Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ITN/C)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

The Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul in 2006
The Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)

.

Suggestions[edit]

January 23[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 23
Disasters and accidents

RD: Sys NS[edit]

Article: Sys NS (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kompas, CNN Indonesia
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaska earthquake[edit]

Article: 2018 Alaska earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Beeblebrox (talk • give credit)

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It’s very late at night here and I am crashing from an adrenaline high after fleeing my house lest it be destroyed by a tsunami, so excuse me for not doing all the paperwork, but we just had a massive earthquake here in southcentral Alaska, enough that it is being reported in US national news and BBC world service. Also it was scary as hell. that is all. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Tentative paperwork done, no blurb yet as no assessment of impact has been made. Good luck, stay safe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 22
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

RD: Lucca (dog)[edit]

Article: Lucca (dog) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Lucca first United States Marine Corps dog to win the British Dickin Medal.
News source(s): "LuccaK458". January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018 – via FaceBook. It’s with a heavy heart that I tell you that Lucca passed away yesterday. Juan was able fly in to spend some quality time with her in her last few days and we were both at her side as she took her last breath.  "War-wounded military dog awarded charity medal". BBC News. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.  "Lucca the heroic three-legged war dog wins medal" (Video). The Guardian. April 5, 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  Wakefield, Jessica (April 5, 2016). "Adorable military dog, Lucca, who lost leg in combat gets medal for bravery" (Video). Irish Independent. Retrieved January 22, 2018.  "PDSA Dickin Medal for Lucca". PDSA. Retrieved May 10, 2017. Phan, Hieu Tran (April 11, 2016). "How Marine dog Lucca made history". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  "U.S. Marine Corps Honors Dog for Wartime Bravery" (Video). CBS. 5 April 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  Carpenter, Rhonda (21 October 2014). "Book Review – Top Dog: The Story of Marine Hero Lucca". Defense Media Network. Retrieved 12 April 2016. 
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 7&6=thirteen () 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose for now pending the sourcing concerns noted below by Masem. A valid, reliable, independent, third party source for the death is crucial here. I made a good faith effort using Google and Google News and found bubkis myself. Consider this opposition null if the sourcing is fixed, and my former support vote reinstated when that happens. --Jayron32 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Can't imagine supporting a blurb for the death of a non-human. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The template was very malformed when originally posted (I did some fixing). I'm not sure the poster intends to make a blurb submission, or whether this is simply what would normally be in the nomination comment. Regardless, RD is clear here and the article seems OK to post as such. --LukeSurl t c 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not trying to be a jerk here, but the only source for the death is from Facebook (the other links are older, establishing notability). We generally expect death news to come from the news, not deaths that are just reported. However, I'm not aware of any previous case where we have a person/living thing that was notable before death, but their only death news came from a personal website/social media. --Masem (t) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah great catch. I'll strike my support until we can get verification. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Very good spot Masem. Kudos! --LukeSurl t c 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Let me stress again I'm not trying to be a jerk here: I don't know since with the new RD if it is critical that the death be "in the news" when it is clear the notability of the being was established beforehand. I open up the question if this approach breaks RD/ITN or not (And absolutely nothing against this because it is a dog rather than a person; that past RFC already fixed that in place). --Masem (t) 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I suggested we change the template from "whose recent death is in the news" to "whose recent death is reliably sourced." WP:ITNRD uses "reliably sourced," and I think "in the news" adds some ambiguity about the level of reporting required. GCG (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree with GCG's proposal. However, in this specific case it's worth considering if Facebook counts as a reliable source in this matter. As per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_MySpace, FB can be a reliable source "sometimes". Specifically "the official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Regarding authentication, this page is not "verified" for Lucca (presumably as FB would not authorise a non-human). More generally, by definition even a human individual cannot write a primary source reporting their death. --LukeSurl t c 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I spent much time looking for any news source on his death. And I only posted it when I found the Facebook page, which well antedates the death and reports the death in convincing detail. I quoted it. Given the pictures, the videos, and the text, this is certainly Lucca's facebook page. It has sufficient earmarks of reliability that it could be used. I only became aware of the death become another wikipedia editor put it into our article, and then I added sources and went on a quest. Finding a newspaper or mainstream media on the death of this remarkable dog may be a vain search. But if you choose not to run it, it is your and Wikipedia's loss. 7&6=thirteen () 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • A little bizarre that there's no coverage at all of the dog's death (I couldn't find any either). Would support upon that being presented. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think the FB post passes muster under WP:SELFPUB. GCG (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously not "in the news" and it's not our job to make it so. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems RD ready. BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless there's independent, reliable source that confirmed the death. Main page worthy article shouldn't rely on generally unreliable source.–Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no evidence has yet been presented that this death is in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can't find any online source stating the dog has died. MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: US Government Shutdown[edit]

Shutdown has ended, rendering this nomination moot. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NYT BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a formalised proposal that we remove the blurb for the government shutdown, and move it to ongoing. This suggestion is purely because of the nature of the nomination. The shutdown, as it persists, will drag on, as too will its impacts. Ongoing is currently vacated, so there is no opportunity cost in placing in there. The article has and will continue inevitably to receive updates, fulfilling the criteria for an ongoing placement. There is a consensus, however contentious, for this item to be listed at ITN. However, I feel that it is better suited to an ongoing listing at the moment given its nature, and am hence creating this nom, per Vanamonde's suggestion in posting its predecessor as a blurb, to gauge interest in moving the item to ongoing now. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I'm neutral on this, but if I were to be the closing admin here, I would see a "support" to mean "remove blurb, move to ongoing" and an "oppose" to mean "keep blurb". If we want to remove this altogether, that will have to be discussed separately (or, per IAR, could be decided here but only if folks are explicit about it). Vanamonde (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for not phrasing correctly. As nominator, this would be my reading of events too - support for removal of blurb and transition to ongoing, oppose for maintenance of blurb as is. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Falling slightly between Vanamonde's two options, I would suggest pushing this to ongoing iff the shutdown is still in effect when the blurb "falls off" the bottom of the template. --LukeSurl t c 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb is going to fall off the list. (eg about 2-3 days). We know that Congress is going to be trying to do something, as I write, we're in an hour before a next major vote, and if the shutdown is rendered null, then making this as ongoing is unnecessary. Additionally, whether ongoing is necessary depends what actually happens. If there is clearly attempts to resolve and it's all about negotations and the like with the implications the shutdown will be resolved soon, then ongoing seems unnecessary. If both sides walk away and let the shutdown linger, that's ongoing-worthy. But I can't make that distinction now, so this ongoing suggestion is too soon. --Masem (t) 16:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And as I'm watching, CNN reports that the Dems say they have reached a deal and Senate is voting now to pass the bill, rendering all this moot. --Masem (t) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And now CNN reports the vote has cleared the Senate. Obviously, let's make sure it gets signed and passed before closing this down. --Masem (t) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the blurb misleading? I thought the shutdown was due to the Democratic refusal to build the wall in exchange for DACA?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That may have been the reason for the funding bill not passing, but the shutdown is the direct result of the bill not passing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The blurb is not misleading, and putting it on Democrats is a POV violation of oversimplification as there were Republicans voting against it as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It appears to be a moot point. The government appears to be on its way to reopening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears moot. Apparently expect to end in a few hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. If this were to fall off the bottom while the shutdown was still happening, then it would be fine to move to an ongoing link. Otherwise, since it just went up a few hours ago, there's no need to move it of its own accord. It's on the main page, and I am unconcerned about whether the link appears as a blurb or ongoing. The blurb is sufficient unless and until it becomes a long-term shutdown. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have been resolved fairly quickly. Would have supported if this would have lasted (significantly) longer. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Once a deal is made, which is more likely than not, we can just fix the blurb to past tense. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We never put blurbs in ITN in the past tense. When the deal is made, the story is no longer of significance and will, I would imagine, be removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I would hope not. The story simply becomes "The U.S. government reopens after a three day shutdown." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I strictly oppose adding things that are no longer happening to the ongoing section. I'll also note, that such an oppose does not mean in any way that I support any other blurb's existence. This poll is for adding the nominated article to the ongoing section, that is all. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly, per the BBC "The shutdown is over, but the immigration and budget battles rage on. Both sides will try to claim victory, with varying degrees of success." i.e. a political farce played out in public for a couple of days with next-to-no impact, certainly no long-term effects, and definitely not "ongoing" in any sense. It was always clear this was going to be resolved in next to no time, and while I respect the admin who posted the ITNC story, it's a shame it didn't wait another few hours when it was confirmed to be a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Armfield[edit]

Article: Jimmy Armfield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 GCG (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I've updated the article with a cause of death and the referencing looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 21
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

RD: Connie Sawyer[edit]

Article: Connie Sawyer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://people.com/movies/connie-sawyer-hollywoods-oldest-working-actress-dies/
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Electron (rocket)[edit]

Article: Electron (rocket) (talk, history)
Blurb: Rocket Lab's Electron becomes the first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine
News source(s): Washington Post Financial Times
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: For reasons I never understood, the first launch of a new rocket family is ITNR. Technically this was the first successful launch and we didn't cover the earlier failure, so I think it still qualifies. The Electron is very much towards the 'small and cheap' end of the market, but does have a significant technical advance in its 3D-printed electric-pumped engines. The article is rather lightweight at present, but there are plenty of sources covering the launch which could be used for expansion. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Is the "first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine" fact in the FT article? If so, could this be added to the lead of the article? This article is paywalled for me. --LukeSurl t c 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I've now hit the metered paywall so can't access the article I was reading a few minutes ago! I'll have a hunt for a better source. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Found one; this fact is now in the lead and cited to Popular Science. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice to have some science in the ITN box. Article is slim but meets minimum standards, and its worth appreciating that a lot of info is contained succinctly in the infobox. --LukeSurl t c 13:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article on the rocket is good enough (for a science article) to be featured here. The supporting article on electric pump fed engines is good enough as a supporting article. Within the world of technology, the accomplishment is notable enough. Inatan (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Coleman[edit]

Article: John Coleman (meteorologist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced and updated. Died on the 20th but coverage began on the 21st. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No serious issue –Ammarpad (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 20
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

[Posted] 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack[edit]

Articles: 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack (talk, history) and Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three gunmen attack a hotel in Kabul and kill eighteen people, including four Afghans and 14 foreigners.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)
Updater: SamHolt6 (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks and war. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I still oppose posting casualties in a war zone. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
How about we stop posting sport results from countries with lots of sporting events? -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - attacks in the region are so prevalent that this is not even the first one in the hotel. Also, there is no standalone article, such an article would fail an AfD, and the update amounts to a single line with barely any information. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also oppose this resurgence of the nomination. Does not pass the threshold of notability required for posting in my view, given that Kabul is an active war zone. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That source says the death toll could rise to 43. It currently stands at the horrible, but far less significant, total of 18. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Subject is in the news, and the article has been updated. There is no death toll minimum for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No one is claiming that there is. However, an attack in an active warzone will not be particularly newsworthy unless there are significant fatalities, purely by virtue of the fact that people die frequently in attacks in a warzone. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Newsflash — people die in wars. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - high-profile attack with deaths involving many nationalities. Worldwide news coverage. ITN should feature the attack article, not the hotel. -Zanhe (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, it's an attack in a "war zone", but it's a focused attack on a hotel where non-combatants would be staying. Apparently up to 18 have been killed. It's all over the news, the article is now "okay", so it's getting to the point where it's more difficult to argue against posting it. The "war zone" opposers will have to wake up when the next mass shooting happens in the US with just 10 deaths, say. We should summarily ignore all mass shootings in the US from now on until they raise the bar to record-breaking levels, or are in some way novel. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As one of those opposers, I can confirm that the frequency of mass shootings stateside has earned many opposes from me in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah same with above. Mass-shootings in country with extremely poor gun control and health care, not news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't get the logic behind the argument that terrorist attacks in unstable countries are "not news", while we regularly post all kinds of sporting events from countries that are crazy about sports. Which is more unexpected and has more real life consequences? -Zanhe (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although the confirmed death toll is not record-breaking for Afghanistan (but substantial and rising nevertheless), this was targeted based on nationality, which is far less common than the typical, indiscriminate attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per Eternal Nomad. Attack on international facility specifically to kill non-Afghans. Jusdafax (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support High profile attack, many nationalities, article is good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Topic is being covered by news sources, and article is of sufficient quality. Ticks every box for me. --Jayron32 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support'. The article on the event is well-written and shows that it ss a notable event that has been in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. An attack on a major hotel with (presumably) tight security does not happen very often, not even in Afghanistan. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Rodford[edit]

Article: Jim Rodford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced. BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not how RD works. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who? Oh, no, The Kinks. Nominators really should mention why the subject is notable. There is indeed a comment field. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to mention why the subject is notable as this is irrelevant to the nomination. As per the note on every nom, the only point to be discussed is quality of the article (length, prose, copyediting, referencing etc). MurielMary (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, since reviewers need to be looking at quality only, they will quickly determine who this individual is because they'll be reading the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is mostly well referenced. The one unsourced sentence can be removed without much impact on completeness. (now fixed) -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced overall. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul Bocuse[edit]

Article: Paul Bocuse (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has orange tag with reason: needs more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Support Issues has been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unaddressed cn tag and totally unreferenced section full of puffery. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is now well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Afrin Offensive[edit]

Article: Operation Olive Branch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkish war planes have launched air strikes on Kurdish positions in northern Syria, in a move likely to cause tensions with the US.
Alternative blurb: Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Beshogur (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mingus79 (talk • give credit) and EkoGraf (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either we use as blurb or ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Likely to? Renominate when something actually comes of this. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support, change blurb to (as an example): Turkish military has launched military invasion against Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria, which opens a new front in the Syrian Civil War. This is probably the biggest development in the Syrian Civil War since 2015 Russian intervention, and will affect the middle-eastern politics for decades. I mean, just so that you understand, Turkey just officially started war against the SDF, which is not only the biggest faction in the syrian civil war after Assad, but SDF was also the world's main ally in the fight against ISIS. Niqabu (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Niqabu's proposal. If not that, I'm fine with alternate blurb laid out by the OP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on news sites I read and the current target, while average quality, suffices for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have been following the situation for some time now, and while it is not the first time the Republic of Turkey has bombed them, it would certainly be the first time a full-blown military operation has taken place during this war (see this map), so I would certainly support it, but I would wait to post it until we are absolutely sure about the situation (this could take several days). Inatan (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentative support That military action has been taken is appropriate for ITN, but my concern is making sure how this is being taken (Yes, it is arguably an "act of war" but doesn't mean it is necessarily "war"). Obviously it's part of the overall Syrian civil war, but just would be good to have a clear understanding how the world is taking it. (eg the comments by Niqabu above are a bit over-the-top based on how I'm reading news articlea bout it). --Masem (t) 21:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, the blurb states "Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.", which part of that is problematic? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not so much the blurb but the article. It does seem to be sufficiently neutral at the present, but the implications are not 100% clear. --Masem (t) 21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well we're not here to debate the "implications" of the action, just to note that something newsworthy has occurred and to decide if our article covers it sufficiently. That seems apparent. We should stop dithering and post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Article looks fine (do link the current title), and it tops the news headlines. I'd prefer a blurb without US mention, since I thought the Afrin part of SDF didn't have much US military support. Narayanese (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's no reason to mention the US in the blurb, given that it doesn't really back Afrin's YPG and there are no coalition forces there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that "US-backed" should be dropped from the blurb. This is a little too much analysis for an ITN blurb --LukeSurl t c 11:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think the fact that Turkish troops are attacking a "US-backed" force is an important component of this story and certainly one which will create more interest and be more informative to the readership. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with Gatoclass. This is by far the most important part here, and its not analysis or specultion. Both the US and SDF officially confirm that US backs and arms SDF. And supports their operations with plains and special forces. And trains SDF. And has military bases on the SDF occupied territory. Niqabu (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post posting support to keep the blurb as is per above. 174.92.70.237 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please make the link go directly to Turkish military intervention in Afrin to avoid ending up on a wp:redirect page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I noted this at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Pulled] 2018 United States federal budget[edit]

Previous close linked here.

Articles: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history) and 2018 United States federal budget (talk, history)
Blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States federal government shuts down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill.
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Premature They could strike a deal at the literal 11th hour. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    They have an hour. Lol. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Literally, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I did see we posted the last shutdown in 2013 [1]. That said, there was a separate article for that shutdown, and I see no reason not to expect the same here. Yes, it doesn't make sense to create it until the shutdown is confirmed, but I fully expect that before I could support this. --Masem (t) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens an hour from now, obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I have tweaked the blurb per Muboshgu and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Abomination May shut down? This is an internal fiscal legislative matter that would never be published for any other country. It is also crystal balling, and treats "politics" (i.e., there are enough votes to pass a budget, except for the US "fillibuster") as if they were real things, and not power manoeuvres among non-productive (save for hot air) parasites living at public expense. Bring back the House of Hanover! μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When the shut-down occurs; may shut down is obviously not enough, but actually shutting down is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's past midnight in DC. They will have shut down now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Despite the fear mongering, this only affects things such as national parks, museums, etc. Anything of importance to conducting life continues to operate as usual. This affects nobody outside of America, and very few within America. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is true over the weekend, but if the shutdown lasts into Monday it will be highly disruptive. Last time 800,000 employees were furloughed. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But if I may quote that article: "non-essential" - Floydian τ ¢ 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not just national parks (which actually Trump wishes to continue) are effected. Moody's Analytics estimated that a shutdown of three to four weeks would cost the economy about $55 billion. Lost wages of Federal employees will amount to about $1 billion a week.[179] Goldman Sachs estimated that a three-week shutdown would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 0.9%.[180] According to the Los Angeles Times, a two-week shutdown would reduce GDP growth in the fourth quarter by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points. By comparison, the GDP has grown by less than 2% in 2013.[181] Many programs are affected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The two blurbs as provided were incorrect, since the bill that failed was a continuing resolution and not a budget resolution. I struck these and have provided a corrected version. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news, worldwide. Article improvement and expansion at acceptable levels, with competent Wikipedians at work. Jusdafax (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major news, shutdown has begun. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this dominates American news and is widely reported elsewhere as well. Banedon (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see the point of posting pointless political maneuvering of a country which in the end will not result in any extraordinary problems or changes in status quo.75.73.150.255 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm aware that we posted the last shutdown in 2013, but I wonder if we should be discussing posting this to Ongoing or only posting the end of the shutdown(depending on how long it goes). The longer it goes, the more damage it will do(being the weekend relatively little of the federal government will be open until Monday). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing seems reasonable as the article should be updated as the shutdown goes on; the end may also be more reasonable as only then will we know exactly how newsworthy it becomes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "government shutdown" is hyperbolic. In reality, as discussed above, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. The government itself and other essential services do not shut down, as the term implies. So if this were to be posted (and I don't think it should be), a better blurb would be "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill" Chrisclear (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the term both reliable sources and the government itself uses(the White House is trying to term it the "Schumer Shutdown"). 331dot (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My issue with the nomination is not with the term "government shutdown" per se, but rather the importance of this news item. That is, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. Regarding the blurb, the phrase "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down" is more accurate, and helps explains things better to non-Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of US government "shutdowns" which do not involve the government shutting down, as the term implies. Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out that the government doesn't actually shut down during a "shutdown". Chrisclear (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Some sources use the term "partial government shutdown"; perhaps we could use that here. "Non-essential" doesn't quite capture it, since the nuance is that the workers that are retained are the ones essential to preserving life and property, not the ones essential to actually having a functioning government. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does ITN even post news anymore? This project is bollocks and its existence could be done away with. It seems like for five or six blurbs at a time, it is consistently a week behind. Anything that is ever legitimately in the news is never on the front page of Wikipedia, and obscure crap like a guy winning a darts contest stays on for ten days at a time. Fifth most popular website on the internet and you guys posture for content on the Main Page worse than the U.S. congress for a bill when all you have to do is just look at headlines. That being said it meets the merits of being on the front page it being, you know, news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: ITN is not meant to be a news ticker or otherwise updated constantly, but is intended as a way to highlight quality articles about subjects that are in the news that people might be looking for. It also motivates the improvement of articles. ITN does not parrot the press but bases consensus on the merits of the event and quality of the article. If you wish to find or participate in generating current, breaking news, WikiNews is available. No one forces you to come to ITNC if you disagree with what we are about. If you feel ITN should be a news ticker or post subquality articles, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is, WP:NOTNEWS has been a staple of Wikipedia since inception for creating content and establishing what Wikipedia is and isn't. Despite this, some of the most discussed, heavily debated-about stuff on Wikipedia is what we should feature as 'news' for the Main Page. I don't want, nor should we be a roving ticker of news or try to be WikiNews. Nor, if you're going to attempt news, should we be producing piss-poor news that is actually not news. We already highlight quality articles with featured articles. If the point is attracting editors to newly-created or developing articles, then it doesn't do it's job because we never feature them in time for it being in the news (not to mention, they are usually protected from new editors editing them anyways). What is the point? All I see is endless debate about things a limited number of people care about being presented as 'news' when articles that are actually going to have an audience get attention regardless of whether we consider it newsworthy. We might as well replace "In the News" with "Ten Most Visited Articles Today" and there's your news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You are free to propose that though I think it's been tried and failed many times. Even merely renaming ITN to better reflect that it is not meant to have breaking, current news has been proposed and failed. "Actually going to have an audience" is relative and would preclude the possibility of users learning something about a new subject that they might not have been aware of. However, further debate about the meaning of ITN should take place on the talk page if you are interested in attempting to change what we are about. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: Everyone knows ITN is broken. Unfortunately there's no consensus on what to change it to, with the result we're stuck with the status quo. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree changes could be made but not that it's "broken", but everyone has their own opinion. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess perfectly summarizes the U.S. government shutdown as well, I guess. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically domestic, but big enough to have major repercussions. United States federal government shutdown of 2018 appears slim but adequate. Suggest posting as a normal blurb, then consider ongoing if its still occurring when it drops to the bottom of the box. --LukeSurl t c 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian amd ChrisClear. This doesn't even affect the majority of people in the USA, let alone anywhere else. Political posturing is not for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This is my concern - this is a combination of the norm of partisan politics ("We won't pass the budget unless you also pass this") combined with the bitter resentment the press has against the current state of the Congress. I'm not dead certain on opposing this, but this is the type of news bias where we should remember that we are not a newspaper in general. Yes, there is a shutdown, but we should wait to see what the effects actually are until deeming it significant. --Masem (t) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We would consider something like he US defaulting on its debt/interest paybacks to the Federal Reserve and other bond holders to actually be significant. The shutdown of a few federal services in one nation for what, according to historical context, will only last up to a couple weeks, does not even compare and should not be considered to be worldwide important. If the shutdown lasts for more than a few weeks, and stories begin to arise of actual impacts from this, then I would reconsider this decision. Otherwise, it's letting our platform be used as free media for congressional members who are trying to make this seem like a big deal. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and possibly add to Ongoing. Major event that will have lasting repercussions in America. (Note: I'm not American so no COI)NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nixinova: It is not a COI for an American to comment on this discussion, nor to edit the article itself. Maybe if Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, or Chuck Schumer themselves were editing, it would be a COI, but not Americans in general. It would be a systemic bias issue, but that still wouldn't prevent people from commenting here. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until Monday. If the shutdown ends before the weekend is up, the effects will have been fairly trivial. If 800k workers are furloughed on Monday, it will become a very significant disruption. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Ongoing may be a good idea if this continues on past the weekend. It's major news with major coverage and a postable article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems to be a thing in the US, it happened not that long ago, and although it's marginally disruptive to a few Americans at the time, it doesn't seem to have any long term impact (hence why we're doing it all again five years later), other than scoring political points on a government that appears to have little or no control over itself and its country. It's a good example of how not to run a first-world country I suppose, but that alone shouldn't be sufficient reason to post. If it's all still clagged up in March, let's talk again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just like gun massacres, just because they happen in the U.S. more often than they should doesn't mean we should stop posting them when they happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. It means precisely that, because it's less newsworthy if it happens more frequently. It adjusts the baseline of newsworthiness. And it's not the only point. This just happens from time to time and it's inconvenient, but until anyone can provide a reason as to why this has any long term effect other than a bunch of internal politics, it's simply not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's exactly where this project fails. People seem to think 'news' is 'what is interesting' and it isn't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
          • TRM is correct here. These occasional "shutdowns" are window dressing. No one loses any wages or benefits, since all furloughed workers, etc., eventually get paid even though they stayed home. The only newsworthy event of the 2013 shutdown was that some people were fined for "trespass" when they used publicly accessible areas of national parks such as running trails. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
            • How many billions of dollars did the U.S. government lose because of the last shutdown? $24 billion. And "it reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent." That's the benchmark, and it's pretty newsworthy and significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
              • I know that sounds like a lot of dollar, but what is it in relation to national debt? Last time I looked it was $5.4 trillion, so a few billion is really a drop in the ocean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                • You are completely missing the point about how a government shutdown hurts the economy, and a G8 economy to boot. You just don't like it and should not engage in ITN nominations like this one, instead of breaking out these senseless comments of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • And you are completely involved now, so stop forum shopping to get your POV posted. Your personal attacks are noted ("senseless comments" etc) and for a new admin, I'd suggest you just slow down a little and remember why I voted for you. The impact is objectively and literally inconsequential. Don't assault me, especially with your admin hat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • I'm not acting as an admin in this discussion. Your comments are senseless; I didn't say you are senseless. The impact of a shutdown may be inconsequential for you but it's a big deal over here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                      • There you go. My comments are not "senseless" and I'll ask you retract your multiple accusations. In what sense are they "senseless"? You are making personal attack after personal attack on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, oppose blurb - this is the ideal item for filling the void at ongoing, though the effects are not profound enough yet for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The shutdown might have a limited impact, but it is noteworthy compared to other news this time around. --Horus (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened? I'd like to know why. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe try considering ITN criteria. Nobody said it's more noteworthy than the 2013 shutdown, and there is no rule here saying it has to be. It's at least equally noteworthy, and we posted that one. Your comments here make no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hang on, my comments here "make no sense"? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Your question is completely irrelevant to the nomination discussion at play. You asking that question makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    What, my question that asks you what you're talking about? Did I really vote for you to be an admin? Are you really taking this course of communication? Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    The question I replied to. "Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened?" That question doesn't help this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    When you retract and redact your accusations of my comments being "senseless" we can continue to communicate. In the meantime, Arbcom record for quickest desysop awaits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I would say it has the same noteworthiness with 2013 shutdown. And since it was in ITN last time, I don't see any problem why it can't this time. This is not hard to figure out. --Horus (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Another oversized business going bust. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No it isn't. It's an artificial freeze on government business. No-one has gone bust, unless you accept the US national debt of 5 trillion dollars. This is just a symptom of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking needs attention In hindsight that's probably the better way to get an uninvolved admin to assess this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's apparent that this nomination isn't the only thing that needs attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely newsworthy; passes ITN criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, that's meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean. I think the vote is meaningful after reviewing the guide at the top of this page. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean by "passes ITN criteria". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. The ITN criteria are twofold: that the "updated content" must be high-quality, and that the topic is "significant enough". Furthermore, the criteria tell us that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another". Therefore, if a topic is significant enough, the quality of the article is of decreased importance.
    This topic is clearly significant; the criteria tell us that an event must be "being covered, in an in-depth mannner, by news sources". This event is receiving substantial coverage in multiple news sources, such as the Times, the Journal, and the Post. So, it passes the criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Was this posted last time it happened? What's changed? (... apart from that big orange thing, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It was posted. For what has changed, not much considering the most vocal voices in 2013 are still here being vocal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. Who on earth would nominate something like that, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Story is very clearly in the news, article is in fine shape with good updates. The argument against posting is that it happens frequently, but then this is the third occurrence in the past quarter century. GCG (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A current event of wide interest that is being reported on worldwide. Article is in good shape and receiving regular updates. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – It's time we posted this, although blurb should be qualified with "partially" before "shuts down." As BBC notes, "essential services that protect 'life or human property' will continue, including national security, postal services, air traffic control, some medical services, disaster assistance, prisons, taxation and electricity generation." Sca (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: Marked (again?) for attention. Sca (talk)
  • I'm still neutral, if not leaning against this, because the idea of a government shutdown is pretty much unique to the US [2], something that comes up year after year but most of the time avoided due to short-term spending bills (last year, those were signed in early Dec so that they didn't push the deadline), and the fact this is a story that is biased by it being a petty partisan squabble, overblown by politicians and the media alike. It's a manufactured situation for all purposes, and not the type of story ITN normally puts into play. But it does have potentially to be more impactful if this continues past this week, for example, so it might be better to wait until its resolve. --Masem (t) 14:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
For reference, at this point the news that a deal was likely broke and discussion re-opened
  • Carillion going under is no longer on the front page of any news website either, while the shutdown being over still is. Start there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It will be over, that's clear. And this news item is exactly as predicted, all bluster, not impactful in any tangible way, just political posturing, and not very good posturing at that. Carillion going under will effect thousands of people for months and years to come. This political joke is already yesterday's news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For something so life changing as "effecting thousands" for "years to come", the BBC and other British websites have zero coverage on the front page of their websites. Meanwhile, the shutdown is still mentioned in comparison. So which is old news? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We're just moving on with Carillion, it's happened, just like this hyped up political silliness has happened and will now end with no long-term impact at all. Unlike Carillion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is that how that works over there? "Thousands of lives are devastated, nothing can be done, let's not talk about it." Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I guess so, although I don't know what "devasted" means. There's nothing much that can be done, our country isn't run via Twitter and threats, so I'm not sure what you'd expect us to do any differently. And for what it's worth, it's still all over our news, just not headlines. That's how news is supposed to work. (Clue in the name). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks for that, I've been awake too long. You're right, that is how it's supposed to work, which is exactly why the shutdown is news. Have a nice day. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest that we amend to "…partially shuts down for three days…" once the temporary deal passes, but without bumping the item. Having the blurb up in its present form will remain technically correct, but could give the impression that the shutdown is still extant to readers, and it's worth adding three words to avoid being misleading. --LukeSurl t c 20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have undone WaltCip's extension of the archive box with this edit. This story has markedly changed with the (impending) deal, and both TRM and I have proposed different reactions to this. It's questionable where these discussions should occur (here, the "ongoing" nomination above, WT:ITN, or WP:ERRORS) and I'd be happy to move my comment if mine is in the wrong place. However there are reasonable arguments for both pulling and amending the blurb and it is unnecessary to close off such discussions because they are written underneath a colored box. --LukeSurl t c 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that, if the government does indeed reopen, it's best for an admin to simply update the blurb to say that, along the lines of "the government shut down for three days and reopened". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • In other words, it wasn't really that newsworthy after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • As evidenced by all the news coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, as evidenced by most of Trump's hype. Your previous personal attacks have been noted, as an admin you should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Bickering with you is pointless and counterproductive. My mistake yesterday was forgetting that. I won't reply here again, so you can get the last word as you always insist upon receiving. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - This was clearly a non-impact story of political posturing, just as I and several others predicted. Also, these discussions last for up to 7 days when there isn't clear consensus. @Vanamonde93: should have known better than to close this before an actually non-controversial consensus or non-consensus was reached. I'm not pulling the blurb myself. But, this discussion is not over, nor should it be archived. So it no longer is. If more editors come by and ask for it to stay, then by all means let's close this thread at that point. But closing this only 2 days into such a controversial discussion is just not acceptable. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull a complete political joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You literally made the same !vote three hours ago. We know. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion has since been re-opened in an attempt to restore some kind of sanity to this over-hyped classic Trump nonsense carnival. Feel free to strike the previous pull request which was made when this was inadvertently posted and the discussion soon after closed. If it makes you feel better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull The shutdown has now ended reportedly, as the deal was reached: [3], [4]. Brandmeistertalk 21:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - per Brandmesiter, as the shutdown has ended. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus whatsoever for "The US government reopens" to be listed as a blurb, and the current blurb is not inaccurate. Something has got to give here. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, this non-event is now wrapping up. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This was posted based on 2:1 consensus. No one thought it would last forever, so the ending of it does not change that consensus. I strongly urge any admin to not pull this without some original supporters flipping. GCG (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Vote counting is expressly forbidden. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No, that's not a suitable reason to keep something which is actually no longer true anywhere near the main page. Nor is vote counting considered a reasonable approach. Nor should we have to wait for "original supporters" to "flip" anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) PullAP still says "End to government shutdown in sight." If it's truly over, I agree that it should be pulled. Sca (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Getting closer. AP: "Senate Dems relent, vote to end shutdown; House to follow." (Ditto NYT, Wash. Post.)Sca (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, the House has passed it, I'd do so myself but I !voted on the original nomination. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep why should this be pulled now that the impasse has resolved itself? That's like saying that if Turkey ceases its offensive we would pull the blurb, if someone decides to buy up Carillion's debt we would pull the blurb, etc. More likely we'd just modify those blurbs, which should also be the default here. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh silly Banedon, that's how double standards are supposed to work. It's almost as if it didn't happen to them. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been pulled ... fair point, what I was going to say is that this is something that can be cancelled ... the examples you gave above still leave issues behind. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled, short-lived effects of domestic political wrangling were practically over before they started. Stephen 23:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, they're not over. There's a good chance we're going to be in another shutdown in a few weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, it'll be back to haunt (taunt?) us in early Feb. Sca (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep bad pull. The story happened, it was in the news, as much as a bus fire, the attack in Afghanistan or some bloke throwing darts. There was no technical reason to pull. This amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the extreme. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-post, was wrongly pulled per CosmicAdventure. I don't know what's wrong with saying, "The U.S. federal government entered a partial shutdown for three days after the Senate fails to pass a funding bill on time". The subject is still very much in the news, much more so than some of the other blurbs that are still standing. Erasing the blurb is the wrong way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's the link to the pageview stats for the pages currently boldlinked on ITN, and for the government shutdown page. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup[edit]

Commendable work, and a suitable prospect at DYK, but this nomination is not going to receive adequate support for posting. Hence, WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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: 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb II: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
News source(s): News18
Nominator: Abishe (talk • give credit)

 Abishe (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Typically sports related articles need a prose description of the final match, the article currently just lists results. I would also like to see wider coverage of this, even in just India where cricket is big. I do see the Indian PM commented on this, so.... 331dot (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google Images search on "blind cricket world cup final" brings up large numbers of shots of players in front of completely empty bleachers and stands, even for major matches like Pakistan–India. Is this actually a significant sport in which readers would potentially be interested, or something hyper-niche? Certainly, clicking the "match report" external links on 2018 Blind Cricket World Cupeven for major matches like the semi-finals—seems to bring up mainly "and there was a Blind Cricket match played" micro-articles. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Iridescent makes a very good point, these matches do not seem well attended(if attended at all) in person, let alone getting sufficient coverage in the news. I understand the desire to promote sports with disabled athletes, but ITN is not for generating interest in any event. It must already have interest. I would note the upcoming Winter Paralympics will be posted when they open. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret Abishe, top marks for bringing this kind of event to ITN but as mentioned above, it's not really scratching a mark on the news items our readers would expect to see. I know it's scant consolation, but I would definitely consider making this into a DYK, and I'll help you, or if not, we can work on it to get it to GA. Please let me know. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per TRM. I've tided up the article so it reads well now, could make a decent DYK and if there are sources out there, a GA. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

January 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Dorothy Malone[edit]

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
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: Dorothy Malone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times
Nominator: A lad insane (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: From Peyton Place. Filmography is almost entirely unreferenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - added some refs to the filmography. Much of what's unref'd in the body could be dup'ed to the filmography as the body basically IS a filmography. I think it's good enough. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but Preposition. The article is still unsourced as some statements are unsourced. What if, we create a separate page for her filmography and then use the same sources to fix her career section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Fredo Santana[edit]

Article: Fredo Santana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Billboard, Variety
Nominator: PootisHeavy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable rapper who died young and has created songs with a variety of well-known people. Despite being a relatively short article, it is also well-sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Allison Shearmur[edit]

Article: Allison Shearmur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 MurielMary (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support no concerns. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great work especially for being in great state for being a new article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried. — Wyliepedia 07:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agni-V[edit]

Article: Agni-V (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India successfully test-fires its Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missle
News source(s): [5] [6] [7]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 103.248.93.171 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: 75.102.128.35 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Up to ITN whether or not to mention that this ICBM is nuclear-capable. Banedon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It's the fifth test occurred so far so doesn't seem that significant. When Agni V becomes operational seems more of an event - The Agni V is expected to undergo a final test later in 2018 before being made operational. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd also be okay with posting this when Agni-V is made operational, per Galobtter. Davey2116 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, I do not see the fifth test (which isn't even the first successful test) to be particularly significant. My personal, somewhat arbitrary, standard is to see if a particular news item is appearing in news sources outside the source country: and I am not seeing much of this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] [Ongoing] Cape Town drought[edit]

Closing for now given consensus against. Re-open when the water does actually run out, as this seems to be the point of contention for most who oppose (myself included). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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: 2015-present Cape Town drought (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Time, ABC
Nominator: Notecardforfree (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Mayor of Cape Town recently announced that the City will run out of water by late April. I updated the article, and I think everything is referenced. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ongoing and escalating apparently. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's something to indicate that there's any particular significance. While it may be the first time this has happened in Cape Town, water supplies to major cities running low is a fairly routine occurrence; the 2014–17 Brazilian drought and the 2011–17 California drought are probably the ones that will be most familiar to readers, while readers in Australia and the south of England will be wearily familiar with the phrase "hosepipe ban". Besides, this kind of thing generally takes years to resolve as people change their water-use habits, desalination plants and diversionary aqueducts are built, and people wait for the aquifers to refresh. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing as the odds of incremental updates seem remote; I might support posting the actual shutoff of municipal water services (when/if it happens) as that seems very unusual to me. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is unprecedented for a city of 4 million to be within less than 3 months of having to switch off municipal water. I'm not sure what restrictions were in place in Brazil or California, but this is well beyond a hosepipe ban - that has been in place for ages, with a wide range of severe restrictions and residents restricted to 50 litres of water per day. This has been featured in many international news sources including Newsweek, CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, Daily Mail UK, Time Magazine. Zaian (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's clearly notable, but I am not sure about when to post this. Now? Or in April? Or sometime in between? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making a claim that may or may not come true in three months time is clearly not something that warrants posting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. ITN is not for speculation - if it happens and/or when some drastic action related to it is taken then that will be the point at which it is suitable for posting here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If they do have to announce a drought I would reconsider, but this is primarily a statement to get citizens and businesses into action to help avoid it, and not an actual event. --Masem (t) 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to let everyone know that I am still working on this article. It needs a bit of updating with regards to its political impact and I would like to add a graph as well. I am also planning to get an aerial photograph of one of the largest dams to better illustrate this article. As a resident of Cape Town I can say that this issue is still evolving so I would hold off on publishing it for now. I would wait until the taps run dry (day zero) which should be in April some time. If the taps don't run dry at all then I would be very happy.--Discott (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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] New Zealand prime minister announces she's pregnant[edit]

Boldly closing this early per SNOW instead to wait for flurry of pile on. I am afraid, this kind of gossip will likely never get to the main page in the offing–Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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: Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces she is pregnant, with the baby due in June.
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Paora (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating this for Schwede66 on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. World leaders have been pregnant before. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might have been ITN worthy a couple of centuries ago if we were discussing a queen and possible heir. But this is the 21st century and ITN is not a society page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid magazine. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

January 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 18
Business and economy
  • The Emirates airline announces an order for up to 36 Airbus A380s. Emirates is already the aircraft's largest operator, with a fleet of over 100. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Nancy Richler[edit]

Article: Nancy Richler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.cbc.ca/books/nancy-richler-author-of-the-imposter-bride-dead-at-60-1.4493933
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please tag them. As I read it, every sentence (occasionally two sentences) has a reference, and it has already been established here at ITN that it's unnecessary for every single sentence to have a citation. MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have changed my !vote rationale. I took a closer look.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Should now to ready to go. MurielMary (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stansfield Turner[edit]

Article: Stansfield Turner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former CIA director, article fairly in good state –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Aktobe bus fire[edit]

Article: 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus fire in Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan kills 52 people.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC.
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Disasters of similar magnitude have been posted before, and the story has been picked up by various news organisations. As far as I can tell, no article on this existed, so I've created a stub here. I hope posting here might attract some editors to bring it to a reasonable standard. LukeSurl t c 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stub, and I'm struggling to imagine how much more can be reasonably added in the short term. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring the ability to expand this out. This is not an area of the world with great media coverage, so as TRM says, to expand more beyond what's there is unlikely. But I would agree if this can get to a decent size and quality, the incident is of ITN-appropriateness. --Masem (t) 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's quite possible to expand with Russian-language sources, for example, as I see a decent coverage there. So pending expansion this is supportable due to sheer death number, comparable with other accidents and attacks we post. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While the article has been updated, I have concern about the use of a non-free image for the article. It's not that it is gruesome (there are likely the bodies still aboard but the are not visible) but it's just from this photo a bus on fire. We normally use free images of the vehicle type in question in such accident articles; barring that, no non-free should be used if the scene is as "normal" for the type of incident. -Masem (t) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value this alleged fair use adds, after all there are plenty of images of that type of bus and it doesn't take a great deal of imagination (if one hasn't actually seen a bus fire) to imagine what a bus on fire looks like. If it was a really unusual demise (e.g. it was sliced in half by a helicopter rotor blade) then I could see how it would be fair use and add EV, as it stands it's just a bus on fire. If fair use is extended to this, then we'll be scraping Bestgore.com for multiple "fair use" images of multiple tragedies. I don't think that's the right way ahead, so this image shouldn't be in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I was surprised when it was added (the infobox is the only major part of the article that I'm not responsible for), though I'm not super-familiar with fair use's boundaries. I've replaced this image with a map, though I won't personally be formally disputing the fair use of the image. If the editor who added the image decides to restore it, I'm not going to revert it back. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
          • As ITN rarely has to worry about non-free content in the nominated articles (at least, as an issue to contest), we still should be aware this is part of a quality of the article, as NFC is a core content tenet like BLP. We don't want to encourage frivolous use of non-free media. The image would currently fail WP:NFCC#1 (nothing unusual about this accident that a picture of the same type of bus that could be obtained freely could illustrate) and WP:NFCC#8 in that there's nothing documented special about the visual image of the bus on fire. If it image is added back, then this article is not to the quality of ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I uploaded it under fair use just to be safe bc its a huge piece of news, but I'm pretty sure it's public domain since its from the Kazakhstan government and the extent of use on major commercial newspaper websites, some even without attribution (under the PD-Kazakhstan-exempt tag).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Well sure, if you can prove PD then no worries. Until then, it's not justifiably fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Created a File talk page here. Can someone who knows more about copyright help? I thought it would meet the official document (as it is part of the investigation) parameter and the news parameter, so wan't sure which one it was and din't want to leave uncategorized. I think its better to be too careful than not enough.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – There are fairly complete stories on BBC and Reuters, and other RS stories may be expected due to death toll. Concur with Brandmeister re significance. However, suggest article be renamed 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire. Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The AFP have a bit more info. Would add myself but am likely to be offline for the rest of the day. —LukeSurl t c 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I found a computer and added it in. Practically, the article has everything that's currently in the English-language sources. --LukeSurl t c 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and practically, it's still a stub. That's what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a more expansive piece from RFERL this morning, and I've used this to expand out the article. I think this expands beyond stub-class and posting should be considered now. --LukeSurl t c 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable and ready to go. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – The article is pretty thin all right, but due to number of casualties.... (Repeat suggested name change to 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire.) Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notability is clear, and the article, while short, is as long as possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-High number of casualties. If it were a crash of this magnitude in a country like France or US, it would by headlines for weeks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain why? -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support high death toll. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support from my original oppose. Really good work on the article, creators and editors have listened to the community, it's still a dead end as far as I can tell, nothing fundamental will actually change as a result of this incident, but I acknowledge it's a big death toll and a tragic outcome for a simple bus journey, and was definitely headline news, albeit fleetingly, on even the BBC. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kashinath (actor)[edit]

Stale (and even if it were not, still largely unsourced). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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: Kashinath (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IB TIMES, The News Minute
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is being updated, some ancient tags were already attended to –Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the prose is mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not even going to look at the article when his photo is a screencap and clearly a copyright infringement. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, just tag it, remove it from the article, and then look at the article again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lol, so I wonder how you know photo exists, when you can't even look at the article. That aside, now the photo is removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well in that case I'll oppose on sourcing. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Peter Wyngarde[edit]

Article: Peter Wyngarde (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: MaxDextros (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

  • Support Our article details the confusion of sources about the subject's birth date. As this seems to be well done, it's good to get this out there to help in explaining the matter to the world. We know from the case of Jimmy Wales that such dates can be difficult to agree and so it's good to have another detailed example. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my view, the whole section on "Birth and family background" fails WP:SYNTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Reading that, all the accounts of his life prior to where it can be documented (1946) reads really funny, and I agree feels like synthesis from WP here. I see what sources do talk about this period all state he gave different accounts, so it might be better to reduce that part to less conjecturing. --Masem (t) 15:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently referenced, and undue weight placed on the birth and family section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks well referenced and in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still see some CN tags, and the "undue weight" issue needs to be resolved before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the "Birth and family background" has been trimmed. Presumably "undue weight" can be resolved by consensus at the Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No more CN tags. Please make your case at Talk:Peter Wyngarde is you still think there is WP:UNDUE for the "Birth and family background" section. Otherwise this could be posted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE now dealt with. Previous opposers may wish to re-evaluate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment still the tags (I placed) around the appearances which aren't verifiable within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

January 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Dave Holland[edit]

Article: Dave Holland (drummer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Ultimate Classic Rock
Nominator: A lad insane (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death was apparently several days ago. The article is pretty bad. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose As you rightly admitted. I counted over 14 unreferenced paragraphs, unsourced major sections, many parmenently dead references and sources which are clearly not reliable. Plus the death has been over a week. You shouldn't have nominated this. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


[Posted] RD: Kingdon Gould Jr.[edit]

Article: Kingdon Gould Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Baltimore Sun
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support brief, but covers key points and is sourced. Marking [ready]. SpencerT♦C 20:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild support yeah, it's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill Bain[edit]

Article: Bill Bain (consultant) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Boston Globe
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - article has not been updated since his death to put activities into the past tense. MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @MurielMary:: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    not notable Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Did you read the notes? the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment been ready for 24 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tyler Hilinski[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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: Tyler Hilinski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, LA Times
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: It's a new article. I'll expand it some more today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Question - keep in mind that NSPORTS does not consider college players notable by default, and if he committed suicide which is the only reason elevating this to notability, that would possibly fail BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: I think I've found enough sources that predate his death to clear the WP:GNG bar. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Masem. Those sources seem to fall under WP:NCOLLATH's mention of "game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." GCG (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that those are routine coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The first of those two links looks like a local news human interest piece that doesn't do anything to establish notability. The second is better, but if that's the only thing you've got that isn't routine (I haven't looked at any other sources in the article) then I'm not sure I wouldn't support an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the forum to discuss notability. If someone wants to take this to AfD, then we can do that, and this nom will be stale here. If nobody does that, we should be judging it here based on ITN/c merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The article is new for the purposes of RD, we need to evaluate if it is appropriate. If the article had existed well before this, I'd accept we had this article and presumed it was considered notable. But given the article was created on the news of his apparent suicide, which is something BLPCRIME strongly urges against, we should be evaluating if this is really an appropriate stand-alone topic. --Masem (t) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Notability not established.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing wrong with the article (in fact far better than the usual stuff that appears in situations like this), but the fact that it was only created on the subject's death suggests that he may not have been particularly notable. The question we need to ask is - if he'd been run over by a bus, would we have an article? One could argue on both BLPCRIME and BLP1E grounds on this one. As regards the coverage, the second link provided above is local coverage of the Cougars (see the top of the page). On that basis - not that I would - I could create articles on half a dozen footballers for my local team that have never played a professional game. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that per ITN guidelines, opposes based on notability will likely be ignored. The appropriate way to dispute notability is to nominate for AFD. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposes on notability grounds are fine if it's a brand new article and therefore hasn't had a chance to be checked for such. That's simple logic. But regardless, my oppose is not "he's not notable", but "I'm really not sure if he is notable, is there anything that could change my mind on this?" rather than rushing straight off to AFD. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly - that's why mine is not an outright oppose, just that on the current basis of "played high-school and some college with not an amazing record, and then appeared to committed suicide" is generally non-notable for WP, but that could be proven out otherwise. --Masem (t) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ITN is not a substitute for AFD. If you think the subject fails WP:N (or one of it's many sub-guidelines) take it to WP:AFD where it belongs. Being considered for AfD will disqualify the item from ITN and you'll have done your civic duty. The requirements for RD are clear, and opposes for "notability" ought to be ignored by any admin considering the item. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @CosmicAdventure: The point is that we are not sure if the subject fails WP:N, nominations at AFD where the nominator isn't sure tend to be frowned upon, and I (and presumably we) don't want to shut down the nomination if they are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: We finally killed "notability" discussions for RD, replacing them with "well, I'm not sure if it'll pass an AFD or not so I'll just raise doubts here" is the same thing. This nomination has been shut down, with two opposes for notability. Either an article fails WP:N or it doesn't, and WP:AFD is the place to find out. I belive you're all acting in good faith, but we simply cannot let RD discussions become AFD-lite. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I completely respect the point here, but I have a different reading. The RFC would seem to suggest there is no longer a difference between ITN-level notability and GNG; if it's good enough for WP, it's good enough for ITN (RDs, that is). I don't believe that suggests we cannot make the GNG argument here. The ITN project adheres closer to WP guidelines than WP as a whole, because the size is more manageable. If an article does not meet GNG, it should not be posted to MP and it should be AFDed, but requiring the AFD is like trying to apply ITN standards to the whole site. AFDs are more work and they opening the nominator to criticism. The effect is that most who don't believe there is notability will just abstain altogether, which is exactly what has happened here: note zero support despite the article technically meeting the requirements. GCG (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • RD is based on the assumption that there was an existing article for sometime, thus notability was presumed. This article was created because of the death, so that RD assumption is not applicable. We can evaluate the notability of the topic here. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Would you be able to say why? Did you review the article? Are there elements you could suggest need improvement? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    hate American football Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Wow, okay, so that stands out and we can all remember it next time you make such a !vote! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Jo Jo White[edit]

Article: Jo Jo White (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - looks good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready - Agree it is all set of posting. --Masem (t) 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. There were two uncited things I spotted, I've fixed one of them and the other is already tagged but it's not contentious and should be easy to source for someone who knows the topic so I didn't think it should stand in the way of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] New Mormon head[edit]

Article: Russell M. Nelson (talk, history)
Blurb: Russell M. Nelson becomes President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
News source(s): Newsweek, NPR, TIME
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: ChristensenMJ (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Jgstokes (talk • give credit)

 Fuebaey (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a minor branch of Christianity changes leadership. Does not bear any major significance to the greater world and is not ITN-worthy. I would read his novel, though. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You can hardly describe the Mormons as 'minor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Compared to the three major denominations - Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity - yes, they are minor. Brandmeistertalk 10:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Just because it's minor in christianity doesn't mean it isn't without significance. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Weak oppose We did post the new head of the similarly-sized Church of England (Nov '12), so we should tread carefully here to avoid BIAS. This is a sect that has been subject to continual persecution (see vote #1 in this nom) since its inception. I think it would be appropriate to post the head of any church with over 10 MM adherents (subject to ITN and quality, of course). GCG (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
On second look, there's a bit too much uncited to post right now. Two CN tags, a few more graphs with no refs, and the positions section only cite 4 of 12 items. GCG (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportWeak oppose large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Same as GreatCaesarGhost, reasonably well cited but missing citations in beginning two paragraphs of LDS church service and professional leadership. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a couple of sentences still without reference, but high enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support large enough denomination with 15 millionish adherents indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Galobtter.--Comrade Comrade (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality I'm neutral on this (I see both sides), but irrespective of that, the artilce is missing sources in several places particularly on positions and awards at the end. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Still neutral on this, but I agree the sourcing is no longer holding this up. --Masem (t) 22:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • You don't think 13 [citation needed] tags on a BLP should stop it being posted?? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed a CN tag and updated the announcement of the presidency (the article still stated that the conference would take place on Tuesday). I will try to find sources for the pending CNs. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added sources for church service and positions – no CN tags remain as far as I can see. @Galobtter, GreatCaesarsGhost, and Masem: would you mind checking if there is anything unsourced that I may have missed? –FlyingAce✈hello 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that flips the script enough by my standards. Thanks for your work. GCG (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no doubts about the notability of this event. There are a handful of quality issues, but nothing that cannot be fixed with 5-15 minutes of work, and enough editors seem interested that I expect most of these will be cleared up within hours. Inatan (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - setting the bar at 15 million adherents being a sufficient number to post could set a poor precedent, given the fractured nature of just one religious sect. It would be an uphill struggle to argue against posting the mayor of New York on that basis, something which was snow-closed when it last arose. To grant religious stewardship greater significance over political and civic one is a clear invocation of bias and undue weight, and should be avoided. Football teams are also of significance to many, and we don't post managerial changes for them. Nelson has not become a head of state, and should not be treated as one. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this is we have and will continue to post the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope, of course, has a much larger flock, but AofC will get posted because of a strong pro-UK contingent amongst our editors. One voter may abstain from AofC while opposing this, or abstain from this while supporting AofC and claim innocence of bias. But when WP speaks with one voice, it is saying "mainstream church good, cult of freaks bad." 159.53.174.140 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the more notable christian denominations. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:48EB:505A:CD60:28C7 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this affects 15 million people and is of little to (more likely) no significance outside of that sect. This represents 1/5 of one percent of the population. Likely of no significance outside of The Americas where Mormonism hasn't widely spread. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stormy Clouds & Floydian. I searched for "Russell" on Google News and all but one of the first page dealt with other Russells. Banedon (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Switch to Neutral. Banedon (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GCG. Davey2116 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a large enough impact to the English speaking world... seems more like an advertisement for their religion than anything if we posted this. I can't think of how this is possibly news worthy enough for our Main Page when it isn't on any newspaper's front page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Mormonism is the fastest growing Christian denomination. Of the 15.9 mormons, 8.3 million live outside of the U.S. For comparison, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria has similar size. When its last leader, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, was selected in 2012, that fact was posted to ITN. I think the mormons deserve the same. Nsk92 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose the quality of the article is insufficient, particularly as a BLP, to go anywhere near the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose Setting aside the issue of quality, religious news is woefully underrepresented on ITN. But even when limited to Christianity (and it is a hot topic of debate whether Mormonism is Christian) their numbers are pretty low. Right now pretty much the only transition in religious leadership that is all but certain to be posted is the papacy (which is ITNR). That needs to change. But a smallish confession of 15 million is not the right place to begin correcting this bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITN currently announces the result of an election in Northern Cyprus and that only has a population of about 300K. 15 million is larger than most of the countries in the world so saying that this is of no account is to elevate secular politics above spiritual matters and that's not NPOV. But, of course, people are going to read this article in large numbers regardless of what is said and done here. It's Wikipedia and its main page that will look bad -- stale, out of touch and low quality. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is appalling, so posting it will make Wikipedia look bad - "low quality". Out of touch? Hardly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: - *Honest question – how is it "appalling"? I understand there was an unsourced section that was missed earlier, but it has been fixed now. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I took a quick look it was grossly under-referenced. Now I've taken a detailed look, it's grossly under-referenced. A BLP with 13 [citation needed] tags is unsuitable for main page inclusion. Still, it doesn't look like we'll have long to wait before we see another near-identical nomination... let's get it better next time perhaps. Plus I'm not sure why we'd consider posting the head of a tiny sect, Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama, yes, head of this organisation??? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, changing to strong oppose. I hadn't realised, but this appears to be more cult than religion, with things like "Mormons also believe that the Garden of Eden was in what is now known as Missouri, and that when Jesus returns he will go there to create the New Jerusalem" and previous "head of religion" Brigham Young opposing black priests, and the "modern" website saying "blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel, [and] God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin". What? I'd support the next top Jedi or the next top Scientologist over this. I guess at least they're bonkers, but honestly bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
They're a little prominent in U.S. history and the non-coastal parts of the West U.S. even today though. The state that last had the Olympics is 60% them (2/3rds practising). Even Manhattan, New York has a Temple. They're pretty prominent for their numbers (though systemic bias would suggest posting all other religious heads of ≥15 million if this is posted (how many are there?)). They're also by far the biggest group that believes Native Americans are Jews. And New Jerusalem is supposed to be 1,500 miles tall, wide and long and you can visit the holiest hectare next to the River Boulevard bus stop sign @ 39.091°N 94.428°W near Kansas. On a c. 1 hectare city block in Independence holiest city in the world for millions of Americans except possibly Jerusalem or Salt Lake City. I think they also believe the Voyager 1 spacecraft will break through a glass-like shell between the God of this solar system and the next one if it gets far enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
And one of them almost became President. Kind of sobering in retrospect. 107.77.217.40 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
what. the. hell. Gents, the largest sect on Earth routinely consume the literal body and blood of their messiah. Many belief systems may indeed be far-fetched when compared to other religions, but it is not the position of Wikipedia to make any claims against a belief system or to editorialize such. Down that way lies ruin. GCG (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree that the "quality" of the belief system held by members of LDS is no good reason to allow or deny posting this news item. Indeed, it can only be beneficial if more people come to realize what this organization believes in. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition to the quality issues, your argument is not great. From where I am sitting, the numbers are not too large. The proposed target is not going to get near the Report, so the volume argument is not supported at all. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that graph. Not only does it demonstrate that this "notable" sect is somehow less interesting than "Carillion" (really??), it also demonstrates that it's rapidly becoming stale news, and it also demonstrates that the boat was somewhat missed when traffic to this individual's page peaked a few weeks ago. Highly informative. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is usually the case that ITN lags behind the peaks in readership. That's because ITN/C often takes time to discuss items in the the news and this naturally introduces a delay. Our readers mostly don't care what's happening at ITN/C -- they just see that something is in the news and go straight to the topic. ITN is mostly just for the record and to keep the main page looking fresh. It's not working well because of this slowness. Most other sections on the main page are updated every day but ITN is bizarrely the slowest and least timely section because of these discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, what the graph demonstrated is that it is, in fact, now pointless to post this story as it's really of little interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Another day has passed and ITN still has exactly the same set of blurbs. Most of them are staler than this topic and have less readership. This isn't quality; it's awful. Fortunately most our readership doesn't go through ITN. For example, Peter Wyngarde is mired in pettifogging objections here but was read by about 100K people yesterday regardless. ITN should be shut down and replaced by Top read, as has been done in the Wikipedia App. Such stats would give a better feel for what's actually happening. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and propose that Andrew, instead of reminding us constantly that your preference on how ITN should work isn't how it does work. The problem is that people who continually rail against a process yet do absolutely nothing about it are quickly ignored, rightly or wrongly. I think you know what's happening here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Those “pettifogging objections” have led to a much improved, fully referenced article that is now ready for posting. ITN’s purpose is to promote quality encyclopedic content and that is more important than speed. We are not a news ticker, as you well know.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is not that bad of sourcing for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Too many {{citation needed}}s at the moment to post. However notability wise I narrowly come down on the "yes" side. I think I'd be happy to post changes in the top person in other, similar and larger religious groups. --LukeSurl t c 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note there are now citations for all the cn tags. Bahooka (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been improved and now everything has a citation. Elevations of religious figures of similar stature (Archbishop of Canterbury Welby, Coptic Pope Tawadros, etc.) have been posted before. --Tocino 07:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think these points need more discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Funny, I wouldn't compare the election of this man to be on a historical par with the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mind you, I suppose if your sect or cult or whatever is only so old, you don't have any history to look back on and compare for historical significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I would have never guessed you'd prefer an Anglo-centric nom. First you bury this in CNs, then use those tags as a rationale for opposing. The refs get cleaned up, so you change your tactic to maligning Mormon beliefs. Then its old news. Then its low page views. Twice you called this religion with half a million adherents on each continent a "cult." I think we know where you stand on this. GCG (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I think you'll find every CN was necessary, unless you don't wish to adhere to WP:BLP. There's no tactic change, I made the comment relating to the absurd beliefs and teachings before the CNs were resolved. The page views were a direct response to another editor today. People have questioned whether or not Mormonism (which says Jesus will return to Missouri when he finally returns) is a cult for decades. Which "anglo-centric nom" did I "prefer"? I'm really excited to hear the response. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal opinion of doctrine isn't really relevant to determining if the article is notable enough for ITN. I recommend not discussing it here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, that's a strange point of view. If someone thinks that this group are simply a strange sect then clearly that has an impact on whether or not they believe the selection of their new head of said strange sect should be on the main page of Wikipedia. I recommend it be openly discussed, and that we don't try to close down active debates, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to Ramblingman: One might argue whether this article should be posted on the mainpage or not. But one can (and is expected!) do so without being offensive. So maybe stop your childish behavior, and start being constructive. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part of any of my responses you would consider "offensive" or "childish". Thanks to the world in which I live, I am able to provide personal comments on how notable this individual is and how notable his organisation is, and how his organisation presents itself, entirely based on evidence from this individual and his organisation's website etc. I don't follow how that would not be constructive. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, don't play stupid. You know exactly what you are doing. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand you at all, other than you are apparently attempting to stop my right of freedom of speech. Please stop attempting to do that as it's grossly offensive and disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:A998:8BB1:5285:F80C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside of this specific dialogue and discussion.
Note: The Rambling Man has been blocked multiple times and is under Arbcom sanctions for the same behavior he displays above. Disgraceful. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No, you are telling me what I can and cannot say about this sect. That is an obstruction of my freedom of speech. That is disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because of the size of the church, which I view as sufficiently large, but because the structure of the faith means that the president has very limited power to effect change. He is not a pope. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant change in LDS Church, which can be considered high profile because of certain adherents (Mitt Romney comes to mind) and the popularity of The Book of Mormon (musical), regardless of membership numbers. Bahooka (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If the popularity of musicals is a viable rationale for posting, we may make ITN into a news ticker for items relating to the Founding Fathers. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That was just an example of why the church may have a higher profile and interest by readers that extends beyond just the 15-16 million members. Bahooka (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is the "change" significant? What will be different under this "leader"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no clue what will be different. Another minor profile-raising thing: The 1st Mormon "MP" with <2 wives was seated 1903 and the Senate debated the kicking him out vote till 1907. They got more letters than any other debate in the National Archives of a century later (up to 1,000 angry letters/day/senator) and he won cause they couldn't get 67% of 90 votes. The only "MP" before him (1898) had 3 wives and wasn't even seated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent rationale. You truly swayed me. Comrade Comrade (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
*Support per Galobtter. - We can't all be this insightful, to be fair. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Double oppose per "this isn't the sect leader you're looking for", a tiny bit of research shows that literally hundreds of thousands of individuals in the United Kingdom alone have registered as Jedis. This would make the Church of Jedi larger than Mormons quite easily, and actually many of the beliefs of Jedis seem easier to swallow. So let's accept that we shouldn't be posting new leaders of sects full stop. Unless Yoda gets a look-in. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
But it is time for the Jedi to die... Stormy clouds (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Above editor voted already once, a few paragraphs above. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Struck my first oppose, reordered your reordering, please don't do that again! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
IP user, in my opinion your posts here border on harassing TRM and I would suggest that you stop. You clearly are not new to this. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's quite something. Looking at all the badgering and name-calling TheRamblingMan, I have the genuine impression that he is the one who is harassing others. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Give me one example of "name-calling", and then compare it to your (ongoing) attempts to silence me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest Close I think this has been open long enough, and garnered sufficient participation that we can reasonably conclude there will be no consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive; this leadership position is not like the Catholic Pope. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that one editor (TheRamlingMan) has voted three (!) times, and only one of these votes has been striken. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to strike any previous opposition I may have overlooked. My "double oppose" above is the only that needs to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have stricken out another duplicate oppose vote made by TRM. Davey2116 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the opposers argue that this shouldn't be posted because the LDS church's 15 million followers isn't large enough. However, the ascension of the current pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (which has about 20 million followers) was posted on November 4, 2012. I'm not sure about the effect of that event on the Anglophone world, which is the argument that many of the opposers are making for this event. Davey2116 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, I think most of the opposition stems from the fact that this change of "head" of sect is completely insignificant. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support, per Davey2116. Mormonism is a major branch of the Abrahamic religions and is significantly different from Christianity. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's different? You can say that again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Davey2116's rationale was that we posted a listing for another Christian faith, so we should post in parity. Your second comment, Mormonism is a major branch of the Abrahamic religions and is significantly different from Christianity., contradicts this rationale. Please clarify. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Mormonism is just as Christian as Rastafari is. Both are based on the Bible. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Riveting. However, this piece of trivia does not have any bearing on Davey2116's reason for support, nor, by proxy, does it relate to your reasoning. Therefore, could you please come up with a reason for supporting, as your current rationale is monumental in its incomprehensibility. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid I do not see this as significant enough. There are numerous sects and cults in other parts of the world with a good many more followers: I suspect the reason we are even considering this is because Mormons have always occupied a disproportionately large space in the public imagination, thanks to things like this, this, and even this; none of which actually demonstrate the impact of this leadership change. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. There is weak consensus to post, and I'm sure there will be some controversy so I will explain how I took into consideration different arguments. Concerns about sourcing have been resolved. One issue that has come up is whether the number of adherents to Mormonism is large enough: it looks like there is consensus that there is based on the discussion, with additional considerations for global reach of Mormonism, as well as comparing that to previously posted items on ITN (Head of the Coptic Church). Arguments regarding recency and being a cult (however that may be defined) were considered less important than the number of adherents. There were some opposing arguments that the role of the president was limited, but supporting arguments stated that the role was on par with other religious leaders posted (i.e. head of the Coptic Church of Alexandria). Neither argument was really substantiated/sourced, but the position is notable enough to have its own article (President of the Church (LDS Church)) similar to an article existing for the position Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Lastly, as an additional means to evaluate consensus, I looked at the number of those supporting, opposing, neutral, and there were more vote changes from oppose to support or neutral than typical ITN nominations. One support !vote from an IP with no other edits was not considered. I recognize not everyone will agree with how I evaluated consensus, but I wanted to lay out my rationale. Best, SpencerT♦C 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Note that, even if there was no coverage at all by BBC, Nelson did make it to the The Indy. It's quite amazing that, at 93 years of gae, Nelson is the second-oldest man to assume leadership. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Oliver Ivanović[edit]

This is now stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
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: Oliver Ivanović (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN
Nominator: PootisHeavy (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable figure within Kosovo who was assassinated. Looks well sourced in most sections, but some claims need sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose 2008-2012 sub section completely not referenced. Four CN tags. Rest looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose, still a few citations needed. The claim that "His maternal heritage is Montenegrin" absolutely requires sourcing or removal before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Shhhhwwww!!: If you could elaborate on your reasoning, it would help those reviewing this nomination. I assume it is related to the citation issue raised by Thryduulf? 331dot (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Still a weak oppose as being under-referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

References[edit]

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: