This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A terrorist threat results in the evacuation of tens of thousands of fans at the first day of the annual Rock am Ring music festival at the Zeppelinfeld in Nuremberg, Germany. Organizers say they hope the festival will resume Saturday. (BBC)
As a result of North Korea's repeated missile tests, the United Nations Security Council expands its targeted sanctions against the country, adding to the U.N. blacklist four entities, including the Koryo Bank and the Army's Strategic Rocket Force, and 14 people, including the North's head of intelligence operations. (Reuters)
At least 37 people are killed in a deliberately lit fire at Resorts World Manila in the Philippines. The perpetrator stole gaming chips and fired gun shots before committing suicide. (CNN)
ISIL claims responsibility for the attack; however, authorities contend it is not terror related. (Reuters)
Five anti-government/anti-Taliban protestors are shot dead by police in Kabul, Afghanistan, after demanding that the government step down in the wake of the May 2017 Kabul attack. (BBC)
Former Pennsylvania State University president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz, and former athletic director Timothy Curley are sentenced to prison for covering up ex-coach Jerry Sandusky's criminal sexual acts, thereby letting him victimize more boys. (Reuters)
Leo Varadkar becomes the new party leader of Fine Gael, after winning 51 of 73 votes in the parliamentary party, and is expected to become Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland, which would make him the youngest and first openly gay man to be Taoiseach, as well as being the first of half-Indian descent. (The Sun)
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.
Scientists announce that the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has made a third detection of gravitational waves, named GW170104. The signal beam, detected on 4 January 2017, apparently results from a merger of two black holes of 19 and 31 solar masses. Such detections are said to be progressively moving this emerging field in astronomy "from novelty to new observational science". (BBC)
Concrete information is still sketchy, but supposedly this wasn't a mass shooting at all, and it may not even have been intended as an attack. Investigators are theorizing that this may have been a botched robbery, and most/all of the fatalities so far were caused by smoke inhalation. This should be posted either way, I would think, but it's still early. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Bongwarrior but note with some irony that the blurb it's likely to push out is the one on the Marawi crisis, which is also Phillipines related + takes up more news time in the country + will have longer-lasting consequences than this. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting I saw this earlier and thought to nominate it, but I was unclear on what was going on and ended up taking a nap. I suggest being as vague as we can be in the blurb until specifics are confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regardless if the deaths were not a result of the attack, this would still be considered a significant disaster. Give it a couple more hours for stabilization of details before posting. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is just the wording of the event. It reads as though the shooter shot everyone and that just wasn't the case.
Support with alt-blurb2. Major causality event, but current understanding is that no one was actually shot and that it was not an intentional attack / terrorism. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should post Alt2. Whether or not this was terrorism is down to speculation. The local authorities assert that it was a robbery based on no evidence. ISIS claims the attack as their own, again with no evidence. There's circumstantial evidence either way: ISIS previously threatened to increase attacks as part of the local uprising; the perpetrators killed themselves during the attack; there was no use of explosives; no one was apparently shot; the perpetrators took a large amount of casino chips during the attack, and so one. I think it's better to call this an "attack" and change later to "robbery" if there's consensus from authorities, than to call it a "robbery" and then have to sift through the back-and-forth at ERRORS if it turns out to be terrorism.128.214.69.207 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] US will withdraw from Paris Agreement on climate change
Nominator's comments: Trump's actions on climate change (Trump has said climate change is a Chinese hoax) has widely and internationally been cited as one point where he might make a big impact. This withdrawal is making headlines around the world. Thue (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that virtually every other country had committed to it. Now that the US is out, it might destabilize the whole agreement, since the US might hypothetically gain a competitive advantage by polluting unchecked. So it could conceivably have the consequence that China quits it too. So I can't see how you think the big news is that China had previously committed to it (when China thought the US was also in). Also, "rather than yet another Trumpism" is hardly a worthy argument in an ITN discussion. Thue (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WaitSupport Thue has a valid point here, but this also only an intent to withdraw. There is now likely going to be internal politicking going on, possibly on the budget as a bargaining point, before the signature is actually withdrawn. I would wait until the US has committed to the withdraw. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the New York Times article points out, the withdrawal could take 4 years. This is real news, the top headline everywhere, with real consequences RIGHT NOW - there is a reason why e.g. the New York Times is making it a headline now, and not in 4 years. We should of course also post it in 4 years, if the US actually goes through with the withdrawal - 2 posts in 4 years about this extremely significant news item is not too much. Thue (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, I thought it would be something in a few months with bargaining involved, but clearly it's much longer. Add that there's potential ramifications for some other already-signed countries to drop out, plus a handful of US states their their own action to uphold it, and this is too significant a data point to miss. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. This is a huge international story and it is being covered as such by just about every news outlet in the world. Just as with Brexit, the correct time to post is now, when the process begins, not when it is formally completed (which, again as in Brexit, will take a long time). Nsk92 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With Brexit, we posted three times, all at hard points of action: the results of the referendum, the court's judgement that they would have to evoke Section 50 to widthdraw, and the actual passage of legislation to evoke Section 50. This presently is an intent to withdraw (the US already signed) so we should wait until the point of action, the actual "de-signing" point. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Withdrawing from this agreement is of significant international interest, and more than a standard "Trumpism". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aside from the US ceding influence on the accord, there is fear that it could upend the whole agreement by motivating other nations to pull out or otherwise not meet their commitments. Major international impact. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is from the WaPo story cited by the nominator: "Withdrawing the United States from the agreement could take years due to the accord’s legal structure and language." By that time, a lot could happen -- and somebody else could be president. This is a typical Trumpian media event designed to gain control of a few news cycles before CNN, NYT and WaPo go back to their usual Russia conspiracy mongering. Whiff of greatness (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who remembers George W. Bush's dance on Kyoto, or that dramatic moment when Canada withdrew in 2011? I certainly had to look it up. In another week, this incident will be remembered as "the Trumpism that happened after covfefe" -- if it's remembered at all. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly ITN-worthy (it's not every day the world's largest economy announces its intention to withdraw from a top-tier international agreement), but the Paris Agreement article currently has only a sentence on the topic, along with a rather speculative and narrow sub-section based on discussions by delegates at a pensions conference. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we should expect more yet on this; the news is abuzz with tons of speculation of what might happen but that's not our purposes. The article should state Trump is seeking withdrawl and provide his reasons for it, and any immediate reaction (such as several US cities and three states working to support the agreement despite a lack of federal support). Any more detail is beyond our current scope. (The Paris Agreement is otherwise very good). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While a lot may happen in 4 years, this is big news now, drawing reactions from many world leaders (compare other "Trumpisms" like "covfefe" or the orb - no reactions apart from Twitter and a concentrated amount of media articles around a few days). Seagull123 Φ 22:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is like a terror attack perpetrated by the US on the rest of the world so its news worthy..--Stemoc22:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpose (Oppose), not more Trump creep and this time just about a non-binding agreement. Whether the US is in it officially or not, it really makes little impact, because of the lack of enforcement. --AmaryllisGardenertalk23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is quite well sourced now. Added altblurb specifying that it was an agreement on climate change mitigation, more than an agreement on climate change. Neegzistuoja (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Heavy global coverage of what is probably biggest move yet to implement DT's benighted vision of Amerika über Allies. Sca (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a modified version of the altblurb. The US Withdrawal article is the subject of a merge discussion; if that closes as "don't merge" we can change the link later. --Jayron3200:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (was about to post this myself but Jayron beat me to it.) While I share the concerns expressed by some that we don't want ITN to become a Trump news ticker, sometimes he does things that clearly are really significant news. This falls into that category. On a side note the article appears to be in acceptable condition for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image needs to be yanked as soon as possible. This image is not currently available under a free license, so it may not appear on the front page. Without going into detail due to the confidentiality agreement I have through OTRS, it is not public domain. ~ Rob13Talk02:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process of posting a replacement. In the future, please post such concerns to WP:ERRORS; when noted here they tend to get missed. Problems with currently appearing main page content is dealt with faster if posted at WP:ERRORS. --Jayron3202:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Trying this again. Last substantial update was on 29th May Monday, 4 bodycount sentences. Before that, 27 May, 2 bodycount sentences. Out of NY Times, LA Times, BBC, Guardian, La Pais, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel, only 1 (Spiegel) has an article about this on the frontpage, when they previously (April 14) had an article claiming the battle was over. Article talk page is discussing whether they should condense the prose due to the event "winding down". I suspect there will never be a clear "end" to this event, and as such the lack of substantial updates and interest from RSes should be enough to pull this. 128.214.69.166 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal; it seems like it's now time to remove this. We can always add it back should conditions warrant. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Not much is served by keeping this on ongoing. I imagine that within the next few months the battle will be over, and if there is a clear point where this happens (probably a declaration of victory by the Iraqi government) that would be an ITN item. --LukeSurltc10:45, 1 June 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.
Comment Fairly decent article (few BLP issues should be easy to solve), person has a history of controversial behavior, item most certainly in the news. Going to give this snowball a chance. 14 minutes was a little extreme for an "ITN regular" to just decide what "we don't post" per some unwritten rule. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a case of censorship in the United States, but at the same time, everyone agrees this content should be censored (herself included now). Did she break the law? Perhaps, if the Secret Service is investigating her. But as far as ITN is concerned, this is too anecdotal.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is the type of political mudslinging WP overall (much less ITN) needs to be involved in until its permanence is better known. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 1 June 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 U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) says they will counter Iraq’s mostly Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU) militants if the latter enters areas under SDF control, insisting that SDF will never accept the presence of Iran and SDF will never under any circumstances act as a bridge between PMU and the Syria's Assad regime. (Al Arabiya)(Middle East Eye)
Guardian Council officially confirmed the result of the election which saw Incumbent President Hassan Rouhani reelected for another four years in office. (PressTV)
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: A worse flood in Sri Lanka since 2003 and caused over 200 death, missing of over 90 people and displaced over half a million people. Note: anyone would like to include Cyclone Mora and in altblurb? If so, please. --AntanO08:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Kabul bombing
Article:May 2017 Kabul attack (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The diplomatic quarter in Kabul is attacked in a suicide truck bombing, killing at least 80 people and injuring more than 350 others. (Post) News source(s):BBC Credits:
Strong support. As the creator of the page, I'm surprised it's been 4 hours since the attack and no one has created a page yet. Clearly deserves to be on Wikipedia front page. Ethanbas(talk)08:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: OK, I've added virtually all the information there is about the attack so far. Other editors will add stuff when I wake up, and then this should be quickly moved to ITN. Good night for now. Ethanbas(talk)08:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on importance, oppose on article depth. Currently people will learn almost nothing more from the article than the blurb, and not all of that is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now - the article has adequate coverage of what little is known now. The blue tag at the top alerts readers that the article will not have the complete picture (as the story is still breaking). We can rely on editors to update this as the reports come in. --LukeSurltc12:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the blurb to say "diplomatic quarter" rather than single out the German embassy, as otherwise it could be read as implying the casulties were all at the embassy itself.--LukeSurltc14:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in decent enough shape to post, knowing the event is still ongoing (and is the type of mass-casualty event clearly ITN). --MASEM (t) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb explosion outside a popular ice cream parlor in central Baghdad kills 13 people and injures 24. ISIL claims responsibility for the attack. (AP)
Business and economy
China Labor Watch says one of its team was arrested and two others are missing when they were investigating labor practices at Ganzhou Huajian International Shoe City Co., whose products include Ivanka Trump-branded shoes. (Time)
A formation of United StatesB-1B bombers from Guam flew over Korea, staging a nuclear bomb dropping drill. North Korea calls it a military provocation. (Yonhap)(Terra)
Article:Cyclone Mora (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 5 people have been killed and houses damaged after Cyclone Mora hit Bangladesh's southern east coast (Post) Credits:
Oppose for now – This is a run-of-the-mill storm for the region. Bangladesh/Myanmar regularly see very deadly storms (re: Cyclone Nargis in 2008 with >100,000 deaths) so less than 10 deaths falls far short of notability in the region. Additionally, the article quality is not up to par. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cyclonebiskit. Also oppose merge for several reasons. One, the cyclone itself did not make landfall in Sri Lanka, but the progenitor system affected the island nation as the floods started on 24 May yet Mora developed 26 May. The developing cyclone would be difficult to distinguish from the monsoon itself, which frequently causes flash flooding. The Sri Lanka floods article contains one citation from BBC (which I cannot access, and unfortunately cannot assess) stating that the deadly floods were triggered by both the cyclone and the monsoon. Again, the definition of which is which becomes ambiguous. Two, the average reader could be confused about whether the cyclone proper made landfall in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, since a combined blurb would indicate more deaths in Sri Lanka. I support in principle the Sri Lanka floods on its own (nominated below), but as of now both articles are in very poor shape, with insufficient referencing. 183.184.108.45 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eighteen people, including two opposition leaders, Henrique Capriles and Carlos Paparoni, are injured in Caracas as security forces stop protestors from reaching the government ombudsman's office. (Reuters)(AP)
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've added a blurb, since this is quite a significant individual, but we could run with just the RD if folks prefer that. Vanamonde (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Count Iblis (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Significant cleanup needed Some sections entirely unsourced, and one orange tag on it, plus several CNs. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm working on cleaning this up; given the significance, it would be a shame if we didn't post anything. I think a blurb may be justified in this case. Any help would be welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those like me who don't recognise the name, he was "military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989, when he was removed from power by the United States during the invasion of Panama.". Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've worked on this a fair bit, and though it's not fantastic, citation issues have been addressed, and main aspects have been covered. @EternalNomad, Masem, and Thryduulf: since you folks have looked at this once already, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I haven't actually looked at the article in any more detail than to find out who he was. If I do so later I will likely have an opinion but I don't currently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb; RD is sufficient. Not a world-transforming figure or tops in his field, just a two-bit dictator/CIA operative/drug trafficker. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - the sort of nomination where quality and depth of coverage on Wikipedia would have been a pre-requisite to seriously considering, though even then it would have faced an uphill battle. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Philippine military announces that it has discovered the bodies of 16 people, believed to have been killed by the ISIL affiliated Abu Sayyaf. Authorities say that the death toll after six days of fighting is 95, including 19 civilians. (The New York Times)
At least 126 people are dead, and 97 missing, after mudslides and floods caused by heavy rain in Sri Lanka. Over 100,000 people have been displaced. (AP)
Eight people, including a Lincoln County Sheriff's Department deputy, are fatally shot overnight at three locations in rural Mississippi. A suspect is in custody; he says he intended for it to be "suicide by cop." (NBC News and AP)
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: John Noakes was the longest-serving presenter of British children's programme, Blue Peter, itself the longest-running children's programme in the world. Aiken D10:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are 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.
Support but only highlight the Festival per ITNR. Neither the film nor director article are really long enough to be front page material and I don't think we want to start a trend. Linked is fine. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment. Even the festival article has practically no prose in it at all. If we're going to reject sporting events for the same reason, we do need to be consistent. If we're going to post this, bold the film, because it's currently the better article of the two. Black Kite (talk)23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand Cannes, that unlike a sporting event or something like the Oscars, there's not much of a single "ceremony" to this. The Festival occurs over several days, and then there's a final awards presentation, which is not broadcasted or the like, so that there is really nothing to recap. I would totally agree if there was a major ceremony to be seen by millions through television, then we'd absolutely need some type of prose, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. (I also spot checked a few previous years and none have any significant prose since there's less ceremony and more just documentation of events. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb after reviewing festival article, I think it's of sufficient quality, and certainly at least as notable as 89th Academy Awards, which being American, got to the Main Page without question. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose unless there's an explanation of why this is significant. We posted that Chinese airliner, but that was because it was China's first large-size civilian aircraft to go into production; United Aircraft Corporation (who made this one) and its predecessors have been building civilian airliners for decades and there doesn't appear to be anything ground-breaking about this particular model. ‑ Iridescent11:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft is viewed as a competitor of both Airbus and Boeing and generally I think maiden flights of every new passenger airliner are newsworthy as this is one step closer to their introduction into civilian service. Brandmeistertalk12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent. I'm not seeing how this is significantly different to the Airbus A320 Neo, Boeing 737 MAX, Bombardier CSeries or Comac C919 that it is intended to compete with? I disagree that maiden flights of every new passenger airliner are newsworthy (and would oppose a nomination to put them on ITNR) as there are so many different airliners being produced for different segments of the market by competing companies that most are not notable outside the industry. The Comac was significant because it was China's first, the A380 was significant as it was the largest ever, similarly I'd have supported the 747 and Concorde had ITN been around in those days. The first solar passenger airliner will be notable, as would the first twin-fuselage or flying wing airliners (if they ever happen). The first flight of an aircraft from a country that doesn't currently make airliners may be, depending on the exact circumstances. This one though seems just run-of-the-mill. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see how this aircraft is revolutionary or otherwise groundbreaking(as opposed to the Chinese plane). Russia already makes airliners and this doesn't seem to have different notable technologies. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I looked around and saw enough coverage to support this. [1][2][3]. It's the same article by AFP, but the outlets that chose to use it are diverse. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted above, this is nowhere close to Russia's first commercial airliner compared to the China one. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is as relevant as the C919 : it's an all new design (with a tech specificity : 1st large narrow-body with out-of-autoclave composite wing, more disruptive than C919), the C919 isn't china's first airliner (after the Y-10 and ARJ-21), and established airliner-developing countries had their recent airliners firsts in the new : B787,A350, Cseries. Airliners first flights aren't common (perhaps 3-4 new designs emerge per decade), not overwhelming ITN. Twice in the same month is very uncommon. @Iridescent, Thryduulf, 331dot, Masem, and The Rambling Man: perhaps reconsider, Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian, this one should be treated equally as the C919 (it is in specialised press and news agencies) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have opposed all three of those as well (I might have been persuaded on the 787 if the blurb had explained that it was the first composite material aircraft). But thanks for the insinuation that I'm opposing because I'm racist, that makes me feel all warm inside. ‑ Iridescent08:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and Iridescent: Don't take it personally, it's Wikipedia that appear to support more a Chinese airliner than a (more technically innovative, if anything) Russian one, not any of you. The point is, if the C919 passed, the MC-21 should as well. (NB: The 787 wasn't the first composite aircraft).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you mention both of us by name, accuse us of being "anti-Russian", and then tell us "Don't take it personally"? Since TRM is topic banned from insulting other editors, I'll do it for him: go fuck yourself. ‑ Iridescent08:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you out of your mind? I said "Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian", because noting the C919 and not the Irkut seems giving more importance to china than to russia. I pinged you to reconsider, not the most insulting thing to do. Personally I don't really think either one will be successful outside their homecountry and aren't the most noteworthy planes, but if one is enough, the other should be too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using inflammatory phrases Marc, I'm as far from anti-Russian as you could get. It'd be better for you to strike that meaningless accusation. Just because we posted A, it doesn't mean we have to post B, and it certainly doesn't mean that makes us anti-B. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Lacoste: You pinged several users including me and then stated "Wikipedia shouldn't appear anti-russian". To the people you pinged it sounds like you are saying that we are anti-Russian. I didn't say you were gross or crass, but you are clearly implying something, perhaps unintentionally. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you and the others to "perhaps reconsider" (in light of arguments balancing the previous), not implying anything. Fact is, if the C919 is noteworthy for WP but the MC-21 not, it could appear WP:biased. WP:ITN have to accept critics on content, it's different than personal attacks. If someone believes it was personally directed, perhaps it is time to take a step back and separate oneself from this kind of editorial work.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I would just leave this as it stands. Mr Lacoste will not apologise or redact and this conversation will go on ad infinitum. I have experienced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not insulting you, simply telling you how your statement was received. However, I will not say any more about this on this page. I still encourage you to retract your statement. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't insulted me, Iridescent did. My statement wasn't offensive and you don't have to take any offense. I'm sorry if you did.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your listing of the technology but it's technical evolution rather than revolution. My opposition is entirely due to the reasons I stated above, please do not read anything more into my motivations. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those opposing (most of them at least) are saying it is less important, because it is not Russia's first domestically produced airliner and does not seem to have revolutionary technological advancements that are groundbreaking in the industry. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ansar al-Sharia announces it is formally dissolving amid heavy losses that have wiped out its leadership and decimated its fighters. The group was responsible for the 2012 Benghazi attack. (Reuters)
Police search for a driver who witnesses believe was driving aggressively around campers in Grays Harbor County, Washington, and deliberately backed over two campers while yelling racial slurs, killing one and injuring a second. Both victims are from the Quinault Indian Nation. (The Seattle Times)
Police announce charges of attempted murder against 150 protestors from Dhaka University over a protest to restore a statue of Lady Justice outside the Supreme Court. Protestors and police clashed near the High Court, with police firing tear gas and water cannons after protestors breached a barricade. Police claim protestors wielded sticks and stones in a bid to murder on-duty officers. (Dhaka Tribune)
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: Has recieved attention world wide. Her release and deportation has as well been reported on by world media. Please suggest other blurbs as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If "her release and deportation have been reported on by world media", it's certainly passed me by; likewise, I can see nothing in the article, let alone the blurb, to indicate why this event has any significance at all other than to her friends and family. "Foreign national gets deported after serving their time for a felony conviction" is such a standard practice, it's more noteworthy when somebody doesn't get deported on their release (Learco Chindamo is the case that springs to mind). ‑ Iridescent22:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support since it's been reported so much. To answer Iridescent, "Her story captivated Australia, hogging headlines and prime time television for months, and initially putting strain on diplomatic ties between Australia and Indonesia" (quoted from Reuters). That may have been years ago, but people now clearly still care, given the coverage. Still only weakly support because it does seem rather local and not likely to have lasting consequences. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you click the link? Also, searching for "Corby" on your favourite search engine should turn up lots of recent results. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seemed to be an expected result once time was served, so the process just being followed is not ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons stated by Masem. If this tabloid story is published on ITN, then the next logical step would be to have the Kardashians as an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: As the Kashmir insurgency goes on and is no longer on ongoing, this is another notable move since he succeeed the death of that whose death re-started the instability. Lihaas (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article is a four sentence substub that says absolutely nothing about the subject other than his birthplace, his job, and his place of death. ‑ Iridescent09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent. If any interested editors can work on the article and get it into shape before it becomes stale, ping some of us opposing here and we'll reevaluate it. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not that I'm aware of. It has been subject to occasional discussion, but usually at this time of year when lots of leagues, cup competitions etc are coming to a conclusion all around the same time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that sport events deserves a separate section on the main page, with many sport competitions to be highlighted there. - EugεnS¡m¡on20:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The oldest and one of the most important football cups in the world. If we mention India's IPL and The USA's NFL/NBA in ITN, we should mention this, as well. Ravivyas16 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose article isn't good enough in the match summary area. Otherwise I agree it's reasonable to equate this competition to the Superbowl or the IPL finals. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above: this is a famous cup and it is seen around the world. However, the summary looks more like the summary of a summary you see in the lead, not what's expected of the main section. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deciding which association football tournaments meet ITN notability is essentially a subjective judgement call. As much as we can make semi-objective statements of the form "X is older, Y has more TV viewers, Z has more money involved", it's essentially a matter of opinion to what extent these criteria matter and where the "bar" for posting even is. So, for me, the only English tournament that I think should be posted is the more prestigious Premier League, but, eh, your mileage may vary. --LukeSurltc21:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The Champions League is all league winners. The FA Cup is quite probably the most prestigious domestic cup competition in Europe, but really it's all about the leagues. Champions League qualification is probably a big reason for this. --LukeSurltc21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. In America winning the league is not as important as winning the post-league playoffs. If a team thinks it has the best seed in the tournament in the bag they might even replace star players with substitutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question by The Rambling Man, as far as I know LukeSurl is correct that no other domestic Cups will qualify a team for the Champions league, but it is definitely incorrect to say that "The Champions League is all league winners" - for instance England will have 5 teams in it next season, but only Chelsea will be the league winners, and Manchester United will be there despite failing to qualify via the premier league.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the Champion's League IS "all league winners" PLUS other successful clubs that were almost league winners. There are also winners from every league so it's still correct in a sense. LordAtlas (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may arguably in some sense be technically correct, but it still seems thoroughly misleading, perhaps especially in the context of the question it was trying to answer. I guess with a little imagination one might also argue that 'technically', for instance, being 3 places and many points behind Chelsea really does make Liverpool 'almost a league winner', but then with a little imagination one can probably argue almost anything is 'technically' the opposite of what is normally understood. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite frankly I'm amazed we're even having a debate over the notability of the final of the oldest, most prestigious and high-profile domestic cup competition in football. For years this was the biggest game of the year and the only game shown live on TV in England. It may have lost some of its lustre in the Premier League era but it still attracts huge attention. The quality of the article is fine, it's in the news, it should be posted.Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LukeSurl. This is association football - there are lots of competitions. If we feature this, what about the EPL, Bundelisga, La Liga, Champions League, UEFA final, etc? All these competitions end roughly around now. Sure, this may be the most widely-followed cup competition, but it's still one of many. With so many competitions in this sport ending around the same time, I think we should be selective about which to feature. We chose EPL + Champions League (they're ITNR), which is fine and sufficient. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been no dispute that this competition is the biggest cup competition of all. To answer the points about ITNR, the reason that this isn't on ITNR, in my opinion, is due to legitimate concern over whether there is space for the FA Cup given the crowded schedule of potential postings a week before, therefore the decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. In this case, given that none of the leagues were posted for quality reasons, and given that the oldest story (a sporting story, I might add) is over a week old), I think those circumstances lend themselves to posting on this occasion. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any justification for having two English football competitions. I regard La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A as more important. While it is probably still true that the FA Cup is the biggest domestic cup competition, it is not as big as it once was. Neljack (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are going to get two English football competitions. It looks like none of the league articles are going to be posted (as StillWaiting says, there were quality objections and most of them are stale now) so if we're going to have a football story on ITN it might as well be this one.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are almost certainly going to have a football story on ITN, because the Champions league final on Sunday is ITN/R, and is far more notable and prestigious than the FA Cup, which is a very good reason for NOT posting a story on the FA Cup.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Champions League final is in two days; if we're going to have a cup final, it should be that one. (It's not too WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the CL will be ready for posting almost immediately; as the most important annual sporting fixture in the world, it will have huge numbers of people working on it and will be brought up to standard almost as soon as the final whistle is blown.) ‑ Iridescent12:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People should stop opposing just because other things exist. I thought we were supposed to judge based on quality and notability. What's with all the nonsense comparing different cups, leagues, and so on? The best solution has always been to make a sports section but still everyone refuses. LordAtlas (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per TRM, the match summary is of insufficient depth. If that were expanded, one could consider my vote a full support. --Jayron3214:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: First, barring a highly unlikely lack of article quality, we will quite rightly be posting the Champions League final on Sunday per ITN/R, so two soccer stories in 3 days is too much. And second, there's also a WP:BIAS issue in posting two English domestic soccer competitions in about a month (I'm assuming the Premier league winners got posted per ITN/R) and nobody else's domestic soccer competitions, many of which are objectively far more significant than the FA Cup. (I've removed my second objection - to my surprise it seems nobody could bring the Premier league season article up to the quality required to post it per ITN/R; but my first objection seems sufficient). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not a good reason to oppose. We post all the Nobel prizes in quick succession for example (assuming quality is sufficient). We don't just post one of them and forget the rest because "five Nobel stories in five days is too much". There are well known seasonal peaks and troughs in stories such as these, the end of the European football season means major European league and cup competitions are concluding. This is the oldest association football cup competition in the world, opposing it "because another soccer story might be posted in a few days time" is not a suitable argument at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I fixed one CN about the band not working with Gregg again. There's one lingering CN about his father moving to Vanleer in 1945 - the date is not clear, but he was definitely a resident there as he was murdered there in 1949. As that's a minor point that's not critical or contentious, this is well sourced and ready to go. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 27 May 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: Served in many political capacities, most notably as President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. Note that the article is currently marked as a {{recent death}} at the time of this nomination —Gestrid (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support RD if it weren't for the fact that the "National Security Advisor" section is completely unsourced at the moment. Mélencron04:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be true, we are supposed to focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person. —Gestrid (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BlurbThis should be posted, and there is nothing wrong with supporting a blurb, (which I think is unwarranted (old person dies) in this case). But Gestrid's comment that we are not to focus on the importance of the person in regards to possible blurbs is baseless. RD was never meant to exclude blurbs for persons of importance. μηδείς (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@μηδείς: I'm not opposing the blurb (which I would be in favor of, if not for the citation problems mentioned here). I'm reminding them to base their arguments off of article quality, not importance of the person, as the notice just above my nom comments says: [T]he nomination of any individual human [...] with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article.—Gestrid (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some stories characterize him rather narrowly as national security adviser to Carter, who served just one term. But Brzezinski was a prescient voice for reasonable, realistic foreign policy for four decades, and was widely admired – not least for his eloquence, despite his heavy Polish accent. On that basis I could support a blurb, but I recognize this may be a U.S. point of view. Sca (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The flooding is believed to be the worst since May 2003, article still in process of getting updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster Management Centre of Sri Lanka reports that 91 people are killed and 110 people from 14 districts are missing due to flood and landslide. (BBC)
A spokesman for the Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurant chain reveals that hackers stole customer payment data from most of their stores over a span of three weeks starting from the end of March. (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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Unfortunate escalation of violence outside the Sinai and Northern Egyptian regions. Currently working on updating the article. SpencerT♦C15:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supportarticle in reasonable shape, no tags. I have added a pro-forma blurb, but it can obviously be improved. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is expanded and sourced sufficiently for posting, and the event is clearly notable for ITN's purposes. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Egyptian warplanes struck militant camps in Libya, apparently belonging to the Shura Council of Mujahideen in Derna, in response to the attack.[11] Obviously a notable development and the article (probably the blurb too) should be updated accordingly. Won't be doing much about any of this these days, unfortunately. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – No. 1 on many major media sites today. But the Egyptian attack on "terrorist training camps" in Derna, Libya, doesn't belong belong in the blurb, especially since there's little word yet on results. Sca (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2017 (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.jpg)
