Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mamyles (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 9 May 2018 (Keeping brackets consistent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

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.

Willie Mays in 1961
Willie Mays in 1961

Glossary

  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • 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.

Please do...

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

May 9

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Realease of American prisoners in North Korea

Article: List of foreign nationals detained in North Korea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: North Korea has freed three US citizens from prison, according to a tweet from US President Donald Trump. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Positive news. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the ship has sailed at this point, but we really ought to make the North Korea diplomatic saga an ongoing event. The isolated events on their own really are not suitable for ITN, but the negotiation process as a whole is.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I would HARDLY' consider a Trump tweet to be a reliable source.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target article tells us nothing about this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good news if true, but not of sufficient importance for a blurb here. Walt's suggestion about ongoing may merit some discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These cases did not get the attention of some other Americans detained by NK. It's also not like they were captured outside of NK; they were all arrested while there. NK can arrest or detain anyone within its borders for any reason. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart acquisition of Flipkart

Articles: Walmart (talk · history · tag) and Flipkart (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Walmart will pay about $16bn to take control of Flipkart, India's biggest online retailer, in a deal that puts it head to head with Amazon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Walmart announces the acquisition of Flipkart for about $16 billion.
Alternative blurb II: Walmart announces its intention to acquire Flipkart for about $16 billion.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Acquisition of India's biggest online retailer. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - When it comes to business stories, you can't get more international than this. This is massive. The only thing that could be larger is Alibaba acquiring Amazon or something along those lines.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance, and I strongly suggest avoiding the commentary in the original blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big business deal, and both articles are in acceptable shape. Teemu08 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb. Don't need the added bit with Amazon. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Definitely big news in the business world. However, the article updates could use a little expansion. I have added three CN tags to Walmart but given the size and overall quality of the article they are not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the Walmart article has nothing save for an infobox mention of this; also the "Supercneters" section has a few weak points of sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The alternative blurb is ambiguous with regards to the timing of the acquisition, which has not yet taken place. I added an alternative above. Chrisclear (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walmart shouldn't be bolded as is doesn't even mention the deal. ghost 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) LDS Church/Boy Scouts of America

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: Chartered organizations of the Boy Scouts of America (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced that it will end its sponsoring of Scout units on December 31, 2019. The Church is the oldest and largest sponsor of Scouting, beginning in 1913, and 37% of Scouting units and 18% of Scouts pertain to the Church (Post)
News source(s): A Joint Statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Boy Scouts of America [1] WaPost Faux News Huffpo Fortune WaPo USA Today
Credits:
Nominator's comments: How big of news this is depends on how influential you perceive the two institutions to be, and I acknowledge some personal bias in this matter Ryan Reeder (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no article, local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please offer any news sources that indicate this is in the news. I will say this is a domestic story between two private entities, and long expected since the scouts started accepting gays and girls. There is no article either. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I put in a news source for this, and reading it, it's a mutually agreed separation, and mostly related to values related to LBGT. I don't see anything that suggest this has a major impact on the Scouts (they weren't being financially supported by the Mormons), and for the Mormons, they simply are ending their church's participating but do not restrict their youth to still be a part of the Scouts. Not significant news. --Masem (t) 14:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The radical changes being introduced into the organization might be good DYK material. But this is not of sufficient importance for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's in the news, but there is no update to consider. There is a whole "Please do not" above regarding "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one."--LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (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.

May 8

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Pulled) RD: George Deukmejian

Article: George Deukmejian (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A number of statements need to be sourced, but beyond that, nominating in good faith. --PootisHeavy (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At this count, 13 CN tags, but if those can be resolved, the article looks sound otherwise.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @Sunshineisles2:: I fixed all CN tag issues. The article is well sourced now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well sourced and seems to fit requirements for RD. Killiondude (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Good work, TDKR Chicago 101. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is good to go, typically good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came by to post this, spot-checked one reference, and found it wanting; it did not support the content in question. Under the circumstances, I would prefer to do further spot-checks, which may take me a few hours, or have someone else do them. I also find it odd that the obituary I read mentions fairly prominently that he left behind a state budget deficit larger than the one he inherited; a fact which seems to warrant mention in the article, thought this isn't an issue I would hold a nomination up over in isolation. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Added post edid-conflict: 331dot, I've added two CN tags after spot-checking two refs; I suggest you pull this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, pulled this myself; I've now found four instances of a citation not supporting the content it was used for. Due apologies, but a little more scrutiny and we may be able to reinstate this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry I missed that one. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Not suggesting anything besides good faith here; it's unreasonable for the admin to check every source anyway. There just happened to be problems with the first source I checked (and then the second, third, fourth...) Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Another reference where we're using Deukmejian's campaign manager as a source to present things about his campaign in Wikipedia's voice...Deukmejian is a well-known politician, I'm sure we can find better. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With more obits coming out I am able to find sources that closely corresponds with the content of the article. If there’s more issues provide the ref number so I could find stronger sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Well, if a source doesn't support certain content it shouldn't be posted there in the first place, should it? I've removed some sources already, so you just need to replace those (you've done some of that already, so thanks); I've flagged another on the talk page, and will try to check some more later. Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia PM

Article: Nikol Pashinyan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following weeks of protests, Nikol Pashinyan is elected prime minister of Armenia. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR but seems like a culmination fo protests. That round to soros. Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article on the new prime minister is well sourced in every paragraph (even if I think the lead is too long for an article of such length). Under the new constitution, the PM is the most powerful person in Armenian politics, so this is equivalent to a new German chancellor or British PM rather than, for example, a new PM in France. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose checked the refs, a few dead links leave a few paragraphs totally unsourced. It's in the news, should be posted, but BLP and all. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new prime minister after prior one leaves in turmoil seems newsy enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per historic reaction to national protests.BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but bold the protest article. This is very significant as the new prime minister was the leader of the protests. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 01:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USA/JCPOA

Article: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States of America withdraws from the JCPOA (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ United States withdraws from the Iran deal
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Just announced, bu t this will be all over the news shortly. I imagine For Min's all over are writing PR statements already. Welcome to World War III Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approve - but I'd recommend linking to the United States withdraw from Iran Deal Wikipedia article instead. FlowerRoad (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not need to exist. Not yet anyways.Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different from United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In international relations and long-term, it's certainly more notable. Businesses and other governments are still fighting climate change, this gutted the Iran Deal. FlowerRoad (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article can really use copy editing. The reaction section is, uh, something else. Juxlos (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose solely on the orange NPOV tag near the bottom of the article. That has to go before this could be posted. Otherwise this looks like a solid and well sourced article. Get rid of the tag and I will happily support. On a side note I concur that we should use plain language for the link vice the acronym. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag from the section "Continued Criticism", because the last discussion on that part was in 2016, and, as far as I can tell, the article seems to have settled into a consensus version in that section. OtterAM (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approve It's in the news, has been talked about for quite a while, one of President Trump's campaign focuses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmradu (talkcontribs) 18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The blurb is technically wrong. "Trump described the move as a “withdrawal,” which is technically incorrect because the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is not a treaty. The US can only abide by or violate the terms of the Iran accord." [2].--Mhhossein talk 18:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Support someone forked the article into something smaller and more suitable. altblurb proposed --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb but strongly oppose the first altblurb and new article as a standalone. It's basically being used as a coatrack to attack Trump, even though Trump was the one squarely behind finding a way for the US to exit this. --Masem (t) 19:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange world we live in that factual statements about trump, including fact checking his objective lies, are considered "attacks". Very strange indeed. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally.Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: So long as the blurb retains a NPOV and isn't used as a politicized platform to take jabs at Trump. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, hold off for a little bit. There's a merger proposal to address the content fork. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 19:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest we ignore the minor content fork, and link to the main article: JCPOA. OtterAM (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is big news in almost all the world press, and Wikipedia has a well developed article about it. I support option 2 because the acronym "JCPOA" is a little obscure. This is the right time to post this item because it has become finalized. OtterAM (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - monumental news, well worth posting. However, only the main target article is fit for posting at present, and the content forks should be avoided in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stub. Take away the inevitable "reactions" section and you have basically one or two useful sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a stub?Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Blurb 2: United States withdraws from the Iran deal.
This version has the advantage that there is no linking to a stub and no acronyms are used. OtterAM (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle, but strongly suggest title of target article be changed. To say that Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is "a little obscure" is today's ultra-understatement. It makes no sense whatever to the general reader, who's been hearing about the "Iran nuclear deal" for three years, and who's never heard of the "JCPOA." Pure bureaucratic obfuscation.
As to the article itself, it must include reactions, among them the joint pledge of Germany, France and the UK to stay in the agreement. Sca (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Major international news, certainly mention-worthy. Master of Time (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With no prejudice towards the nomination itself, Lihaas, for the love of god, STOP USING ITN AS YOUR POLITICAL FORUM. Comments such as "Welcome to World War III" are neither collegiate, nor helpful, nor are they in any way contributory to helping build an encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article is that it's monstrous, finding the update is a challenge. The reactions, especially from the other signatories are exceptionally relevant and bolting them into the JCPA article bulks it up even more for no reason. The content fork (I don't care which one) is a better target since it covers the lead up and reactions to the decision in more detail: which is the story here. Attacking Trump? Pointing out that he's made demonstrably false statements [3] about the arrangement isn't an "attack" at all ... it's sad that it has to be done. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. There seems to be three possible target articles: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has an orange tag (and is too long, and has too many notes, but that's irrelevant right now), United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a stub, and Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action also has orange tags. This is a mess. Isa (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we just ignore the two stubs, and not let the existence of those two stubs sabotage the inclusion of this article in "In the News". The main Wikipedia article is long and complicated, but it's also probably the clearest explanation of the JCPOA avaliable online. I think it would be an embarrassment if Wikipedia doesn't mention this event, when its dominating headlines across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterAM (talkcontribs) 23:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's been simmering in the news for a long time. This undoes years of diplomacy and antagonizes the US's allies. Post, even if the quality is not that good under the "cure for cancer" clause. Banedon (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - let's not be silly. Let's post the most complete article. This is major international news. starship.paint ~ KO 00:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target? – It might make more sense to change the primary target article to United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, although this still carries the ridiculously bureaucratic title "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." Sca (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Präsident Donald Trump (Bild) hat angekündigt, dass sich die USA aus dem Atomabkommen mit dem Iran zurückziehen werden.Sca (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maurane

Article: Maurane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Belgian singer. Lots of referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article needs to be re-sourced entirely, and that will mean rewriting it from scratch to match content with source. Non-trivial work.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: nowhere near ready at all. Would require a dedicated expert contributor to be considered in time Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra

Article: United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UAE forces occupy the Yemeni island of Socotra (Post)
Alternative blurb: An invasion by United Arab Emirates forces takes over the Yemeni island of Socotra.
News source(s): WaPost Jerusalem Post
Credits:

 Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems pretty obvious, this kind of territorial change (if confirmed) does not happen often. Banedon (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - International implications on this unauthorized seizure of sovereign territory. I have created an altblurb with proper links. Jusdafax (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Takeover of a territory is a very big deal that merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Once again, for a venue to show off our best work, this is barely enough text to qualify for "good enough". Since this is such a newsworthy event, one would presume that there was more information than this about it somewhere. If so, I am at a loss at why someone would want to avoid putting it in the article. --Jayron32 12:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because there isn't, and in our frantic effort to post "important" stories to the MP of Wikipedia the community is tolerating a very low bar for quality, basically rehashing the one or two wire stories about the subject dooming the article to forever-stub status when actual news media moves on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there are stories in the UAE press or Socotra press? Why would you adamently refuse to use those? --Jayron32 16:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this was really a military invasion / annexation surely there would be more widespread news coverage? Other than the Washington Post article linked above (which is actually a republished AP wire story), I'm not seeing any coverage in outlets beyond the region. If only local press are picking this up, is it really as big as the headline sounds? I don't know the answer but it seems suspicious. Modest Genius talk 16:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All press is local, and saying "this is only covered by local press" just means "it isn't covered by my local press". Local press is not unreliable by default, and I see no reason to refuse to use a source simply because it isn't based in the U.S. or Britain. --Jayron32 16:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. As noted by others below, many of those local/regional sources have close links to governments which are involved in the Yemeni civil war, or support opposing sides in Syria, or have long-standing hostilities with one side or another (e.g. the Qatar blockade). Bias is a potential issue, so I would prefer some outside media analysis. There's no reason why that has to be from the US or UK (I never mentioned them), but the current sourcing does worry me. Modest Genius talk 10:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an expert on this at all, but I'm still a little unclear about the significance of this event. Firstly, there are an awful lot of foreign troops in Yemen anyway. The Saudi led intervention hasn't been declared as an 'annexation'. So how precisely is this different? Also, many of the sources in the article are from Al Jazeera, which is run by the Qatari government, which obviously doesn't have great relations with the UAE now, so this might not be an entirely reliable source. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just seems to be a minor incident in a protracted civil war, like Somalia and Syria. We'd need better independent sourcing. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems a factoid rather than a properly considered event within a clear wider context. The content doesn't feel very neutral either and a wider selection of sourcing from a variety of different outlets would be necessary to support this tone as NPOV. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the UAE states they are formally annexing the territory. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until there is an official UAE statement on this. If it's "we are occupying Yemen's territory to xxx" then oppose, but if they invoke the "99-year lease" thing or the like then support. Juxlos (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you would have waited for an official announcement from the Soviets when they invaded Hungary in 1956, huh? Abductive (reasoning) 20:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. If we label it in 1956 as "The Soviet Union invaded and took over Hungary" instead of "The Soviet Union invades Hungary in response to a revolution" that would be inaccurate. Juxlos (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, major development, one for the history books. Abductive (reasoning) 20:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont you think its a bit to early to say something as portentous as that?Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Socotra is one of the few territories that has not switched hands during the war...until now. 172.98.154.119 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that this is a "takeover". The main source, Al Jazeera, is decidedly pro-Qatari and anti-Emirati, so it can't be trusted for neutrality. All other sources indicate an "increased presence" of UAE forces on the island, and "protests" against the presence. I concur with Juxlos, we should wait for an official UAE statement (or even one from Yemen). 184.151.37.158 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I think we do have an official UAE statement:[4] This is an active war zone with proxy considerations, and we should hardly expect the UAE to following Yemen's (literal) marching orders. If this is an annexation, it's ITN-worthy. But I'd put that at 70-30 right now, and we don't do retractions here; we wait for facts. ghost 11:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Miki Muster

Article: Miki Muster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
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: A pioneer in the field of animation and comics in Slovenia. The article was rather short but I believe I have sufficiently expanded it now. Language could probably need some polishing. One of the sources is in English as well. --Tone 22:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Tone 22:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article is well sourced and informative. Generally I like these short, but well referenced articles than huge mis-referenced and under-referenced articles that most of BLPs here are. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Snooker world championship

Proposed image
Article: 2018 World Snooker Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Mark Williams defeats John Higgins to win the World Snooker Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Plenty of images of the magnificent Williams available too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -The article has been substantially developed. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty good, but I added some {{cn}} tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source for the "rounds" tables at the end? Still over all a great example of a sports tournament article. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. That is an excellent article! Added a suitable image. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Thomas Kirk Larsen and Lee Vilenski who seem to have contributed the majority of the prose. Modest Genius talk 12:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Thomas has been pretty awesome, and copyedited a lot of my entries, but it's the sourcing that is important. The competition was really a great watch. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Longest ever gap between successive championships, I think. "The Welsh Potty machine" or whatever it is might still have currency, but "Sprog" was at least 20 years ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, 15 years since his previous victory in 2003. He didn't even qualify for the tournament last year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as tags seem to have been fixed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is what an article about a sporting event should look like, with sufficient prose, well referenced, etc. A few tables are nice, but where an article is nothing but tables, that's a problem. Someone obviously thought this was important enough to write about, and did. It should be held up as a model for how to properly write a sports article. --Jayron32 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment Due to having a lot of edits on the article in question, I won't vote, but it should be noted, that not only did Williams not qualify last season, he'd won 3 ranking tournaments this season, and hadn't won a single one since 2011 before that, and had considered retiring before the start of this season. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) No secret chambers in King Tuts tomb

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: KV62 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sonar tests disprove the theory that hidden chambers may have been present in Tutankhamun's tomb. (Post)
News source(s): BBC AP (via NBC)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is clearly unusual as an ITN, as proof of something that doesn't exist thus keeps the "status quo". However, since this theory popped up in 2015, there's been rather interest in the possibility of these chambers (which some suggested may even had been Nefertiti). This result (which Egypt's ministry has accepted as definitive) ends that theory. The article has one secton related to thefts that is unsourced, unfortunately. Masem (t) 04:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you count that as an Oppose? Python Dan (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above, more preferable as a DYK item. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the lack of something doesn't make a good ITN item. --12:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unorthodox nomination, but it’s trivial at best, this would be better off at DYK as the previous users have noted. Python Dan (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeExtra! Extra! No plane crashes today! Sca (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (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.

May 6

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Ahsan Iqbal

Article: Ahsan Iqbal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pakistan's Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is shot and injured in an assassination attempt. (Post)
News source(s): BCC CNN NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Auntie Agni (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for lack of a sufficient update. It gives no more information than the blurb does.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on notability of the event and the article's quality. When he's actually assassinated it may be worth posting, ceteris paribus. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you meant 'if' rather than 'when'! Modest Genius talk 16:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sadly Pakistan has a long history of political assassinations; a failed attempt does not reach the threshold of major encyclopaedic impact that would justify a blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Khaled Mohieddin

Article: Khaled Mohieddin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Arab News
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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon election

Article: Lebanese general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After 9 years and postponement, Lebanon votes in a new parliament. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: While it is ITNR, this is further important due to the Syria situation. Article has a tag and result should be out in about 12 or so hours. –Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Results going to be announced tomorrow or day after. We can assess after that. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regardless of who "wins" the election, it's going to take a little while to decide whether Saad Hariri stays in power or if the government is fully taken over by Hezbollah. 2600:6C50:407F:F9E5:0:CA15:D4A1:AB23 (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support + Comment - The 9 year wait is significant, but I prefer that we don't post it until we also have the results to announce. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination was closed while awaiting results. Now that results are announced, discussion can continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per ITNR. No-one really won the election, most probably the same dominant parties will again form a grand coalition, the unusual thing is the long delay and wrangling. The international press focused a lot on Hezbollah's performance, but in terms of seats Hezbollah presence in parliament stayed more or less the same (winning landslide victories in their own home turf). --Soman (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITNR, article seems to be in good shape. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a ITN worthy event. --Mhhossein talk 13:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 Kentucky Derby

Article: 2018 Kentucky Derby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Justify wins the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs, US, ridden by jockey Mike E. Smith. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R event and breaking 136-year record. Alternative blurb to reflect the record-breaking feat is welcome. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Quetta mine collapse

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: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Twin coal mine collapses near Quetta, Pakistan kill at least 23. (Post)
News source(s): BBC CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I can't find any article. Auntie Agni (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2018 (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) Launch of InSight/MarCO

Proposed image
Articles: InSight (talk · history · tag) and Mars Cube One (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The InSight spacecraft (pictured) and its companion MarCO cubesats are successfully launched towards the planet Mars. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The InSight spacecraft (pictured) is successfully launched towards Mars, alongside its companion MarCO cubesats.
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC News, The Guardian
Credits:

 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is pretty much ready to post - I'll just wait until I see some more support. --Tone 14:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is good. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Need this one. Ultimograph5 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added an image to the nomination, as I realise the ITN section will need one once the item on the Inter-Korean summit is bumped by this incoming item. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This will also get posted when it arrives at its destination, per ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well done indeed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be better to add that the spacecraft were launched "by NASA"? I would love to see that addition because it would give NASA credit for paying for the launch. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian Everlasting: NASA funded it, Lockheed Martin built it, the United Launch Alliance launched it, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory runs and operates it. So, there is a lot of people you exclude when you solely credit it to just NASA. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Succinct, neutral blurb is all that's needed. We are not advertising for them, why should we argue on who to credit?. –Ammarpad (talk)

Russian protests

Article: 2017–2018 Russian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 5 May started protests in Russian. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 UkrainianCossack (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this would be more fitting for an ongoing nomination, not a separate blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am not seeing any updates on the article. Am I wrong? Sherenk1 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality - I'm already hearing a lot about this story from outlets and peers, so I'm fully convinced that it's an important news story, but the article is far from ready. There were very few additions for the 5th May protests and unfortunately I had to roll them back because there were no sources and the sentences added used wording that isn't compatible with MoS. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sure how the blurb is commensurate with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nothing about 5 May in the article minus the infobox. Feels like a POV push especially with the poor translation for the blurb. Juxlos (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Apparently this started last year. So nothing new?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) North Korean time zone change

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: Time in North Korea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After the inter-Korean summit, North Korea changes its time zone to match that of South Korea. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After the inter-Korean summit, North Korea changes its time zone from UTC+08:30 to UTC+09:00, matching that of South Korea.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I think any permanent change (not DST of course) in time zone is a significant event. Perhaps we can update the previous blurb about the summit. EternalNomad (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not seeing this in the news, probably more of a DYK item. --LaserLegs (talk)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs, I’m only seeing this as a ploy to improving relationships between the two Koreas. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Because it actually went through. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minor, barely notable piece of news that does not warrant an ITN post. This is basically saying we post “Daylight Savings Time begins/ends in the United States”, albeit half the time change. Kirliator (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. Interesting trivia. But it's still trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree with the comparison to American Daylight Savings time, which is far more routine. Still, this is too trivial to merit posting at ANI. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -We cannot litter main page with every segment of their chat. We posted the grand part, that's the meeting itself. That's enough. May be DYK?. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three years back I have nominated article about recently established Pyongyang time. It was not approved. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I actually disagree with peoples assessment above. I think this is just the kind of news that should appear on ITN. It is part of history that Korea changes back time in an effort to soften relations. Article seems decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kinda getting a 'cool story bro' feeling from this. A bit of harmless trivia. talk to !dave 11:36, 5 May 2018 (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.

May 4

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Albert Pujols' 3000th career hit

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.


Proposed image
Articles: Albert Pujols (talk · history · tag) and 3000 hit club (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Albert Pujols becomes the 32nd Major League Baseball player to record 3,000 hits (Post)
News source(s): CBS NewsSI.com Yahoo! Sports
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant baseball accomplishment and Pujols is a GA. pbp 13:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "32nd player" basically says this might be a career achievement, but not a significant milestone for the sport. --Masem (t) 14:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm as big a baseball fan as they come (just check my promoted content) and while it's great he reached that milestone, it's not a significant enough sports story for us to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -Muboshgu and Masem have said everything. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pujols is one of the greatest to ever play the game, but this isn't even a record being broken. It's very impressive, but he's not even the first active player to hit 3000, and he certainly won't be the last to do it. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of sport records/milestones that were posted to ITN? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't see any at the moment, but pretty confident we have posted some key world record-breaking (sub 4-minute mile, for example) figures, but not all of them. --Masem (t) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (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.

Nigeria mosque bombing

Article: 2018 Mubi suicide bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Boko Haram bombing at a mosque kills 86 people in Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The bombing happened a few days ago, massive fatalities even for a country like Nigeria. 108.214.192.62 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as still a stub, otherwise the nomination is right, tremendous loss of life. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - but only until someone expands and improve the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in Principle, Oppose in Quality large-scale attack, but the article is in desperate need of an expansion. Will change to full support once necessary changes are made. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Doina Cornea

Article: Doina Cornea (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kīlauea eruption

Article: Kīlauea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The eruption of volcano Kīlauea in Hawaii forces the evacuation of thousands people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The eruption of volcano Kīlauea in Hawaii forces the evacuation of nearly two thousand people.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The eruption of volcano Kīlauea, followed by an earthquake, in Hawaii forces the evacuation of nearly two thousand people.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The article is GA. Update could be expanded further. Brandmeistertalk 10:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Kilauea erupts frequently; almost continually in fact. A new vent that requires evacuations is rare, but so far no-one has been hurt and very little damage has been done. I'll be willing to reconsider if things get much worse, but right now this is missing the 'disaster' part of a natural disaster. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 10,000 people being evacuated is a significant number. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Indeed, large evacuation. BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This eruption is getting featured heavily in the news and the Wikipedia article is a well-written one that will be nice to highlight. OtterAM (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - widely reported major eruption. Good opportunity to feature a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It’s 1,800 evacuated, not 10k. I have updated the article noting the destroyed houses, closed geothermal power station, and no-fly zone. I’ve also added a sub-header for navigation, and added an altblurb. Jusdafax (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. It's affecting a trivial number of people and as yet has caused next-to-no damage. It's inconvenient, but 1,500 people can be evacuated from a large hotel because of a fire alarm. Nothing significant to see here, nothing that will live long in the memory, nothing that a real encyclopedia would note beyond a single bullet point in the list of eruptions of volcanoes for this year, certainly not main page material, despite the good quality article (and weak update). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I agree with Modest Genius that Kilauea has been erupting continuously since 1983, article is in excellent shape, and coverage is widespread across the media. Python Dan (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to have been a related earthquake. As more information comes out, I think an updated blurb may be needed soon. SounderBruce 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major news item, earthquake has added to notability. Not sure what the delay is here. It's not often we get a WP:GA to post. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Making the headlines with the related quake. Article is GA class. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as Ready looks like the consensus is highly in favor of posting this. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb mentioning earthquake. Please change or remove however you like. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ANY ADMINS THERE? I oppose this, but the consensus is clear, and has been for about 12 hours. Why isn't this being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt2 with a picture. -- KTC (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe needs up date after new info here from BBC. 26 homes destroyed, new fissures after earthquake etc. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In reaction to the ongoing and destructive eruption, I have created 2018 lower Puna eruption as a stand-alone article, moving much of the update from the Kīlauea article to there. If deemed worthy this article could be linked to the word “eruption” in the blurb. And I’d favor adding the 26 destroyed houses in the blurb per GreyGreenWhy, though the blurb might be too long. Jusdafax (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 postponed

Article: Nobel Prize in Literature (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following sexual assault allegations concerning the organisation, the Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 award of the Nobel Prize in Literature for a year. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019
Alternative blurb II: ​ Following sexual assault allegations concerning the Swedish Academy, the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature after several members of the Academy leaves in protest.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Following numerous resignations, the Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature until 2019
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This seems an important events surrounding an item that would have been ITNR. Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members has a decent write-up of these events. LukeSurl t c 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Ha, you beat me to this nom by a whisker. :) Significant enough and it is in the news now even if the prize wasn't due until November. Not sure if this should be posted now or then when people will be looking for it. Suggested more concise blurb, the first sounds too much like a juicy tabloid headline to me. cart-Talk 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per historic decision by a significant institution. I suggest using the org blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • BabbaQ, I was edit conflicted while I was trying to add that the original blurb is also sort of incorrect since it is the Nobel Comity that ultimately awards the prize, the Academy is just one part of that comity, and the comity has postponed the prize because of the trouble in the Academy. cart-Talk 09:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits. Very unusual to not give out this award. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Who would have thought that the MeToo revolution would affected the Nobel Literature prize? Count Iblis (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was wondering what brought Nobel Prize in Lit. to ITN at this time and thought it must be something unusual. And yes, it is.... –Ammarpad (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a third more neutral Blurb suggestion.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent suggestion. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The prize itself is ITNR, and this is effectively the negative of that. On the other hand we're essentially saying 'something won't happen as planned'. On balance I think it's worth a blurb, but only just. I've added yet another blurb suggestion (alt4), as none of the existing ones are particularly satisfactory. The reasons for the controversy seem sufficiently complicated that we shouldn't try to summarise them in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Complicated" is an understatement, the whole thing is called Paradise Hotel here in Sweden. A short neutral blurb is best since there are numerous things leading up to this postponing; we can't single out one of them. cart-Talk 11:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem with "resignations" in the blurb is "Technically, members are appointed for life to the Swedish Academy and cannot resign, although they can refuse to take part". -- KTC (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have those that "resigned" prior to the rules change resigned formally since the rules change, or are they still technically refuse to take part so the seat couldn't be filled? -- KTC (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is now tweaked for better reading, thanks for pointing it out. The new rule is only two days old and everything is still a mess. One member has formally handed in her resignation, the rest haven't got around to it yet, no seats are held with the intention of hindering new members. No seats have been re-filled. This current uncertainty and mess is why I think the blurb should be short and neutral as in the first altblurb. cart-Talk 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As W.carter - being in Sweden and able to read Swedish - almost certainly has a better understanding of this complex scenario than the rest of us, I think it is prudent to defer to them on which blurb(s) are adequate here. --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Apparently the first time the prize has ever been withheld due to a scandal (the only previous occasions were due to war time or a lack of suitable candidates.) My preference would be altblurb 2.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Swede I think blurb 3 or 4 is the most appropriate as the postponing has more reasons for happening than the sexual harassment scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that the resignation and inactive members due to the crisis is the legal reason the Academy can't work at the moment. The sexual harassment scandal was one of the things that triggered the crisis, but so was the suspicion of financial crime now under investigation by the Swedish Economic Crime Authority as well as long-held bad blood between members, active and inactive. But of course it is the sex scandal that the media picks up on. cart-Talk 13:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurbs 3/4, but oppose on quality There are a few quality and BLP concerns of the update to this. Notably, per BBC that the accused member had denied the charges but this is not included. The update should focus less on what the accusations are, only that they were given and that board members wanted to leave in protest, something the King granted on May 2. Nothing about the accusations have been proven so we have to be very careful there. --Masem (t) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles updated with that the accused denies charges. Btw, he is not a member of the academy, he is just married to one. cart-Talk 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is the wrong blurb that has been posted. The issue is wider than that particular issue and blurb 3 and 4 would have been more appropriate. Anyway its good it got posted.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of those blurbs were chosen, we must first figure out if we are talking about real resignations or simply leaving while still formally being members until their resignations have been handed in. How many chair are now leagally empty? Since not even the Academy is clear about this, how can we be. cart-Talk 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ITN's purpose, it doesn't matter how many chairs are empty or are pending, just that as a whole of the remaining voting members, they voted to postpone their selection until next year. --Masem (t) 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't have a quorum now and so have no power to decide a prize currently. They are stuck until they change the rules. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I saw the item on the main page just now. The blurb didn't explain matter well and so I clicked through. The article doesn't explain the matter well either – there's nothing at all in the lead about this. Reading other sites to understand what's happening, the issue is that the committee doesn't have a quorum because many members are boycotting it and some have been doing so since 1989! The organisation is clearly a shambles and, while there's talk of what they are going to do to sort it out, they haven't actually done it yet and so we shouldn't be predicting that it will all be done by 2019. Per WP:CRYSTAL, more work is needed to present this uncertainty more clearly. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now in lead and section is fixed with info about the quorum. I think the most reliable source is the press release from the Academy itself. cart-Talk 15:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ex-VW CEO indicted

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.


Proposed image
Articles: Martin Winterkorn (talk · history · tag) and Volkswagen emissions scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ex-Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn is indicted on fraud and conspiracy charges in the USA over the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former CEO Martin Winterkorn is indicted in the USA over the Volkswagen emissions scandal
News source(s): New York TimesReutersBBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This international scandal has been ongoing since 2015, but the criminal indictment of a major corporation CEO is highly unusual, newsworthy and notable. Jusdafax (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, longstanding consensus at ITN is only to post convictions. Please withdraw your nomination or waste everybody's time watching it get inevitably closed. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the Winterkorn indictment is of such an unusual nature per the references that it precludes your “consensus” which many here, including me, have never signed off on. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are saying is that you believe an IAR exception to our customary approach is justified. I will think about it. This is unusual in the extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ad Orientem, that’s a more diplomatic statement which I endorse. I can’t recall a similar criminal charge being filed against a top-rank corporate CEO before. Another notability factor is the statement by the U.S. Attorney General which I have added to the target article. I am continuing to expand both articles. Jusdafax (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't usually post indictments outside of world leaders due to potential BLP issues, because we don't presume guilty before they are proved innocent. --Masem (t) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that this is a BLP issue. It’s sourced information and news around the world. Per Ad Orientem, this is not your usual criminal indictment. There are also major economic considerations for Volkswagen itself. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that in his article or in the Dieselgate article, this is not a BLP issue. But to put it in a high priority space like ITN, that's a bit different. Front page should be more careful as to these types of charges which have yet to result in convictions. Additionally, he's the ex-CEO, and thus has little effect on the company proper. --Masem (t) 04:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Volkswagen has already admitted guilt in the case, and Winterkorn has resigned over it. The referenced articles state that the indictment is likely to have financial and legal effects, and calls into question the corporate culture that led to the emissions cheating. The charges are filed at the highest legal system of the U.S. Government. It’s on front pages all over the world. We are re-reporting a high-profile, high-level, unique indictment that has among other things substantial financial considerations. Your concerns do you credit, but I strongly disagree with them. This is important, groundbreaking news. In my view it can’t be compared to, say, a murder case or pedestrian scandal. The ITN precedent is the 2015 FIFA corruption case which of is similar criminal magnitude in the sporting world. And yes, the FIFA indictments were ITN blurbs. Jusdafax (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose –Probably may support when he is actually convicted and more update on the conviction exist in the article. Mere indiction of former CEO doesn't rise to level of significance required at ITN. Comparing this with FIFA case does shows exactly why this shouldn't be on ITN too. FIFA is the world's preeminent body of the World most popular sports. You can't even compare notability of convoluted FIFA case with this scant news of retired business executive being indicted. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference between retirement and being forced to leave due to exposure. Yeah, over ten million illegal vehicles and an 8 billion dollar settlement for starters as a result of this CEO’s actions, which he has taken responsibility for. But in your world, charges of breathtaking corporate corruption is “scant” news... depends on what you believe is important, eh? Jusdafax (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I might(emphasis on might) support this if he was currently the CEO, but he is not. He is currently just a private citizen for which BLP applies. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for a verdict. A conviction might be suitable for ITN, a mere indictment is not. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem, 331. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stormy Daniels next. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the kind of snark that lost you your adminship. Jusdafax (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn, change the record. As a regular and one with considerable experience, you should know by now that we simply don't post "accusations". This is sadly a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn yourself. Take your further quibbles to the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no quibbles. You're the one that started badgering me and gravedancing. Check the mirror. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2018 (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.

May 3

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

RD: Afonso Dhlakama

Article: Afonso Dhlakama (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
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: Long-time leader of the Mozambican rebel group RENAMOEternalNomad (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Article is sourced and ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet Still too many gaps in referencing. ghost 12:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For a controversial BLP - allegations of war crimes and the like - there are too many unsourced statements. Also no details of his death in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) India dust storm

Article: 2018 Indian dust storm (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 110 people have died and scores more injured in fierce dust storms that hit the northern Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article has just been created so lots of improvement needed. As per BBC article: "Dust storms are common in this part of India during summer but loss of life on this scale is unusual." Sherenk1 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is as of this writing one sentence and is a long way from even being evaluated, to say nothing of being posted. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb is longer than the article... need I say more? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have worked to expand the article enough to re-open this. The death toll is continuing to rise and there's fears more deaths are coming from additional storms. --Masem (t) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Highly unusual death toll and still rising. The news is also at the top of every major news outlet one can think of. It is epitome of In the News. Someone savvy with images can help to upload one for visual illustration –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It is highly unusual, but the article as of 20:00 remains too thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Substantial weather event. Article will fill out. Brycehughes (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - weather event, substantial. article is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BabbaQ and Ammarpad. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I suppose if we have to draw a line somewhere, this one is over it, but only by a Planck Length or so. Seriously, if this is a major event worth noting, why has no one bothered to write anything about it? It'd be nice to see people so eager to show the world this article if they actually wrote some text to show off. This really should be expanded! --Jayron32 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Combination of Non-western event in a not-quite-first-world country, that included loss of power/communications. There probably is more to write but it's not going to come fast. --Masem (t) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – For an event that killed 120 (AP), the current 280 words of non-background text seems quite skimpy. Sca (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this article is about as skimpy as can be and yet be good enough to make the main page. I am hoping it is further expanded today and in the days to come. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Closed) WASP-107b

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.


Proposed image
Article: WASP-107b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Helium has been detected for the first time in the atmosphere of an exoplanet by scientists observing WASP-107b. (Post)
News source(s): (Space) (Nature)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First time a exoplanet was discovered with Helium LovelyGirl7 talk 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in what way is this significant and interesting to our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are already planets that have helium in their atmosphere (e.g. the Gas Giants), besides, the story is no longer being reported anymore on news outlets. Python Dan (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alternatively, this would be an excellent item for DYK. OtterAM (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2018 (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) RD: Bill Torrey

Article: Bill Torrey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dick Edell

Article: Dick Edell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
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: American lacrosse coach. Article appears fully referenced. LukeSurl t c 14:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost fully referenced. I added one tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tony Cucchiara

Article: Tony Cucchiara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8] (it)
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: Italian folk singer. Short but referenced biography. LukeSurl t c 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Discography isn't sourced, and the article is a stub. It needs some expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) David Goodall is on his way to Switzerland to end his life

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: David Goodall (botanist) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: David Goodall is on his way to Switzerland to end his life (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
 Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when the time comes. I am not scientific, but reading the article, I do not get the impression he was a revolutionary figure in the field who deserves a blurb. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not a revolutionary figure. You're thinking of Jane Goodall. Abductive (reasoning) 02:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when the time comes. BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Nothing really unusual for a very old person to die by euthanasia in a nation where it is legalized. Also doesn't appear to be globally top of his field. EternalNomad (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when he's dead, article is of sufficient quality, if short. --Jayron32 01:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD This is rather macabre but let’s wait until he’s successful in his bid to end his life and then post as a RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - premature nomination. He's still alive, and we have no idea when he will end his life. -Zanhe (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD - the article is ready for RD when the time comes. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2018 (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) RD: Wang Danfeng

Article: Wang Danfeng (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Global Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iconic Chinese film actress. Zanhe (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gibson bankruptcy

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: Gibson#Bankruptcy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Musical instrument manufacturer Gibson files for bankruptcy as it closes down its consumer electronics division. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Money, Bloomburg, NPR, The Beeb
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is of decent quality, Gibson is recognized as one of the worldwide leaders in guitar manufacturing, major news in the industry. This has been expected for some time, as the non-instrument related parts of the company have been hemoraging cash for years. This debt restructuring plan is designed to return Gibson to primarily a musical instrument manufacturer; it was upside down in debt because its largest division (the consumer electronics one) was a complete mess. This should preserve their role as an industry leader in what the brand is primarily known for. Jayron32 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As noted here and in the articles, this was largely expected (in contrast, the Toys R Us failing was more a surprise). And this isn't the end of Gibson, just turning their focus back to guitar making. --Masem (t) 16:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too small. If Gibson is only a leader in guitar manufacturing, that's too specialist an area. The article also indicates the company is relatively small, e.g. $135 million in liquidity payments is not that much money. Compare Toys R Us (per Masem), which dealt with a much larger field and had revenue in the billions. Banedon (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (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.

Basque group ETA

Proposed image
Article: ETA (separatist group) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Basque separatist group ETA is dissolved. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 50-year campaign for an independent state is at an end. cart-Talk 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on principle, oppose on quality The article is woefully undersourced. There's a lot of red links, but that's probably not as much of a problem as the lack of sorucing throughout. But the event is one of note that could be ITN if the article was good. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; target article seems to quit reporting activity (outside of a few quick notes in the lead) on the dissolution process. Basically, the article body stops having relevent information about the group in about 2016, so ALL of the context for their dissolution, which has been going on for about 1.5 years now, is absent from the text of the article. There needs to be a LOT more information on the past two years to provide enough context for the blurb to make sense. This is entirely separate from the sourcing issues noted above, which is also a no-go condition for me as well.--Jayron32 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ETA announced a permanent end to armed struggle way back in 2011, and I'm not sure that formally declaring themselves dissolved is really that significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality Interesting story, but the article needs a lot of work. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support End of an era for Spain and Basque history itself. GWA88 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality per BrendonTheWizard. -Zanhe (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For Spaniards, testimonies of terror, it is a very important day. It is the demonstration that democracy has won against those who for half a century have brutally attacked us. 853 families have just seen the surrender of the murderers of their relatives. End of an era. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may well be right about that, but what about the quality of the article? It has a one-line update. Where is the detail, the reactions? There are several "citation needed" tags too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chhota Rajan conviction

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: Chhota Rajan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ One of India's most notorious gangsters, Chhota Rajan, has been convicted of ordering the 2011 killing of a crime reporter in Mumbai. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In India, Chhota Rajan is convicted of ordering the 2011 killing of Jyotirmoy Dey in Mumbai..
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Won't that be for each news we post. Everyone is not always interested in everything we post. I do see this in BBC.com world and also as top news in BCC India. I expect someone from South America wouldnt be interested in this news. But Users from India would certainly be along with Indian expats living in other parts of the world. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes but that's why I'm using specific search terms ("India" and "Rajan"). This kind of result indicates it's not dominating news even in India. Looking at the website of The Hindu, some of the current headlines are "Supreme Court wants trials in child sexual abuse cases to be fast-tracked", "JD(U) leader Uday Narayan Chaudhary quits party", and "Aadhaar biometric data is 100% secure, asserts India’s cybersecurity chief Gulshan Rai", all unrelated to the case. Banedon (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is spotty and inconsistent, hard to follow any narrative, reads like a collection of random crimes. Also same problems as noted above. --Jayron32 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Random collection of crimes" aptly describes this article. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose--I came across nothing but scant coverage across the Indian print-dailies.Not significant enough, to deserve a mention at main-page.On a side-note, it's my first foray into ITN and if my arguments are on the wrong lines, I expect that some of the regulars over here will correct it.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 16:04, 3 May 2018 (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.

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: