*'''Updated ''' Recheck and Post.--[[User:yousaf465|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''yousaf465'</span>]][[User talk:yousaf|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF"></span>]] 13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
*'''Updated ''' Recheck and Post.--[[User:yousaf465|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''yousaf465'</span>]][[User talk:yousaf|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF"></span>]] 13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
** The article's prose should be improved, and while International Reaction sections are discouraged, all elements must be sourced and there are several that are not. There is no rush to post if the quality is not there. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
** The article's prose should be improved, and while International Reaction sections are discouraged, all elements must be sourced and there are several that are not. There is no rush to post if the quality is not there. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
::All reaction are from 2-3 sources. Those have been fixed. --[[User:yousaf465|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''yousaf465'</span>]][[User talk:yousaf|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF"></span>]] 14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC on "recent deaths" has ended and the new criteria came into effect from 00:00 UTC on 19 July 2016.
If you came by to nominate a story about a specific Olympic event, please be aware, per WP:SNOW, it is highly unlikely that there will be a consensus to post it. The Olympics are currently posted as an "ongoing" link, and several recent failed nominations have shown that no event or result is itself significant enough over any other to merit a stand-alone blurb, regardless of the popularity of the event or if a record was broken.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prominent actor, writer and disability rights campaigner in the UK. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose vast article, vast unreferenced sections... Wrong date. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in curent state, whole paragraphs without citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the quality needs some improvement, such as citations as MurielMary states. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. Large sections of text completely unsourced Palmtree5551 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Derrick Dearman a 27-year-old Mississippi man kills five people in the U.S. town of Citronelle, Alabama then kidnaps his pregnant ex-girlfriend from among the victims. Nearby, the Greene County, Mississippi Sheriff's office takes the surrender and confession of the suspect. (Reuters)
Oppose for now as the article is only a stub. Will support if/when article is long enough. Joseph2302 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support after expansion Right now it is a stub. --yousaf465' 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Only after expansion. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unfortunately. I was going to celebrate the recent spate of science and technology articles, and relative dearth of disasters and attacks. Will have to hold off for now. (longtime editor; most of the recent !votes from China-based IPs are me.) 124.128.114.215 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Recheck and Post.--yousaf465' 13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's prose should be improved, and while International Reaction sections are discouraged, all elements must be sourced and there are several that are not. There is no rush to post if the quality is not there. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All reaction are from 2-3 sources. Those have been fixed. --yousaf465' 14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support - after I checked all the references and fixed one that had link rot. I support because most of the article (but not all of the article) can be verified from these references. So therefore the article is on its way to reaching minimal quality standard. My support is "weak" for two reasons: (1) because some of the citations utilize sources that are in tagalog or some other Filipino dialect that I'm unfamiliar with (that's why I say "most"--but not all--of the statements in this article can be verified). For example, can it be verified that Cuntapay was in that first batch of actor workshops with those two other actors mentioned? One can't be sure, as the reference would have to be in somewhere in an interview conducted in, presumably, "tagalog". The other reason my support is tentative is because (2) I need to finish cleaning up some of the grammar and flow. Obviously the article has been edited by folks whose formal education was not in so-called "standardized" English, ie.., BBC or some other form of "acceptable" grammar approved by Wikipedia. Meanwhile let me see if there is some kind of translate engine on the web. Christian Roess (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: Are you claiming that the article quality is acceptable? Given the new RD criteria that's the only thing being discussed here; every RD nomination is technically "for ITN" now, if the quality is fine. We no longer debate the merits for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some people don't understand how RD works. This is good example. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you a dozen examples from the past couple of months where this user supports an article which is clearly not ready for the main page. It's not bad faith, it's experience and knowledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose several unreferenced sentences, BLP applies. Weak article overall. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: About 900 extrajudicial killings since May presidential election. zzz (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless a substantive step is taken towards the Phillipines leaving the UN. I'm sure many notable figures around the world advocate leaving or threaten to leave the UN. Duterte's statement seems more like bluster than anything. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose in current state. Article is a list of one-sentence statements. Not cohesive or easy to read. Also some odd statements like the last line of the first section "this radio show" - what does this refer to? And some tense issues to tidy up. MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good now, much better than when I saw it last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment still not brilliant, but not opposing, article much improved since I reviewed this morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Zika spreads from American to American for the first time
No consensus to post. MikeLynch (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Pros: Not maybe like the other nom. Cons: Only the US. Though I nominate, no idea if it's notable enough and don't care much either way, just testing the waters of Zika ITN-worthiness. This might be the beachhead of a huge infection of much of America à la killer bees or cane toads and other invasive species, or maybe it can be stopped. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is this quantified somehow? About 20 years ago, the UK was going to be blighted by Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from consuming dodgy cows, because one or two people had it. That never amounted to much. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This feels too late - FL has been spraying the blocks where the Zika-carrying mosquitoes have been spotted for a few weeks now. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't prove that failed till someone who didn't travel abroad gets symptoms (I think) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see why the US should be treated as a specially important case when so many countries are affected. Also, as I recall, the first local transmission in the US happened several weeks ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Florida is the first territory of a developed country that's not like a tropical colony (i.e. Puerto Rico, French Guiana, Virgin Islands, American Samoa) to get it. Mosquito-borne diseases aren't surprising there, there's even a field of medicine called tropical medicine.
This might be where Zika becomes a non-tropical first world problem (then they might start trying hard to stop it, typical humans). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NBC acts like US mosquitos giving Zika to Americans who haven't traveled is new. Maybe that's been going on for weeks? I'm not sure on the timeline. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been going on since end of July. See for example, [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that? I knew about that. Maybe the few weeks is explained by the virus' symptomless period. Logically you can't prove you didn't stop the contagiousness till 1 infection generation time from US patient zero in July. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Uncomfortable with the idea of just posting "It's spreading". If we had something stronger to hang our hat on, such as large numbers of people being infected, large numbers of newborns affected, maybe(emphasis on maybe), but not as currently worded. I'd also prefer that the nominator of a subject/article at least be semi-interested or supportive of its notability. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supportive of its notability but I'm American so I might be biased. Buy if the rest of the world wants to wait till it gets worse (if it does) I'm not going to push hard or be unhappy. That's what I meant. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect if this gets worst (reports of infection and transmission into other states particularly those not bordering FL) that this story would become an Ongoing from the start. Right now, while there are serious concerns, it does appear reasonable contained to a limited geographic area. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 331dot. Also not to mention that this nom seems like something I'd expect to see in Plague Inc.Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly posting will be appropriate once the President of Madagascar shuts down their airports...:) --MASEM (t) 02:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Following Gawker Media's sale to Univision, after losing their lawsuit to Hulk Hogan, the company's flagship site, Gawker.com, announced it was shutting down.--The lorax (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that picture add anything at all? If there should be a picture linked to this whole issue, Hulk Hogan is at least instantly recognisable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I was hoping for one of him doing his trademarked shirt-ripping routine, possibly with 'gawker' photoshopped onto it. ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - with an Alexa rank of 987, it's hard to see this as sufficiently significant for ITN. If some element of this lawsuit has wider implications, possibly, but that doesn't look like the case. Banedon (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this proposed as ongoing not a blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose If there was an ITN point on this cycle it would have been the decision of the case, and even then, that's barely ITN-worthy given the scope of what is affected. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Oppose To the extent that Gawker might have merited mention on ITN it was for the lawsuit, which at least in the United States was extremely important due to its implications in privacy law. That however is obviously stale. This is just a blurb about a minor business shutting down and does not merit attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a business shutting down and it doesn't seem to be significant enough for posting Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2016 (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.
[moved to ongoing] 2016 Louisiana floods to ongoing
Nominator's comments: This has just dropped off the bottom of the ITN template, but the article indicates it is still ongoing. The current tag was removed about 12 hours ago, so I didn't add it to ongoing when updating the template, but as there is still plenty of updates happening and the event still seems to be ongoing so I thought I'd canvas opinions of others. I'm happy either way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I went and moved it to ongoing; it's clearly still in the news, there are still developments, and new substantive information is being added every few hours. Ticks all the boxes for me. --Jayron32 11:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the reason these things get posted here was to debate their merits? Maybe I was wrong, given that you've just gone ahead and posted before anybody has said anything about it? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD. WP:BURO. If you have a substantive reason this should be removed from ongoing, please let us know. I, or another admin, can always remove it. What is your substantive objection to the content of the article or the presence in news sources why this should not be on the main page? --Jayron32 14:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly bothered about having it on Ongoing or not. Probably edging towards not. Just pointing out posted (very) prematurely, before any discussion took place. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I had moved this to ongoing before adding my comment here. I was not, at the time, aware of the discussion, and typically since the article had already been approved for main page inclusion, admins will usually just add it themselves to Ongoing. Discussion is only needed if the article had not yet been approved for main page use, OR to raise awareness to admins who may not be aware that it is appropriate to ongoing. I wasn't weighing in with an opinion, I was notifying the people reading this thread that the issue had already been resolved; probably almost simultaneously with the thread getting started. --Jayron32 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing as it is (1) still in the news, (2) still being actively revised, and (3) older than 7 days. What Ongoing: is for. Also, IP 131.*, it is pretty common for admins to move things to ongoing in this situation, and then use a thread here at ITN/C to decide when it's time to take it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing I think the IP may have missed the point that the floods were posted as a blurb following a lengthy discussion and that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to move an event which is still ongoing to the Ongoing section once its blurb drops off ITN. No problem here. The Rambling Man (talk)|
Seems odd to post it here as a proposal then, but consider my objections retracted. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think it was posted here for ongoing because it dropped from blurbs but is still an ongoing event (not to restate nom too much) Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing per Floquenbeam. Clearly still an ongoing event Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing per Floquenbeam.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Bauer reports that malware was used to access payment data for cards used at their stores; payments made via their website were reportedly unaffected. (Reuters)
U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo sentences former NFL player Darren Sharper to 18 years in prison in rape and drugging case involving as many as 16 women in several U.S. states. (BBC)
The Obama Administration says it wants to phase out the use of privately owned federal prisons. The move would affect private prisons which house 22,660 federal inmates, out of a total of nearly 200,000. (BBC)
Science and technology
Twitter announces 235,000 terror-linked accounts have been suspended over the past six months amid increasing pressure on tech companies from the White House to censor extremists from groups like ISIS. (CBS News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Any objections to listing an animal on RD? The article quality seems to pass the criteria - fully referenced and organised. MurielMary (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last time an animal was nominated was back during the RD trial. Maybe a horse and it might've been a stub. Prior to that commentators used to argue that animals could not fall under the old RD criteria (significant to their field/high ranked at time of death/etc). Since that no longer applies, and that this is a seemingly okay article, I see no reason to oppose. For what it is worth, news reports also state that the animal was iconic in India. Fuebaey (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment when a horse was nominated during the trial period for the current criteria it was closed by Floquenbeam with the comment "We aren't going to put a horse in RD. And please don't ask me what specific policy says "no horses in RD", because it will cause me to beat my head against a brick wall for several minutes." Before the close the nomination had three comments, two opposes commenting on the state of the article and one oppose starting "Wasn't there a decision some time ago that RD is limited to humans?". I haven't looked for that decision. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it's a bit of a complex question whether animals should fall under RD, though I don't see why they shouldn't per se. This tigress' article is of decent quality and her notably is without question. It's a notable death. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should ask ourselves "what is the purpose of the RD section?" and go from there. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an article, it's of a good enough standard to meet the Recent Deaths criteria for inclusion. However, I'm unconvinced that animals should be eligible for RD, as most of the criteria on Wikipedia:Recent Deaths refers to people, the implication of which is that only people should be listed on RD. Joseph2302 23:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I understand it, the last few times an animal was nominated for RD consensus seemed to indicate that animals were not eligible. I would submit that this should be a regular nomination. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has there ever been an instance in which a non-person's death was posted to RD? Palmtree5551 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but Knut (polar bear) got a full blurb during a period when we didn't have RD at all. —Cryptic 06:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Knut was a global news phenomenon though... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for admin input on this nom as it's 3 days since the death now and at risk of getting stale. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus at the moment, but I don't think consensus is impossible so I'm not going to close the discussion. I have started a section on the talk page to determine what the consensus is for the general case, and I suggest that this discussion proceed on the basis that there is no general consensus either way about whether animals are eligible or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see a good reason not to include a (notable) tiger or any other (notable) animal at RD. --Hegvald (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] First US offshore wind farm completed
Doesn't look like it's happening. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Big news in the US, not so much in Europe where many offshore wind farms already exist.
Hey, I know of Block Island. Are there any other offshore wind farms between Panama and Greenland? If not the blurb can say first in North America without qualification. Are there any others in the Western Hemisphere? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm pretty sure (~96%) this is the first offshore wind farm in North America or South America. China and Europe have tons of offshore wind farms. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Offshore wind farms are very old news in Europe. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So what if it's the first in North America? All that indicates is that the Americans have been a bit slow to get on the game. Do we usually post the first of these sort of things in each continent? Not in my experience. Neljack (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In today's new, the US is miles behind Europe in adopting offshore windfarms. News? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered by the comments above, this is a nice parochial story but nothing truly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2016 (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] Asymptomatic Zika infection in adults may cause dementia down the line
CLOSED
Let it snow, let it snow, let it WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 03:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Zika (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Asymptomatic Zika infection in adults may cause dementia down the line (Post) News source(s):WaPo Credits:
Nominator's comments: I've canceled by trip to Miami. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose News report based on one peer-reviewed journal article. The word "may" in your blurb says it all, it's inconclusive. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly speculative and not what ITN should be publishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or it may not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above ... also, even if it does cause dementia down the line, so what? It's still only one of many different diseases, and many other diseases do worse things than cause dementia. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Speculation doesn't really belong on the front page IMO Palmtree5551 (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. New Zika findings are being published on a daily basis. The actual paper[2] that resulted in these headlines is showing infection of neural stem cells in immunodeficient mice, and everything else is sheer speculation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2016 (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] Ending private prisons
CLOSED
Pick up your money and pack up your tent, this ain't going nowhere. Closing per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Significant development in the US for private prisons.
Sadly, while it would be a step in the right direction (and newsworthy in its own right), it has to actually happen first. Considering the stonewalling that has been going on in this administration...--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm sure clowngress will find a way to call it tyranny and obstruct it. --50.160.204.213 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parochial. Also, just a recommendation. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support provided that material about this development is added to the appropriate article. This is a major development, and it has been covered by The Washington Post, CNBC, ABC, Forbes, and Vox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a recommendation should not be in the news. If it is implemented, we can reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - according to the source linked it's not a "recommendation". Regardless, it looks like an internal policy of one country, so I don't see the international significance. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is just a recommendation in a single country. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2016 (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.
Eight people are seriously injured when a passenger train collides with a tree that had fallen across the railway line at Saint-Aunès, Hérault, France. (BBC News Online)
A Malaysian oil tanker, MT Vier Harmoni, is hijacked off the coast of Malaysia and is believed to have been taken to Indonesian waters near the island of Batam, according to the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency. The identity of the hijackers is not yet known. (BBC)
Judge Keyla Blanc, of Brazil's Special Tribunal for Fans and Major Events, orders Brazil police to question U.S. swimmer Ryan Lochte over inconsistencies describing the armed robbery of himself and three other American Olympians. Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger are later removed from a plane returning to the United States. (Reuters), (Daily Telegraph)
Article:Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Airlander 10 hybrid airship, the longest modern aircraft in the world, makes its maiden flight. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Airlander 10 hybrid airship, currently the longest aircraft in the world, makes its maiden civil flight. Alternative blurb II: The Airlander 10 hybrid airship makes its maiden civil flight. Alternative blurb III: The Airlander 10 hybrid airship, which is 92 metres (302 ft) long, makes its maiden civil flight. News source(s):BBC News Online Credits:
Support good article, sufficiently notable maiden flight. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... this isn't really its maiden flight. The image here is from its flight in 2012, when it was a US Army project. It was cancelled, the prototype was bought back by its inventors, and it's now flying again in a civilian configuration. But it is getting a lot of press coverage, so it would be nice to mention on the main page somehow. Smurrayinchester 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, even the BBC which mentions maiden flight a few times then goes on to say "British firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) launched a campaign to return the Airlander 10 to the skies in May 2015" implying it'd already been in the skies. Some RS that BBC..... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support came to nominate. I think the article needs to clarify the "largest" part more. Hindemburg was 245m long while this one is only 91m. Nergaal (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It must mean the longest (possibly most voluminous) heavier-than-air craft, maybe barely heavier (it will sink without the propellers running). I believe modern blimps and possibly Zeppelins are run heavier after takeoff or always - needing the propellers to point some degrees downwards to maintain altitude. Either they're all smaller than this one or "aircraft" is defined even more strictly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The longest airplane might still be the Spruce Goose, though it never flew high enough to prove that it could fly without ground effect boost, which might arguably make it unable to fly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nergaal, per LZ 129 Hindenburg Airlander isn't the longest aircraft ever, so added clarification to the original blurb. Brandmeistertalk 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the blurb can be tweaked to say longest current aircraft and maiden civilian flight (the latter may intrigue readers and encourage them to read the article). Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. Interesting, generally well written article and it is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment alt blurb looks good to go and the image is already protected should an admin wish to update that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but don't use the word "currently" (that should be obvious and so unnecessary) and also use "civilian" instead of "civil". Alternatively, "maiden flight as a civilian vessel" might be more appropriate. Banedon (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but definitely without either modern or currently. Sugest:
The Airlander 10 hybrid airship, the world's longest aircraft, makes its maiden civil flight in Bedfordshire, England.
So the "largest" ever means most buoyancy, i.e. largest volume? I remember Hindemburg looking less fat than this one. Nergaal (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were you there at Lakehurst in 1937? Wow! Sca (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindenburg could lift 230 tons plus itself. This can lift 10 tons plus itself (20 more). The Hindenburg was huge by aerospace standards, almost the length of the Titanic. This is only 91 meters (less than this plane's wingspan ((which is actually it's length under geometry's "longest dimension" definition)). So being fatter cannot possibly give it enough volume to counter it's almost 3:1 disadvantage in length. For reference the Goodyear Blimps are 59 meters. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing ready. I'm not seeing a factually accurate agreed blurb here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt blurb 2 should resolve that. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about stating the length? Suggestion in Alt 3.Espresso Addict (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to go with length, but we don't all work in metres. Have added conversion. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready for ALT 3. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugliest ITN post of the year, other than the one that took two sentences. Honestly, "which is X m long"? Terrible and not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion, The Rambling Man (talk·contribs)? Longest appears inaccurate, modern/current isn't supported, the bald fact of the maiden flight gives no sense of why it's interesting, and no concise way of defining the craft so as to exclude larger examples has been proposed. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real challenge. It's been in the news, for real, and news outlets have the latitude to express subjective forms such as "largest" or "maiden" etc, without being constrained by our WP:V and so on. I guess the fact that it's been posted is enough, but that jarring clause telling me how long it is, without any context at all, is why it's contender for worst hook of the year. I'm sorry I can't come up with anything better right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable Canadian director and former president of AMPAS. Article is in good shape, IMO. Light show (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose it's a bit of a quote carnival, I'd prefer to see more analysis of his life and career, not bloated quotes that inflate the article to twice its actual usable size. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a former graduate of QA (Quotaholics Anonymous), I can try tightening some of those, but can't work on it till later. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, TRM didn't ask this to reach "good" or "featured" level. Just "marginally less shitty". You could, you know, fix it instead of making an underhanded dig against someone else's valid objection. --Jayron32 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to not read into things too much. Neither of them mentioned the other in this thread and people have differing opinions. Fuebaey (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a general knee-jerk objection to my demands for quality articles only to be posted to the main page. I know many users think differently and are content to post sub-par articles to the detriment of Wikipedia. I'm not one of those, and I won't ever apologise for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged a few paragraphs that need citations. Fuebaey (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None remain. And quotes curtailed, as such I move to support this nomination which is good to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support — this is a major event, though I prefer the alternative blurb. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alt blurb. I doubt that most readers could name Summit Inn, let alone recognize the significance of its destruction more so than the fire itself.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support This needs expansion and improved sourcing. The subject might be ITN worthy but the article is not up to standards for being linked on the main page. It is little more than a stub, is inadequately sourced and has a maintenance tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator of the article I just want to say 2 things. First, I'm totally in agreement that the blurb can be better written! This is my first time nominating something for "In the news" so I wasn't too sure how best to do it. I would greatly appreciate any help with improving the blurb. Second, @Ad Orientem: thanks for your comments. I think at this point (see changes I JUST made) the article is at least a "Start", no longer a stub. There is absolutely more information that can, should and will be added! There are a few IP Address editors that are adding commentary and unsourced material. I will do my best to clean that up as it happens. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that there needs to be be some larger geographical context in the blurb, perhaps starting it "In California..." or "In the United States..." but that seems slightly clumsy. I haven't looked at the article yet so no opinion on whether this should be posted or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Thryduulf, Ad Orientem, Notecardforfree, WaltCip, and 331dot: as mentioned above this is my first nomination so I didn't really realize that the blurb I was proposing was the exact text that would appear on the main page. My thinking was more "Here is why this should be featured", not "Here is exactly what should be said". Take a look at Alternative blurb II and let me know what you think? The one think I might add to it is to say "As of <date when blurb is posted>, over 30,000 acres....". Thanks to everyone for giving feedback and for helping me learn about this process! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just to put things in perspective sizewise: The "huge" Bluecut fire in SoCal is approximately one-third the size of the Pioneer fire in Idaho. The difference of course is, SoCal is densely populated, while the Idaho fire threatens only one town, Lowman, which has a year-round population of 52. (Some 1,800 firefighters are battling the Pioneer fire, compared to 1,300 on the Bluecut fire.) No fatalities reported so far from either. Sca (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: not sure what your point is? No one actually said the fire was huge... Not even the top 3 in california this year. The significance here is the number of evacuations as well as its location. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, please note first 'support' comment above. Sca (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and adding altblurb 3. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever blurb is used, the name of the country should be specified. Isa (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a version of the first alt blurb which doesn't use "30,000+". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Basically favor Alt3, though suggest changes as follows:
The Blue Cut Fire in Southern California displaces more than 80,000 people, burns over 30,000 acres (47 sq. mi; 120 sq. km.) of land, and threatens an estimated 34,500 structures.
(Since the event is in the U.S., parenthetical area conversion logically should include sq. mi.) Sca (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Canadian politician. MP for Ottawa-Vanier (1995-2016) and government minister (2003-2006). Fuebaey (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Surprised this hasn't come here yet. Changed the style of public-affairs talk shows in the U.S.; hosted the show from 1982 up until last week. Was enough of a media personality for Dana Carvey to do a very funny (and very on) parody of him on SNL. Article could use a few more cites, but seems fixable otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Daniel Case: Just FYI given the new criteria you no longer need to justify the merits of this person being posted, as if they merit an article, they merit posting. Only article quality needs to be assessed. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: OK, thanks ... I hadn't taken part in those discussions. A good change to make, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I don't mean to say you shouldn't explain who the person is- but you don't need to 'sell' it. :) 331dot (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. Depth is sufficient, but needs to be more fully referenced. When I heard the news I thought it was Mahavishnu John, but I don't think the American talk show host had those kind of chops on guitar. Still, a decent article which is almost, but not quite, ready for prime time. --Jayron32 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose purely on article quality which I believe is fixable. The subject is actually one that I would support for RD even under the old guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many missing references, and at least one category (spouse of a US cabinet member) that is not explained in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the category is directly explained in the first line of the "personal life" section. --Jayron32 23:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lack of referencing. I count 6 paragraphs which lack any kind of citation, including the second paragraph in "education" which definitely needs sources to be named (mentions disagreements with an editor etc). MurielMary (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made sure that at least every graf ends with a cite. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support pending some minor housekeeping like referencing one or two statements that are missing them.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have recalled some refs for sentences which were missing. Please feel free to add cn tags so we can fix them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: All over the news, potentially a big step forward in quantum cryptography. As always with science news (especially related to quantum stuff) a lot of the news outlets are alarmist or just wrong (even the NYT doesn't seem to understand what the spacecraft is meant to do, exactly), but it's still a big and interesting story. Not entire sure if the WP:COMMONNAME is "QUESS" or "Micius" here. Smurrayinchester 11:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BBC indicates Micius is the name of the satelite, and QUESS is the name of the project. It also has a reasonably well written explanation. The final section of the lead in the QUESS article also states 'further Micius' satelites. So I guess the blurb should say Micius but link to QUESS? (As an aside, I doubt the satelite itself would be unhackable, as I cannot think of a situation where they would have the only communication with the satelite be by quantum, given its limitations) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Austrian Academy of Sciences (one of the refs in the article) also makes the distinction between the satelite 'Micius' and the project/experiment as 'QUESS' so I think the article needs to be reworded in parts (where it refers specifically to the satelite) - Other than that I support this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the New York Times, Xinhua and Space.com say it's QUESS, "nicknamed Micius", Physics World says it's QUESS "also named Micius", New Scientist says it was called QUESS but was "renamed Mozi" (an alternative form of Micius). No-one seems very clear, but I'd defer to Chinese sources such as the Chinese National Space Administration - who say the satellite is called QUESS and Micius/Mozi is a nickname. Smurrayinchester 12:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because highly notable important issue for modern times. Brian Everlasting (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support article quality is sufficient. The blurb seems a little sensationalist; I'd prefer it to end at "...quantum key distribution." But the article is sufficient for the main page, so I won't object to posting it. --Jayron32 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the language should be simplified a bit for common readers imo. E.g. technical terms can be shortly explained in the context of the experiments even if they are also (in length) explained at the linked page. --Fixuture (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support we do need a better blurb but article is sufficient quality and the subject is newsworthy and interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I expanded Quess & removed the unhackable note per Jayron32. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Fixuture, I think the blurb needs something in lay person terms to explain why this is interesting (which is why I tacked the last clause onto the end). "Quantum key distribution" isn't going to mean much to the average reader - there needs to be some reference to the fact that this is an encryption technology. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the article's content as I found the blurb proposal good enough as it was. However the blurb apparently got changed whn it was posted - so I very much agree. E.g. one should readd "which allows unbreakable encryption" at the end of it. --Fixuture (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the poster, obviously I disagree. I can't pretend to understand quantum entanglement but this satellite is not going to itself "allow unbreakable encryption", afaik? I'm active for another hour or two if anyone cares to suggest a more-conservative, concise wording that might be clearer. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I'm presently working on expanding the article, but this has been described as a "historic flood" by numerous sources and caused tremendous disruption. The sheer number of rescues is worth posting by itself in my opinion, but the flooding has also claimed lives. Multiple rivers set record crests and tens of thousands of buildings have been inundated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though perhaps we should re-phrase the blurb to say that 20,000 people have been forced to evacuate (see this article from the NewsHour) instead of "20,000 rescues?" -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the alternate blurb I just added is used, (or unless something similar to the alt. blurb is proposed by another editor). "Notecardforfree" is entirely correct in his evaluation because, IMO, "rescue" overstates the situation, to say the least. (Who precisely is responsible for rescuing 20,000 people, and how did they do it? None of the cited sources goes into the details).† Yes, The Washington Post (cited above) states it as "rescued", but The New York Times (again, cited above) clearly says 20,000 evacuated, and the latter term is also used in the "Newshour" article that Notecardforfree cites. So from my vantage point, it's evacuated, and not "rescued". Meanwhile, the target article has been updated and sourced, and is of sufficient quality. Christian Roess (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment in case it seems like I am overstating my case.† The New York Times states that, along with volunteers, "Firefighters, the National Guard and the Coast Guard, using helicopters and small flat-bottomed boats, were among those who have also joined the effort." So, I suppose it is possible to "rescue" 20,000 people, but if it did happen in precisely that way, then it's an extraordinary logistical accomplishment. But we need additional sources in the target article showing how it happened. Also, I'm removing the death toll from the blurb. The updated number stands at eight deaths according to The New York Times, but the target article, as it currently stands, does not even mention the number of deaths Christian Roess (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Support - this is an under-reported story overshadowed by Olympics, Trump etc. According to the Red Cross it is the worst flood in the US since Hurricane Sandy. [3] As of Tuesday 11 people have died (same source). The flooding continues it is still ongoing. 40,000+ properties have been flooded but only 20% have flood insurance. -- GreenC 13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Getting stale; loss of life isn't huge. (Meanwhile, 80,000 being evacuated from wildfire in SoCal.) Sca (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2. Most definitely not stale compared one or two of the items currently in the ITN template. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2. ...Sca, you should nominate an article & blurb with that item. Indeed, if what you say is valid, then your nomination would almost certainly take precedence over any stale items. And would help to move them off the list. That's the way to work it around here, as I'm sure you know. Christian Roess (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Based on reading the article, I hidden dated the post (and chronologized it) as August 13. I went with Alt2 with a slight tweak in the wording. --Jayron32 18:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two weeks back we posted 2016 Assam floods with blurb "Flooding in Assam, India, kills 28 people, affects 1.6 million others and submerges the Kaziranga National Park, a World Heritage Site." Calling this calamity as "Record flooding" is a bit hyperbole even with simple statistical comparison. Can the blurb be neutralized? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's good to see that our very own ITN editors recognized this as a newsworthy item & quickly got it posted to the main page once it was nominated and checked for quality. Meanwhile, unlike here at ITN, The New York Times is offering an Apologia for their dilatory behavior (On Gulf Coast Flooding, The Times Is Late to the Scene). They are admitting, rather disingenuously, that by obsessing over Trump and the Olympics it completely dropped the ball on one of the worst US weather related disasters since Hurricane Sandy. The excuse? Well, it's been a "busy" news cycle and reporters go on vacation in August and it's a long way to Louisiana and, ya know, real journalism is just so hard. Christian Roess (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Brazilian lawyer. FIFA president (1974-1998) and IOC committee member (1963-2011). Fuebaey (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Probably the most influential (albeit corrupt) president of FIFA, made it a truly global organization. News is covered globally.EternalNomad (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb shouldn't even be under consideration unless someone can write a Death of João Havelange article with a straight face. Blurbs are not "death of person who would have made RD under the previous criteria". —Cryptic 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agree with that. I think Abductive said that a while ago, and it's a great yardstick to measure such nominations against. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose' until all POV claims are removed or neutralised and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 2,321 words long. Assuming the overall purpose is to improve articles, please be more specific in your review and not just point to policy. Fuebaey (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll just accused of drive-by tagging, so please, it's your nomination, feel free to read it over at least once before nominating and fix the POV sentences and unreferenced claims. You're experienced enough to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At what point did I accuse you of that? We worked on an article fine yesterday, but I didn't randomly accuse you of nominating an article I was working on or you accuse me of randomly tagging. Why the hostility on making article improvements today? Fuebaey (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then if it doesn't refer to me, how is it relevant to my request? I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to my other question as well. Fuebaey (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling Man, the article does not have any POV tags (either banners or inline). You have to point the issues that you found somewhere (tag the article, or detail it here, or in the article's talk page); otherwise the argument is not actionable, as someone willing to see the article in the main page does not know what needs fixing. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed now, but I can't believe that no-one would read an unreferenced sentence such as The triumvirate of João Havelange, Horst Dassler and Patrick Nally would have profound effects on the future of world sport. without raising an eyebrow. Come on, if you're going to participate in this process, do it properly, everyone. Read the article, don't just skip past the majority of the text. Right now, article quality is the threshold for RDs, so there's only one job to be done, and if people can't be bothered to do that properly, I'd suggest, they don't comment here, as blind "supports" are completely unhelpful for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop assuming there is some set ITN criteria for quality and that everyone shares your interpretation of it. That is not how consensus works. You have enunciated one issue to this article yet originally cite "claims", as in plural, in your opposition to this nomination. If you can't be bothered to point out your concerns in a timely fashion so that others can address them, perhaps you should reconsider who actually is being unhelpful. Fuebaey (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia quality standards for a BLP I'm referring to. You should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready then since no one here agrees with you and you're still refusing to point out those "BLP violations". Fuebaey (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you do realise the comments I made were more than two days ago? Things change and those who have actually given a damn about the article seem to have made a positive difference with BLP in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, I've had time to re-review, there's a section without references and a couple of other citations missing, so it's not quite ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking more than two days and five responses to a simple question. I'd appreciate it if you were less passive-aggressive in the future. I have added a ref and removed the unsourced section per WP:V. Fuebaey (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work to your timetable I'm afraid. Per WP:V, I've restored the section and demonstrated that it's possible to cite at least one of the awards. I suggest you finish the job. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, the burden is upon the editor who restored the unsourced material. For a person who is so intent on quality, why are you readding unsourced material? Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want this posted, you'd do some reasearch, this source should help, it lists a few more honours that aren't mentioned here. Or are you trying to push an article to the main page that you know is missing information that you can source if you want to? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ you're both exhausting. I've sourced the remaining unsourced awards, and if anyone wants to add other awards with sources, they can later. Is it ready to post now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thanks for doing something about it rather than just relying on others. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long and good enough. Joseph2302 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long-time president of an important global organization, also good enough. --Clibenfoart (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An air strike by the Saudi-led coalition which hit a hospital in northern Yemen run by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) kills at least 11 people. (BBC)
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: Results announced on the 15th. Fuebaey (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No comments at all? ITN/R, article seems to be in decent postable shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muboshgu. It's a quality article that's now ITN/R ready. I like the layout of the article, and the sourcing is impressive. Christian Roess (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a decent article, comprehensive and ITNR, what's not to like? Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted jazz musician. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid article - good to go. Challenger l (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough. Joseph2302 20:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Retired professional footballer with lengthy career at the top level, dies after being tasered by police. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there's nothing in the article about how he died; I imagine that would be a particularly salient point for this story considering how unusual it is.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then support as a shocking and tragic death. Article appears well-referenced.--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was about to nominate myself. Smurrayinchester 13:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality looks good enough, though I'd like to see (without clicking on the ref) why the cops tasered him. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when it's known why. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough. Joseph2302 22:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volkswagen gets approval from Germany's motor vehicle authority for technical fixes on 460,000 cars. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
A wedding bus carrying over 50 passengers falls into a ravine in Azad Kashmir, killing at least 25 people and wounding 20 more. Many people are critically injured, with the death toll expected to increase. (Anadolu Agency)
HEI Hotels & Resorts, a firm that operates hotels for Hyatt, Intercontinental, Marriott, and Starwood, reports that malware designed to collect payment information was discovered on computers at 20 of their locations across the United States. (Reuters)
Sage, a British accounting software firm, reports a data breach; it is presently unclear what data was viewed or taken. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: I'm presently working on the article, although it is a very major event that is getting worldwide reaction. I apologize if I made any errors, as this is my first time nominating an article. Please let me know if there is an error I need to fix. Beejsterb (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article appears to be sound, the issue is in the news, though perhaps not receiving the coverage that it should, because Africa. I think it should be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muboshgu's comments. I suggest using something like altblurb3 that I just added. Christian Roess (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key paragraphs of the background and attack are a little light on references. Stephen
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose in current state. There is material in the section "Assaults" which is unrelated to assaults. Also there seems to be unnecessary amounts of detail in both that section and the previous one on drug charges. Is it useful to know exactly what words were said etc etc? MurielMary (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His main claim to fame seems to be that he is the son of former mayor Marion Barry. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitalistroadster: Per a change in the Deaths criteria, we no longer judge importance; if the deceased merits an article, they merit posting to RD. If you feel the person does not merit an article, please propose its deletion. 331dot (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is not the place to discuss the RD criteria, use the talk page if you must
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a perfect example how this new RD does not work. Are we seriously going to post this random person Main Page? As was predicted in the RFC, RD has now become a crowded ticker for people nobody knows. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if you don't think this person should be featured by Wikpiedia, you are welcome to log in and take it to WP:AFD. RD has gone down to as few as one individual since the new criteria were implemented. So, sorry if that disappoints you, but it's working just fine! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of international sources alone tells you enough about his lack of notibility. I would start a AfD, but that would just get shot down by the joined forces who seem to be intent on ruining wiki, inclusionists and Americans, so would be futile. As few as one individual he says.... A properly used RD would be empty most of the time! 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A properly used RD would be empty most of the time" is actually absurd. Items which are notable enough for Wikipedia should be notable enough for the main page, as long as the quality is there. That was the found consensus. Either take this to AFD, start an RFC to reverse the criteria change, or move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - because of BLP issues. Yes, the article's quality certainly approaches the minimal standard, I get that. But there are potential BLP issues due to the numerous controversial statements in this article, which are edgy and border on the salacious, and must be adequately sourced (and by all rights should prompt various BLP warning flags to go up). Now on the surface, these "claims" (excessive drug use and at least one highly publicized assault charge) are sufficiently sourced. But if you dig a little deeper and look at the "Reference" section, there are currently a total of 35 unique individual sources. But out of those 35, I count at least 23 that use three local sources: either The Washington Post (at least 13 references) or the The Washington Times, or The Washington City Paper. Just those three news sources, based in Washington, DC; and where Barry spent his entire life, born and died there. And that indicates to me, therefore, that most news stories related to Marion Christopher Barry over the years had a localized appeal only, specific to the Washington, DC area. (And no this is not a notability issue--that's not an issue for RD nominations anymore--and besides that's being argued elsewhere, as the article is proposed for deletion). My point is that, because this current Wikipedia article is almost entirely a litany of legal issues that make damaging character references while citing mostly three sources, we should be wary of posting this on the Main page without additional, and sufficient, peer review. Again, nearly 65% of the citations used in this article are local news items, about the son of an (in)famous mayor, whether or not you want to argue that The Washington Post has international reliability and credibility. Christian Roess (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IAR oppose. I'm not sure Christian Roess's comments are sufficient to oppose based on current policy, but they strike a chord with me, and I just don't feel comfortable posting this on the main page, when he's basically notable for being (a) a troubled man's son, and (b) troubled and miserable himself his whole life, and all the article does is describe this misery in relentless accurately-cited detail. I don't think there are necessarily BLP issues with the article, because it looks like there are not a lot of unmentioned less-depressing things to balance this with, and he seems to meet WP:GNG. So posting this would probably meet the current RD criteria. I don't want to change the criteria, but I think it's a good time to recognize that posting this would damage our collective karma, and ignore them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks for your input Floquenbeam. Your critique registered with solid comments. I just saw that the result of the deletion request for this page was to Keep. I continue to be on the fence about this particular RD nomination. Mine was a "weak oppose," and so I could, perhaps, be persuaded to change my vote if there were some conscientious (solid) reviews among my peers that this article was a fair and equitable presentation of the (sometimes sordid) details surrounding Marion Christopher Barry's unfortunate biography. Christian Roess (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2016 (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] 400 m World Record
Given the consensus against the longer-standing 10k record was just a few days ago, this is not going to be posted. The Olympics ongoing exists to prevent ITN filling up with stories about individual records and events. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Sorry I'm late with this. Thought somebody else would've posted it already. This is clearly ITN material, especially after the Kendra Harrison precedent from a couple of weeks ago. bender235 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adequately covered by the ongoing listing of Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We are not posting any more records.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where has that been decided? The Harrison 100-metre hurdles WR had clear consensus just a couple of days ago. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IT's because we have an Olympics ongoing, and by its very nature, world records are broken all the time during the Olympic events. The Harrison event happened outside of the Olympics at an event not normally covered by ITNR, so it stood out there. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Arguably the biggest single event in 4 years of sports with the title of "fastest person on earth" that is widely used. Cant remember if it was posted last time but I do remember a debate. Men's inside 24 hours. Lihaas (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no need to single out this event above all the other gold-medal events. Summer Olympics is already on Ongoing by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the 100m is not objectively more important than any other event. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the 100m is objectively the most watched event at the entire Olympics. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thryduulf. There are so many events at the Olympics, why single out this one? Sure it's the most watched athletics event, but it isn't an athletics championship. Banedon (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As the nominator has decided to reopen this discussion,[4] it must be time for the pile-on votes. There is nothing that makes this event objectively more important than any other event in the Olympic games. --Allen3talk 01:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on oppose per all the other opposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: biggest (in terms of prize pool) esports tournament. incredibly popular tournament of an incredibly popular game 174.91.85.101 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation f its import?Lihaas (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support if only for the fact that the winning team won a mind-boggling $9m for playing video games.... Wowzers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending more text being added to the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the prize pool is comparable to that of Wimbledon. Adding more prose to the article is a difficult thing however. Naming the individual heroes used would not be something non-players of the game can understand, but any other kind of text would be trivial and unhelpful. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a description of the games, e.g. "Team A picked ____ hero, team B countered with ____, team A sent ___ mid but team B had sent ___ mid and that is a bad matchup" etc. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean something like: The group stage started on October 1 in Le Dock Pullman, Paris and concluded on October 11.[4] In Group B, ahq e-Sports Club and Cloud9 both ended in a 3-3 tie, resulting in a tiebreaker won by ahq e-Sports Club to win second place in the group. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's unnecessary because if desired all that information is available in the tables. Banedon (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if anybody is curious as to which heroes were picked per game, and who won game 1 of any given series, there is always this. I tried to keep it accessible for the new people reading on this due to the coverage it was getting, and LoL articles are not a good example of what to copy. ~ Dissident93(talk) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is unfamiliar with a subject will find a lot of detail trivial. Polygon above outlines a decent summary - would summarising that into the article be a disservice to our readers? Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess that makes sense - although I find Polygon's coverage rather boring. I guess that itself is a symptom of having to balance coverage for people who do play the game, and people who don't. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, some more text additions would be really welcome. MikeLynch (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support esport world championship with the largest prize pool. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although this will probably annoy some of the cultural purists in our audience, we have never had a chance to post an E-sports ITN event.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We showcase articles here, not news headlines. That the blurb is twice the size of the prose update is telling. I know nothing about the game and come off not knowing any better after reading the article (is it a MMORPG/FPS/etc?). Please write a summary of the final (how they won) or their progression through the tournament (who were the favourites/were there any upsets?). Fuebaey (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the whole article summing up the events of the last two weeks, is the whole update. That said, like any other sporting event article, we would expect an update of a final round/match to include a summary of that event, and not just stat tables. And for this event, I don't know if that's possible given how eSports are typically covered. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument of not enough detailed coverage. If that is the case, that's more of a reason not to post in my book. However, Dissident93 has since added a legacy section, which just about satisfies my prose update concerns. Fuebaey (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Article on Super Bowl 50 and 2015 World Series do not really explain the sports played for those who are new to it either, so is that really a valid argument? ~ Dissident93(talk) 20:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The match summaries in those articles would make me want to know more about the sport by clicking on the links to say American football (NFL) or baseball (MLB). A bunch of tournament brackets, with the majority of teams either red links or stubs, and a lack of match detail here wasn't much interest to me. It would make more sense for me to look outside Wikipedia for information, which sort of defeats the purpose of featuring the article on ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Fuebaey – and because we failed to post results of the English Tiddlywinks Association National Singles on May 1. Sca (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see a statistical comparison regarding the popularity of E-sports vs. tiddlywinks.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the tiddlywinks being nominated so it's hardly fair to use its absence from the main page as a reason to oppose any other nomination. If a minor expansion of the article is all that's required, let's just say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tiddly part was a joke. Sca (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because of the topic and strong oppose on the article basis. There is no content whatsoever apart from the charts. We would never post a serious ITNR sport article in such shape. --Tone 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article has been expanded but there's still room for improvement ;) --Tone 07:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly on article content. I'd be fine with posting the blurb if we had some prose to read about. Generally, for competitions of any sort (including things such as sporting events, awards ceremonies, major honors) we generally expect a few paragraphs of prose describing the important aspects of the event we're posting about. For an event such as this, I would at minimum expect a synopsis of the final event itself, and even better would be an overview of all events and rounds of the competition. This is basically a little background text with some massive tables, and very little prose about the actual events that happened during the competition. We need better articles than this to highlight on the main page. --Jayron32 23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I'm a huge DOTA 2 fan, and because this esports event had $20M+ prize pool, largest in history. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems good enough and well referenced, although I do agree with Jayron32 that it really needs a synopsis of the final event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure the best way to do an ITN blurb, but this is certainly a notable event in sports/eSports. For anybody saying the article needs more summaries of games, ESPN, Polygon, and PC Gamer all have day by day recaps of each series played (in the main stage at least). I just omitted that because most of it wouldn't make sense to a new reader who is coming to the article simply because of the coverage it was receiving. As you can see with the history tab, I'm the only user who really added info, so if somebody wants to pick up where I left off, feel free to do so. ~ Dissident93(talk) 19:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any summary is better than no summary. At least some people willg et something out of it, as opposed to now, nobody get anything out. Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, the prose is just about enough. Stephen 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose keeping this on the main page. Very little coverage in the mainstream media, and therefore fails WP:ITN's "depth of coverage" criterion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We used to give preference to minority topics since the mainstream news by nature is not likely to focus on these sorts of topics (think "Kardashian effect").--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
.jpg)
