*'''Support''' a good quality article and a genuine worldwide story. I don't see how not posting the Venezuela protests sets a precedent- let's do this case by case. I supported the Venezuela nomination and I support this.[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a good quality article and a genuine worldwide story. I don't see how not posting the Venezuela protests sets a precedent- let's do this case by case. I supported the Venezuela nomination and I support this.[[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; none of the events seems to have drawn more than tens of thousands of people individually, which is not terribly impressive in my opinion considering the size of the US and the cities they happened in--there are sports celebrations that far outstrip those numbers, so in terms of size this is nothing special, and I don't think it's likely to have much of an impact on anything at all. [[User:The Wicked Twisted Road|The Wicked Twisted Road]] ([[User talk:The Wicked Twisted Road|talk]]) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; none of the events seems to have drawn more than tens of thousands of people individually, which is not terribly impressive in my opinion considering the size of the US and the cities they happened in--there are sports celebrations that far outstrip those numbers, so in terms of size this is nothing special, and I don't think it's likely to have much of an impact on anything at all. [[User:The Wicked Twisted Road|The Wicked Twisted Road]] ([[User talk:The Wicked Twisted Road|talk]]) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' why not call it the march for goodness and light? It is a politico-fiscal exercise, pure and simple. Science will do just fine without stormtroopers. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The only reason to post this seems to be [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The only reason to post this seems to be [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*''Oppose''' Science isn't built on marches. In fact, if you need a march to convince people about your "science," it's probably not science. No notable achievement or outcome from this "march" is apparent. It didn't even have any "March for Darwin" Marcher of the Year awards nominations. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
*''Oppose''' Science isn't built on marches. In fact, if you need a march to convince people about your "science," it's probably not science. No notable achievement or outcome from this "march" is apparent. It didn't even have any "March for Darwin" Marcher of the Year awards nominations. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
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).
American Airlines announces it is investigating a viral video of an incident on a San Francisco to Dallas flight which shows a male flight attendant upsetting a female passenger, who he had allegedly forcefully taken a baby buggy from, and threatening to fight a male passenger. The American Airlines employee has been suspended. (The Washington Post)(Reuters)
French voters are protected from a barrage of last minute campaign pushes, including those via tweets and/or other social media, by rules that prohibit such communications for 44 hours during elections, from Friday midnight until Sunday 8:00 p.m. CEST. (AP)
Dressed in white, the Venezuela opposition march, in silence, to the headquarters of the country's Catholic archdiocese to honor the more than a dozen people killed in three weeks of protests. For the first time, protesters were able to cross from the east to the western side of Caracas without being confronted by state security. (AP via U.S. News & World Report)(AFP via The Straits Times)
The United Kingdom, on Friday, did not derive energy from any coal-fired source, the first continuous 24-hour, coal-free period for the UK since use of the fossil fuel began. Coal accounted for just 9 percent of the electricity generated last year. (Sky News)
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: Well known actress from 70s mega-sitcom Rhodesisland (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fails for notability. The reason she was evicted from her trailer park last year speaks to her fame. She died young and her riches to rags story feeds the tabloids but shouldn't grace Wikipedia's page. It's not news, it's rubbernecks looking at a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Plenty of worldwide news coverage, a historic precedent and of significance, relevant not just to the US but worldwide, well written article. Fixuture (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've suggested a second blurb. Any ideas for numbers of participants/turnout? 207.107.159.62 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – No-brainer in my opinion, just need to settle on a blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose we haven't posted the Venezuela protests which are claimed into the millions, and yes, it's clearly got some coverage in certain parts of the world, and the article isn't too shabby, but my issue is with the actual lasting impact of this. I'm not convinced this is really meaningful or impactful. Yes, that means I should probably AFD it, which of course would result in keep but I'm still unclear as to if this is as significant as is being proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose based on precedence set at ITN. The Women's March was barely posted and that had marches in the millions across the world. The Venezuela protests were not posted. This approaches the significance of neither.--WaltCip (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ↑ What he said. This doesn't remotely approach the scale of major demonstrations, there's no indication that it's having or will have any impact, and nothing noteworthy appears to have taken place at it. ‑ Iridescent 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment last news story on ITV tonight just before the sport. Not a great sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Climate change is the most significant issue facing humans in the 21st century. The March for Science is an important step to bring attention to the matter on earth day. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that this should be considered in addition to numbers of participants and known concrete impacts. The Women's March getting "barely posted" and the Venezuela protests not getting posted is a good point though. In addition to the high and worldwide significance of the issue adressed by the movement as well as their impact I think one should also consider the novelty and uniqueness of it and that there's protests in Venezuela every few years / continuous turmoil/tension. Another point is that if we don't include this event in the In the news section we really need to heighten the bar for inclusions: e.g. no more irrelevant, insignificant sport events. --Fixuture (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixture: how are sports events at all comparable to political protests? Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good. Seeing it in the news since yesterday + science + worldwide protests - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support article quality sufficient for main page.--Jayron32 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good quality article and a genuine worldwide story. I don't see how not posting the Venezuela protests sets a precedent- let's do this case by case. I supported the Venezuela nomination and I support this.Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; none of the events seems to have drawn more than tens of thousands of people individually, which is not terribly impressive in my opinion considering the size of the US and the cities they happened in--there are sports celebrations that far outstrip those numbers, so in terms of size this is nothing special, and I don't think it's likely to have much of an impact on anything at all. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' Science isn't built on marches. In fact, if you need a march to convince people about your "science," it's probably not science. No notable achievement or outcome from this "march" is apparent. It didn't even have any "March for Darwin" Marcher of the Year awards nominations. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support blurb. While he's not by any stretch a household name, for a professional cyclist to be struck and killed by a motor vehicle while cycling is vanishingly rare, and the article is in good shape and well-referenced. Besides, the only other sports-related story in ITN is two weeks old and decidedly stale. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb he was an active top cyclist. The incident is horrible - a tragedy in road cycling world. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article is mainly an unreferenced list of his career placings in various cycling events. Not only is it not referenced but it highlights the fact that his career section (in prose) is very weak indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality grounds. The career section needs more citations (one place explicitly marked), clarification (ditto) and turning from proseline into proper prose. Also per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - rare event, headline news - how often do such high profile deaths happen? Abovesky (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well known to cycling fans, possibly some sports fans and Italians. The Rambling Man and Thryduulf, I've referenced the entire career section and I may improve it shortly. BaldBoris 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, though I do weakly support a blurb here for the unexpected death of a predominately known figure. Per TRM, the prose is for the most part mirroring the stats, and gives no real good impression of why he was a great rider and anything outside the cycling career. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RD Only We've gotten too loose with death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Oppose blurb Sad news, but this person is not in the very top tier of their field or an iconic figure which is the generally accepted standard for death blurbs for non-ITNR figures. Beyond which I agree with Muboshgu's assessment that we have been getting a little too casual about using ITN for obit-blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb, per Muboshgu and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting as RD since the consensus is at least for that. The references seem fine to me now. --Tone 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan authorities report 12 people were killed overnight in the capital Caracas, mostly in the El Valle working class neighborhood where 54 people, including newborn babies, were forced to evacuate a maternity hospital. Others have fled to Colombia. This death toll during the three weeks of anti-government protests is 20. (AP via The Washington Post)(Yahoo! News)(The Telegraph)
Nominator's comments: I don't normally nominate attack (as in death and destruction) articles because you know, it is sad. But this is a sizable loss in an ongoing war. Fuebaey (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the largest incidents in Afghanistan in recent years. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per "ongoing war". I'm reminded of last week, when over 100 civilians were killed in the Syrian civil war. This incident managed to get a blurb because the target were civilians and it happened during a ceasefire. Despite this, it still got a lot of opposes. I believe the incident described here is less impactful. ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a second article about event.--Jenda H. (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have clarification over that "100 killed or injured". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let me clarify some reasons in support of posting:
1. The attack was against unarmed soldiers, as many of them were praying at a mosque or eating lunch.
2. The attack involved the use of rocket launchers.
3. The event was the single deadliest incident in recent years, assuming that the figure of 140+ killed is correct. The only well-documented incidents in the War in Afghanistan since 2001 with a higher death toll (excluding Taliban and/or ISIL-K deaths, and excluding battles that lasted longer than one week) are as follows:
The 2009 Kunduz airstrike. With over 100 civilian casualties, we posted this on ITN.
Possibly the Granai airstrike in 2009, with up to 147 civilians killed.
The Fall of Kabul at the beginning of the war in 2001, with 528 allied forces members killed.
This makes Saturday's attack the deadliest bombing in Afghanistan since the war began.
4. The attack was deadlier than the July 2016 Kabul bombing against Hazara Shia civilians, killing 80+ people, which we posted.
5. The attack is directly comparable to the 2014 Peshawar school massacre against The Army Public School in which 141 unarmed Pakistan Army staff and recruits were killed. That attack was the deadliest in Pakistan's history, and we of course posted that one.
6. It is front page news on BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, and many others. Xinhua (the official Chinese government news network) is reporting on its English site that at least 135 Afghan Army members have been killed, not injured.
I would wait until it becomes clear that there is a confirmation that over 140 on the side of the Afghan Army were indeed killed, and that this count does not include the injured. If this is the case, I stand by my decision to support. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TIME reports that over 130 are killed, and over 80 injured, according to unnamed Afghan officials. A death toll of 100+ is confirmed. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is correct, the blurb and the article should be updated. If your claim of them being unarmed and at prayer is correct, that should be included and cited. You can argue as strongly as you like, one way or another, but you are also capable of fixing up the article according. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maplestrip. Casualties of war.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ITV news report I just overheard said 140 people had been killed, so that makes this completely newsworthy, but I'd like to see some reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable due to the number of casualties - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (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: Prominent former footballer, who has died unusually young. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - almost there, a couple of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... The problem when someone dies unexpectedly is that newspapers don't (I presume) have obituaries ready to print, and so they turn to the internet and likely Wikipedia, so there's a danger of circular referencing if we rely too much on those obituaries without doing extra checks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're pretty much there with the references, The Rambling Man. Could you take another look and let me know if anything still stands out as problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most in depth article I have seen but it appears to be decently sourced and I think covers the subject adequately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. The minor issues have been sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Australia adds stricter requirements to its citizenship application process, including harder tests on English language skills and the requirement that a migrant be able to demonstrate "Australian values". (BBC)
A ten-year-old boy from Florida with autism is arrested at school, and spends the night in a juvenile facility. Unknown to the family, the boy had an outstanding warrant for his arrest after kicking and scratching one of his educators. The Autism Society of America is looking into legal options. (The Washington Post)
ISIL supporter, Terrence J. McNeil, of Akron, Ohio, pleads guilty to five counts of soliciting to commit criminal violence and communicating interstate threats in calls to kill U.S. military personnel. He is scheduled to be sentenced in August and faces up to 20 years in prison. (The Washington Post)
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, positions himself as an "anti-establishment" candidate as he vows to end the "rigged" system. (BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Most countries regulate religions, up to and including bannings. As the bold link demonstrates, Russia is not even the fifth country to ban the Witnesses, and there's a long list of other countries which have taken some sort of action against them. Perhaps that is unjust, but it is certainly not unfair considering the sorts of sanctions that many other religions face in virtually every other country on Earth.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As religious persecution goes this is pretty low intensity and alas is not uncommon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much smaller scale, and as IP .104 points out, not the first country to do so. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsurprising that Russia would take such a view, given their similar treatment of government opponents. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] US prepares charges to seek arrest of Julian Assange
No consensus will develop until something tangible happens. Stephen 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong Oppose good faith nom but this is crystal balling and speculation at best. If and when it happens we can revisit the topic, though even then I would point out that our usual practice is to post the outcomes of major criminal cases, not arrests.
Oppose I'd support if they had him in custody. This is sabre rattling. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:CRYSTAL. Also potentially "fake news," since the POTUS "loves Wikileaks".Zigzig20s (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until he is arrested. We have posted unusual and notable arrests (El Chapo, I believe) 331dot (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Paris shooting
No consensus. Stephen 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Some sources are saying one officer killed, others two. I know we don't usually post such a low casualty event but the election is this weekend and the attack is apparently a terrorist one, which could have a major impact. EternalNomad (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they saw it coming, they did something about it, sadly one policeman died, but it's not even close to the Westminster attack which was borderline these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual on the world-renowned Champs-Élysées and a few days before the first round of the presidential election.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the election? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. And hers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have an "opinion"--lots of analysts say that. I don't have time right now to look for RS. Anyway, I was answering your question--it's not off topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – That it's Paris, and a policeman, notwithstanding, this story is being overplayed. Sadly, one death does not a major story make nowadays – irrespective of which group of psychopathic imbecils claims responsibility. Sca (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM/Sca. It could have been a lot worse but it was also a lone wolf situation, and is going overplayed due to all the recent events in Europe of late. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Attacks like these are becoming more common in Europe, this one doesn't stand out. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support: The day's protest, which involved up to over one million Venezuelans, was the largest in the country's history, has resulted in nearly half of the deaths of this year's protests and over half of the year's arrests. It is the culmination of this year's protests so far, so I created a separate section for it titled "Mother of All Protests", its popular name. If we believe it is notable for its own article, I can make it.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have tried to add a blurb. Also sourcing seems very good at both target article, but agree the "Mother of all protests" section is the one to highlght. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - according to the article, it is the largest protest in Venezuelan history, which seems very worth posting to me. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per ERRORS, it appears it's more like thousands rather than millions, the French do better than that on a daily basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on proposed pull:At the very least, "hundreds of thousands protested". The mathematician gave a more detailed number than most media outlets which just stated that "hundreds of thousands" protested. Oh, and his numbers were just for Caracas, meaning that the other cities throughout the country which filled the streets also possibly make his number higher.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The story, as supported, is not correct. Pull, return here for more discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled per errors. We need to get this figured out before we put it back up. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ks0stm please replace the last ITN and add the image back while this is discussed, the main page is now lop-sided and odd-looking without an image at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do momentarily; I thought it looked fine, but maybe my perception of lopsided is just a bit off. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 to 6 items in ITN normally, not four. And one picture almost always. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now just remove the last RD which is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mathematics professor Ricardo Rios of Central University in Caracas is the only one giving such high numbers. He has a twitter account here and doesn't seem neutral. Nobody else is willing to give precise numbers and just say hundred of thousands. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to add this back with the "hundreds of thousands" number? I just think it was pulled for the wrong reason since someone said it was only thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources, such as those used in the nomination template, go as far as "tens of thousands". That's where we should stay if we believe this is actually notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is only tens of thousands - of the scope that has been happening over the last few years, this event thus seems overblown only because three people died from it. That "Mother of all protests" claim seems to have been grossly exaggerated at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: It's hundreds of thousands and up to millions if we want to use the one mathematician. See the other sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CNN's headline is "Hundreds again march...". That's not hundreds of thousands; just hundreds. As the situation seems to be one of protracted turmoil with many ramifications, it seems best to avoid trying to single out some particular aspect. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this was a mistake, best to forget about it and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made the mistake. It wasn't thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I said it wasn't 1.2 million as posted to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hundreds of thousands: Check your sources people.[1][2][3]--ZiaLater (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the BBC and The Guardian sources provided in the nomination still say "tens of thousands". So yes, I did check my sources, person! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the sources. They may also be outdated. If not, 5 6 say hundreds of thousands (See above) while the 2 you say tens of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said, they were the sources that supported the nomination. In any case, it's not 1.2 million, so the impact is massively reduced, the pull was good, the posting was wrong, and we're where we should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NYTimes also has it at "thousands". If it were 100,000+ , I would expect both BBC and NYTimes to be more accurate to that. (Also, when I wrote that blurb, the BBC article said 1.2 M, but it clearly has since been updated to tens-of-thousands.) --MASEM (t) 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that this is not the "mother of all protests" by any measure, and that this turmoil has been ongoing for some years, a blurb would be inappropriate, perhaps an ongoing nomination is better, especially since the target article is a "timeline" rather than a decent article about one specific event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, thousands of hundreds, millions... Do reporters bother to fact-check their sources anymore?--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. But the consensus seems to be hundreds of thousands.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that no-one knows. It's all speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Even NPR states "By several media accounts, hundreds of thousands of anti-Maduro demonstrators flooded city streets to protest". But in the world of fake news, I can see why people are skeptical. I'm surprised there's not a shortage of tinfoil due to people making hats.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: It's not so much reporters not fact-checking, it's more that crowd counting is notoriously difficult and estimates can vary wildly - even from reliable sources. The 1.2 million figure is obviously an outlier but equally the "tens of thousands" may well be too conservative. I think it's reasonable to say "estimated in the hundreds of thousands." If consensus is against re-posting I would definitely support adding it to the Ongoing section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate support - I think 'thousands' (i.e. from 1,000 to 10,000) is likely too low. Simply looking at the image from the New York Times article [9] for example shows there are more than one thousand protesters in that particular protest, and this was a nation-wide protest. The CNN article cited by Andrew D, which gives only "hundreds", is obviously because it covered protests on Thursday, not Wednesday like the others. This should be between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. TRM's comparison with France is not fair, since France has twice the population of Venezuela. Also 1) this has been ongoing for a while and 2) it dominates local news. I still support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS the reasons for not featuring this strike me as uncharacteristically poor. They seem entirely based on the fact that this was posted with an inaccurate blurb. But that is not a reason not to repost this - it simply means the blurb should be fixed (e.g. via ZiaLater's suggestion below) before reposting. In the meantime all the standard arguments for posting it are there: it's widely reported in international media, it dominates local headlines (probably as much as an election), even the article quality is fine. If this isn't posted, I call WP:BIAS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate support - Don't place a number in the blurb at all. State something like "widespread protests throughout Venezuela resulted in three deaths".--ZiaLater (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I'll oppose any process where the nominator and updater feel like they get a vote. That's clearly not unbiased at all. LordAtlas (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to cite WP:NPA at this. Banedon (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If an item has been pulled, surely the nominator and updater have a right to say whether they agree, or if they feel it should be re-posted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate oppose the blurb, the target article, the refs etc, all don't add up to what has subsequently been claimed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We know absolutely nothing about this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you used the wrong pronoun there. Some people have read the sources, and therefore know something about this. In English, the first person singular pronoun is "I", and should be used when refering only to one's self. Since people who are not you, but are still part of the discussion here, do know something about this "We" is the wrong word choice here. Also, I'm not sure opposition based on one's own personal un-willingness to learn things by reading the source text is going to carry much weight, but thanks for sharing! --Jayron32 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you tell me how many people protested.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of thousands to millions, according to the majority of reliable sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may not know that, but I do know many other things. I will not insult you by quoting the entire article, but there's two full screens worth of cited text at Mother of All Protests. I know all of those things. That's something more than "absolutely nothing". And hey, if you read it, then you'll know more than absolutely nothing. Your statement will then be entirely wrong (and not just half wrong).. --Jayron32 16:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is the number of protestors, can we just post this without the number? Several people above note that as an option. We have some well-referenced articles (maybe even the new Mother of All Protests article, maybe the timeline article) and this is clearly being covered by the media. If there's contention about the exact count, lets leave the number out. --Jayron32 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there is a news story here, but with the type of reporting we've had over the last 24hrs on this, its unclear what it should be. The protests since the "Mother" have seen be to an escalation with more violence than the past, and there seems to be other factors (such as the gov't seizing the GM plant and basically forcing the company to leave the country [10]. It doesn't feel like ongoing (since these have been ongoing for years), but I can't pinpoint a news story here. So perhaps an ongoing for at least a week for the protests? --MASEM (t) 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Possibly. I may work on a 2017 protest article soon here that you can link to. Until then, we could use the Timeline of the 2017 Venezuelan protests article. Articles surrounding the protests in Venezuela should get an overhaul within the next few days/weeks.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a drop in demand, the Dubai-based, United Arab Emirates-owned airline Emirates Air announces a cut in flights to five of its 12 U.S. destinations. The airline’s Dubai hub, third-busiest in the world, is a major stop for travelers in countries affected by President Donald Trump’s travel ban, and is also one of several Middle East airports affected by a U.S. ban on tablets, laptops, and similar devices in the passenger cabin. (Los Angeles Times)
Nigerian spy chief Ayo Oke has been suspended by President Muhammadu Buhari after anti-corruption agents uncovered more than $43 million in cash at his flat in Lagos. (BBC)
The closely-watched CEVIPOF poll shows Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen clinging to a narrow lead heading into the first stage of the election, with Le Pen recently becoming embroiled in a spat with the European Commission after refusing to appear on TF1 while there remained a Flag of Europe in the background. (Reuters)
Alternative for Germany chairwoman Frauke Petry announces that she will not lead the party in the September federal election, citing other party leaders' insistence on remaining a "fundamental opposition party", unwilling to join a coalition. (Reuters)
A Forsa Institute poll shows the lowest level of support for the Greens in nearly 15 years, weakening the chances of a left-leaning coalition taking power from the CDU/CSU. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Found hanged in his prison cell, then pronounced dead an hour later. Former NFLtight end who played for the New England Patriots; cut from the team after being charged with murder. He was serving his life prison sentence at the time he committed suicide. Certainly an unexpected way to go, but I'm aware of the general attitude towards sports on ITN, and so I'll nominate this just as an RD for now. A blurb can be added later if a consensus demands it. WaltCip (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bulk of article is well referenced, an occasional non-contentious bit of text here or there could use a better cite, but it's comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Not to stop anyone from fixing those few minor issues, but nothing here looks like it should keep it off of the main page, from my point of view. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support reasonably decent article. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see one CN tag floating in the current version but it's otherwise there for posting. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that I Oppose blurb. This is not a legendary athlete (at least, his "legacy" is not really much from his performance on the field), and as noted below, suicides in prison are not unheard of. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is probably on the edge of being blurbworthy. It is front page news on the BBC and Guardian websites in the UK, as well as all major outlets in the US. Seems to be a reasonably major story. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Suicides in prison are a relatively common occurrence, and his team never won a Superbowl with him on it, so not really a national icon. I don't think being one of the hundreds of Patriots players (as well as other NFL players) pushes him over the threshold for a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb This is certainly more blurb worthy than an old person dying. @EternalNomad:, who said this was a suicide?[11] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. I'm inclined to agree with Masem, most of his notoriety comes from the murders, and I wouldn't really say he's a "legendary murderer" or whatever. Also, his lawyer going whaaaaaaaa? doesn't change the fact that this was very likely a common prison suicide. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, unless consensus to post his acquittal as well. Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Blurbs for deaths are (or should be) reserved for globally known or influential figures. A criminal who played pro sport for a couple of years doesn't come anywhere close to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Facebook (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Steve Stevens, called the Facebook killer, is found dead two days after broadcasting murder on Facebook. (Post) News source(s):BBC News Credits:
Oppose - Domestic crime only popularized by the shocking posting of the murder on Facebook. Sensationist news. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also this would absolutely need a separate article from Facebook to be even considered. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ill assume good faith but this is obviously a no. This is pretty much the definition of something trivial. LordAtlas (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Libyan fisherman discover the bodies of 28 migrants in a broken-down boat off the coast of Sabratha. (Reuters)
Law and crime
The Supreme Court of the United States refuses to vacate a stay of execution issued by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Arkansas's highest court has also put on hold the execution of another inmate, Bruce Ward. The state had planned to execute eight inmates in eleven days. That schedule, as well as the use of the drug midazolam, sparked a broad range of legal challenges and humanitarian concerns about the executions. Today's planned execution of Don W. Davis would have been the state's first since 2005. (CNN)(The New York Times)
Steve Stephens, the suspected "Facebook killer" accused of killing 74-year-old Robert Godwin, kills himself after a brief pursuit with the Pennsylvania State Police. (CNN)
French Interior Minister Matthias Fekl announces that police have foiled an "imminent and violent" attack in Marseille, arresting two suspects and confiscating weapons and bomb material. (The Guardian)
Three people die in a shooting spree in downtown Fresno, California. The suspected gunman, who was already wanted for another murder four days earlier, and who expressed hatred of whites and the government, is arrested. (Los Angeles Times)
As expected, during a visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. federal agencies to take measures aimed at protecting U.S. workers, boost protections for some U.S. products, and examine the H-1B visa program which affords foreign workers opportunities for employment in U.S. specialty fields. (CNN)
consensus is to wait until results are in --Jayron32 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, consensus is to only post election results, not buildup. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abductive. We'll post the results if the article is in good shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under normal circumstances, an announced election would not be listed here, but this announcement is very surprising, as the media outlets I've provided show. The massive media coverage and the shock of the announcement are sufficient to including this on the main page. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The election is surprising, and not routine, as other elections are. This is what makes it different from a scheduled election, the news story is about the shock and unexpectedness. This is of international significance, with media coverage to back it up. This makes it significant for the main page. In contrast, a routine scheduled election that people have known about and scheduled for years (eg the scheduled 2020 one) is not news - per se; news is new developments. This fact that this story is new sets this story aside from the others. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The 2015 general election is the only election in British history that's been "scheduled for years", and that was purely an artefact of the 2010 coalition agreement. The only surprising thing about this election is that it wasn't called on Cameron's resignation but was instead delayed a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. It isn't even certain to happen (just very likely) as May has to get parliamentary consent. Also per Abductive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, despite being a politically-engaged Brit myself. The announcement was surprising, but the point that it merits an ITN blurb is when the results arrive, not now. It's only six weeks away (assuming May gets the votes she needs tomorrow - note that currently the PM cannot actually call an election, just ask the House of Commons to vote for one), and there's really no reason why anyone outside the UK should care until the election actually happens. Modest Geniustalk 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of whether or not it actually is surprising or newsworthy, it's not the position nor purpose of ITN to editorialize, and accordingly I suggest omitting "surprising" from the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relable sources have described it as "surprising" or "shocking," including the ones I linked. I'm simply stating what the RSs stated. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We still need to not be sensationalist for WP and our blurbs. Here, at least, the notion of what a "snap election" is implies it was unexpected so we certainly don't need "surprising" here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now As noted, this is only a proposal and needs approval by Parliament to move forward. If that approval does happen to pave for the snap election, that then might be appropriate to post. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as-is – Announcement of a vote for an election, not the actual election itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - let's just wait six weeks and then post the results.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] ISIS and al-Qaeda alliance
let's wait until wait until results are in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major turning point, they used to be bitter enemies. 128.62.72.205 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only source is a single, mostly speculative article, which contains a single one-line quote from a minor official. There's no there there. --Jayron32 16:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Seeking" an alliance vs. "obtaining" an alliance. I am seeking millions of dollars in the lottery this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This has been in Ongoing for weeks (months?), and while it is being updated regularly and the battle is not concluded, I do not see it at all in most news sources and the story has seeming moved on to other fronts. When I dig, the news reports that I do find concern events which fall far below the notability threshold. For what reason should this ongoing-yet-unreported article remain on the front page?
Pull - No longer newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a paragraph per day of solid and well-referenced text being added to this article. It's really a fantastic document, and as long as it is still growing, I see no reason to pull it. It is still continuously being updated, and is still a current event. "My newsfeed doesn't cover it" is a rather subjective view of the matter; and indeed the major source of systemic bias everyone complains about, as we base our decisions solely on our personal perspective on the world, which reflects our editorship and readership. Instead, we finally have an article on the main page which is outstanding, and still being updated. I say keep it there. --Jayron32 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jayron32. My initial reaction was to pull, but it is an ongoing situation, it is consistently in the news – buried at times but consistently there – and as stated the article development is good. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I will comment that I think having day-by-day updated might be a bit too much close to PROSELINE for the article, but it is still being updated and still in the news if not buried in Western papers. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I would love to see Syria and Yemen war added to ongoing but I guess those are not being updated? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When nominated, people point out that the Syria article is long and overwrought (much like this one) and rife with NPOV issues which are seemingly intractable. The Yemen article is tagged for update since last month, with the last update being on 14 April concerning happenings in March. As nominator, I concede that Battle of Mosul at least is getting updates and is even handed, but I still think it should be pulled. Take a look at the recent updates. They're tactical minutiae. Take a look at the news. On CNN, a human interest piece about what the war means for their own reports, buried; on BBC, <3 minute shakycam footage, buried; on NY Times, nothing; on WaPo, nothing; on LA Times, nothing; Le Mond and El Pais, nothing. On Der Speigel there's an article from 14 April which asserts that the battle is over and what's left is to re-establish education for kids(?).128.214.163.201 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet people in Mosul are fairly aware of its presence in the News there... --Jayron32 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove with respect to Jayron32, the article is being updated daily with the grim timeline of an ongoing battle. The section is "In the news", not "ongoing crisis", and for better or worse, the Battle of Mosul is not currently "In the news" (at least without searching for it). Two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I'm not seeing Mosul featuring "in the news" on my major news outlets. It may be updated, but it's not actually in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a move likely to cause concern in India, China and Nepal commenced last Sunday the first ever combined military exercises, focusing on counter-terror operations. (South China Morning Post)
A Brazilian federal judge orders Petrobras to suspend the sale to Norway's Statoil of its stake in an offshore prospect, in response to the National Federation of Oil Workers petition there should have been an open bidding process for this transaction. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: WWE wrestler, GA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the most accomplished progressive rock and jazz fusion guitarists of all time. Known for his work with groups including Soft Machine, Gong, U.K., Bruford, Nucleus, Tempest and his own extensive solo career. Theburlybush (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of unsourced paragraphs, and the tenses need fixing. I'll see what I can do with that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a few of us have done quite a bit with it, though any further sourcing for the odd uncontentious sentence would be good. Support. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending sourcing of the couple of paragraphs. I'll see if I can help too. An enduring giant of jazz fusion and a great innovator. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. RD's don't get blurbs, even though the description is spot on.[reply]
Support A hugely important musician. Manning (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Development for Turkey, results will impact its relationship with EU Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support importance. To paraphrase, this referendum has been billed, on both sides, as a plebiscite on whether Turkey should be a strong and stable democracy. On the Yes side the argument is that perpetual coalition has crippled the decision making process and left Turkey behind; on the No side, the argument is that the proposed change would create an "elected dictatorship" and strip parliament of its legislative power. And moving beyond the situation inside Turkey, the country's place in global politics will differ markedly depending on which option is chosen (to a considerably greater extent than Brexit, where the most notable global impact was economic, and changes to political relationship were largely internal to the EU). This is a no-brainer of a post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits. As stated above, a significant national referendum with international effects. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while the referendum is hyped by the media, the real impact is rather limited, even with a yes vote. Abovesky (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A yes vote will likely end their chances of joining the EU as the current administration support policies diametrically opposed to EU policies(like the death penalty). That isn't small potatoes - and any nation changing their governmental structure is likely significant. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know that Turkey's chances of joining the EU are nil, since quite some time? Abovesky (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this would completely finish them off, if the yes side wins. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per current article quality and importance. I may be biased because I live in the Netherlands, which will be impacted by the result of this referendum as well. Seems like of very clear importance, however. ~Mable (chat) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality and notability, blurb will need review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per importance. Apparently 'Yes' vote leads in the referendum. --Saqib (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update Also I see a couple para without any sourcing in them which should be fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Turkey votes narrowly in favor of...." Sca (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't do that for Brexit (similar proportions). I suspect that if we had it would have been seen as a political comment questioning the validity of the result. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the officially reported result of 51.4% - 48.6%, I fail to see how "narrowly" is anything other than factual, or how its use could be considered POV. Sca (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support somewhat surprised this isn't ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was seriously considering posting this based on the level of supports, but on examining the article I am seeing significant gaps in referencing. As an Admin I can't post this in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness though, I can see one section where references are thin on the ground albeit no unusual claims made, but otherwise it seems pretty good at a glance. Not quite sure I see the basis for the assertion? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added multiple CN tags to two sections. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that we do not post articles with serious issues to the main page. This has always been understood as including a requirement that any candidate articles are well sourced. I have tagged the two sections for ref improve. Once that is taken care of, absent some other issue that I may have missed, I think we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I added sources to your CN tag. There was one paragraph, however, that I couldn't find sources for. The language was pretty generic so I'd assume it'll be really hard to find sources for that paragraph. So I removed it. Let me know if you need any other assistance. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty significant news. Brexit, Trump, and now this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very significant geopolitically. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I was making a final check before posting this, and was about to, but the "Results" section is entirely empty. The article is rock solid otherwise, very extensive and well referenced, but we need something done about the "Results" Section before this goes live. --Jayron32 13:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Just curious, why does the Result section need to be filled out anyways? I think that table provides more than enough information regarding the results. I don't think we can go into too much analysis (if that's what you're looking for) since it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it had to be filled out. I said that posting an article with an empty section was an issue. There's more than one way to skin that cat. If you want to comment out the blank tables until such time as they can be filled in, and leave a prose synopsis of preliminary results instead, that would work too. I'm not posting an article with giant empty tables though. --Jayron32 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that we need to wait until the Results-section is properly filled out. ~Mable (chat) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to AP, "The state-run Anadolu Agency said the 'yes' side stood at 51.4 percent of the vote, while the 'no' vote saw 48.6 percent support." Ditto BBC. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically this is one those times where I think blanking out the breakdown of results just to ensure this gets posted is a good idea. I imagine that it could take days for this data to be formalised, yet the overall result has been announced, job done. I would suggest a practical approach here, comment out the intricate detailed results, post the story, improve the article post-election. Jayron has covered that. Mablestrip has it 100% wrong, it'll take too long, and this won't be ITN. Post the "result" not the "intricate detail". After all, we had to wait a few days to get all of the US election results sanctioned and referenced, but we didn't fail to post Trump did we? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done[13][14]. Maybe someone will want to update the other columns. 129.97.18.156 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Our executive president article is in pretty poor shape, I don't think we should be wiki-linking to it from the top of the main page right now, thoughts? — xaosfluxTalk 02:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've unlinked it for now, any admin may feel free to revert without consultation if you think it is what is best for the readers. — xaosfluxTalk 03:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link prior is no better. I have started a broader discussion here. Fuebaey (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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_(cropped).jpg)
