Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ITN/C)
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

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.

Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru
Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru

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 source. 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.


  • 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 an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.
  • ... 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)


April 28[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 28
Politics and elections

April 27[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 27
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • A Russian Navy spy ship sinks off the coast of Turkey after colliding with a Togo-flagged freighter. All 78 crew aboard the ship were safely evacuated, according to Turkish officials. (BBC)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] Russian ship Liman[edit]

Consensus says no. If anyone thinks that reopening this is likely to lead to a different outcome, they may of course do so. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 27 April 2017 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Russian ship Liman
Blurb: The Russian intelligence ship Liman (sister ship Cheleken pictured) sinks in the Mediterranean Sea following a collision with a Togo-registered livestock carrier.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
 Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose ordinarily it could have been something but all rescued an no injuries. Doesn't account to much. (but nice para update)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I looked for this article earlier and it didn't exist, it does now, but only because it sank with zero casualties. It made the front page the BBC News website momentarily, with sexy talk like "spy ship" and "sank off the Syrian coast" but it pretty much amounts to nothing more than a maritime traffic accident where nothing actually happened that will have any long-term effect. I imagine the article should be taken to AFD in due course, as the WP:AIRCRASH folks are so keen to do when a military plane crashes in insignificant circumstances - it's a "meh" incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:SHIPS convention is that the vessel is notable. That there was no article before today is neither here nor there. As it's a Russian spy ship, there isn't going to be a lot of info in the public domain, but there is enough to show that the WP:GNG has been met. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • So you can justify the existence of the article but not the incident which is utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. The incident is far too minor for ITN. As noted above the ship is almost certainly notable, but the incident itself is not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Alas, in the real world, a sinking ship from which everyone is rescued is of little note – unless of course they're all celebrities or pro sports stars. Sca (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this accidental sinking with no casualties. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (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: Leo Baxendale[edit]

Article: Leo Baxendale
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: LukeSurl (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.

 LukeSurl t c 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose technically marked as a stub (three times) and most of the bibliography is either unlinked or redlinked without any references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's clearly not a stub any more, I'll remove those tags. Otherwise there's a fair few obits in the UK press that should help with improving the article. --LukeSurl t c 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sourcing some of the more obscure elements of the bibliography is going to be difficult - it's one of those cases where a Google will show enough blog posts, forum items and the like that you can be pretty confident the item is true, but there's nothing that's a proper WP:RS for citation. It's not uncommon for British artists working for D.C. Thompson to work on various titles during their time with the company, sometimes for short stints, sometimes for decades. As such a comprehensive referenced bibliography is both a daunting task and not necessarily a particularly useful one. Perhaps the biobliography should be a list of Baxendale's creations and "notable" stints on other titles. --LukeSurl t c 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    If we can't reliably source the items in the list, they should probably be moved to the talk page for further investigation, to allow this to be posted in quicker time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this should be ready now. I've switched "bibliography" (which would be an impossible to complete list) into "notable creations". A bit arbitrary what's in it -- it's essentially everything that gets mentioned in biography articles and obits -- but critically it means that everything in it can be sourced. --LukeSurl t c 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Up to scratch now. I've added a couple of quotations from the sources to give a flavour of his importance and influence, and those who have cleaned up and improved this article from how it looked earlier today (particularly LukeSurl) deserve a pat on the back for their work. The Rambling Man, how does it look to your keen eye now? BencherliteTalk 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support amazeballs, an article where people (person?) have (has?) cited all the works! Who knew that was possible?! I've tweaked a little, as is my want, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Country bias confirmed - Vinod Khanna has more sources and more coverage than this guy. I have also added multiple reliable sources. But this was posted before Vinod Khanna. I have given links from BBC, CNN, Washingonpost below. Now here is your popular link from TIME website. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RD: Vinod Khanna[edit]

Article: Vinod Khanna
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TIME,BBC, Washingtonpost, CNN, Variety, Telegraph
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Influential and successful Indian film actor. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For every film to be sourced we need a filmography article separately. A superflop movie from the 1970s cannot have any reliable source other than IMDB, especially uncredited roles. I have added Rottentomatoes link which has filmography which is better than IMDB. By the way most movies are already mentioned in the sources already linked in the article. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Om Puri's death did not show up here, don't expect Vinod Khanna's either, ITN is shit now where they disregard the lesser known celebs from 3rd world country..--Stemoc 12:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, it's about article quality, not about the nationality of the individual. Om Puri's article is still tagged as needing more references, so I guess everyone disregarded the article itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone show some Wikipedia policy that Recent Death ITNC actor candidate, should have filmography sourced for every movie other than IMDB and Rottentomatoes(IMDB lists all movies but is not considered reliable)? Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, and WP:BLP is worth a read too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about ITNC nomination policy. I have sourced maximum movies. I will source more. Movies released after 2007 can be sourced as internet reviews are available. Old movies don't have internet reviews. Old successful movies can have sources but old flop movies can't have online sources, though they were reviewed in many paper newspapers which don't have online copy. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well WP:V prevails, if an item can't be verified by our readers, it's a {{ref improve}} time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to disagree with the idea that every line of a filmography needs to be sourced before an RD can be posted, where there is no specific issue as to the accuracy of the contents. What I have discovered in recent months is that there is an operational rationale for enforcing very strict referencing requirements for ITN and RD (and more recently OTD), which is that it motivates editors who want to see the item mainpaged quickly to improve the referencing very. The trade-off, of course, is in terms of timeliness, and in some items not getting mainpaged at all where the work doesn't get done, or done in time, plus the question whether if an editor spends three hours adding a footnote reference for every film (or book, or award, or whatever), he or she is spending that much less time on other mainspace work that might be more productive. In other words, I agree in principle that an item on the mainpage should have quality referencing, but I don't agree that each and every fact in the whole article needs to have a footnote before we can post to RD. It is also troubling that in many cases, to get articles to RD editors have simply removed the accuracy-undisputed-but-not-specifically-referenced content altogether. This would be fine if they then circled back and added the content with references later on, but too often the content is permanently lost. There are times when, at least for some reasonable period of time, an article section with a ref-improve tag is much more likely to lead ultimately to well-sourced content than a section altogether removed; query whether enforcing an "articles with a single section or sentence flagged as needing citations can't be mainpaged" rule leads more often to the former, or the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    Well V allows editors to tag contentious items such as claimed film appearances (often in unlinked or red-linked articles, or not even mentioned in target articles) or claimed awards. If you want to change V or ITN guidelines to allow posting of maintenance tagged BLPs that's your call. People seem to be becoming upset that the ITN and OTD guidelines are finally being adhered to. Those people should either improve the articles to meet the criteria or work to change the criteria so we can post poor tagged articles to the Main Page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    The unspoken and somewhat question-begging assumption in that reply is that (for example) a lengthy article about a writer, including abundant well-sourced content, but concluding with a list of his or her books and articles that lacks a reference for each one, is a "poor" article by Wikipedia's overall standards. In the context of all the project's other challenges, I do not believe that to be so. Yours is a strong voice for improved referencing in various contexts and I respect that, but what I have not seen from you or a few others who make similar points is a considered response to my points about trade-offs and balancing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    I don't really see why we need any trade-offs or balance in a BLP, many folks have managed to suitably reference lists of works or films etc, they just make the effort, and everyone benefits. I see little point in degrading our standards because editors can't source things, especially when most of the items that need to be sourced are either red linked or not linked at all, and thus strongly fail WP:V. Of course, this is mildly ironic as I fought so hard to make sure that minority BLPs would be easily allowable onto the main page since we removed the "super notability" debates that usually would have precluded such individual's being featured in any case. All that's required now is a well referenced article. That's much easier than trying to convince a western audience of the super notability of an Indian actor (say) over one who appeared in the Fast and Furious franchise (who got a blurb, no less). I took many steps to make these postings easier, all that needs to happen now is interested editors should find sources for the BLPs before they are posted. And I will not change that approach. I've done it myself for various RDs, so would expect the same from others. After all, this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have spent too much time finding sources for filmography, to see that this article passes RD. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems to be in good enough shape but a few adjustments on the citations would be nice. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now in good shape thanks to User:Marvellous Spider Man. The subject has more coverage than some other recently posted subjects. WP:BIAS I guess. Pratyush (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment & advice: Spiderman and all other Bollywood regular editors: The concept that the filmography needs to be complete is itself flawed. Few years ago many, if not all, filmy articles had a subsection called "Selected filmography" and included only notable films. The ideas changed when the loose NFILM guideline made it possible for every film to have an article of its own. Thank to all fanboys, indian film articles multiplied like hell and consensus building within co-editors allowed poor references as RS. The race to have a separate Filmography article, use BH and such as sources in it,and make it an FL deteriorated the quality further. Long story short... Stop crying foul on other editors and buckle up... Easy way out would be to rename the section as "selected filmography" and get away with all non-notable films even if they have article but would hardly have a single RS on their page. Am not saying this "strategy" should be used everywhere; but Khanna has plenty films and not mentioning a few of those does not make his article incomplete in any sense. --- (Yours truely, ex-regular editor who got fed up with subpar Indian articles and the general tendency of regular Indian editors to concentrate on films more than other encyclopedic topics.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 26
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • A speculative study hypothesizes that a species of Homo may have lived in California 130,000 years ago. (National Geographic), (Ars Technica)
  • Results, published in The Lancet medical journal, of the WOMAN (World Maternal Antifibrinolytic) international study that began in 2010, finds use of a cheap and widely available drug, tranexamic acid (Lysteda in the U.S. and Australia), could save the lives of thousands of women who die in childbirth from excessive bleeding. The medication is already in use for blood loss from major trauma, surgery, tooth removal, nose bleeds, and heavy menstruation. (The New York Times) (The Guardian) (The Lancet)

[Closed] Evidence of hominid presence in Southern California 130,000 years ago[edit]

Material is no longer in the article, and consensus that this speculative study is not something that should be posted on the main page. BencherliteTalk 13:24, 27 April 2017 (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: Settlement of the Americas
Blurb: Evidence of hominids in Southern California 130,000 years ago
News source(s): Nature, National Geographic
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That blurb isn't even a complete sentence.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And the evidence is also not complete. The National Geographic article I have linked above is very critical of the evidence. Basically, we got rocks that happen to have marks on them and happen to be in the right place that they may have been used as tools. Around are some mastodon bones that are broken. The rocks are big enough that only a humanoid could be strong enough to use them as tools. That is it. None of the other evidence that should be there is there. Like humanoid bones and actual tools made from the bones. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to the National Geographic article, "However, many of the world’s leading experts in American archaeology already have expressed some form of skepticism to the paper’s claims. Some have rejected it outright." Until this is verified as true, I see no reason to post. Andise1 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until this is a generally accepted claim. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No hominin remains have been found, H. sapiens is not believed to have left Africa before 70kya. This implies that some other human variety reached the Americas. The claim is hugely controversial and requires extraordinary evidence. Basically, a non-H. sapiens sapiens skeleton. That would be the biggest story in anthropology since the discovery of the Neanderthals. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I can attest that there still are homonids (C. sapiens) in California, especially around L.A. Sca (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The skepticism as given in the NatGeo article suggests this is definitely something to avoid posting until wider scientific acceptance is obtained, as it "breaks" several models of human development and the evidence is very weak. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While the evidence is not conclusive, otherwise the title in the articles would make that clear, the evidence about this possibility is sufficiently strong to merit further scientific investigation into the possibility that humans arrived in the Americas 130,000 years ago. This is why the article was published in Nature, you don't get published in that journal if you only have rigorously correct results, it also has to be of sufficient interest, otherwise you have to do with publishing your results in on of the specialized journals that focuses on only your own field. So, a Nature article is by itself evidence of news value. Finally to keep things into perspective, note that we went from a primitive Stone age society to putting a man on the Moon in just 10,000 years while Homo Sapiens has existed for 200,000 years. People like Newton, Einstein, Galileo etc. were also born 20,000 years ago, 80,000 years ago, 150,000 years ago and 200,000 years ago too. So, there is no good reason to think that some small group of people couldn't have gotten out of Africa 140,000 year ago and have made it to the Americas 10,000 years later. Crossing the Pacific is what the prehistoric Polynesians have managed to do in a matter of centuries. Count Iblis (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating this, Count Iblis, even though it's almost certainly going to be rejected. However you don't have to make it dependent on ancient Einsteins crossing the Pacific. As the National Geographic makes clear, there were several known species of early hominid in East Asia (not to mention quite likely plenty of others as yet undiscovered, since the known species have sometimes only been discovered at a single site, showing how easy it may be to miss many species entirely) that could have just walked across the Bering Strait when the sea was lower during an Ice Age, etc... As regards ancient sea-crossing, the National Geographic also points out (seemingly as scientific orthodoxy) that hominids had crossed the sea to Crete about 130,000 years ago. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm probably wasting my time given the number of opposes. But I still want to say that I think it should be in ITN, not despite it being controversial, but precisely because it is controversial (and the blurb should be amended to reflect this). The controversy makes it interesting and newsworthy (indeed the controversy IS the news), and putting it on ITN would be a service to our readers. If it were not controversial it would be boring and not newsworthy and putting it on ITN would not be a service to our readers. But I'm sure all sorts of policies can be quoted why we should not provide such a service to our readers, which is another reason why I'm probably wasting my time (but here is probably not the right place to discuss this and all the other things I and others hate about life as a Wikipedian). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to science we almost always(if not always) wait until a theory or claim is peer reviewed and/or generally accepted before it gets consensus to post at ITN- if it is later disproven, or not generally agreed to, then we don't look foolish. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is too speculative to be posted. As it is I'm even of half a mind to revert the edit adding this to the article [1], per WP:FRINGE. Banedon (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have Removed this garbage from the article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:22, 27 April 2017 (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: Jonathan Demme[edit]

Article: Jonathan Demme
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, NYT, Rolling Stone,, Le Figaro, El Pais, Deutsche Welle
Nominator: Martinevans123 (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: Influential and successful film director. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Article has referencing issues, I've tagged what I noticed at a first read-through. --Jayron32 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work done on the referencing, good enough to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been improving some of the references in the Careers section and I think the article is of adequate quality for recognition; certainly he was a very influential director — winning an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs and with Philadelphia being both culturally significant and the film for which Tom Hanks scored his first Best Actor Oscar. — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple unreferenced paragraphs, and the entire works section lacks a single reference. Stephen 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • With regard to the "Works" section, do you think any one of those entries is really contentious? Do you think a global source, such as IMDb, would be acceptable for that section, or are you asking for each individual item to be separately sourced? It would be useful if you could tag any paragraphs that you think need source(s). Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be reasonable that every entry was referenced, especially those that are not linked, or links that go to the generic TV show article. I'd always question why we need every single piece of work in an encyclopaedic summary. Stephen 11:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's 70 refs required, then. Would it be more reasonable to trim out the less notable items first? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A very important director of one of the all time classic films.Masterknighted (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Decent enough article on an influential film director. --Bagoto (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see my general comments on the Vinod Khanna nom above, which also apply here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. As User:Stephen has suggested, there may be a separate issue over whether we need to list absolutely everything, especially items which have no article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If somebody wants to add 70 separate sources (or even just a few, to share the burden), I wish them well. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's an odd suggestion to think that 70 separate sources would be needed, if this individual is so notable, most of these will be mentioned in one reliable source, and obits will always help with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Very sorry for thinking such an odd suggestion. I very stupidly said separate sources, when Stephen just said "every entry". Looking only at the populated cells it seems more like 93 separate entries will need to be sourced. But I see that User:Yorkshiresky is already well on the way to completing that and I applaud him for such quick and efficient work. I can't imagine anyone would be so churlish as to insist on a source for every item. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was trying to help you there, clearly you missed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above I've added some refs to the works section. Hopefully this will allow the tag to be removed and it to be posted to RD. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment works that aren't even linked to a Wikipedia article: how does a reader verify them? I've asked for more refs in that section. The fallback position that some adopt is to rely on blue links, which is flawed because those blue-linked articles may have no RS verifying the involvement of this individual, and each article on Wikipedia should stand alone in referencing terms in any case. Right now this is not ready for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment As accurate encyclopedists or journalists what have you it is our job to post that which is deserving of coverage, attention and or further research if therein the article does not reach the level of quality it is the role of the constituent body of editors to edit it, rather than just criticizing it endlessly. It should be posted and then further raised up to a higher standard.. To demean the worth of a subject because the article isn't perfection ready is ridiculous. Silence of the Lambs is an influential movie of historic proportions, this is an Oscar winning director, it should be includedMasterknighted (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree. I don't see a clear division between "readers" and "editors" and I suspect many editors are not even aware that an article needs improvement until they see a link to it on the Main Page and are interested enough to go and read it. Apologies if this comment is considered off-topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been updated and well sourced for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert M. Pirsig[edit]

Article: Robert M. Pirsig
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Independent, Washington Post, The New York Times, Republica
Nominator: Martinevans123 (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: Author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceMartinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment A single CN tag (related to influences; could be scrubbed), but otherwise very nice. Zen is a cornerstone of NW Americana, and Pirsig's life was lived according to that philosophy. (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • There were other places that also needed cites. I tagged those. --Jayron32 13:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support His work Zen is a significant modern work, read by millions (and several generations). --SidP (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now while still tagged. --Bagoto (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once references are updated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The last remaining CN tag is still concerning influences. I don't think it greatly improves the article and deleting it would be just fine, but it might be sourced to the previous reference, which is an interview at NPR. I can't access it because it's not offered in a format I can play. (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have commented out, as they were originally in the infobox and not visible anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. Looks up to snuff now. Thanks to everyone who pitched in. --Jayron32 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 25
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

[Posted] China launches aircraft carrier[edit]

Article: Type 001A aircraft carrier
Blurb: China launches its first domestically built aircraft carrier.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC
Nominator and updater: The Wicked Twisted Road (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Aircraft carriers are fairly uncommon, so it seems significant to me that China has built their first one from the ground up, particularly as they have made no secret of their desire to expand their military presence globally. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Significant news. Alarming, in fact, considering recent territorial aggression. Article looks fine. --Bagoto (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question I do agree this is significant news, and the article seems ready to go. That said, this is the ceremonial launch, while commissioning is expected in 2019/2020. Is the ceremonial launch the right date to feature this? (I don't know, I can't remember a ship launch on ITN before). --MASEM (t) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Attached a "worries" clause after the clause on commissioning, around which I think is where the news is more than with the aircraft carrier itself, kind of like Hitler's threats at the launch of the Tirpitz being more the news than the Tirpitz itself. --Bagoto (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose the question is whether the building or the having is more significant. Personally I would say it's a larger leap to build a warship, especially one as complex as a carrier, then it is to operate one, numerous countries have purchased and operated carriers, much fewer have been the ones to build them. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support an interesting and notable achievement. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable achievement; I think now is the time to post as it is the construction itself that is significant; the deployment less so. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - There are 37 aircraft carriers in service now, and we're in the midst of a substantial naval buildup in several countries (see Aircraft_carrier#Future_of_aircraft_carriers). If we post this, what about the others? I say either post all of them (making this ITNR in the process), or post none. Banedon (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems that there are two factors: China is major geopolitical/ military player and it's their first domestically built carrier. This would be equal to North Korea launching their first domestically built carrier, for example. Brandmeistertalk 09:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per anything that directly contributes to the End Of The World is worthy of ITN. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per (most of) the above comments with a wry look at this similar nomination (the UK's latest aircraft carrier, where the publicity was for the naming ceremony not the launch, which happened a few days later without the same publicity and so didn't get posted...). HMS Prince of Wales is due to be launched this summer, incidentally. BencherliteTalk 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Wikitribune[edit]


consensus seems unlikely to develop to support posting this. Closing per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 14:26, 25 April 2017 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Wikitribune
Blurb: Jimmy Wales (pictured) announces the news service Wikitribune.
News source(s): BBC, FT
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)
Updater: Another Believer (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Ânes-pur-sàng (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be getting good coverage such as radio interviews on the BBC this morning. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from the newsworthiness (which seems weak - I mean, it's just "someone announces a startup"), I don't see how Wikipedia can have "Wikipedia founder does a thing" in the news section and not have it look like an advert. Smurrayinchester 08:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - on national BBC Radio news this morning. Article looks well sourced, but looks embarrassingly small for an ITN item. Not sure there is much more to say, however. Any international news coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smurrayinchester. How many startups are featured in some news outlet every day, and how many of those disappear into the mists of time? What about stuff like Citizendium, which got that initial publicity and then faded away? Rather than try to peer into the crystal ball of which new startups will be successful, I say we do nothing. Banedon (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from WP:NAVEL, the article quality is poor, I have not run into this from routine news outlets, and I question the encyclopedic character of the Nth fake-solution to the fake-crisis of Fake News. (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Would we cover this if it was a non-WMF-affiliated project? Likely yes, given the international coverage (there is coverage outside of the BBC and UK if you do a quick search) - so basing the argument against it on 'because Jimmy said it' seems rather petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Would we? Looking at other recent startups from famous techies, we didn't cover Elon Musk's Neuralink or the The Boring Company, which both got a lot of coverage (nor should we have, in my opinion). Smurrayinchester 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Brian Everlasting: (ec)Merely being 'in the news' has never been sufficient to post something to In the News, as we are not a news ticker. We don't just parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PROMO and WP:NAVELGAZING. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support only if article reaches start class - It is being reported worldwide - Sherenk1 (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Being "in the news" is never sufficient for an ITN blurb. ITN looks for encyclopaedic events not pure news (which, ho-ho, can be posted at Wikinews...) ITN has not posted announcements of start-up companies no matter who the founder(s) might be, so to post this would be promotional and purely because of the involvement of Wales. There's no certainty that this crowd-funded plan will actually go ahead, let alone that it will make any difference to anything. BencherliteTalk 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec)Oppose as this doesn't seem particularly different from current news services. Article quality is poor. While not my primary concern, I think this would be seen as promotional and navel gazing even if it's not our intention. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it weren't Jimmy, we wouldn't be talking about this. While it's "in the news", just another startup announcement. -- KTC (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now that article expanded with citations from USA and Australia, showing it is of world wide interest as well as being a very novel idea. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above - not of sufficient circulation or interest to readers outside of Wikimedia. Sam Walton (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of its potential as a news service (who can tell) - it has just had a 5 minute dedication slot on the BBC 1 o'clock news. It is IN THE NEWS. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't need to be Wikimedia's shill, inadvertently or otherwise.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Navel gazing. Removing Wales or association with WMF and all other factors the same, and this is just a routine new business venture announcement which we do not post. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Everything posted here is "in the news" to some extent, it's clear that is not the sole factor. Posting this ordinary announcement would be the epitome of navel gazing. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm uncomfortable with the main page being perceived as promoting one of Mr Wales's side projects.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure navel-gazing. Jimmy Wales announces pet projects to great fanfare all the time, and they invariably vanish into obscurity soon afterwards when he gets bored. (Anyone remember Civilination, Wikia Search or Exactly.) ‑ Iridescent 14:23, 25 April 2017 (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.

April 24[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 24
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Nicholas Sand[edit]

Article: Nicholas Sand
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2], [3]
Nominator: Fixuture (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: Strange guy for sure, subject of the documentary "The Sunshine Makers". Fixuture (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs work, not merely to ensure that the orange-level tags are no longer justified but also to flesh out the article more - there's nothing about him after 1996, for instance, and "The Sunshine Makers" is included only as a "see also". The lack of coverage of his death in the news is probably a factor here since it will make it more difficult to give a sourced account of his life - a Google news search turns up nothing. BencherliteTalk 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Kasinathuni Viswanath[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Dadasaheb Phalke Award and Kasinathuni Viswanath
Blurb: Director Kasinathuni Viswanath (pictured) receives the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest award in Indian cinema.
News source(s): Deccan Chronicle Press Information Bureau, India
Nominator: Vivvt (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kannadigey (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are 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: The award ceremony is on 3rd May. Not sure if it would be too late by then. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Articles seem in decent shape with no obvious errors. I reorganized one a tiny bit, but the text is well referenced and extensive. --Jayron32 12:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment All awards and all directing credits for Viswanath need sourcing; it is spotting in awards and absent in the latter (but reading through the prose, there's likely several sources that can be reused here). The award article list seems fine but we need to make sure the recipient is up to par per ITNR. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support once the majority of the items in the #Awards section in Viswanath's article are properly sourced. Either way, things generally look good ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 20:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose awards and filmography unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. Is he technically the winner of the award as of this moment, or is it not until he takes possession of the award on May 3? 331dot (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • We generally post when the award's recipient is named, not when they necessarily take possession of it. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article's quality - The article resembles a fansite. A fair amount of work is needed before this gets to the main page. Vensatry (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no opinion of the director's work, but this is a government award. I am not aware that we post any government-sponsored awards, and I think this would be bad precedent--we don't publish royal, presidential, military or parliamentary awards. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    This is an ITNR item so we're judging the quality. And we do publish such awards, for example the Victoria Cross. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Its being an ITNR item, I'll assume there was an RfC adding it to the list? In any case, the Victoria Cross award seems sporadic and based on merit, not an annually established award in need of an awardee. My oppose stands. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    There was a discussion to add it to the list, as the ITNR listing links to. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Your assumption is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Horrible quality. And a certain User:Suvvisuvvi keeps reverting attempts of wikifying and removing peacocky terms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RD: Benjamin Barber[edit]

Article: Benjamin Barber
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4], [5]
Nominator: Bagoto (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: Top-level international consultant on participatory democracy as well as adviser on same to Bill Clinton and Howard Dean; author of the classic in democratic theory, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. --Bagoto (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 23
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] 2017 French presidential election first round[edit]

Long established that the final result's what get posted. It can wait two weeks. -- KTC (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2017 (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: French presidential election, 2017
Blurb: Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen win first and second place, respectively in the first round of the French presidential election, the first time in the history of the French Fifth Republic that neither the mainstream left nor right candidates advanced to the second round.
News source(s): Fox News (for the "first time" blurb), The Guardian (for the election results)
Nominator: 1990'sguy (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: As noted, this is the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic that neither of the two runoff candidates belonged to the two major established political parties. This election is historical for this reason. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the elections are evidently not over (ending on 7 May), suggest ongoing until then, when we can switch to a blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for second round in 2 weeks per ITNR. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for final resolts. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for the second round. While this is definitely "in the news", it makes more sense to post this only once.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait We usually only post final results. EternalNomad (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for the second round/election of a new president; doesn't make sense to post twice to ITN. Mélencron (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait (it is only two weeks until the runoff, although I'm not totally opposed to posting something now as regardless of the result, it's clearly a huge realignment). The blurb made no sense (of course the runoff candidates made the second round, that's what runoff means) so I have rewritten it. Smurrayinchester 07:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose we'll post the result, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2017 (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.

RD: František Rajtoral[edit]

Article: František Rajtoral
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Czech footballer František Rajtoral is found dead at his home in Gaziantep,Turkey in an apparent suicide.
News source(s): Daily Sabah, BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: Top level national footballer who committed suicide. EternalNomad (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Are there any further sources that give more of an indication of cause of death? Aiken D 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD only and currently weak oppose that based on lack of article quality, barely above stub although what's there seems referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Decent article. --Yogwi21 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article is goood. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment no, the article is neither decent or goood. It's just above a stub and I'm not seeing where some of Rajtoral's career is actually referenced. Did anyone check the sources for this BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely more than a stub, as TRM says, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to include speculation about why he committed suicide, even if it is sourced (is Fanatik reliable?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 London Marathon[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2017 London Marathon
Blurb: In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany wins the women's and Daniel Wanjiru the men's race.
Alternative blurb: In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru (pictured) win the women's and men's races respectively.
Alternative blurb II: In the 2017 London Marathon, Mary Keitany and Daniel Wanjiru (pictured) win the elite races, while David Weir and Manuela Schär win the wheelchair races.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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: ITN/R event. Article is in its infancy. Keitany's performance was a record for a women's race without running alongside male pacemakers (which offers a slight advantage apparently) but this is probably too complicated to feature in the blurb. LukeSurl t c 15:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - irrelevant, insignificant, happens annually, almost no content in the article and it would be ridicolous to feature an aimless run in London but not a march by predominantly scientists in cities worldwide upon which millions of lives and the life-quality of billions could depend. --Fixuture (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose hardly noteworthy, and article is barely more than a stub. Aiken D 16:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR and much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Change to support now the article is a reasonable length. Aiken D 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As it's a stub. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Much more than a stub now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Admin note this is on WP:ITN/R so the only two things that are relevant to discuss here are (1) Whether the item is in the news. (2) The quality of the article. All other comments will be ignored and may be hatted. If you want to discuss the notability of the event then make a formal proposal at WT:ITN/R.Lugnuts Your comment above is bordering on being racially offensive, please retract it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've changed is - I guess you don't watch Live at the Apollo or read Viz. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. I would expect an article at least as complete at the 2016 marathon. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's got a few sentences on what is actually an incredibly tedious event, but ITNR nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; generic yearly event. Not globally noteworthy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - pretty much up to standard now. Comments regarding noteworthiness are irrelevant as this is ITN/R. Also - there are free images to replace Sergio Garcia at last! Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ideally the article (not the blurb) should report the wheelchair races but this shouldn't preclude posting in the current state. --LukeSurl t c 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Article is OK to post. Event is ITN/R. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good to go, but Mary Jepkosgei Keitany should be linked in the blurb to avoid an unnecessary redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, both the men's and women's wheelchair winners are notable. Shouldn't they be in the blurb too? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    We didn't post the wheelchair winners last year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I imagine that would make the blurb a little too long, like trying to add the doubles and wheelchair winners at WImbledon into a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Gosh, how tedious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Do you want me to get an interaction ban Martinevans123? Or should we just go back to ignoring each other after your shitty take on people suffering from strokes? Your continual "last words" are not funny and not needed. I had hoped that you'd stopped following my every edit but as you haven't, I suppose I'll have to make such a request, which is a shame, a drama, a timesink, but nothing you're unaccustomed with. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Not quite sure what "my shitty take on people suffering from strokes" is all about. But not sure this is quite the right venue for such a discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    You know exactly what that means, and if you continue to follow me and respond to everything or anything I edit, I'll make a formal request at AN for you to stop. Your attempts at humour have been the conclusion of many discussions, somehow you always end up somewhere where I'm editing, it's all a bit creepy, so please either stop, or I'll ask for it to be actioned formally. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's complete nonsense. Ask away, if you wish. Could someone non-involved hat this diversion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course, add a suggested blurb at WP:ERRORS and it's bound to be give due consideration, based on its content and the posting user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was thinking it would make the blurb too long, but then I thought - do we really need to specify men's and women's races? It's fairly obvious. So I've added an ALT2 above which includes the wheelchair results. (Unfortunately Manuela Schär's article is a bit poor, but...) Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, Rightly or wrongly, the wheelchair races don't get the attention of the able bodied races. I don't think they should be in the blurb- I could see not listing any specific races as a compromise, though it doesn't help readers learn anything beyond this occurring.331dot (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Whew! Another European sporting contest, just in time. Far more news coverage than a March for Science (and a far better article as well) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@CosmicAdventure: As you are no doubt aware, this is ITNR so this comment is unnecessary. I'm sorry a nomination you felt merited posting has not yet gained consensus to do so; you have made your point, please move on. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone just post this, please? I'll do it myself if I have to, but that's not ideal since I commented. It's ITNR and not controversial. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted on behalf of User:Stephen [6]. I used ALT1 - if any other admin thinks ALT2 is superior please feel free to fix that. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 22
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Erin Moran[edit]

Article: Erin Moran
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
Nominator: rhodesisland (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: Well known actress from 70s mega-sitcom Rhodesisland (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose unreferenced filmography. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose fails for notability. The reason she was evicted from her trailer park last year speaks to her fame. She died young and her riches to rags story feeds the tabloids but shouldn't grace Wikipedia's page. It's not news, it's rubbernecks looking at a train wreck. --DHeyward (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Notability is not a criterion for RD. We judge solely on article quality.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This DHeyward guy has some sort of personal issue with how deaths are covered. Abductive (reasoning) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that her death has received widespread coverage is an indication of notability. Article quality is the main criterion and the unreferenced filmography is the main hurdle at this stage. I sometimes wonder whether this section is more trouble than its worth. Notable film or TV appearances will be mentioned in the main article. Oppose at this stage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • A filmography for an actress is a required element for any bio, just as a discography for a musician. But these do need sourcing (even if pushed off to a separate page) and it is a shame that most editors do not bother sourcing this as they go along. (Even if this was moved to a separate page, that's sweeping the problem under the rug). --MASEM (t) 23:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note article has been tidied up, discussion on talk page of the article. Should now meet the criteria for main page/RD inclusion. Support. MurielMary (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Embarrassing enough that a barely known wrestler in Rosey has stayed in the In The News box for as long as he has. Her notability is significantly stronger. Fronticla (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs Attention @The Rambling Man: TRM, would you mind assessing her page again? Rhodesisland (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support well I suppose one way of resolving the unreferenced filmography was to remove it altogether, no real issues with what remains, so marking as good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it meets the standard, ready to go. - Christian Roess (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] March for Science[edit]

Consensus against adding to ITN. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:59, 24 April 2017 (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: March for Science
Blurb: On Earth Day, 22 April, a series of rallies and marches − the March for Science − are being held in Washington, D.C. and more than 600 cities across the world calling for evidence-based policy and government acceptance of the scientific opinion on climate change.
Alternative blurb: Scientists in the United States conduct a series of marches and rallies in Washington, D.C. and international locations in support of evidence-based policy and government acceptance of the scientific opinion on climate change.
News source(s): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
Nominator: Fixuture (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Plenty of worldwide news coverage, a historic precedent and of significance, relevant not just to the US but worldwide, well written article. Fixuture (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've suggested a second blurb. Any ideas for numbers of participants/turnout? (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – No-brainer in my opinion, just need to settle on a blurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose we haven't posted the Venezuela protests which are claimed into the millions, and yes, it's clearly got some coverage in certain parts of the world, and the article isn't too shabby, but my issue is with the actual lasting impact of this. I'm not convinced this is really meaningful or impactful. Yes, that means I should probably AFD it, which of course would result in keep but I'm still unclear as to if this is as significant as is being proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see my comment below Brian Everlasting's post. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose based on precedence set at ITN. The Women's March was barely posted and that had marches in the millions across the world. The Venezuela protests were not posted. This approaches the significance of neither.--WaltCip (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see my comment below Brian Everlasting's post. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose ↑ What he said. This doesn't remotely approach the scale of major demonstrations, there's no indication that it's having or will have any impact, and nothing noteworthy appears to have taken place at it. ‑ Iridescent 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment last news story on ITV tonight just before the sport. Not a great sign. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Climate change is the most significant issue facing humans in the 21st century. The March for Science is an important step to bring attention to the matter on earth day. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I too think that this should be considered in addition to numbers of participants and known concrete impacts. The Women's March getting "barely posted" and the Venezuela protests not getting posted is a good point though. In addition to the high and worldwide significance of the issue adressed by the movement as well as their impact I think one should also consider the novelty and uniqueness of it and that there's protests in Venezuela every few years / continuous turmoil/tension.
Another point is that if we don't include this event in the In the news section we really need to heighten the bar for inclusions: e.g. no more irrelevant, insignificant sport events. --Fixuture (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fixture: how are sports events at all comparable to political protests? Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Both are candidates for the In the news section. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
They're not competing against each other. Assess each nomination / event by its own merits. -- KTC (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Seeing it in the news since yesterday + science + worldwide protests - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support article quality sufficient for main page.--Jayron32 01:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a good quality article and a genuine worldwide story. I don't see how not posting the Venezuela protests sets a precedent- let's do this case by case. I supported the Venezuela nomination and I support this.Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; none of the events seems to have drawn more than tens of thousands of people individually, which is not terribly impressive in my opinion considering the size of the US and the cities they happened in--there are sports celebrations that far outstrip those numbers, so in terms of size this is nothing special, and I don't think it's likely to have much of an impact on anything at all. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
But one can't just look at the number of attendees - please also recognize that sports events are something entirely different than sociopolitical events and that it appears current society has drastically more citizens attending the former than the latter, that most of these attendees are scientists, that this protest was done in synchronization with many different cities worldwide in a unique way, etc. etc. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose why not call it the march for goodness and light? It is a politico-fiscal exercise, pure and simple. Science will do just fine without stormtroopers. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Science may do fine but its context of, usage by and integration into society might not. I do not think that you understand what this is about and/or misapprehend it. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No, the reasons are: plenty of worldwide news coverage, a historic precedent and of high significance, relevant not just to the US but worldwide, well written article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Science isn't built on marches. In fact, if you need a march to convince people about your "science," it's probably not science. No notable achievement or outcome from this "march" is apparent. It didn't even have any "March for Darwin" Marcher of the Year awards nominations. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about the science itself but about the integration and use by society. If you need a march to convince people about science something is dramatically wrong with those people and/or your socioeconomic system and/or decision makers. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe if it has some impact, or something occurred during this event, or even, if it lasted for a longer time it would make sense to post. I would rather not see ITN get filled with marches every few months. It's not like all of these social media marches are going to stop any time soon. (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that the scale of potential impact which might affect billions of lives is already enough even if they don't have any impact at all, also from the website it seems they're active for a whole week (even though probably not by additional marches). Would you rather see this section get filled with sports events every few days then? I don't think they occur too often. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like your standard slow news day for the Sunday snowflake tree-hugging do-gooders. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No point at all. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In posting this dross on the frontpage? Agreed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPA.--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - please continue to comment. How is an irrelevant, insignificant, annual aimless run at London (see nomination above) more In the news-worthy than a unique march by predominantly scientists in cities of many different countries worldwide upon which millions of lives and the life-quality of billions could depend? Even German Wikipedia has it featured now. --Fixuture (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support very nice article about a topic which is "In the news". Long term impact and "global significance" are not requirements for ITN. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is primarily a politically-driven march - it's clear that people fear Trump's administration has put people in place of key science policy that question/reject human-caused global warming, and no question that scientists want to make sure that their opinions on the matter are heard, using Earth Day as the most appropriate venue for this point. That said, that was also part of the reason that we had the Woman's March back in Jan, to voice their disagreement with the administration. However, this was at a much much smaller scale compared to that. We need to be aware that anything anti-Trump is going to gain intense coverage by media sources, and we aren't going to be able to feature everything about that. The Woman's March was unprecedented in scale, this march far far less. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So much of what we post is "self generated bother" from sports to protests to bombings, FWIW consider that this item is "In the news" and the article is pretty good. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There's probably stuff we could post daily from US politics due to the bitterness against the current adminstration, based on massive worldwide media coverage and quality articles. However, we recognize that bias and are going to avoid posting every single thing that could quality, lest we be called out for American bias. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your made up rule actually helps fight bias, but hopefully the admins will continue to ignore it as irrelevant nonsense that's harmful to the project. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It's how we handle WP:RECENTISM with respect to over-exhaustive news coverage of topics from US/UK and other English regions. Yes, we want to push to include more non-English stories, but we also handle bias by avoiding too much coverage from where we have clearly over-extended coverage. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
While I did !vote oppose, I'd just like to point out that there's no U.S. stories currently on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We've discussed this before for ITN, but we should never consider the "geographic" spread of current blurbs in deciding stories (we can't control the news, nor can we force the news to happen in unrepresented places). It's the long-term trends we want to make sure don't show the US/UK/English-speaking world bias. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Per @The Rambling Man:, the Venezuelan protests were pulled from the news despite estimates of 6 million people protesting (about 20% of the Venezuela's population). The sources I even placed in March for Science article about "millions" protesting even seems far fetched given the reported numbers in worldwide cities. Keep in mind, the March for Science was a global protest while the Mother of All Marches was a national protest, yet it still drew less numbers even as a supposed "global" movement. It seems like it might have a lasting effect due to the issues surrounding climate change and the presidency, but the numbers don't appear to be behind it. It didn't live up to the hype of the 2017 Women's March either, which was reported in many sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCF:C7C0:9CFE:DFAC:EF0B:E8B3 (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the reasons you have for your views? Simple "support" votes are discouraged(and this isn't a vote anyway). 331dot (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose when the alternative blurb begins with "Scientists in the United States", it's a strong sign it is internal to only one of the world's ~200 countries, and of possible bias. True, there were some international marches, but virtually all the other marches are in the Europe. Besides, they're protesting against the scientific policy of one country. That one country is the world's biggest scientific power, yes, but science has other political things to worry about such as this or this. Ultimately, this is too regional for something as universal as science to be featured. [User:Banedon|Banedon]] (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2017 (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 to RD] Michele Scarponi[edit]

Article: Michele Scarponi
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian cyclist Michele Scarponi , the winner of Giro d'Italia, dies at the age of 37 after a traffic collision during training .
News source(s): BBC Eurosport
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (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.

 EugεnS¡m¡on 09:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. While he's not by any stretch a household name, for a professional cyclist to be struck and killed by a motor vehicle while cycling is vanishingly rare, and the article is in good shape and well-referenced. Besides, the only other sports-related story in ITN is two weeks old and decidedly stale. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb he was an active top cyclist. The incident is horrible - a tragedy in road cycling world. - Gsvadds (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is mainly an unreferenced list of his career placings in various cycling events. Not only is it not referenced but it highlights the fact that his career section (in prose) is very weak indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds. The career section needs more citations (one place explicitly marked), clarification (ditto) and turning from proseline into proper prose. Also per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - rare event, headline news - how often do such high profile deaths happen? Abovesky (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well known to cycling fans, possibly some sports fans and Italians. The Rambling Man and Thryduulf, I've referenced the entire career section and I may improve it shortly. BaldBoris 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, though I do weakly support a blurb here for the unexpected death of a predominately known figure. Per TRM, the prose is for the most part mirroring the stats, and gives no real good impression of why he was a great rider and anything outside the cycling career. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • RD Only We've gotten too loose with death blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Giro winner, article is in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Oppose blurb Sad news, but this person is not in the very top tier of their field or an iconic figure which is the generally accepted standard for death blurbs for non-ITNR figures. Beyond which I agree with Muboshgu's assessment that we have been getting a little too casual about using ITN for obit-blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb, per Muboshgu and Ad Orientem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting as RD since the consensus is at least for that. The references seem fine to me now. --Tone 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 April 21
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Posted] Taliban attack[edit]

Article: 2017 Camp Shaheen attack
Blurb: A Taliban attack on an Afghan army base leaves more than 100 soldiers dead or injured.
Alternative blurb: A Taliban attack on an Afghan National Army base kills at least 140 unarmed soldiers.
News source(s): ABC, CNN, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kuching7102 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I don't normally nominate attack (as in death and destruction) articles because you know, it is sad. But this is a sizable loss in an ongoing war. Fuebaey (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. One of the largest incidents in Afghanistan in recent years. (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "ongoing war". I'm reminded of last week, when over 100 civilians were killed in the Syrian civil war. This incident managed to get a blurb because the target were civilians and it happened during a ceasefire. Despite this, it still got a lot of opposes. I believe the incident described here is less impactful. ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a second article about event.--Jenda H. (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have clarification over that "100 killed or injured". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me clarify some reasons in support of posting:
    1. The attack was against unarmed soldiers, as many of them were praying at a mosque or eating lunch.
    2. The attack involved the use of rocket launchers.
    3. The event was the single deadliest incident in recent years, assuming that the figure of 140+ killed is correct. The only well-documented incidents in the War in Afghanistan since 2001 with a higher death toll (excluding Taliban and/or ISIL-K deaths, and excluding battles that lasted longer than one week) are as follows:
  • This makes Saturday's attack the deadliest bombing in Afghanistan since the war began.
4. The attack was deadlier than the July 2016 Kabul bombing against Hazara Shia civilians, killing 80+ people, which we posted.
5. The attack is directly comparable to the 2014 Peshawar school massacre against The Army Public School in which 141 unarmed Pakistan Army staff and recruits were killed. That attack was the deadliest in Pakistan's history, and we of course posted that one.
6. It is front page news on BBC, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, and many others. Xinhua (the official Chinese government news network) is reporting on its English site that at least 135 Afghan Army members have been killed, not injured.
I would wait until it becomes clear that there is a confirmation that over 140 on the side of the Afghan Army were indeed killed, and that this count does not include the injured. If this is the case, I stand by my decision to support. (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
TIME reports that over 130 are killed, and over 80 injured, according to unnamed Afghan officials. A death toll of 100+ is confirmed. (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
If this is correct, the blurb and the article should be updated. If your claim of them being unarmed and at prayer is correct, that should be included and cited. You can argue as strongly as you like, one way or another, but you are also capable of fixing up the article according. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
207.107.x.x here. The TIME source states,

Gen. Mohammad Radmanish, deputy spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said the militants entered the base in Balkh province using two military vehicles and attacked army personnel inside the compound's mosque.
"Two suicide bombers detonated their vests full of explosive inside the mosque of the army corps while everyone was busy with Friday prayers," he said
Waziri said there were 10 attackers, including the two who carried out the suicide attacks. Eight others were killed in a gun battle with soldiers.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the assault in an email sent to media. (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maplestrip. Casualties of war.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the ITV news report I just overheard said 140 people had been killed, so that makes this completely newsworthy, but I'd like to see some reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable due to the number of casualties - Sherenk1 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - significant mass casualty event. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per IP. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - still attracting major coverage and death toll is exceptionally high. Article is short but OK.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, notable as it received wide coverage in leading newspapers and Wikipedia's standards shouldn't be any different/insensitive. Mar4d (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted BencherliteTalk 09:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ugo Ehiogu[edit]

Article: Ugo Ehiogu
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
Nominator: Cordless Larry (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: Prominent former footballer, who has died unusually young. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - almost there, a couple of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Working on it... The problem when someone dies unexpectedly is that newspapers don't (I presume) have obituaries ready to print, and so they turn to the internet and likely Wikipedia, so there's a danger of circular referencing if we rely too much on those obituaries without doing extra checks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we're pretty much there with the references, The Rambling Man. Could you take another look and let me know if anything still stands out as problematic? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not the most in depth article I have seen but it appears to be decently sourced and I think covers the subject adequately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Posted. The minor issues have been sorted out. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


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 [] 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: