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 15:05, 15 May 2018 (→‎U.S. Supreme Court strikes down PASPA: Read header). 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 15

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

May 14

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down PASPA

Article: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US Supreme Court rules the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 unconstitutional, paving the way for legalized sports gambling in the U.S. (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times Daily Mail Mainichi
Credits:

Article updated

 Hear me out! Yes, this is a "local" story. But it is getting significant coverage in the media, where it is being seen as one of the most widely-impactful decisions in years. Further, ITN exists in part to highlight quality updates, and SCOTUS case articles at WP are among the best we have. This is a situation where people will be coming here to read about the case, and we will be giving them a better account of facts than any single RS. ghost 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close good faith nom. The overall impact this has in terms of newsworthiness is minimal. The sports gambling industry is not overly significant in the U.S. even with the advent of companies such as DraftKings.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know Americans. A huge amount of sports gambling will happen now that it's legal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the limited scope of this fairly niche SCOTUS case.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that this ruling does not immediately legalize sports betting; it merely permits the states that were prevented from legalizing it to do so. That will take a little time. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, in NJ's case, they are ready: the whole challenge at the present was challenging their law to overturn a former ban, and its expected that they'll have sports gambling happening within a month, no later than the NFL season. I read some 30 states are looking to seek allowing sports gambling, but even if they all moved as fast as NJ could, its still not that big an issue for an ITN story compared to other cases in the queue. --Masem (t) 13:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are also calls for a federal standard for legalized betting, but I digress. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SCOTUS is set to rule on a range of hot button issues, this is probably the least exciting of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is sufficient for main page, topic is demonstratedly in the news. --Jayron32 12:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sports betting is a trivial facet in considering ITN. Of the SCOTUS cases still open, I would argubly say either Gill v. Whitford (the partisan gerrymandering case) or Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (freedom of expression/religion v. non-discriminatory practices) will have much more significant impact that would be appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think those decisions will be SAID to be more significant, but in terms of actual effective impact this will affect more people. But if the editor who took the time to update this is opposed, we can SNOW this nom. ghost 13:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I updated the article once I saw the decision, but I had no expectations of having this at ITN. --Masem (t) 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I thought this was a joke nomination at first. Local politics which is of limited interest, even in the US. It's a bit like the continual nominations of the legalisation of same sex marriages, the United States is just catching up with the rest of the world. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not interesting when what is widely regarded as the least progressive advanced economy (and also happens to be one of the biggest, advanced or not (population/land/GDP)) catches up to the rest of the world in its federal law in a field at least as less niche as gambling on sport? (i.e. "all races can vote" (US, 1965) is obviously less niche than sports gambling even if there's little to no money involved). Oh well you're entitled to your opinion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tanzania is not a big economy like US or EU. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Very) conservative estimates put it at $67 billion, or 1/3 the entire GDP of Tanzania. ghost 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the "Please do not" section of this page's header, regarding events relating to a single country. That is true of almost all events and is not a helpful oppose reason. Mamyles (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: William Vance

Article: William Vance (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France info
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 Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you indicate which bits need referencing? I think nearly everything in the article can easily be referenced, but I don't want to overload the article with references on each and every line if I can avoid it. All paragraphs already have multiple references. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • His awards and bibliography, then it looks good to go, albeit a little short. Stephen 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very short; missing some basic personal details eg his wife is mentioned towards the end but there's no details of marriage. The critical appreciation in the lead also needs sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead now sourced (article discusses his "style inimitable", other articles calling him a "monument in the world of comics" and "one of the most important artists in contemporary com!ics)" ("een van de belangrijkste tekenaars in de hedendaagse strip") or discussing "Le dessin de William Vance ne ressemblait à aucun autre dans le domaine de la bande dessinée réaliste." (Le Monde) are already used in the body of the article. He was a rather private man though, so very little info on his personal life can be found. I have sourced the bibliography more clearly (the source was at the bottom of the article), and removed the awards I couldn't immediately verify again (the old sources are no longer available it seems). Fram (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The personal life isn't important if sources don't cover it. It would be nice to have a brief section discussing his drawing style with these quotations. What's the position on fair use of a sample of his work? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Elaine Edwards

Article: Elaine Edwards (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nola
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) 23:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good work. Davey2116 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article seems adequate to post. --LukeSurl t c 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was she appointed to the senate by her husband? No election?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zigzig20s: The incumbent (Allen J. Ellender) died in office as is mentioned in the article. It varies between states, but often it falls to the Governor to appoint a replacement (either until a special election, or to fill the entire remainder of the term) [1]. In Edwards' case, there was only a few weeks left in Ellender's term before the 1972 General Election so she served until then. --LukeSurl t c 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange. I would think the seat would remain vacant until the next election, or there would be a special election.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be contextualized a bit more in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's lots of unreferenced material in the lead that isn't repeated in the body. There's a bit of a confusing hole formed by Edwin Edwards' political career being mentioned in the lead but not repeated in the body. Also out of the blue in the final section her ex-husband is convicted along with their son; this either needs expanding/contextualising or deleting altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Espresso Addict: Issues noted and fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted the comments not yet fixed. The conviction material is clearer but it's now far too much; you could just have the conviction? When were the offences committed (during or after the marriage)? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the section about Edwin Edwards' criminal convictions, as this is wholly about someone who is not the subject of the article. Tellingly this paragraph doesn't even mention Elaine Edwards and concerns events which occurred after their divorce. --LukeSurl t c 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan President

Article: Quim Torra ‎ (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Quim Torra is elected as President of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR, but the importance of the move after referendum and the process of choosing a new leader after a new regional election that again resulted in seperatist majority, in addition to the nature of his hardline stance, should make it more important that ordinarily. Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is just a group of people who claim to be the government of a territory choosing someone to be its leader. Catalonia is not recognized as a sovereign state by any other sovereign state or international body- and legally is still part of Spain. Who the specific leader of this group is matters little- and no sources have been offered to indicate the newsworthiness of this event. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, whilst I'm not going to support this, "a group of people who claim to be the government of a territory"?? He is the elected President of Catalonia (whether you agree with the method of his election or not) - I suspect you need to read a bit more on this situation. "Claim", honestly. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it the Catalan government has been legally dissolved, with Spain ruling Catalonia directly. That means these people are just a group claiming to be the government as they have no legal status. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was dissolved, central rule occurred until an election for the new regional parliament wholly acceded to by the central state took place. It IS recognized and it does have legal status (there was the imbroglio of trying to get Puidgemont back now that the seperatists regained a majority, that fell through and hence this result happened).Lihaas (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true, still no sources have been offered indicating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is true and easiy to verify here and elsewhere
[2]Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim it was not true, but the evidence that this is in the news needs to be here. It isn't up to me to look for and post sources to support your nomination. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose NY Times headline "Catalan Parliament Elects New Leader, a Separatist Not Under Indictment" is "not under indictment" their high water mark? Anyway, it's in the news, but so are a number of sub-national elections around the world and for better or worse, "ITN doesn't post subnational elections". If there were an article about the actual election with a prose update, you might change my mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support mostly as a continuation of a long-running story that we did run in December. (That's how most press outlets are covering it as well.) In that vein, I would prefer that the blurb make that link clear, though this may be too long: "Months after the Catalan declaration of independence and subsequent imposition of direct rule by the Spanish government, separatist Quim Torra is elected as President of the Generalitat of Catalonia." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we almost never include sub-national elections. Catalonia is obviously something of an exception, but, based on the references, I don't see this as changing the political situation in any important way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the current situation involving Catalan and Spain, and the decent population (7.5 million, which would rank it 103rd if independent), I think that we can make an exception here even though it is not in WP:ITN/R. In fact, I believe we posted an election in Hong Kong not too long ago. EternalNomad (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. This is a legitimate election for a devolved regional government, and has appeared in plenty of international media, so some of the rationales above are dubious. There is of course more interest in this than most sub-national elections due to the independence movement and suspension of his predecessor. Nevertheless, I think we should hold the line on not posting sub-national elections. If/when something dramatic happens in the Catalan independence story then we can post it, but this election is a minor twist to that story. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is fine, topic is being covered by news source. --Jayron32 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Kerfuffle about a political shuffle. Sca (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: E. C. George Sudarshan

Article: E. C. George Sudarshan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Link, Indian Express, Times of India
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: Was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics on nine occasions; theorized that Tachyons move faster the light, which would prove one of Einstein's theories wrong. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Chuck Knox

Article: Chuck Knox (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, NFL.com
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: Chuck Knox was the first NFL head coach to lead three different teams to division titles. He is currently 10th on the all-time NFL wins list with 193. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Was going to nom this, but it's a vast sea of unref'd claims. Will need a real white knight to get it up in time. ghost 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not sure when GCG viewed the article, but as of now the article is well referenced and relatively complete. Seems fine for the main page. --Jayron32 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Northern Falcon did some nice work on this. ghost 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] MH 370

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: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Aviation experts conclude that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was deliberately crashed in 2014, by the captain in a murder-suicide. (Post)
News source(s): CBS, Independent
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Davey2116 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Closure on MH370 would be nice, but this is a conclusion by a panel of aviation experts brought to a TV program to decide what happened, and not any official statement. --Masem (t) 16:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Update has been removed from the article - discussion on the talk page is taking place over whether this is a case of WP:FRINGE.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:12, 14 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) May 14 clashes

Articles: 2018 Gaza border protests (talk · history · tag) and Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 28 Palestinians in Gaza have been shot dead by Israeli troops after bloody clashes erupted on the border, Palestinian officials say. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 55 Palestinians killed in Gaza after bloody protests ahead of opening of the embassy of the United States in Jerusalem.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, after Israeli troops killed 55 people in the Gaza Strip.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Over 50 Palestinian protestors are killed in the Gaza Strip, on the same day as the United States moves its embassy to Jerusalem
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Either we post as blurb or place in ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is not sufficiently updated. Except for a vague sentence in the lead, there's no information about the recent developments to sufficient detail to merit posting on the main page. Please update the article. --Jayron32 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone has recently added an altblurb, Oppose the altblurb because that highlighted article is also not sufficiently updated. --Jayron32 13:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. 45.116.232.32 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. The update consists of a single sentence which doesn't contain much more information than the blurb does. --Jayron32 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The border protests have been going on for a while, and their planned culmination is tomorrow (May 15th) for the 70th anniversary of Israel's founding. Thus, the claim in the blurb that the protest is in response to the movement of the US Embassy is dubious. I think a blurb should try to be neutral on this subject, by not juxtaposing these events. Also, I don't think that this particular article (2018 Gaza border protests) is one of Wikipedia's best. OtterAM (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OpposeForty-one killed may be blurbable, but it's hiding under 350 words of background. Also, article is at least partly in present tense. Sca (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's in the news now, update is adequate. Reliable sources are tying this to the US embassy move, so the blurb is accurate. I think 41 people killed vs 1 Israeli soldier injured is "notable enough" for ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. There are now over 50 dead and it's hitting headlines around the world. This is not a normal protest and the opening of the Jerusalem embassy has clearly escalated the situation. However 2018_Gaza_border_protests#14_May is short and almost entirely concentrates on the IDF side of the story, to the point of violating WP:NPOV imo. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all over the news now. Deadly clashes with plenty of deaths, most since Gaza war. BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major news with significant death toll - I'd say a few issues can be forgiven for the time being. Juxlos (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is certainly in the news, but the US embassy move is not even mentioned in 2018 Gaza border protests and Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem is one line long. Where are the updates? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the reaction was predictable for Palestinians, but the coverage is widespread and the death toll is significantly notable. I agree with Juxlos that some of the missing content can be overlooked. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support About as many people died here as in, e.g., Las Vegas or Orlando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.96.3 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - although article improvement would be helpful, this is postable. I prefer the wording of the altblurb, in regards to use of the term “clash.” Jusdafax (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Updated blurb to 55 count. Added new blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Bloodiest single day for Palestinians since 2014, alternative blurb seems suitable now. --Mido (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -According to Independent, at least 58 Palestinians have been killed[3]--Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Major news story. Owen (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is broad support for a blurb here, but the embassy article is insufficiently updated, while the protests blurb is out-of-date and otherwise weaselly. Call me over-cautious, but I don't want to post a blurb that I've crafted entirely myself. Furthermore, the deaths are obviously a matter of great contention, but at the moment the only international reactions included are those of the US; we should include other commentary, particularly from human-rights organisations and/or the UN, if available. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some reaction from the UN to 2018_Gaza_border_protests#14_May and attempted to tidy up the NPOV issues, though it still seems rather favourable to Israel. That seems the best target of a bold link. Altblurb3 added to reflect this. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied up the POV to my own satisfaction, but given the divergent views on this issues I would welcome some additional eyes on what I've written. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Hezbollah pokes wasps nest, is surprised when wasps get angry. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready - article has sufficient updates and sourcing. Blurb 3 seems appropriate here, as the focus is the protests; the embassy is merely the cause du jour. "Fresh" is a terrible word choice and the blurb is written in future tense. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Posted slightly modified ALT3, as the best of the blurbs above. It does not include the fact that Israeli troops were doing the shooting, which was part of some blurbs but not others; I would like to see further discussion on this question. Vanamonde (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

RD: Glenn Branca

Article: Glenn Branca (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: Article does not seem ready. Nominating only in hope that someone can source what Wikipedia has. SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Margot Kidder

Article: Margot Kidder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC 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.

 Masem (t) 17:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose based on major referencing gaps. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Household name. Shouldn't even be a question. Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ryan Reeder:, please take note of the message at the bottom of the template, starting "Per this RFC". All biological organisms with their own articles are now deemed noteworthy enough to be posted. The article's quality, though, may prevent posting, as in cases like this one. The article needs more sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose filmography is unreferenced. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kundal Shahi bridge collapse

Article: Kundal Shahi bridge collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A bridge near Kundal Shahi, Neelum Valley in Pakistan collapsed due to an overweight killing 12 tourists and injuring 11 others. (Post)
News source(s): Geo News, Daily Times, Mail Online, Washington Post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is ok mostly but as new information unfolds will add a bit about casualties, more information regarding the victims. Nauriya (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support The article is in good shape, but the notability seems borderline to me. I don't know much about how common similar incidents are in Pakistan, but I would think that it is unusual enough to merit posting. EternalNomad (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steve Hogan

Article: Steve Hogan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Denver 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 is mostly in shape; perhaps a bit more detail about his early life would be useful. EternalNomad (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support article is nothing to write home about, and has one unreferenced claim in his early life section, but the rest is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support i agree. The article is just about ready for posting. Borderline, but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait "At some stage becoming a Republican" and "his image as an adept budget manager" should be cited. The undergrad degree we can ignore. ghost 20:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Is this rated B-Class because of all the formatting puffery involved? Last I checked, the criteria for B-Class includes "no obvious omissions". I'm seeing the usual POV/UNDUE exercise as it concerns political biographies, namely an article that's heavy on praise and worship of particular offices and titles and quite short on substance when it comes to actual biographical details. The sourcing is rather lacking compared with what I normally see in B-Class articles, too. It's all too obvious that someone decided in 2012 that we needed an article on this guy all of a sudden in the wake of the cinema shooting and not because he had already had a decades-long claim to being notable (see WP:COATRACK). Also, reading various articles on the Colorado legislature would lead me to believe that legislative terms begin and end in January of odd-numbered years, as is the case with most state legislatures. Do we have an explanation for why his term is said to end in an even-numbered year besides this being another case of allowing a media outlet's style to overtake reality and then blindly parroting it as fact? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Donald Gary Young

Article: Donald Gary Young (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLN News Report
Credits:

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: Article is fully sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support looks fine, although it's protected so I guess there's some controversy here... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) English Premier League

Article: 2017–18 Premier League (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, the English Premier League concludes with Manchester City winning the title. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, BBC
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: Previously nominated on April 16th when City won the title. However it wasn't posted as it lacked a prose summary and consensus was that it should be posted at end of the season. Season concludes today and there's now a summary of the season. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, although this won't affect the winner/blurb, the final matches occur today, concluding at about 16:00 UTC. --LukeSurl t c 11:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no objections. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good, we even managed to cover 380 matches in a few paragraphs. Good job this wasn't MLB! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't get it. Do you normally get those two sports confused with each other? I can understand if you're new to either -- I'm sure there are many here who would help differentiate them for you. 165.225.0.95 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny TRM brings up an unrelated topic right after decrying someone else for bringing up an unrelated topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... my apologies. I took that to be a good-faith edit in which he might require some additional clarity, especially in light of the planned MLB participation in the 2019 London Stadium Games. If that was, instead, a jab at the MLB contributors, then I should likely recuse myself from the thread. 165.225.0.95 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Updated and a decent amount of prose. We could have posted it when City won but they just kept on going and have now reached 100 points so it’s by no means an old story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ITN/R, no issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nice prose update, good job this wasn't La Liga or Bundesliga! Apparently Manchester City set a record number of points, want to squeeze that into the blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment: it was definitely the right move to wait for the end of the season. The article is much better and more informative as a result. That rule is in place for a good reason and should be followed for all leagues. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd point out that many soccer leagues end at the same time. If we were to post the winners of La Liga, the English Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A, and Bundesliga at the conclusion of the season, then we'd end up with five soccer related ITN's at the same time; whereas if we post when the winner has secured the trophy, then that spaces out the soccer-related ITNs a bit better. And it would be a good debate to have, whether Bundesliga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 are worth posting, given that each of those leagues is within the top 10 of the richest sports leagues in the world by revenue. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
"If we were to post the winners of La Liga, the English Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A, and Bundesliga at the conclusion of the season, then we'd end up with five soccer related ITN's at the same time". You're right, that would be too much soccer. Head on over to WT:ITNR and let them know! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 Surabaya churches bombings

Article: 2018 Surabaya churches bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Suicide bombers attack three churches in Indonesia's second-largest city Surabaya, killing at least 13 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, DW, Straits Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - though I might be biased. In any case, this attack is the largest in terms of death toll in Indonesia since the 2005 Bali bombings. Juxlos (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very well referenced, significant death toll Spiderone 13:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Widespread news coverage and condemnations throughout Indonesia and the world. 184.151.37.153 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Per previous. And because it's unusual there. Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Uncommon and high death toll. Article looks pretty OK.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed some oddity about the target article. There are two articles on the attack. 2018 Surabaya church bombings and 2018 Surabaya churches bombings. The target article of this nomination was created at 8:14 (UTC) approximately 1 hr, 30 minutes after another article was created at 06:40 (UTC). So before further quality assessment and/or posting this issue should be resolved as we must have single verifiable article, and the creation timepost also matters.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most content in the singular church article seems to be by @PaPa PaPaRoony:, who also wrote up the Attacks section. The latter article is better-fleshed out (basically the first article but updated). I say we turn the Church into a redirect. Juxlos (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addendum, the church was in Draftspace until about 2 hours ago, so it makes sense that it wouldn't have had much edits. I imagine PaPa had made a draft, AfC'd it, saw an article already in the mainspace, and then decided to dump the Draft to move on the Churches. Juxlos (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - One of the highest death tolls in Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyjahja (talkcontribs) 23:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Masem (t) 02:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The blurb should be updated to include the police headquarters suicide bombing. FallingGravity 16:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - per The Jakarta Post death toll has risen to 25, although this does include an accidental blast. Juxlos (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tessa Jowell

Article: Tessa Jowell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Former Labour cabinet minister Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support If the unsourced parts, especially the quotes are attributed. Aiken D 09:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Referencing needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support four [citation needed] is all I see here out of around a hundred refs and a decent enough article to grace our main page. RIP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Article is ready for posting. But just.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Dennis Nilsen

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

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks solid. Good riddance. EternalNomad (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great swathes of unreferenced text, with many paragraphs lacking a single citation. Stephen 22:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of unreferenced text. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - When fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until fully referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing the erroneous Ready tag. There's a lot more refs than before, but the gaps are still massive. ghost 20:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq elections

Article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ With more than half of votes counted, a nationalist alliance between Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr and mostly secular groups is in the lead. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Polls to close in half hour. Results to come in hours, if not then within 48 hours. Will need to write a blurb then. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Sunni region" subsection has one ref, an excel spreadsheet. I can't read it, but it's probably a WP:PRIMARY source that fails OR. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eurovision 2018

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Netta, representing Israel, wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 in Lisbon, Portugal, with the song "Toy". (Post)
News source(s): [4]
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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's a really notable event in Europe that is watched by hundreds of millions all over the world. It's too notable not to include, and we've been including this as a blurb since at least last year. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PootisHeavy: Just FYI, as this is on the recurring events list, notability is not at issue. We only need to discuss the blurb and wait for a quality update. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ITN/R, and it isn't over. Why nominate it before we can't evaluate its update? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reopened the closed discussion now it’s over. —LukeSurl t c 23:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still a lot of blank tables and other editing going on. Hopefully it will stabilize in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the full tables of what countries awarded points aren't even necessary in my opinion (and should probably be hidden until complete), the rest looks good. The sourcing isn't entirely clear for the "12 points" section, but that's easy to fix. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big event, watched by millions, good article.  Nixinova  T  C  03:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clare Drake

Article: Clare Drake (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5], [6], [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: Hockey Hall of Fame member; successful university coach with experience in WHA, NHL, and Olympics. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • 2018 Gaza border protests
    • The Israel Defense Forces again open fire with tear gas and live ammunition on Palestinian protesters, following 6 weeks of protests. One person is killed and 146 others wounded, with some protesters throwing stones and burning tyres. (The Independent)
    • Three Israelis are arrested after filming themselves attempting to fly a kite carrying an incendiary device into the Gaza Strip, in reference to the same tactic used by protestors in Gaza. The kite crashes on Israeli territory where it starts a small fire. (Haaretz)
    • Egypt announces that the Rafah Crossing into Gaza will be opened for four days starting next Saturday. Egypt usually opens the border for humanitarian reasons every two or three months for two or three days at a time. (Wafa.ps)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) Philippine Chief Justice removed

Proposed image
Article: Maria Lourdes Sereno (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of the Philippines removes Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office (Post)
News source(s): [8], Philippine Daily Inquirer, Al Jazeera, Washington Post Google finds a lot more
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This event was the main topic in the Philippines. Sereno is one of the critics of war on drugs by President Rodrigo DuterteBanedon (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose local politics with severely limited impact or lasting notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The highest judicial official in a country being removed is unusual and in this case is related to the ongoing issues in The Philippines. If John Roberts was impeached and removed from the US Supreme Court(his fellow justices could not remove him as was done in this case), it would be a major story- and this seems to be and not just locally, with The Washington Post keeping a running tally of events related to it. We also don't post much from The Philippines. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This effectively cancels the separation of powers in the Philippines. Considering the size of the country, this is a major news. Juxlos (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The politically fraught removal of the top legal official of a country of 100 million seems quite significant. Sca (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The circumstances surrounding the ouster, I think added to significance of this. If she were simply hired and fired, then the story will be different. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While everyone was piling on support for this "important" and "unusual" story, I checked the refs and tagged some dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy peasy. Replaced dead links with new ones. –HTD 16:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding dead link doesn't invalidate support and it doesn't mean we didn't check the article. Every single weblink is prone to cease working for numerous reasons and that cannot invalidate the fact it supported. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The dead links were for her appointment as chief justice in 2012, and her replacement (or rather the replacement of the vacating chief justice at that time who was impeached). Links are prone to die if they're that old. Fortunately there are still live links that can be used. –HTD 17:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "cannot invalidate the fact it supported" yeah ... actually it kind of does. In the case where it's an online copy of a print edition like a census or something then fine, but online only news articles that have gone 404 are the equivalent of the memory hole and need to be replaced. Especially for BLP articles. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems notable to me. As per above, this would be a huge story if it happened in a Western country. Davey2116 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean this at least is not as severely limited impact or lasting notability as say, rowing or snooker blurbs recently? –HTD 17:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. Sometimes I wonder if we should create a separate "ITN sports" template. Davey2116 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the fucking record Duck, it's really boring now. Still, it all helps build that case for a topic ban I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Topic ban for what? Pointing out the obvious? -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for one western country in particular where the screams of "domestic", "parochial" and "bias" would be so overwhelming that the WP admins would have to add capacity to handle the edit conflicts before someone snow closed the nom as "this isn't THATCountryPedia". --LaserLegs (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get a room IP98. Are you looking for another argument with me which ends badly? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is major news for any country. The trouble I have is the orange tag on the Supreme Court of the Philippines article, at present. Challenger l (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As that’s not the target article I don’t think it’s an issue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a significant story and the article looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major development, significant geopolitical impact. Article looks good. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above supporters. And an ITN topic ban for TRM. Please. Jusdafax (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from taking shots at other editors with whom you may be in a disagreement. If you are serious then ANI is this way. In either case the comment is not constructive in this venue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it was TRM who first threatened others with topic ban. -Zanhe (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nevertheless, I have struck. Jusdafax (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point and I missed that comment which was also less than constructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair point, and although Jusdafax does like to take any chance to site ban me, I see the whole thing as a mildly disappointing sideshow while I improve Wikipedia every edit I make. Duck, on the other hand, loves to bring rowing into every discussion that's not going his way, so I consider that to be disruptive. Why bring rowing into it, you might ask? Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Mayer

Article: Peter Mayer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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 is short but sufficient. Referencing is generally to par, but could use some work. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest support career section is shorter than the awards section, looks very weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - I have now expanded that section - the spate of obituaries made it easier to source stuff. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) Pull ongoing: 2018 Nicaraguan protests

Article: 2018 Nicaraguan protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: I suggest removal of this article from mainpage until some salient issues are resolved, if it is still ongoing it may be readded. Its "Neutrality"–one of Wikipedia core principles –is currently disputed and there's meaningful discussion ongoing on the talkpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that the article has a big orange maintenance tag which seems to have been placed on the basis of some genuine concerns (by which I mean they are not obviously frivolous, and there is a discussion ongoing on the talk page), I've pulled this for the moment. Further discussion here is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Scott Hutchison

Article: Scott Hutchison (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: Scottish singer, article seems OK, will need some updates, which I've started on. A very, very sad day. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Support - Article has a few bits which need referenced. I've added cn tags to them, though there's nothing especially controversial. Looks fine now, good work. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All cited now (or removed, in two cases - one part about songs that were never recorded and one that would be better in the Frightened Rabbit article). Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Graham Lovett

Article: Graham Lovett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
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: English soccer player, article seems in order. LukeSurl t c 11:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ken Hodgkisson

Article: Ken Hodgkisson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
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: English footballer. Short article seems in order. LukeSurl t c 11:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Goodall (botanist)

Article: David Goodall (botanist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Scientist Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • wait 3 tags, which look like they would be pretty easy to ref. Article is too short to ignore them ghost 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree with Masem's point below, we post a lot of VERY sparse RDs and I want to treat all noms equally. Anyone worthy of an article could probably have 5,000 words written by someone interested enough. I think we're good enough here. ghost 11:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Assuming the 3 tags above are cleared up, I feel the lack of discussion about how relevant/important his studies were to the botany field to be of concern. I would expect, at minimum , a paragraph to describe his basic work and how it was built on or what legacy it had, for RD posting. --Masem (t) 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fair use image literally moments after his death? No thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks ready to post. At present there are no images in the article, so TRM's concern is addressed. --LukeSurl t c 11:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Israel strike in Syria

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: May 2018 Israel–Syria clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israel says it has struck almost all of Iran's military infrastructure in Syria, in response to an Iranian rocket attack on the occupied Golan Heights. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Still stub, hopefully will be expanded. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is not in a state which is acceptable for the main page. A 3-sentence stub which contains barely more information than the blurb does. --Jayron32 12:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How many blurbs are we going to post about the ordinary course of an open war? This is not the first or even second time Israel has hit Iranian targets. It's bigger, sure, but does that mean we post each incrementally larger engagement? ghost 12:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iranian targets? I thought the strike was in Syria. The IDF has been attacking it's neighbors with impunity for decades, if they actually cross Iraq or Turkey to strike Iranian targets, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, ... all the RS are saying this was an Israeli attack on Iranian military targets within Syria? Did you not read that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a stub with an unconventional name (I don't think "clash" is a fitting word for an explosive offensive strike) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are not competing with BBC. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It has improved in the past 24 hours. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take out "background" and "reactions" and there is nothing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take out Booth and it's just a night at the theater. ghost 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This now seems to meet ITN quality guidelines. In my opinion this type of incident, while not unprecedented, is significant and worthy of a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that the incident is over, I continue to oppose both on significance and on quality. The event was very short and uneventful; it lasted one day and only one side had casualties (and if a blurb is posted, the casualties resulting from the event should be mentioned somewhere in it). The four "paragraphs" in the background section are standalone sections on loosely-related and sometimes poorly-worded events. The sources used are highly problematic; one sentence stating that a weapons vehicle was being operated by the Syrian Government cited 1) a tweet from Israel's IDF which did *not* say that and 2) a retweet of that same tweet from an unverified account which also did *not* say that. Strongly against posting. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:40, 11 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 9

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Hepatitis B virus

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.


Articles: Hepatitis B virus (talk · history · tag) and Hepatitis B (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The oldest evidence of hepatitis B virus is found in Bronze Age human remains, readjusting the previous estimates by several thousands years. (Post)
News source(s): Nature, Washington Post
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: According to study this is the oldest viral genome ever recovered from vertebrates which also disproves the belief that "hepatitis B originated in the New World and spread to Europe about 500 years ago". Brandmeistertalk 08:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – I am not certain of how significant this news is, so it may not fit the first purpose listed at WP:ITN. That being said, the article is of very decent quality, the news is interesting, and it showcases Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. The article's update isn't quite as significant as one may like to see it, however. It balances out that I support posting it, but only barely. I notice that the article on Hepatitis B is actually of higher quality and has received the exact same update. I am not sure how to handle that. ~Mable (chat) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major advancement in our understanding of history of diseases. About time we posted some academic news that's widely reported in mainstream media. -Zanhe (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - unless the history of the virus has practical implications today, it seems like it's only of interest to historians. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article ready for posting. Major advancemenrd in understanding history of diseases indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I don't know what the implications of this discovery are, so I would recommend adding more information if available to the blurb, but this is certainly interesting. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:37, 14 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) Kenya Dam Break

Articles: Patel Dam failure (talk · history · tag) and Kenya (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Patel Dam fails in Kenya, killing at least 47 people, and leaving at least 2000 homeless. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, ABC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major disaster in Kenya. Death count still rising. There was no article, so I created one (my first original article, actually). Still a very scant stub and needs work to be ready for main page. I'm hoping to get some time later today to update it, but throwing it here as well in hope of getting some help. Lots of news coverage. Kenmelken (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's in the news, but some history is needed. Height, type, date constructed, etc. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information that's proving really difficult to find. I hate googling current events.... --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you can filter search to stories prior to the date, but then why would this dam be worthy of note prior to the incident? I've found reference to a "Itare Dam" in Nakuru, but no Patel dam. Support per Masem. ghost 18:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to add, key for this news item is that they learned the dam was privately built and own, and there are questions if they had proper rights and permissions. I'm not expection something akin to the Hoover Dam background here, just enough to know that there are newfound concerns about this private owner. --Masem (t) 18:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not talking about news stories for "notability", I mean someone built this thing, there has to be a document somewhere stating it's an earthen dam built in 1972 and stood 170 feet high or something. Looking at the pictures, this thing was a concrete monster and wasn't trivial. When we post air disasters, we include the type of aircraft, and usually when it first flew. We can do the same here. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The picture of the large concrete monster dam that was attached with many of the articles was a stock photo of a dam, not the dam in question. I haven't actually seen a picture of the real dam in any of the sources I've checked. So far, lots of pics of the devastation, but not the dam. Right now the coverage is shifting to say that it may have been built WITHOUT documentation as it was entirely private construction and may not have had the right permits or followed safety standards. Per this source the owner was "secretive", so there may not actually be any recorded information on the dam. Kenmelken (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was looking at the BG of this dam before, and what is in the article is pretty much all I've been able to find. Given that while its short, it covers the history, the event, and aftermath as we know now, I think this is fine for posting, given the geographic area. --Masem (t) 17:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks fine and the event merits posting due to substantial and uncommon lost of life. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very good work on the article by Kenmelken, it contains everything that it should, and the story is heavily in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Malaysian election

Articles: Malaysian general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag) and Mahathir Mohamad (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Malaysian general election, opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan wins a majority of the parliament with Barisan Nasional becoming a minority for the first time. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Malaysian general election, opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan wins a majority of the parliament with Barisan Nasional becoming a minority for the first time, resulting in Mahathir Mohamad becoming prime minister.
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, SCMP Alt: The Guardian
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Barisan Nasional has held a majority in the Malaysian parliament for 61 years i.e. since Malaysian independence. This will be the first time that Malaysia is led by something other than them. Also ITN/R so there's that. Optionally, wait a bit until the new PM is declared. Juxlos (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The article is good, the results are official, the event is significant. wumbolo ^^^ 20:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - First time ever that UMNO and its allies are not in control of Malaysia. If Mahathir is declared PM again, that needs to be added to the blurb too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an altblurb. It's his second time in office and he'd be the world's oldest prime minister but I think the altblurb is pretty long already. Probably DYK for the latter. Juxlos (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don’t forget that this is ITN/R so we are assessing only article quality, and as the results section is blank it is plainly not ready yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per other country election this should make a headline. Furthermore, like Narutolovehinata5 said this is the first time in history that we saw the creation of a new government in Malaysia after too long been controlled by the Barisan National although it is not confirmed yet that Mahathir had become the Prime Minister. Molecule Extraction (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a life changing moment for Malaysian political history. First time other party (or party coalition) wins the election and shall rule the country. Chongkian (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mahathir's age and standing is a big part of the story – it's as if Jimmy Carter or George HW Bush made a comeback to take down Trump. But the nature of the coalition is causing "confusion" as Wan Azizah Wan Ismail got to talk to the king first. Andrew D. (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The opposition taking the the lead to gorvern is the first time in the history of 61 years of UMNO's gorvern. Mahathir Mohamed get yo be Prime Minister for the second times after 20 years past since 1981 when he was in UMNO before swing to PPBM in 2016. SNN1395 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Folks, the merits are not in dispute as general elections are on the recurring events list. This will be posted once the article is adequately updated. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The results are getting there. However, I am missing a "Reactions" section, which is probably an easy thing to write as the reactions have been extensive. --Tone 11:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too many missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, significant political event (61 year old government under a democracy changing power is uncommon), leader has sworn in as PM, articles of both subjects have been sufficiently updated. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tagged a few for refs, even some sections that have refs, they don't support the content. The whole thing reads like a piece of anti-government propaganda anyway. Needs work. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the refs, which other sections with refs need fixing? - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well for one thing there is a paragraph accusing 7 people of vote buying, cited to a single source (bersih.org) which itself doesn't cite any sources for it's claims. As a primary source, it's too scant on details to be taken seriously. "Afif Bahardin of PKR: For using Penang State Government programs to give handouts, such as hampers, to voters in Seberang Jaya." <-- That's from the bersih.org source in their "Hall of shame of election sources". Basically a giant BLP vio here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But all Malaysiakini does is report that Bersih published their list. "Gave away hampers"? When? To whom? How many? IMO for an accusation like "vote buying" the details are important. @The Rambling Man: what do you think? If you're good with it then fine, so am I. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, why this is not on the main page already? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 02:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The results table is bare. If someone has a reference for the seat totals, you can add it at the article, then let's hide the results table for the meantime. –HTD 04:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet Clearly there is no question on significance, but it needs more update, especially about the aftermath: government formation, who picks the next prime minister and when he will be sworn in. HaEr48 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The alternative blurb. While the article isn't great, this looks good enough to go. It's certainly a major world news story. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What else has to be done here? Lebanese general election, 2018 was posted with a near-empty results table. Is there anything else that's keeping this article from being posted? –HTD 18:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITNR. Article is comprehensive and of sufficient quality. -Zanhe (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Mahathir has already been inaugurated. Leading to much info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyjahja (talkcontribs) 04:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. Mahathir's article has some issues and cannot therefore be bolded. The election article looks fine. --Tone 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question since he is not going to be in ofifce very long, will we post his replacement (although not head of state)? He has already said that when whathisname (Anwar Sadat I was going to say ;) the fellow jailed on sodomy charges) gets out of jail he'll step aside.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe this makes sense - change of the head of the government. Of course, a new nomination in due time etc. --Tone 10:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Release of American prisoners in North Korea

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: 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]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientum and 331dot, in addition we can’t post EVERY step in the North Korean peace process. Python Dan (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -Doesn't rise to the level of significance needed at ITN. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:45, 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.

(Posted) 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]
  • Support the altblurb. I don't think we need the Amazon part. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support if and only if the Amazon blurb is not used. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - posting the altblurb, without the Amazon part. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. -- King of ♠ 12:28, 10 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 [11] 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

(Posted) RD: Anne V. Coates

Article: Anne V. Coates (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
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.

 Oscar-winning film editor.ghost 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged those; thanks. ghost 23:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Big Bully Busick

Article: Big Bully Busick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wrestling Observer
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: Wrestler. Appears fully referenced. LukeSurl t c 16:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support No issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the spirit of Vanamonde93's scrutiny of George Deukmejian below, I wonder if anyone bothered to notice the following "highly encyclopedic" statement: "In November 2012, the WWE listed Busick as having the best mustache in the Top 10 mustaches in WWE history". Better still, did any of these geniuses bother to actually look at that source, or is this another case of WP:IRS basically amounting to "Why, I found it lying around on this website, so therefore..."? This so-called "reliable" source plainly reflects the personal opinion of "the WWE’s ultimate authority on mustaches, the lovely Kaitlyn" instead of anything which could credibly be called an authority, which might be kind of hard to achieve considering the underlying subject matter. BTW, Vanamonde, major kudos for having to guts to expose this fraudulent Kool-Aid drinking exercise the regulars around here call "article quality". The reason I refer to Kool-Aid drinking should be obvious; similar to what happened at Jonestown, this sort of thing has been poisoning the encyclopedia for quite some time. And I fully well expect to wind up the Wiki-equivalent of Leo Ryan for making these comments. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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]
  • @TDKR Chicago 101: Okay, look. This is a decent article about a seemingly decent person, and I'd like to post it. But I looked through it again, and naturally first tried to check the citations added to address my tags from yesterday. What do I find? The source added here doesn't seem to support the cited content. The source added here, likewise. The Rojas source added here is a deadlink. The NYT source, added I-can't-find-when, doesn't support the statement about "sole Republican statewide officeholder." I am not willing to post this. And if we've posted stuff with similar issues before, well, that's a failing then, not an excuse now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, what the crap is going on. The more I attempt to fix references the more references I find that don't support the info in that sentence. I was attempting a quick fix to get it back on RD, but this is going to take time... Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Killiondude:, @Vanamonde93:: I fact-checked source, removed the garbage ones and replaced them with content-related sources. Please tell me it's good to go it took a lot of time but I'm glad to say the article looks in tip top shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • TDKR, you say it's all been fixed up. I looked through a combined diff of your changes. The first ref I spot check is this; not the best source, maybe, but it supports the content. Then, I check this NYT story, added to support "Deukmejian won the election by about 100,000 votes, about 1.2 percent of the 7.5 million votes cast." Nowhere in the source can I find that. And guess what? That completely unsurprising, because this is a 1986 source, discussing the 1986 election. And at this point I've had enough of this article, but you can be sure that it isn't going to be posted without thorough vetting. I've removed the "attention needed" tag, because it's the article that needs attention, not this nomination. So much for ITN's supposedly superior quality control. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support re-posting, the issues seem to have been addressed since I last checked. Davey2116 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Armenia PM

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: 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]
  • Comment The blurb is unclear and may not adhere to NPOV. From the blurb it is unclear if A) the protests are against the prime minister, B) the protests are for the prime minister, or c) the protests are not even related to the prime minister. OtterAM (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The protests were previously in the news. The protests were against Sargsyan becoming Prime Minister, and they escalated when the leader of the protests, Pashinyan, was detained. He was released, Sargsyan stepped down, and Pashinyan was elected Prime Minister. If possible, the blurb should be rephrased to include this context. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While not head of government, the circumstances surrounding this election are make it significant enough to post. I don't see a problem with the blurb as written. The protests occurred for a number of reasons, while would be difficult to capture in one sentence. Users can click on the protest article to clear up any confusion. Mamyles (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and bold the protest article, per Brendon. Davey2116 (talk) 23:04, 11 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.

[Closed] USA/JCPOA

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: 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." [13].--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]
Indeed. It's not like this is about some fat pool player's nipples, Lihaas. Use your head. We have standards to maintain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.0.95 (talk) 16:08, 9 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 [14] 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]
  • Support - Important development which can have far reaching consequences. I think it would be better to put the withdrawal article on the frontpage than the JCPOA article, since it covers the news better. Dragnadh (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the World Snooker Championship get on the front page but not this? I guess it is too late to matter now. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nine Zulu queens: The World Snooker Championship is on the recurring events list, meaning that notability is not at issue for it. This event's notability needs to be discussed and a consensus arrived at. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 14 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.

(Closed) RD: Maurane

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: 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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra

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: 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:[15] 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]
  • Support. Major regional development and one for the history books for sure. There is no doubt this is a military occupation giving the Yemeni reaction. GWA88 (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The UAE already had a military presence on the island. So, unless they annex it this time, it's pretty much an insignificant story being overstated by pro-Qatar media. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:23, 11 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: