also had that kind of scandals involving high-class politicians, it is happening everywhere. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 50 high profile people are going to jail over this... how is this not news?! I don’t care if this is the plot of The Perfect Score or a hypothetical Shameless episode. How much more significant coverage does a story need? NY Times. LA Times. Washington Post. NBC. CNN. USA Today. Fox News. Vanity Fair. Even ESPN.... Trillfendi (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I jumped the gun there; I saw some article that people were facing 3 years in jail if convicted in a trial. The justice system should play out. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They've been charged, but not convicted. Unless we were talking extremely high level political figures involved with this, this can wait until the conviction of the ringleader. --Masem (t) 14:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still a scandal whether they get convicted or not. Since there's nobody named, I don't think the legal position has too much to do with it. Scandals are big whatever the weight behind it. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant about the political side is that we'd likely post if this was a figure like the president, vice-president, speaker of the house, or a Supreme Court justice, as that's affecting the way the country is ruled. As we are talking mostly celebrities and business people in this, that doesn't affect the larger scale, so we should not post the arrests, but wait for conviction. --Masem (t) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. But I think even if there were no arrests let alone convictions, it would still be making news right now, no? There's a chance that by the time any actual convictions happen, the scandal will be over, and I wouldn't support posting based on old news. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think power-enwiki means we shouldn't be putting an item about criminal charges against a notable person on the Main Page (unless, I would except, the person is a head of state or government or some large NGO, per Masem above). Articles are a different thing; major criminal charges against a notable person are notable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Why did you pick on me for this when quite a few other people posted this exact rationale for their opposes without drawing your comments? What makes me so special? Hmm ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This was removed in January, but it's once again in the news, especially after the latest vote. One can practically guarantee that there'll be more news about this in the upcoming days, so nominating for ongoing. Banedon (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea, because people are already interested in the matter now, and the 2 votes will likely leave things as unclear as ever (short or long delay, for what purpose, etc), and our blurb is liable to mislead our readers: for instance we are quite likely to give them the impression that Brexit has been postponed, only to embarrassingly discover 2 weeks later that it hasn't, either because one of the EU 27 vetoes the postponement, or because British law (which currently mandates Brexit on March 29) isn't amended on time, via devices such as filibusters and clever time-wasting amendments in the Commons and/or the Lords, etc ... Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'd blurb that parliament voted to ask for an extension. Nothing official happens until the EU votes to grant it or not, so ongoing seems a bit embarrassing for a process that will have stalled again after Thursday. I'll put my blurb proposal up for a meaningful vote, frankly it's the best deal possible. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There'll be plenty of news regarding this theme during the coming days. I think we can post it as "ongoing" and, in the future, eventually post the outcome as a blurb.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing - Support Ongoing on notability, at least in principle. I'll leave others to decide on quality. But it's not entirely clear whether this is the right target article, as most of the new info seems to be going into Meaningful vote (which is currently the subject of a name change discussion), and incidentally that was why Brexit (NOT Brexit negotiations) got removed from ongoing in January (perhaps wrongly, at least in my view, as I unsuccessfully argued at the time, tho in the end I decided not to bother to open a new nomination of Meaningful vote for Ongoing at the time). I've now wikilinked Brexit negotiations to Meaningful vote (which was previously only wikilinked from Brexit), and maybe that will help a bit. Meanwhile I've also explained above why I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing in general, but keeping in mind that the 29th(?) is the deadline, we may want to wait for week or two week point. Not that the vote today is not a significant point, but yes, now we seem to be in rush mode on this. --Masem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing this is going to run and run, at least for the next few days. It's obviously of high importance to hundreds of millions of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support This is a crisis. A large crisis. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey crisis with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying "This Is a Large Crisis". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support as an American. I considered nominating this last night, but preferred to let the British editors endorse it first. The votes this week (and up through the scheduled exit date later this month) will be news. This is now an active issue that should be on Ongoing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's posted already, with nearly universal support, I'm not sure what "post-posting support" is adding at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shares of Boeing lose roughly 9 percent after one of its best-selling planes, the Boeing 737 MAX jet, saw its second deadly crash in less than five months. (CNBC)
Partially-recognized Venezuelan Acting President Juan Guaidó says the country has "truly collapsed already", while accusing the Nicolás Maduro-led government of murdering 17 people during the ongoing nationwide power blackout. (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.
Nominator's comments: Brazilian football legend. The article is in bad shape, but I intend to improve it in the next few hours. --SirEdimon (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2019 (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.
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: First nominated by Count Iblis. Improved by me from a stub to a start class article with everything sourced. One of America’s finest and most remarkable cyclists (as per Guardian). Died on 8 March, but death reported on 10 March DBigXrayᗙ11:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The article could be expanded, as coverage has been widespread [2][3], but even as is it's worth RD due to the unusual circumstances. – Sca (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2019 (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.
I personally admire such sport achievements and find it highly convenient to have them as a fine encyclopedic material on the main page. We posted Sachin Tendulkar's 100th cricket century in March 2012 and Magnus Carlsen's all-time record-breaking FIDE rating in January 2013, so why not give this the same accolade and refresh the ITN section with something really interesting? That's primarily why I decided to go for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose individual records outside of the most exceptional circumstances (Jack's majors, Hank's HRs). I also find it conspicuous how many of the leaders are active. Implies the century is easier to get that it used to be. GreatCaesarsGhost11:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, it may just imply that players are getting better. Similar improvements happen in other sports such as athletics, tho quite likely they may sometimes be drug-assisted. But you're probably right about snooker, because there are more professional events now (a century may still be as difficult, but there are now more opportunities to try to get one). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everybody else. Apart from anything else, centuries in snooker are normally an irrelevant sideshow - (unlike centuries in cricket, for instance) it normally makes no difference to the match result whether your break ends around 90 or goes on to 100 and more. Indeed deliberately missing a pot around 90 may actually help you win by ensuring you waste less energy, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2019 (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.
The 737 MAX 8 "crisis" article is tagged for deletion, but if it passes AFD and is expanded, go ahead and start a new ITN nom for it. No need to further disrupt the main page with this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2019 (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: Breaking news. Casualties reported amongst 157 on board. Brand new aircraft (4 mo old). Feel free to update blurb as details become known Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a lousy prose writer but the whole "aircraft" section makes the MAX 8 sound like a flying death trap. "second fatal crash" ... "Only 350". It needs to be made more neutral. Unlike our usual disaster stubs, if there is an issue with the 737 this is actually interesting and significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit from Flight International backing up worries that there may be an issue. Both 737 MAXs were lost shortly after take-off. No evidence atm that there is a link, but there is certainly speculation that there may be a link. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think given the hot water Boeing is in over this, we may want to modify the blurb slightly, something like "China and others halt Boeing 737 Max 8 flights after the second fatal crash of one, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, killed all 157 people aboard." --Masem (t) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the groundings may apply to all 737 MAX, not just the MAX 8 variant. Not clear that only the MAX 8 is affected, although it was involved in the two crashes. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm reading, some nations/airlines are grounding all MAX series, but the main reaction has been to ground just the MAX 8 due to the similarities with Lion Air (when it happened, how it crashed, etc.). I think for brevity that we just have to say "grounded the Max 8 planes", and not worry about the edge cases. --Masem (t) 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Lion Air and the Ethopian air crashes have been preliminarily tied to the MCAS system which is a new feature on the MAX 8. But that's the preliminarily findings, nothing conclusive. We do now have an article on 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis which we might want to link. --Masem (t) 20:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can somebody (User:Mjroots?) please pull the current blurb and rephrase it to (something like) this: "All 157 people on board are killed as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes shortly after take-off. Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610 crash. The current blurb is problematic in all sorts of ways. The crash itself is obviously the primary focus of the story but the way the current blurb written gives the reader the impression that the grounding of the jets is the main part of the story - which is clearly isn't. Secondly there's no mention of the Indonesian crash which provides the backstory to all of this; without mentioning the context the reader is going wonder why there was/is such a strong reaction to the crash. And finally there is the problem of bias/lack of proportionality/just bad judgment here, the blurb is leading off with China when Ethiopia (and for that matter Indonesia) is the country that is most affected by the crash. I am okay with mentioning other countries that grounded the plane but it just doesn't make sense to lead off that part of the blurb with any country other than Ethiopia (which it should also be noted was the first country to ground the plane). Syopsis (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, by linking to the Boeing Max 8 Crisis article, the context of why planes are being grounded is established, as it mentions the Lion Air crash there. Secondly, we need to stay concise in the text blurb. The fact that a more concise blurb seems to delegate the "focus" to the back half of a sentence, is not really a concern. We're not "burying the lede" to speak. --Masem (t) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original posted hook should be restored. We should not (as noted above) apply our own personal opinion of direct causality between this singular incident and the suspension of aircraft. There's too much backstory for us to make that postulation on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Rambling Man The backstory is the Indonesia crash, but the problem is that isn't even mentioned in the current blurb. That said, we can both agree it just has to go as it has got all sorts of problem with it. Syopsis (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fully commensurate with the backstory, which is why I stated clearly that rewriting and posting this blurb as it had been was patent original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talk The current blurb is multi-sentence it's almost 3 sentences long. That said I propose this blurb tell me if this would work: "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes with no survivors; Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610. Syopsis (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and actual fact, just a handful have grounded it, many many other airlines haven't. If Boeing themselves recommended grounding it, I'd be up for an adjusted blurb, but they haven't and right now given more haven't grounded than have, it's not really that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is widespread coverage of the grounding, it's almost as important as the crash itself. And fwiw since you are talking about Boeing there's already been financial ramifications for copmpany as a result of this (and the Indonesian) crash. Syopsis (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, goes without saying, but the point here is that we have far more airlines continuing to the fly the aircraft type than grounding it. And Boeing saying pretty much nothing. Once again, if Boeing ground them, I'm all in for a blurb change. Until then, the handful of airlines who have grounded it just amounts to caution and risk aversion with (currently) no evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case there's no point in continuing this debate. The numbers thing is irrelevant the main point is we go by what the news sources are saying and a big part of the focus is now on the reaction to the crash - such as the countries/airlines that have grounded the plane. Syopsis (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and indeed that completely trivialises the fact that the main story here is the death of more than 150 people. Subsequent corporate actions are interesting, but trivial in comparison. If Boeing say there's a design flaw which is directly responsible, I'm all ears. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no OR in the claims that the grounding of the MAX 8 is due to this crash. Ethiopian Airlines clearly announced their grounding as a result of the crash [5], for example. And most RSes have clearly made the connection for us that groundings were ordered due to the crash. --Masem (t) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the reason for grounding after multiple crashes of the same type of aircraft usually depends on more than just one crash. That is most certainly the case here. The grounding is as a result of multiple incidents. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb wasn't stating the reason, it was stating that the grounding was ordered after the crash, which is factually true, requiring no OR. Now, I think readers are intelligent to be aware that once they know of the previous Lion Air crash of the same plane, they can figure out that the rataionle to ground we due to both crashes, but no airline (that I can easily determine) have made that statement specifically - that's what the media clearly implies though. --Masem (t) 21:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, whether intended or not, the hook was placing direct causality between this singular crash and the grounding, the grounding which incidentally is purely out of caution and risk aversion, not because Boeing says it should happened, the grounding which incidentally has impacted a handful of airlines while plenty of other operators are carrying on regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has grounded about a 3rd of the total MAX 8 fleet out there (350 total, with China having the most at around 96). However, I do understand where you're coming from, that the individual countries or airlines ordering the ground is different than if Boeing or some international agency ordered the full grounding of the MAX 8. I still feel the grounding is the current part of the story, but agree now we need more discussion on that inclusion. --Masem (t) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Original hook restored for now per lack of consensus demonstrated above. Discussion over whether to include the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis detail can continue here and it can be re-added to the blurb later if there's consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I recommend rephrase it to (something like) this: "All 157 people on board are killed as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes shortly after take-off. Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610 crash. The current blurb is still problematic in all sorts of ways. There is now no mention of the grounding of the jets which is an important part of the story. Secondly there's no mention of the Indonesian crash which provides the backstory to all of this; without mentioning the context the reader is going wonder why there was/is such a strong reaction to the crash. I will say again that I am okay with mentioning other countries that grounded the plane but it must lead off with Ethiopia taking the lead on it. Ethiopia is the country that is most affected by the crash so it just doesn't make sense to lead off that part of the blurb with any country other than Ethiopia (which it should also be noted was the first country to ground the plane). Syopsis (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis:Not done for now. The consensus in this discussion was for inclusion of the plane crash itself, and I'd have thought the deaths of 150 people would be reason enough for a "strong reaction". Currently, as is obvious from the discussions above, there is no firm consensus to include the story of the groundings. That consensus may develop, in which case the extra detail can be added. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Closed) North Korean parliamentary elections
Soft closure. Once the boat race gets brought up, it's all over. I am no fan of the DPRK or it's leader, but we post numerous sham elections and this one should not be treated any differently. Should the article be improved to MP quality before it goes stale, I suggest re-opening the nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2019 (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 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. Although general elections are technically ITNR, the DPRK is an exceptional case as they're not 'elections' in the sense the rest of the world understands the term, but a rubber stamp exercise in which 'voters' approve or disapprove the single pre-selected candidate (and are shot if they disapprove), and in this case the election is to a purely symbolic body with no input into government. ‑ Iridescent08:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR. We don't (or at least shouldn't) make judgments about the validity or fairness of a country's elections. What matters is what independent sources state or cover about this. If there is not widespread coverage of this(which there may not be) because of its fundamental unfairness and rigged outcome, it should not be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the discussion is mostly academic. But it is the majority opinion of the RS therefore that should be what we report.--- Coffeeandcrumbs13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for an election to be democratic, there has to be at least two candiates. In this case, there is only one candidate. Voting is compulsory and it is forbidden to not vote for the only candidate. This in not, in any sense of the word, an "election". Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should speak to the North Koreans or to the sources that describe this event; it isn't for us to judge their elections. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IAR only applies when there is a benefit to the project that a rule is preventing. There is no benefit in excluding this information which might serve to educate people. In any event, the quality is not there. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is that elections are postable, subject to quality. The benefit is keeping this non-election off the main page, even if it was to meet quality requirements. IMvHO, it's time to close this down, per WP:SNOW. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only oppose here that's legit is from TRM. The article is terrible. We post the total sham installation of the dictator-for-life in the "P"RC, we can post this one too -- article quality not withstanding. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is even worse quality than several articles I've tried to have deleted as violations of WP:NOTNEWS / NOTENCYCLOPEDIA. This is a timeline of the press releases of the DPRK. The current update is unsourced and indistinguishable from white propaganda. If I thought there were enough secondary sources and neutral editors to do anything that is not embarassing here, I'd suggest a force-merge to 14th Supreme People's Assembly - there simply is not enough content to justify an article on this election, the article on the office is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While its clear that this is not ITN due to the elections being basically a shame, it is still a completely valid encyclopedic article, given we pretty much cover every nation's general elections. --Masem (t) 15:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IAR. This event is not an election in the sense that I believe any reasonable person would understand the term and the way I believe it was intended to be understood in our ITNR guideline. The only circumstance in which I might support would be if the election were described in the blurb in unmistakably clear terms as the farce that it is. And that would run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. I believe the best course is simply to ignore this event on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IAR should not apply since this is ITNR. Those who think ITNR should make an exception for show elections should nominate it as such on the ITNR page. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR fully allows for IAR-type exclusions, as to avoid ITNR being too much rule-making. ITNR only says that a nomination that meets ITNR and meets quality requiremenst should be posted, but that's not a requirement. What we don't want is the ITNC discussion to readdress the broad class of news articles represented by the topic - that is, here we all agree national elections should be posted, but we further agree that while NK's elections technically met that , everyone recognizes these are sham elections in the current situation. --Masem (t) 01:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if everyone recognizes these are sham elections, that doesn't mean everyone agrees this shouldn't be posted. Again (and because this will happen in the future), those who think sham elections should not be posted should suggest it on WT:ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did already and was roundly rejected. I respect that decision, but we need to be consistent. Either we judge the validity of elections or we do not. There is no material difference this and the "elections" in Russia, Egypt, Syria, et al. GreatCaesarsGhost11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is WP:POLICY and anyone can invoke it. ITNR is a WP:GUIDELINE. No guideline or local discussion pertaining to a guideline can negate policy. If there is a consensus supporting an IAR exception to a given guideline then that's that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So ITNR means nothing? If I want to oppose anything, I just drop "IAR" in the comment and my vote has equal weight? IAR says you must be "improving the encyclopedia." We have to stop making this up as we go along. GreatCaesarsGhost14:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think that when elections were added to ITNR this is the type of "election" that was envisaged as being automatically newsworthy? This is the perfect type of IAR case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, ITNR is a GUIDELINE. That's it. It's one step above an essay in terms of its authority. That means it is the way we typically do things. It is not carved in stone law. IAR is POLICY. And yes, anyone can invoke IAR in almost any discussion. But the flip side of that coin is that you have to persuade enough of your fellow editors that your IAR argument holds water. Frivolously invoking it tends to produce snarky replies. And FTR I am pretty conservative in approach to it. My view being that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not going to either support or oppose here. But I do want to say that this is one of the funniest things I have seen in ITN/C in quite a while. Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I might have to bring it up at ITNR. I would improve the article if I had time, but I still am unsure about posting but oppose on the basis that I do not think North Korean "elections" should be included with elections. Most elections are very recurring in that they must happen after a fixed period, and they are newsworthy because World Leaders are important and there is notability for potential new figures and to see what way a country has swayed over the last x years politically. In North Korea, there isn't any actual electing happening, and we all know the outcome, to the point that nobody is particularly concerned when the polling is happening because it might as well not to folk outside of North Korea - and the ones inside don't have Wikipedia. It is, of course, a Thing that is happening and in the news and could give a few people a chuckle, but in the news it is more like a puff piece based on the relevance and importance and significance. If anything notable is said about it, maybe propose again. Or swap the wording to something like "Kim Jong-un will be reelected by a 100% majority in the North Korean parliamentary elections" to add a bit of humor? Kingsif (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Oppose. No, just no. Someone needs to have a long talk with Banedon about procedure here. We don't dignify propaganda, and that's the end of story. –MJL‐Talk‐☖14:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/C is rife with ITN/R nominations that have been opposed vociferously but have been posted over objections by an admin because "it's ITN/R and the rules are rules". Applying WP:IAR in this instance but not in the other ones is horribly inconsistent. Banedon is not incorrect on procedure here. There is a laughable lack of consistency being applied here due to the obvious WP:POV against North Korea. Yes, the election is a sham, but we have posted dozens upon dozens of sham elections. Why are we singling this one out? (WaltCip, logged out) --128.227.165.102 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing this because Wikipedia should not become an adjunct of the DPRK's Ministry of Propaganda. But yeah, for the sake of consistency we should come up with a way of handling events like this and put it into ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2019 (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 nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Neither Hirscher nor Shiffrin can't be mathematically reached even though there are some events still remaining. SirEdimon (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "can't be mathematically" is not the same as "are 100 percent certain to win". For example, if Hirscher or Shiffrin were disqualified for doping, they wouldn't win. I suggest re-proposing once they actually won but see the discussion on #Ronnie O'Sullivan reaches 1,000 century breaks above as well. Regards SoWhy12:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rakhine insurgents of the Arakan Army attack a police post in a village in Rakhine State, killing nine policemen. All of the victims were local recruits from the village. (Reuters)
With a fire causing new damage to a power plant in Bolívar State, President Nicolás Maduro states the power outages are "caused by U.S.-backed sabotage"; Guaidó says the outages are due to Maduro government "corruption and mismanagement". (MSN)(SFGate)
A Japanese high-speed boat collides with a "marine creature" while carrying 121 passengers; 87 passengers are injured and 5 airlifted by helicopter to the hospital. (CNN)
Tunisian health minister Abderraouf Cherif resigns following the deaths of 11 newborn babies since Thursday at a hospital in the capital Tunis. Evidence suggests all 11 died from septic shock. Tunisia's public healthcare had been considered one of the best in North Africa, but it has operated less smoothly since the 2011 revolution. (BBC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated 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: British rock climber and alpinist, best known for being the first mountaineer to climb the six major alpine north faces solo in a single winter season. Body discovered on Nanga Parbat's Mummery Spur on 9 March 2019. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot Andy Hill is acquitted of eleven counts of manslaughter arising from the 2015 accident, in which a jet flown by Hill struck a road in Shoreham, England. (The Guardian)
Actor Jussie Smollett is indicted on 16 felony counts of disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false hate crime police report in January in Chicago. (Yahoo! News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Austrian conductor and composer, promoting contemporary music in opera and concerts, vital premieres such as Die Soldaten, international work with tenures in Sweden, Netherlands and the "Ära Gielen" at the Frankfurt Opera. - I added, and there's much more in sources some of which I plan to add, but I don't want to wait until it's no longer recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "selected works" section which was removed in the cleanup, but probably the main issue here is my lack of familiarity with the subject. Concern withdrawn, thanks Martinevans123. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was combined with a sentence further up and made prose. Go ahead, expand, the facts are all there, I'm not done yet with Jacques Loussier, am tired, and there's real life. He's notable without a single composition. He'd be notable if he had only conducted the premiere of Die Soldaten which everybody thought couldn't be performed, like Tristan in Wagner's time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against posting. It seems that most editors do not understand the significance of the prosecution or the verdict. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm an admin. You were too, once upon a time. Aren't I allowed to be angry occasionally then? Still, I'm big enough and ugly enough to allow consensus to reign, even when I think it is wrong. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2019 (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: Very rare for a prosecution to follow a civil aviation accident in UK. Verdict would have been significant whichever way it went. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rare or not, I wouldn't consider this to be something I'd see in a synopsis of the year's events of note to the English speakers of this planet. Simply doesn't rise to the level of significance ITN should be publishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would hazard a guess that it's because there's no article about the individual nor the case, just the same article we already posted to ITN three and a half years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Related to Andy Hill and clearly led to this trial of Andy Hill, but isn't affected by this news about the fate of Andy Hill, just remembered. If Andy Hill doesn't have a bio because he's only notable for one event in 2015, this 2019 event is either non-notable or Andy Hill now warrants a proper biography. Until then, ITN should focus on independently notable subjects. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:32, March 8, 2019 (UTC)
It is possible that AH could sustain a stand-alone article, maybe even the trial. ATM, neither has, so we are left with the solid B class article on the event (which I intend to take to GA class at the appropriate time). That it was posted when it happened does not prevent it being posted again. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only notability aspects we appear to have about Andy Hill is anything involved in this crash. And particularly as he has been found not guilty, BLP1E absolutely applies; we would not have an article on him, so the target being the crash is completely fine for ITN. --Masem (t) 19:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind recycling a subject when something affects it. The crash was completely fine here the first time, because it happened. Today, the only difference is that it still happened, but prior to a trial, and that's not much to write home about. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:57, March 8, 2019 (UTC)
Support A solid article, current event, news sources are covering it appropriately. Can't find any reason to keep this off of the main page. --Jayron3217:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The pilot, notable for a UK aeronautics accident four years ago, has been found not guilty of negligence. Had he been found guilty, or had the accident occurred more recently, this might be ITN material, but given the circumstances mentioned it's not. – Sca (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crash was already featured in ITN years ago, and the lawsuit is irrelevant for ITN. The Manafort conviction is far more important than this one, and even that is not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Regretfully since it is in all honesty a local story. But it had received plenty of international coverage which makes it ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not appearing anywhere for me, not even on bbc.com. This suggests that other people here are seeing it due to tracking of their interests by websites. Also, the acquittal is a complete non-event, with no lasting import. Abductive (reasoning)12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - lack of significance. If one searches Google for UK news, the top results are (unsurprisingly) about Brexit. Banedon (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2019 (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.
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is sentenced to 47 months in federal prison for eight counts including tax fraud and bank fraud. (CBS News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose Normally I'm a "95% is fine" guy on the BLPs, but the unreferenced claims here are exceptionally contentious. Comes with the territory, but this is the business we've chosen. GreatCaesarsGhost01:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity chef Mario Batali gives up his stake in his restaurants more than a year after being accused of sexual misconduct. (The Guardian)
Alex Trebek, host of the American syndicated game show Jeopardy! since 1984, announces that he has been diagnosed with terminal stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He plans to continue hosting during his treatment. (CNN)
Article:Alí Domínguez (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Venezuelan journalist Alí Domínguez is murdered, found beaten on a freeway after being missing for nearly a week. (Post) Alternative blurb: Venezuelan journalist and political leader Alí Domínguez dies after being found beaten on a freeway following a short disappearance. News source(s):El Universal Credits:
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: I mean, this is a step up even for Venezuela, where they often kidnap but don't kill their journalists. Special note in the potential diversion of detaining an American journalist for a few hours right after Dominguez's death. Might just stick it up as an RD, but think it's newsworthy (working on expanding). Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgive me if this is insensitive but are there RS showing this person was notable before their death? This nomination would be more convincing if this was an already notable figure who died in an apparent notable manner. --- Coffeeandcrumbs02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident who attempted to expose corruption in Venezuela. Murdered for either that or for trying to bring aid into the country. Make a notability judgement on that yourself, sorry for the article being rather empty and more focused on death right now, I'm working on it. Kingsif (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaC has a valid point. If only today we know more about him (despite having beein part of protests in the past), that means the article fails WP:BLP1E. Coverage of his death would still be valid in the VZ ongoing srticles. --Masem (t) 03:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many Venezuelan journalists could you name? Venezuelan politicians? Look at Guaido - he started a student movement and co-founded a leading political party, but was rarely in the news until January. It's sad the most notable aspect of Dominguez's life could be his death, but that's because he's not one of the hundreds of others killed by repression of the state in recent months: he's a journalist who has been trying to expose corruption, which is what makes him individually more notable than those others (also sad).
Also, Dominguez was the leader of a different political party, was beaten for exposing corruption at a university, etc. That's at least three notable things, all in the article at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dismissing the possibility of a blurb. If I am convinced of anything, it is that an RD is not appropriate here and a BLP is not what is called for. Instead, I recommend you rename the article Murder of Alí Domínguez like the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. You will all remember we blurbed Khasshoggi's murder, and placed it in ongoing before and after. It is possible a person not to be notable themselves but their assasination to be notable and worthy of an ITN blurb. That is my take on this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs04:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t dispute that, but I do feel Dominguez is notable, perhaps not to the level of Khashoggi, but enough to have his own article (which wouldn’t be long enough to warrant split, I feel). And I’m not sure why you compare to Jamal Khashoggi when he also has an article. Kingsif (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not really about the act of murder at the moment. It provides almost no details about it. I'd support disappearance, killing, assassination and death in the title as alternatives to murder. And we get into WP:BLPCRIME territory when the police announce suspects while this article has murder in the title. I don't see any evidence of notability prior to the murder so this is WP:BLP1E in my opinion and needs to be moved to an event title. wumbolo^^^10:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb proposed. Including adding "political leader" - both this job and "journalist exposing corruption" (especially in Venezuela) seem notable IMO, but certainly being the leader of a political faction should make it clear this isn't BLP1E. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, because he's not as notable as other journalists/politicians (whose large claim to notability is just the job they are in), and the only international news on him is that he was murdered. But the fact that it's international news suggests that he's definitely important. He's not a random person made famous by being killed in a notorious case; he's a famous person whose death is so made notorious. Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Does not rise to the level of significance needed for a blurb. Death blurbs (irrespective of cause) are generally reserved for people of high notability, who by the way, should have article since Wikipedia infancy days or at least several years ago. I would support RD however, and remind us this is not the place to discuss whether the article fails BLP1E test or not, as long as the article exists and without any major content issue, it can be put on RD line. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further reminder that "this is not the place" is an opinion and not settled consensus. ITNRD allows opposition base on quality, and a violation of policy is a quality concern. There is no policy that requires one with concerns to nom the article for deletion. Further, AfD'ing the article would allow a single editor to delay a posting until stale. Opposing a nom for BLP1E (or GNG, or whatever) allows a more democratic discussion, as the consensus can reject the opinion and post. GreatCaesarsGhost19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Ammarpad. Probably better as RD, I saw it as blurb because of a wider context that many may not be aware of, which would leave it very out of place with an ITN blurb. Added RD tag. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb per Ammarpad. This just does not rise to the level of a blurb and posting one would come perilously close running afoul of WP:RGW. Support RD. With respect to the question of BLP1E raised above I am somewhat sympathetic. Most crime victims don't get their own article. That said the crime itself is unquestionably notable. Perhaps the article could be moved to Murder of Alí Domínguez and modifed to be more oriented on that theme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was one of the most important politicians and overall diplomat during the Spanish Transition to Democracy, being also one of the Fathers of the Constitution of 1978. His death has been very lamented by Spanish authorities. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This seems rather short for one of the authors of the Spanish Constitution. I am sure there is a little more we can say about his career.--- Coffeeandcrumbs18:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Updated from a stub to a start class article with everything sourced. A British TV presenter and journalist DBigXrayᗙ10:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's very well referenced, but also very short and scattered. Seems like a chronological list of whatever random facts one could find about her, without much thought given to narrative. Still, I won't hold it up over that. If there's a line to cross, this one made it. --Jayron3211:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose — Once again, this little group of editors is out to prove themselves to be a walled garden devoted to pushing the POV that cherry-picking a source and putting lipstick on a pig merely to collect a hat somehow equates to "article quality". I'm on my lunch break and won't have time to search further resources until later, so I hope this suffices. For starters, the article title itself is based on cherry-picking a source and is hardly reflective of anything having to do with WP:COMMONNAME. The article is full of glaring omissions: no mention of his fairly extensive professional career prior to entering politics, no mention that he served in both houses of the state legislature despite the fact that we treat those as notable offices everywhere else on the encyclopedia, no mention of the first lady despite the fact that they were married for over 20 years, no mention of the fact that he wrote at least two autobiographies. Should I go on? The statement that he moved to Talkeetna in 1946 can be easily contradicted by other sources. Who do you think we should trust, a newspaper reporter who is unnamed in the article and is solely interested in banging out a certain amount of content to meet a deadline, or someone like R. N. DeArmond who was the preeminent historian on Alaska during the 20th century and who spent decades researching and writing on the topic of Alaskan political biography? Like I said, I will have to confirm this later, but I'm quite certain that DeArmond and other more reliable sources stated that Miller moved to Alaska in 1959 and later lived in Talkeetna for a very short time. The article also misleads people into believing that Miller continuously remained in Alaska after moving here when in fact he spent most of his retirement years living in southwestern Oregon. Also, I'm personally a big fan of Must Read Alaska but IT'S A BLOG, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. There are tons of other actual reliable sources that are being ignored here. Why? WP:AGF shouldn't be used to excuse away what amounts to the blind leading the blind. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't take your assault on me as a personal attack, but if you really want to make this a better place, your current approach is not collegiate and frankly offensive. I'm not here to collect any hats, you need to strike that really. Feel free to improve the article, feel free to register your opposition, but do not make false accusations and cast aspersions against good faith editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: & @Spencer:: I understand the concerns, so I tried my best at expanding the article as much as I could with sources. I added a bit more info on early life, early career and later career. If there's more info that could be added (with reliable sources) please feel free to add them to the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to continue this at the article or its talk page, especially since I was able to have copies of Who's Who in Alaskan Politics and Prudhoe Bay Governor in hand before starting. Just one more thing about weak sources: why do people keep pushing legacy.com as a reliable source? It may be OK for certain basic facts, but there's nothing neutral about a paid obituary whose editorial process favors the interests of the party paying for the obituary. Understanding that should be Common Sense 101. I've seen multiple cases of obituaries on that site which told me absolutely nothing about the person's life because the family decided to use it as an anti-bullying PSA instead of an actual obituary. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: & @Spencer:: Article has been expanded with good sources thanks to RadioKAOS and I think its good enough to post, but the article will continue to undergo expansion. On the Legacy note, the one used for this article was also co-published with Anchorage Daily News (a reliable source from my knowledge) therefore good source. However I do encourage your book sources as their very beneficial for the article and I applaud you for implementing them in the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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
Done by Stephen. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done for now. The consensus in this discussion was for inclusion of the plane crash itself, and I'd have thought the deaths of 150 people would be reason enough for a "strong reaction". Currently, as is obvious from the discussions above, there is no firm consensus to include the story of the groundings. That consensus may develop, in which case the extra detail can be added. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
_(12863569924).jpg)