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.
Saulos Chilima
A fire in a residential building in Kuwait City's suburb of Mangaf kills at least fifty people.
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).
American Airlines announces it is investigating a viral video of an incident on a San Francisco to Dallas flight which shows a male flight attendant upsetting a female passenger, who he had allegedly forcefully taken a baby buggy from, and threatening to fight a male passenger. The American Airlines employee has been suspended. (The Washington Post)(Reuters)
French voters are protected from a barrage of last minute campaign pushes, including those via tweets and/or other social media, by rules that prohibit such communications for 44 hours during elections, from Friday midnight until Sunday 8:00 p.m. CEST. (AP)
Dressed in white, the Venezuela opposition march, in silence, to the headquarters of the country's Catholic archdiocese to honor the more than a dozen people killed in three weeks of protests. For the first time, protesters were able to cross from the east to the western side of Caracas without being confronted by state security. (AP via U.S. News & World Report)(AFP via The Straits Times)
The United Kingdom, on Friday, did not derive energy from any coal-fired source, the first continuous 24-hour, coal-free period for the UK since use of the fossil fuel began. Coal accounted for just 9 percent of the electricity generated last year. (Sky 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.
Support blurb. While he's not by any stretch a household name, for a professional cyclist to be struck and killed by a motor vehicle while cycling is vanishingly rare, and the article is in good shape and well-referenced. Besides, the only other sports-related story in ITN is two weeks old and decidedly stale. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb he was an active top cyclist. The incident is horrible - a tragedy in road cycling world. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article is mainly an unreferenced list of his career placings in various cycling events. Not only is it not referenced but it highlights the fact that his career section (in prose) is very weak indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality grounds. The career section needs more citations (one place explicitly marked), clarification (ditto) and turning from proseline into proper prose. Also per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - rare event, headline news - how often do such high profile deaths happen? Abovesky (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan authorities report 12 people were killed overnight in the capital Caracas, mostly in the El Valle working class neighborhood where 54 people, including newborn babies, were forced to evacuate a maternity hospital. Others have fled to Colombia. This death toll during the three weeks of anti-government protests is 20. (AP via The Washington Post)(Yahoo! News)(The Telegraph)
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: Prominent former footballer, who has died unusually young. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - almost there, a couple of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... The problem when someone dies unexpectedly is that newspapers don't (I presume) have obituaries ready to print, and so they turn to the internet and likely Wikipedia, so there's a danger of circular referencing if we rely too much on those obituaries without doing extra checks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're pretty much there with the references, The Rambling Man. Could you take another look and let me know if anything still stands out as problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most in depth article I have seen but it appears to be decently sourced and I think covers the subject adequately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. The minor issues have been sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Australia adds stricter requirements to its citizenship application process, including harder tests on English language skills and the requirement that a migrant be able to demonstrate "Australian values". (BBC)
A ten-year-old boy from Florida with autism is arrested at school, and spends the night in a juvenile facility. Unknown to the family, the boy had an outstanding warrant for his arrest after kicking and scratching one of his educators. The Autism Society of America is looking into legal options. (The Washington Post)
ISIL supporter, Terrence J. McNeil, of Akron, Ohio, pleads guilty to five counts of soliciting to commit criminal violence and communicating interstate threats in calls to kill U.S. military personnel. He is scheduled to be sentenced in August and faces up to 20 years in prison. (The Washington Post)
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, positions himself as an "anti-establishment" candidate as he vows to end the "rigged" system. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Most countries regulate religions, up to and including bannings. As the bold link demonstrates, Russia is not even the fifth country to ban the Witnesses, and there's a long list of other countries which have taken some sort of action against them. Perhaps that is unjust, but it is certainly not unfair considering the sorts of sanctions that many other religions face in virtually every other country on Earth.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As religious persecution goes this is pretty low intensity and alas is not uncommon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much smaller scale, and as IP .104 points out, not the first country to do so. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsurprising that Russia would take such a view, given their similar treatment of government opponents. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] US prepares charges to seek arrest of Julian Assange
No consensus will develop until something tangible happens. Stephen 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong Oppose good faith nom but this is crystal balling and speculation at best. If and when it happens we can revisit the topic, though even then I would point out that our usual practice is to post the outcomes of major criminal cases, not arrests.
Oppose I'd support if they had him in custody. This is sabre rattling. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:CRYSTAL. Also potentially "fake news," since the POTUS "loves Wikileaks".Zigzig20s (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until he is arrested. We have posted unusual and notable arrests (El Chapo, I believe) 331dot (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Paris shooting
No consensus. Stephen 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Some sources are saying one officer killed, others two. I know we don't usually post such a low casualty event but the election is this weekend and the attack is apparently a terrorist one, which could have a major impact. EternalNomad (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they saw it coming, they did something about it, sadly one policeman died, but it's not even close to the Westminster attack which was borderline these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual on the world-renowned Champs-Élysées and a few days before the first round of the presidential election.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. And hers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have an "opinion"--lots of analysts say that. I don't have time right now to look for RS. Anyway, I was answering your question--it's not off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – That it's Paris, and a policeman, notwithstanding, this story is being overplayed. Sadly, one death does not a major story make nowadays – irrespective of which group of psychopathic imbecils claims responsibility. Sca (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM/Sca. It could have been a lot worse but it was also a lone wolf situation, and is going overplayed due to all the recent events in Europe of late. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Attacks like these are becoming more common in Europe, this one doesn't stand out. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support: The day's protest, which involved up to over one million Venezuelans, was the largest in the country's history, has resulted in nearly half of the deaths of this year's protests and over half of the year's arrests. It is the culmination of this year's protests so far, so I created a separate section for it titled "Mother of All Protests", its popular name. If we believe it is notable for its own article, I can make it.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have tried to add a blurb. Also sourcing seems very good at both target article, but agree the "Mother of all protests" section is the one to highlght. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - according to the article, it is the largest protest in Venezuelan history, which seems very worth posting to me. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per ERRORS, it appears it's more like thousands rather than millions, the French do better than that on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on proposed pull:At the very least, "hundreds of thousands protested". The mathematician gave a more detailed number than most media outlets which just stated that "hundreds of thousands" protested. Oh, and his numbers were just for Caracas, meaning that the other cities throughout the country which filled the streets also possibly make his number higher.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The story, as supported, is not correct. Pull, return here for more discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled per errors. We need to get this figured out before we put it back up. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ks0stm please replace the last ITN and add the image back while this is discussed, the main page is now lop-sided and odd-looking without an image at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do momentarily; I thought it looked fine, but maybe my perception of lopsided is just a bit off. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 to 6 items in ITN normally, not four. And one picture almost always. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now just remove the last RD which is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mathematics professor Ricardo Rios of Central University in Caracas is the only one giving such high numbers. He has a twitter account here and doesn't seem neutral. Nobody else is willing to give precise numbers and just say hundred of thousands. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to add this back with the "hundreds of thousands" number? I just think it was pulled for the wrong reason since someone said it was only thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, such as those used in the nomination template, go as far as "tens of thousands". That's where we should stay if we believe this is actually notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is only tens of thousands - of the scope that has been happening over the last few years, this event thus seems overblown only because three people died from it. That "Mother of all protests" claim seems to have been grossly exaggerated at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: It's hundreds of thousands and up to millions if we want to use the one mathematician. See the other sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CNN's headline is "Hundreds again march...". That's not hundreds of thousands; just hundreds. As the situation seems to be one of protracted turmoil with many ramifications, it seems best to avoid trying to single out some particular aspect. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this was a mistake, best to forget about it and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made the mistake. It wasn't thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I said it wasn't 1.2 million as posted to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hundreds of thousands: Check your sources people.[1][2][3]--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the BBC and The Guardian sources provided in the nomination still say "tens of thousands". So yes, I did check my sources, person! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the sources. They may also be outdated. If not, 5 6 say hundreds of thousands (See above) while the 2 you say tens of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said, they were the sources that supported the nomination. In any case, it's not 1.2 million, so the impact is massively reduced, the pull was good, the posting was wrong, and we're where we should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NYTimes also has it at "thousands". If it were 100,000+ , I would expect both BBC and NYTimes to be more accurate to that. (Also, when I wrote that blurb, the BBC article said 1.2 M, but it clearly has since been updated to tens-of-thousands.) --MASEM (t) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that this is not the "mother of all protests" by any measure, and that this turmoil has been ongoing for some years, a blurb would be inappropriate, perhaps an ongoing nomination is better, especially since the target article is a "timeline" rather than a decent article about one specific event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, thousands of hundreds, millions... Do reporters bother to fact-check their sources anymore?--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. But the consensus seems to be hundreds of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that no-one knows. It's all speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Even NPR states "By several media accounts, hundreds of thousands of anti-Maduro demonstrators flooded city streets to protest". But in the world of fake news, I can see why people are skeptical. I'm surprised there's not a shortage of tinfoil due to people making hats.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: It's not so much reporters not fact-checking, it's more that crowd counting is notoriously difficult and estimates can vary wildly - even from reliable sources. The 1.2 million figure is obviously an outlier but equally the "tens of thousands" may well be too conservative. I think it's reasonable to say "estimated in the hundreds of thousands." If consensus is against re-posting I would definitely support adding it to the Ongoing section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate support - I think 'thousands' (i.e. from 1,000 to 10,000) is likely too low. Simply looking at the image from the New York Times article [4] for example shows there are more than one thousand protesters in that particular protest, and this was a nation-wide protest. The CNN article cited by Andrew D, which gives only "hundreds", is obviously because it covered protests on Thursday, not Wednesday like the others. This should be between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. TRM's comparison with France is not fair, since France has twice the population of Venezuela. Also 1) this has been ongoing for a while and 2) it dominates local news. I still support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the reasons for not featuring this strike me as uncharacteristically poor. They seem entirely based on the fact that this was posted with an inaccurate blurb. But that is not a reason not to repost this - it simply means the blurb should be fixed (e.g. via ZiaLater's suggestion below) before reposting. In the meantime all the standard arguments for posting it are there: it's widely reported in international media, it dominates local headlines (probably as much as an election), even the article quality is fine. If this isn't posted, I call WP:BIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate support - Don't place a number in the blurb at all. State something like "widespread protests throughout Venezuela resulted in three deaths".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I'll oppose any process where the nominator and updater feel like they get a vote. That's clearly not unbiased at all. LordAtlas (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to cite WP:NPA at this. Banedon (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If an item has been pulled, surely the nominator and updater have a right to say whether they agree, or if they feel it should be re-posted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate oppose the blurb, the target article, the refs etc, all don't add up to what has subsequently been claimed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We know absolutely nothing about this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you used the wrong pronoun there. Some people have read the sources, and therefore know something about this. In English, the first person singular pronoun is "I", and should be used when refering only to one's self. Since people who are not you, but are still part of the discussion here, do know something about this "We" is the wrong word choice here. Also, I'm not sure opposition based on one's own personal un-willingness to learn things by reading the source text is going to carry much weight, but thanks for sharing! --Jayron32 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you tell me how many people protested.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of thousands to millions, according to the majority of reliable sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may not know that, but I do know many other things. I will not insult you by quoting the entire article, but there's two full screens worth of cited text at Mother of All Protests. I know all of those things. That's something more than "absolutely nothing". And hey, if you read it, then you'll know more than absolutely nothing. Your statement will then be entirely wrong (and not just half wrong).. --Jayron32 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the number of protestors, can we just post this without the number? Several people above note that as an option. We have some well-referenced articles (maybe even the new Mother of All Protests article, maybe the timeline article) and this is clearly being covered by the media. If there's contention about the exact count, lets leave the number out. --Jayron32 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there is a news story here, but with the type of reporting we've had over the last 24hrs on this, its unclear what it should be. The protests since the "Mother" have seen be to an escalation with more violence than the past, and there seems to be other factors (such as the gov't seizing the GM plant and basically forcing the company to leave the country [5]. It doesn't feel like ongoing (since these have been ongoing for years), but I can't pinpoint a news story here. So perhaps an ongoing for at least a week for the protests? --MASEM (t) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Possibly. I may work on a 2017 protest article soon here that you can link to. Until then, we could use the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests article. Articles surrounding the protests in Venezuela should get an overhaul within the next few days/weeks.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a drop in demand, the Dubai-based, United Arab Emirates-owned airline Emirates Air announces a cut in flights to five of its 12 U.S. destinations. The airline’s Dubai hub, third-busiest in the world, is a major stop for travelers in countries affected by President Donald Trump’s travel ban, and is also one of several Middle East airports affected by a U.S. ban on tablets, laptops, and similar devices in the passenger cabin. (Los Angeles Times)
Nigerian spy chief Ayo Oke has been suspended by President Muhammadu Buhari after anti-corruption agents uncovered more than $43 million in cash at his flat in Lagos. (BBC)
The closely-watched CEVIPOF poll shows Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen clinging to a narrow lead heading into the first stage of the election, with Le Pen recently becoming embroiled in a spat with the European Commission after refusing to appear on TF1 while there remained a Flag of Europe in the background. (Reuters)
Alternative for Germany chairwoman Frauke Petry announces that she will not lead the party in the September federal election, citing other party leaders' insistence on remaining a "fundamental opposition party", unwilling to join a coalition. (Reuters)
A Forsa Institute poll shows the lowest level of support for the Greens in nearly 15 years, weakening the chances of a left-leaning coalition taking power from the CDU/CSU. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Found hanged in his prison cell, then pronounced dead an hour later. Former NFLtight end who played for the New England Patriots; cut from the team after being charged with murder. He was serving his life prison sentence at the time he committed suicide. Certainly an unexpected way to go, but I'm aware of the general attitude towards sports on ITN, and so I'll nominate this just as an RD for now. A blurb can be added later if a consensus demands it. WaltCip (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bulk of article is well referenced, an occasional non-contentious bit of text here or there could use a better cite, but it's comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Not to stop anyone from fixing those few minor issues, but nothing here looks like it should keep it off of the main page, from my point of view. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonably decent article. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see one CN tag floating in the current version but it's otherwise there for posting. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I Oppose blurb. This is not a legendary athlete (at least, his "legacy" is not really much from his performance on the field), and as noted below, suicides in prison are not unheard of. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is probably on the edge of being blurbworthy. It is front page news on the BBC and Guardian websites in the UK, as well as all major outlets in the US. Seems to be a reasonably major story. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Suicides in prison are a relatively common occurrence, and his team never won a Superbowl with him on it, so not really a national icon. I don't think being one of the hundreds of Patriots players (as well as other NFL players) pushes him over the threshold for a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb This is certainly more blurb worthy than an old person dying. @EternalNomad:, who said this was a suicide?[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. I'm inclined to agree with Masem, most of his notoriety comes from the murders, and I wouldn't really say he's a "legendary murderer" or whatever. Also, his lawyer going whaaaaaaaa? doesn't change the fact that this was very likely a common prison suicide. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, unless consensus to post his acquittal as well. Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths are (or should be) reserved for globally known or influential figures. A criminal who played pro sport for a couple of years doesn't come anywhere close to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Facebook (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Steve Stevens, called the Facebook killer, is found dead two days after broadcasting murder on Facebook. (Post) News source(s):BBC News Credits:
Oppose - Domestic crime only popularized by the shocking posting of the murder on Facebook. Sensationist news. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also this would absolutely need a separate article from Facebook to be even considered. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ill assume good faith but this is obviously a no. This is pretty much the definition of something trivial. LordAtlas (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Libyan fisherman discover the bodies of 28 migrants in a broken-down boat off the coast of Sabratha. (Reuters)
Law and crime
The Supreme Court of the United States refuses to vacate a stay of execution issued by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Arkansas's highest court has also put on hold the execution of another inmate, Bruce Ward. The state had planned to execute eight inmates in eleven days. That schedule, as well as the use of the drug midazolam, sparked a broad range of legal challenges and humanitarian concerns about the executions. Today's planned execution of Don W. Davis would have been the state's first since 2005. (CNN)(The New York Times)
Steve Stephens, the suspected "Facebook killer" accused of killing 74-year-old Robert Godwin, kills himself after a brief pursuit with the Pennsylvania State Police. (CNN)
French Interior Minister Matthias Fekl announces that police have foiled an "imminent and violent" attack in Marseille, arresting two suspects and confiscating weapons and bomb material. (The Guardian)
Three people die in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno, California. The suspected gunman, who was already wanted for another murder four days earlier, and who expressed hatred of whites and the government, is arrested. (Los Angeles Times)
As expected, during a visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. federal agencies to take measures aimed at protecting U.S. workers, boost protections for some U.S. products, and examine the H-1B visa program which affords foreign workers opportunities for employment in U.S. specialty fields. (CNN)
consensus is to wait until results are in --Jayron32 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, consensus is to only post election results, not buildup. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abductive. We'll post the results if the article is in good shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under normal circumstances, an announced election would not be listed here, but this announcement is very surprising, as the media outlets I've provided show. The massive media coverage and the shock of the announcement are sufficient to including this on the main page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The election is surprising, and not routine, as other elections are. This is what makes it different from a scheduled election, the news story is about the shock and unexpectedness. This is of international significance, with media coverage to back it up. This makes it significant for the main page. In contrast, a routine scheduled election that people have known about and scheduled for years (eg the scheduled 2020 one) is not news - per se; news is new developments. This fact that this story is new sets this story aside from the others. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The 2015 general election is the only election in British history that's been "scheduled for years", and that was purely an artefact of the 2010 coalition agreement. The only surprising thing about this election is that it wasn't called on Cameron's resignation but was instead delayed a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. It isn't even certain to happen (just very likely) as May has to get parliamentary consent. Also per Abductive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, despite being a politically-engaged Brit myself. The announcement was surprising, but the point that it merits an ITN blurb is when the results arrive, not now. It's only six weeks away (assuming May gets the votes she needs tomorrow - note that currently the PM cannot actually call an election, just ask the House of Commons to vote for one), and there's really no reason why anyone outside the UK should care until the election actually happens. Modest Geniustalk 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of whether or not it actually is surprising or newsworthy, it's not the position nor purpose of ITN to editorialize, and accordingly I suggest omitting "surprising" from the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relable sources have described it as "surprising" or "shocking," including the ones I linked. I'm simply stating what the RSs stated. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to not be sensationalist for WP and our blurbs. Here, at least, the notion of what a "snap election" is implies it was unexpected so we certainly don't need "surprising" here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now As noted, this is only a proposal and needs approval by Parliament to move forward. If that approval does happen to pave for the snap election, that then might be appropriate to post. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as-is – Announcement of a vote for an election, not the actual election itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - let's just wait six weeks and then post the results.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] ISIS and al-Qaeda alliance
let's wait until wait until results are in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major turning point, they used to be bitter enemies. 128.62.72.205 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only source is a single, mostly speculative article, which contains a single one-line quote from a minor official. There's no there there. --Jayron32 16:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Seeking" an alliance vs. "obtaining" an alliance. I am seeking millions of dollars in the lottery this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This has been in Ongoing for weeks (months?), and while it is being updated regularly and the battle is not concluded, I do not see it at all in most news sources and the story has seeming moved on to other fronts. When I dig, the news reports that I do find concern events which fall far below the notability threshold. For what reason should this ongoing-yet-unreported article remain on the front page?
Pull - No longer newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a paragraph per day of solid and well-referenced text being added to this article. It's really a fantastic document, and as long as it is still growing, I see no reason to pull it. It is still continuously being updated, and is still a current event. "My newsfeed doesn't cover it" is a rather subjective view of the matter; and indeed the major source of systemic bias everyone complains about, as we base our decisions solely on our personal perspective on the world, which reflects our editorship and readership. Instead, we finally have an article on the main page which is outstanding, and still being updated. I say keep it there. --Jayron32 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jayron32. My initial reaction was to pull, but it is an ongoing situation, it is consistently in the news – buried at times but consistently there – and as stated the article development is good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I will comment that I think having day-by-day updated might be a bit too much close to PROSELINE for the article, but it is still being updated and still in the news if not buried in Western papers. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I would love to see Syria and Yemen war added to ongoing but I guess those are not being updated? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When nominated, people point out that the Syria article is long and overwrought (much like this one) and rife with NPOV issues which are seemingly intractable. The Yemen article is tagged for update since last month, with the last update being on 14 April concerning happenings in March. As nominator, I concede that Battle of Mosul at least is getting updates and is even handed, but I still think it should be pulled. Take a look at the recent updates. They're tactical minutiae. Take a look at the news. On CNN, a human interest piece about what the war means for their own reports, buried; on BBC, <3 minute shakycam footage, buried; on NY Times, nothing; on WaPo, nothing; on LA Times, nothing; Le Mond and El Pais, nothing. On Der Speigel there's an article from 14 April which asserts that the battle is over and what's left is to re-establish education for kids(?).128.214.163.201 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet people in Mosul are fairly aware of its presence in the News there... --Jayron32 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove with respect to Jayron32, the article is being updated daily with the grim timeline of an ongoing battle. The section is "In the news", not "ongoing crisis", and for better or worse, the Battle of Mosul is not currently "In the news" (at least without searching for it). Two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a move likely to cause concern in India, China and Nepal commenced last Sunday the first ever combined military exercises, focusing on counter-terror operations. (South China Morning Post)
A Brazilian federal judge orders Petrobras to suspend the sale to Norway's Statoil of its stake in an offshore prospect, in response to the National Federation of Oil Workers petition there should have been an open bidding process for this transaction. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: WWE wrestler, GA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the most accomplished progressive rock and jazz fusion guitarists of all time. Known for his work with groups including Soft Machine, Gong, U.K., Bruford, Nucleus, Tempest and his own extensive solo career. Theburlybush (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of unsourced paragraphs, and the tenses need fixing. I'll see what I can do with that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a few of us have done quite a bit with it, though any further sourcing for the odd uncontentious sentence would be good. Support. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending sourcing of the couple of paragraphs. I'll see if I can help too. An enduring giant of jazz fusion and a great innovator. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. RD's don't get blurbs, even though the description is spot on.[reply]
Support A hugely important musician. Manning (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Development for Turkey, results will impact its relationship with EU Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support importance. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while the referendum is hyped by the media, the real impact is rather limited, even with a yes vote. Abovesky (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A yes vote will likely end their chances of joining the EU as the current administration support policies diametrically opposed to EU policies(like the death penalty). That isn't small potatoes - and any nation changing their governmental structure is likely significant. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know that Turkey's chances of joining the EU are nil, since quite some time? Abovesky (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this would completely finish them off, if the yes side wins. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per current article quality and importance. I may be biased because I live in the Netherlands, which will be impacted by the result of this referendum as well. Seems like of very clear importance, however. ~Mable (chat) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality and notability, blurb will need review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per importance. Apparently 'Yes' vote leads in the referendum. --Saqib (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update Also I see a couple para without any sourcing in them which should be fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Turkey votes narrowly in favor of...." Sca (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't do that for Brexit (similar proportions). I suspect that if we had it would have been seen as a political comment questioning the validity of the result. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the officially reported result of 51.4% - 48.6%, I fail to see how "narrowly" is anything other than factual, or how its use could be considered POV. Sca (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support somewhat surprised this isn't ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was seriously considering posting this based on the level of supports, but on examining the article I am seeing significant gaps in referencing. As an Admin I can't post this in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness though, I can see one section where references are thin on the ground albeit no unusual claims made, but otherwise it seems pretty good at a glance. Not quite sure I see the basis for the assertion? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added multiple CN tags to two sections. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that we do not post articles with serious issues to the main page. This has always been understood as including a requirement that any candidate articles are well sourced. I have tagged the two sections for ref improve. Once that is taken care of, absent some other issue that I may have missed, I think we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I added sources to your CN tag. There was one paragraph, however, that I couldn't find sources for. The language was pretty generic so I'd assume it'll be really hard to find sources for that paragraph. So I removed it. Let me know if you need any other assistance. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty significant news. Brexit, Trump, and now this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very significant geopolitically. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was making a final check before posting this, and was about to, but the "Results" section is entirely empty. The article is rock solid otherwise, very extensive and well referenced, but we need something done about the "Results" Section before this goes live. --Jayron32 13:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Just curious, why does the Result section need to be filled out anyways? I think that table provides more than enough information regarding the results. I don't think we can go into too much analysis (if that's what you're looking for) since it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it had to be filled out. I said that posting an article with an empty section was an issue. There's more than one way to skin that cat. If you want to comment out the blank tables until such time as they can be filled in, and leave a prose synopsis of preliminary results instead, that would work too. I'm not posting an article with giant empty tables though. --Jayron32 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that we need to wait until the Results-section is properly filled out. ~Mable (chat) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to AP, "The state-run Anadolu Agency said the 'yes' side stood at 51.4 percent of the vote, while the 'no' vote saw 48.6 percent support." Ditto BBC. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically this is one those times where I think blanking out the breakdown of results just to ensure this gets posted is a good idea. I imagine that it could take days for this data to be formalised, yet the overall result has been announced, job done. I would suggest a practical approach here, comment out the intricate detailed results, post the story, improve the article post-election. Jayron has covered that. Mablestrip has it 100% wrong, it'll take too long, and this won't be ITN. Post the "result" not the "intricate detail". After all, we had to wait a few days to get all of the US election results sanctioned and referenced, but we didn't fail to post Trump did we? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done[8][9]. Maybe someone will want to update the other columns. 129.97.18.156 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Our executive president article is in pretty poor shape, I don't think we should be wiki-linking to it from the top of the main page right now, thoughts? — xaosfluxTalk 02:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've unlinked it for now, any admin may feel free to revert without consultation if you think it is what is best for the readers. — xaosfluxTalk 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link prior is no better. I have started a broader discussion here. Fuebaey (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb strikes a convoy of buses near Aleppo which were carrying evacuees from the pro-government towns of Al-Fu'ah and Kafriya. Over 100 people are killed. (BBC)(AP via Yahoo! News)
The death toll according to a Nangarhar official source now stands at 94 militants, including 4 commanders. Former president Hamid Karzai says the strike was in violation of national sovereignty. (TOLOnews)
Flash flooding caused by torrential rain leaves at least 17 people dead and 20 others missing in northwestern Iran, according to state television. (Al Jazeera)
Article:2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A car bomb terrorist attack near a convoy of buses carrying civilian evacuees from al-Fu'ah and Kafriya kills more than 100 people including 39 kids (Post) News source(s):[10] Credits:
Nominator's comments: The attack was not a usual one because it was amid an agreement brokered by Qatar and Iran for the evacuation of Fu'ah and Kafriya in exchange for the evacuation of residents and rebels in Zabadani and Madaya. 39 children were among the killed people Saff V. (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an explosion in a war zone. Could you better explain why it should be singled out for posting to ITN? Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the question was answered as the "nominator comment".Saff V. (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good faith nom, but sadly not unusual either in terms of where it happened, or number of casualties. Suicide bombings with >100 casualties aren't an everyday occurrence, but they're not particularly unusual. ‑ Iridescent 12:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the killing of the women and hungry children usual event?Saff V. (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you already know that the answer to that is "yes", given that the conflict in Syria is characterised by indiscriminate attacks on civilians by both sides. It's tragic that something like this is so commonplace as not to be newsworthy, but "bombing in Syria" falls into the same category as "mass shooting in the US", where unless there's something especially out of the ordinary about any given event our default position is not to feature it. ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to support in principle, in light of the Pope singling this incident out in today's Urbi et Orbi message which will give this particular attack greatly increased prominence compared to others, including among people who don't normally take an interest in the Syrian civil war. Only "in principle", as the article needs quite a bit of cleanup. ‑ Iridescent 12:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A tragic event, but not unusual for a war zone. The Pope likely mentioned it since it just happened, but that doesn't change the nature of this event. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: Is massacre of civilians, i.e. non-belligerents, most of them women and children amid the talks usual? --Mhhosseintalk 17:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such numbers of civilian deaths is notable, regardless of the warzone, since they were not belligerents and especially since the Syrian Civil War is not an Ongoing item. Besides, Khan Shaykhun chemical attack was posted. Brandmeistertalk 14:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would not call this a usual event specially that it happened amid the agreements between the governments and rebels. --Mhhosseintalk 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, subject to improvement. High-casualty attacks targeting civilians are, unfortunately, not unusual for this civil war. What is unusual is such a high-casualty attack on civilians being evacuated as part of the "four towns" deal negotiated between opposing sides in the conflict and (some of) their international backers (Iran and Qatar, specifically). However, the article is far from beign ready to post in its current state. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on whether it should be posted, but if it is please use "children" rather than "kids" in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support big story within a big conflict. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle but oppose on quality. I agree with others that these being attacked on evacuating civilians is not normal in a war, and thus appropriate to post. but the article is woefully short on details that explain why these civilians were being evacuating. A paragraph to explain that there was an agreed-on evacuation of civilians from the area and the attack was against the convey evacuating them is necessary to give context. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Civilian target makes this more notable (read: atrocious) than it would be otherwise. There's just enough content in the article for it to be posted. Other admins: feel free to tweak posted blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted as blurb - add image?] Emma Morano
Article:Emma Morano (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb:Emma Morano, the last person living person born before 1900, dies at the age of 117. (Post) Alternative blurb: Emma Morano, the last person born in the 1800s, dies at the age of 117. Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oldest living person, also the last living person born before 1900. The article is in a good shape. Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb given that she derives notability from oldest being the oldest person, and given that the blurb would be slightly more interesting than comparable "oldest people die" blurbs. Have proposed one. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have corrected the blurb. 1900 is in the 19th century and there are still people alive born in that year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, prefer altblurb II (the article on the century is also titled 19th century). The death of the last person born in the 19th century is an extraordinary event that deserves to be commemorated. --Tataral (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that as I just pointed out, she is NOT the last person born in the 19th century. Violet Brown was born in March 1900.Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely: it is surprisingly common to see these mistakes. I have removed the incorrect blurb to avoid confusion. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources consider her the last person to have been born in the 19th century.[11][12][13] I don't think a person born in 1900 would be commonly considered to have been born in the 19th century as the term is usually used by reliable sources. For example, the current century/millennium is overwhelmingly considered to have begun on 1 January 2000, while only "purists" claim it only began a year later, as the article New Millennium notes. For our purposes, based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century. --Tataral (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you give are sloppy journalism. It is a very common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. We cannot put "19th century" in the blurb when our our own article begins, "The 19th century (1 January 1801 – 31 December 1900)..." Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes groups that should know better do stupid things. We aren't going to repeat them here. The article you linked to is quite dreadful: look at 3rd millennium or similar articles for proper examples. I have removed the incorrect blurb: please do not add it again. Edit: you can also check MOS:CENTURY. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change blurb alternatives that people have commented on, thereby misrepresenting their comments. Add your own blurb alternatives after the existing ones. --Tataral (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are going to remove blurbs that are wrong or misleading: we are not here to waste other people's time. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only I don't find this to be significant enough for a blurb. Talk of the "end of an era" is over the top cruft on the part of Wiki editors and journalists alike. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only Arbitrary set point about the last known living person born in the 19th century, given the problems we have had with blurbs lately. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. Very old person dies of natural causes is not blurb worthy. If they were significantly the oldest person ever then there might be some justification for a blurb, or if they were notable for reasons other than being old, then a blurb might be appropriate but I see neither here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request RD posting now with further discussion on blurb - article seems there quality wise so no reason to delay RD. Premature to judge on whether a consensus for a blurb will emerge or not. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb this is headline news worldwide, precisely because she was the last born in the 1800s. It's more than just a run-of-the-mill olddar person death. For people who lived when there were many such this is a seminal moment. Please don't say 19th century, though. It absolutely is not that. — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. "Elderly person dies of natural causes" is exactly what RD was intended for. ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also note that this is the last person known to have been born before 1900. A random person born somewhere on Earth at that time would have a rather low probability of having a verifiable birth certificate such that in the event that person would survive till today, we could verify that this person was indeed born before 1900. So, statistically it's rather unlikely that there are now no longer any persons alive who were born before 1900. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD only. Not the last person born in the 19th century (based on a common understanding of the term, she was the last person born in the 19th century - guh?). Even then I wouldn't support a blurb, it's just an old person dying. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. This isn't notable because it is the oldest person dying(which isn't typically received well here) it is notable because this was the last person from the 1800s(though not the 19th century, as stated). Unlike just being the oldest, this is a notable benchmark. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary cut point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary so far as it's based on the calendar used by most of this planet's population and indicates a loss of connection to a period in history. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still arbitrary. Something like "last WW2 veteran" is concrete and meaningful. This woman was alive for about 40 days of the 1800s. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it still doesn't matter because "1899" is just a number without any greater meaning. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD for the time being whilsut discussion continues on whether to post a blurb. (I don't have any strong feelings either way, personally). Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb When Kimura died he got a full blurb. If Morano had been a man the blurb would've been posted at least 6 hours ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.6.177 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jiroemon Kimura was the oldest verified man ever, which is significantly different to this case. I'm also not sure exactly when the recent deaths section began, but it is possible that Kimura's death in 2013 predated it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, deserves to be on the main page. Article is in a very good shape. - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eugen Simion 14: It is on the main page as an RD. What makes it suitable for a blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb ALT3, which is correct. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone reading alt1 would understand that 1800s means the century and not the decade. She cannot be 207 to 217 years old (1809-2017). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT3 – This edges on DYK-style quirkiness, but I believe enough people worldwide have a strong interest in this kind of news for it to be worth a proper blurb. ~Mable (chat) 11:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Although the notability of Morano's death does primarily lie with the fact that she was the last known person born in the 1800s, she is also remarkable among the category of supercentenarians. She was the fifth oldest person ever, and the oldest person to have lived during the 21st century. It is exceedingly rare to achieve the age of 117 (she was the sixth), and she is the first person ever to have passed the title of 'oldest living person' to another 117 year old, Violet Brown. Brown's birthday was in March; the past month has been only the second time in history that there have been two living peopled aged 117 or older (this last occurred in 1992/93). As to Morano herself, besides her longevity records, she is also notable in that she maintained her health and faculties until the end. She was still living in her own apartment when she died, and not a retirement facility.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of information, but none of it boils down to "very old person died of natural causes, other very old people still alive." I remain entirely unconvinced that this is blurb worthy. She wasn't the oldest person ever, so that's a strike against notability. Being the last person from an arbitrary time period and being the oldest person in another arbitrary time period is not notability either (just arbitrary). The next-oldest person being the same arbitrary age (only when the precision is 1 year) is also not notability but coincidence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb - it is "somewhat trivial" but it's also a general interest story that's likely to be interesting to everyone, everywhere around the world. Banedon (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – As last born in 19th C., Emma is a milestone, and her article is well illustrated with pix of her at (apparently) age 1 and at age 117, as well as several others. (Lake Maggiore must be a very healthful place.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: She's on the main pages of at least nine European Wikis. Sca (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She's on the mainpage of the English Wiki too. As RD, as it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, don't compare us to the other Euro-Wikis, they're junkyards of BLP violations. Why Sca continues to refer to them as a comparison of what is and what isn't posted is bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These supposedly despicable European Wikipedias are cited not as sterling examples of technically perfect WP work, but rather as indicators of multinational informed opinion regarding what news is significant. You've expressed your view many times. I request that we agree to disagree and drop the issue. Sca (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as blurb per consensus (appx 2:1 in favor). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Consensus is not determined by counting noses but by assessing the arguments presented. I'm not at all sure how you could do that and say there is consensus in favour of a blurb? I know I'm biased here, but I'd put it in the grey area between no consensus and consensus against - most support votes have not attempted to address the points against. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf As I read the arguments the opposes boil down to "this is trivial" and the supports argue that it is significant news from the perspective of history and has received extensive news coverage. I think ignoring a 2:1 majority would demand an exceptional policy or guideline based rational which in this case does not exist. Both sides are essentially looking at the same thing and seeing different levels of importance which is unfortunately highly subjective. FTR my own opinion leans a bit towards oppose, but not strongly. It seems like a good human interest story to me but clearly most of the participating editors disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new approach for RDs that assure posting (as long as quality is there), and many many recent cases of questionable blurbs that were posted, blurbs about people's deaths should be more than a majority, it should approach near unanimous approval (ignoring the "i don't like it"-type opposes). RD can be assured being posted, so it's not about not covering a person's death, but dedicating a blurb line to it requires a much higher approval bar for it, which this didn't meet. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is an opinion. And for the record it sounds like a good idea, but at present it doesn't exist in any guideline or policy that I am aware of. I do not believe that my prerogative as an Admin extends to rejecting a solid consensus without some policy/guideline position to cite. If you want to suggest this as an amendment to our existing guidelines, I believe that would make for an interesting discussion. But at the moment what we have is a strong (if not overwhelming) consensus, and for now that is all I have to go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding image for Morano as the one of Garcia has been up for several days now, and there are a few pics of Morano on her article page to choose from. MurielMary (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Such a cute story! It's making the news and social media everywhere. WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, good faith nomination but this is really not ITN material. --Tone 18:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds?--WaltCip (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kardashians also make the "news" and social media. They're of similar significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it was a case of an near extinct species, with less than a dozen left, this might be something, but no. We don't run "feel good" stories even if they are widely covered. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Oppose good faith nomination, but this is ridiculous. Honestly the article looks like a good candidate for AfD as it fails NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and massively fails the WP:10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it rare for giraffes to give birth in captivity? I don't see much reason to post this otherwise.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have implicit significance thresholds and it's obvious this doesn't make the grade. --LukeSurltc 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This is late nomination but this murder of a student over allegations of posting blasphemous content online is getting enormous press coverage from across the world so I wonder if this could be a possible RD candidate here? Saqib (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The death was on 13 April, and it was first reported on that date so this nomination should probably be moved to that section. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD The article could do with a copyedit by a native speaker (I don't have time) as some of the grammar is a little off ("he was then throw from..."), but the main objection is that the article is really about the incident not about the person (there is barely a full sentence of biography unrelated to his death), so if it were to be featured I think it would be better as a blurb than as an RD item. I'm undecided whether I'd support a blurb or not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD per WP:IAR. Article's creation appears to be as a result of the incident itself rather than any notability of the person involved.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Now that the page move has gone ahead I don't think this is a suitable RD candidate - article is about the event not the person.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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
